That said, I'm still desperate for a monk that can actually do what monks are meant to do. The brawler was just salt rubbed in the monk's wounds as far as I can tell.
You know I felt the same way when I first read the description of the brawler. I feel a little different now when my monk had the opportunity go toe to toe with three brawlers with little support from the rest of the party because they were distracted by other pressing matters. She managed to trounce them fairly effectively, it was both reassuring and fairly cathartic.
Fact is a monk's ki pool gives them a fairly nice niche, if anything the brawler steps on the fighter's toes a lot more and makes them pretty much irrelevant.
The Slayer, Brawler, and Warpriest all basically invalidate the basic Fighter.
The Slayer has it beat for all-around versatility and still gains Bonus Feats, the Brawler is just a better close-combat warrior, and the Warpriest will out-perform it even with a lower BAB because of the Fervor-cast Buffs.
The Fighter is the single-greatest Dip class in the game, but it's not really worth taking Fighter to lv20, sadly. Its myriad Archetypes are there mostly as a means to specialize your Martial character and then move on into the "real" class.
To make the Fighter actually viable as a non-beginner class or dip class, it'd basically need to be made into an even heftier Man-At-Arms than it already is, which would require re-designing it so much that it doesn't end up looking anything like the classic Fighter ironically (i.e. it's easier just to print that new class with a different name than it is to "patch" the Fighter).
Actually, I take the back, kinda.
The Fighter is a GREAT Class to take to lv20 if you're making an NPC.
It's fast, it's efficient, and it's darn powerful compared to real NPC classes. That said, it's not really up to snuff with the other classes for power, so it's more of an Elite NPC class once you get past lv5 or so.
It's also great for rounding out your Martial PCs if you're going above lv20 and you don't want to muddle your PC's design by hacking on class levels that don't fit the theme of your character. So from lv21+ it's fine as a way to just keep tacking on Feats to a character that you don't want to change from being whatever you'd intended it to be from lv1-20.
End result, though, is that the Fighter still takes second-banana to your other "main" class and simply acts as support to your "real" design. But, maybe that's just the Fighter's lot in life, and it fulfills that role beautifully.
The Slayer, Brawler, and Warpriest all basically invalidate the basic Fighter.
The Slayer has it beat for all-around versatility and still gains Bonus Feats, the Brawler is just a better close-combat warrior, and the Warpriest will out-perform it even with a lower BAB because of the Fervor-cast Buffs.
The Fighter is the single-greatest Dip class in the game, but it's not really worth taking Fighter to lv20, sadly. Its myriad Archetypes are there mostly as a means to specialize your Martial character and then move on into the "real" class.
To make the Fighter actually viable as a non-beginner class or dip class, it'd basically need to be made into an even heftier Man-At-Arms than it already is, which would require re-designing it so much that it doesn't end up looking anything like the classic Fighter ironically (i.e. it's easier just to print that new class with a different name than it is to "patch" the Fighter).
I am playing a slayer now and competing with the fighter for damage, and I can still do other things. Now we are still low level, but I don't expect for much to change at level 10. Even if the fighter is ahead in damage I don't expect that he will be far ahead.
I honestly don't think there is any fixing the fighter at this point. Any thread I've seen on the subject has contained over the top "let's make the fighter the best class in game" sort of suggestions. And you're right the slayer and to a lesser degree warpriest could also fill the role that a fighter is supposed to fill. But really I can't think of any reasonable improvements that could be made to fighter that wouldn't make them closer to a brawler.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter is a generic chassis for mixing it up with weapons. And as long as there were (are?) specific ways of fighting that aren't covered by an existing class, archetype, prestige class, alternate base class, or advanced class then it has a use.
But as the area that isn't covered by one of those specialists gets smaller and smaller then yes, the generic fighter begins to loose its place. There's no point in using a multitool if the exact tool you need for the job is just as easy to grab.
Just here to say the Counterfeit Mage is not a very good archetype to take for any kind of rogue.
Wands have a static DC to activate and once you hit that DC, the majority of class features you've gained are now pointless. DC20 isn't even a hard number to hit either.
Combined with the loss of bonus to finding mundane traps(Which actually show up early in) for a bonus to magic traps(Which generally show up far later in the game when you generally have the stats to find them anyways), my verdict is the same as the Underground Chemist.
They look good until you realize the math.
As for the main thread topic, not all power creep is bad. Some classes could really use it and some others really don't need it.
Like I said, the Fighter is the best Dip Class for martials still.
But that's basically what it's been since 3rd Ed came out years ago - it's a class that exists to provide support for other classes in builds.
The Fighter by now exists for players to go "I need this many feats to get the combat style I want - better take this many levels in Fighter!"
If the build you're going for is, for instance, an archer, and you want to do crazy Robin Hood tricks, you can take Archer for 3 levels to get something like Ranged Sunder, and then go into your "Real" class of Ranger, Slayer, Zen Archer, etc.
---
Personally, I like Tactician a lot, but only for someone who wants to focus on the Tactician ability of the Cavalier. To wit, I've seen a very nasty lv15 Commander-type character before: lv5 Strategist, lv5 Exemplar, lv5 Tactician. Very combat-heavy and had an effective Cavalier level of 15 for determining the effects of his Tactician ability.
Indeed, and Paizo want an effectively static core in order to maintain backward compatibility for all the adventures. Remember, the adventure sales are what it's all about for Paizo and I don't have a problem with that.
Maybe.
It may be that's what the are doing, however, almost every AP and module I've gotten recently refer to other PF books far more often then they refer to the CRB...or so it seems. You almost have to have the rulebook line acronyms memorized when running the adventures!
There also isn't a feat published that is more powerful than Leadership, although Craft Wondrous Item comes close.
Leadership Cohorts aren't any stronger than animal companions or eidolons, they just happen to have more ways you can customize them and more options for what role you can build them towards
in fact, Eidolons and Animal Companions are better martial combatants than any melee oriented cohort, due to having better base values, so you are generally better off with a ranged or spellcasting cohort because they can do things an animal companion or eidolon is ill suited for,
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the Slayer is an amazing replacement for both the Fighter and the Rogue. play that if you want your noncasting fighter fix.
There also isn't a feat published that is more powerful than Leadership, although Craft Wondrous Item comes close.Leadership Cohorts aren't any stronger than animal companions or eidolons, they just happen to have more ways you can customize them and more options for what role you can build them towards
in fact, Eidolons and Animal Companions are better martial combatants than any melee oriented cohort, due to having better base values, so you are generally better off with a ranged or spellcasting cohort because they can do things an animal companion or eidolon is ill suited for,
Animal Companions and Eidolons are not feats. They are class features which tend to be stronger than feats on average.
the Slayer is an amazing replacement for both the Fighter and the Rogue. play that if you want your noncasting fighter fix.
That is how I feel, but many will say that telling them to not play a rogue is not the correct way to give advice. I do understand to an extent. It just depends on how one perceives the game.
the Slayer is an amazing replacement for both the Fighter and the Rogue. play that if you want your noncasting fighter fix.That is how I feel, but many will say that telling them to not play a rogue is not the correct way to give advice. I do understand to an extent. It just depends on how one perceives the game.
the Slayer is literally Fighter 2.0 and rogue 2.0 in the same class. anybody who wants to play a fighter or rogue, i recommend they play a slayer, because any fighter or rogue fix that could be feasibly performed is already included in the slayer
the slayer literally fixes 2 useless classes by being able to fill the roles of both in a unique blend and really, it is just one word on a character sheet.
the slayer plays exactly like a martial rogue. except with better combat numbers, and if you play it like a rogue, you won't feel any different from if you played a rogue except for the fact you shine more often
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Rogue suffers from the same problem it did even back in 1st Edition:
1) People don't want to play the Thief/Rogue because they hate it for being... not god or something
2) Because no-one wants to play it, there are big holes in parties where a sneaky character needs to be
3) The designers create options for other classes to try and fill the void left by people not playing the Thief/Rogue.
4) People point to the new options as retroactive examples of why the Thief/Rogue sucks - because other classes do what it does but better supposedly (not really, but meh).
And the cycle of gargle-bargle continues against the poor Rogue.
I dont think full casters are the measuring stick unless you had another definition of top shelf.If you publish new options that are across the board strictly weaker than all the Core options, then you're not going to sell many books.That is all the explanation needed.Yet paizo does that.
For the most put, everything printed is weaker than top shelf CRB.
Then what is the measuring stick?
Because that's kind of the key question here. The answers here are tending to focus on one of two things. Either the big guns of the CRB; Leadership and item crafting and 9th level casters, or the underdogs; Fighter and Mobility and such. Do we have a metric for "average" power in the CRB? The Bard?
But the OP does have a point-- compare the baseline Fighter to the Mutation Warrior. I'm at the point that I'd never run a baseline Fighter and Mutation Warrior is my default unless I need another archetype that it doesn't work with.
*Shrug* Really, it looks to me like power convergence more than creep. The CRB was a diverse book that give us both Leadership and Mobility, Wizard and Rogue. Later books generally have a tighter power spread that cuts out both the top and bottom 10% or so.
My point was that Will was not using 9th level casters as his base. He seemed to be using what most of us consider to be good without being too good. Kestral took it completely out of context.
To answer your question, which you hit on people on these forums tend to take things to extremes when the truth is often somewhere in the middle. Not being equal to a wizard does not make you weak, and being better than a rogue does not make you OP.
Bard and rangers are good "middle of the pack" comparisons when it comes to classes. We do not have an official metric but many gamers here also look at the inquisitor as a good measure of balance.
When it comes to feats they are more situational, but leadership should not be the common level of power.
|
Compared to the rogue, every other class in the CRB, even the fighter and monk, is power creep.
If you look at the middle tier of classes in the CRB, you'll find the barbarian, bard, druid, paladin, ranger and sorcerer. Those are all fine, well-functioning classes. Each is powerful in some way without being universally powerful. Each of them has either a lot of "width" or "depth" of power, with a little bit of the other.
Above them, there's the wizard and cleric, who have both wide-ranging and deep power. The wizard has the flexibility of the bard combined with much deeper power. The cleric has the deep power of the druid with much broader application.
So I'm positing that the middle tier is basically the happiest for game balance. And then if you look at later books, what tier do new classes fall in?
APG
Top-tier: witch, summoner
Middle: alchemist, cavalier (barely), inquisitor, oracle, archetyped monk
Bottom: none
UC
Top: none
Middle: gunslinger, samurai, ninja (barely)
Bottom: none
UM
Top: none
Middle: magus; it's strong but much more specialized than the wizard
Bottom: none
ACG
Top: arcanist; it's an improved sorcerer, which was already nearly top-tier
Middle: bloodrager (more options than a barbarian but also quite MAD), brawler (more flexible than a fighter), hunter, investigator (after level 4), skald, slayer, warpriest
Bottom: swashbuckler (poor saves combined with a fighting style that doesn't make up enough for it)
(I'm not sure if the shaman should be middle or top tier. I don't understand it well enough. Probably top-tier.)
Looking at this, I think Paizo's been fairly consistent in its development.
Well since you brought up monk archetypes in your list, Ascalaphus, I think special mention needs to go to the qinggong monk. Taking all the worst class features of a class and allowing you to swap them out with an insane amount of flexibility seems like a truly unique thing in Pathfinder. It certainly doesn't raise monks to top tier but off the top of my head I don't I can't think of an instance where two pages had such a dramatic impact on what you could do with a class.
But is it really bad power creep when a bottom-tier class creeps into the middle tier?
I do agree that the monk is the most dramatic change in a class' viability.
Most monks are still at the bottom with archetypes such as the zen archer being an exception. Overall I still consider the monk to be at the bottom because you either need a good archetype, multiclassing and/or good system mastery to make it work.
I certainly don't think so, Ascalaphus. And it's probably why I consider the brawler such an effective replacement for the fighter. Not overpowered by any means but it has the versatility to make a feat based martial character formidable. All that's missing is an archetype that trades out brawler's flurry for martial weapons and medium/heavy armor proficiencies and it would be perfect.
And Wraithstrike, I think that depends on how extensive your definition of system mastery is. I've been playing Pathfinder for four months now and my first character was a monk. She's at seventh level now and I have to admit I put her on the shelf for a while because I was unhappy with how suboptimal the build was but I feel it's fairly objective to say that while there are some situations where she's very ineffective on the whole the character is far from unplayable and it only took minor tweaking to get her there.
This thread...
Aw, that's cute. The rogue thread and the bloat thread had a baby!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, to get serious...sorta.
Hopping way back to the original topic, away from the arguments of comparative class value (quite a rabbit hole, that), I have to completely agree that "Power Creep" of some sort is inevitable, because as has been stated, if even one option in the new book is better and the rest are pure filth, because complainers are complainers, a complainer will point to that, ignore the rest, and cry foul of power creep.
Honestly, I don't see what the difference is from regular, old fashioned bloat, except the difference is with "power creep", there's an actual reason to buy the multitude of new products and actually use them beyond completionism.
As always, banning stuff beyond the core is an option (that will result in alienating a multitude of potential players who won't look twice at your game beyond the first sentence that says CRB-only...but still, an option nonetheless) if your goal is to keep all in line with how it was back-in-the-day. "It may be unbalanced, dangit, but it's unbalanced in a way I know, and understand. And we walked uphill both ways through the snow. Also, we wore an onion in our belt, because it was the style at the time!"
I'm in it for the roleplaying so power creeps never concern me.
And Wraithstrike, I think that depends on how extensive your definition of system mastery is. I've been playing Pathfinder for four months now and my first character was a monk. She's at seventh level now and I have to admit I put her on the shelf for a while because I was unhappy with how suboptimal the build was but I feel it's fairly objective to say that while there are some situations where she's very ineffective on the whole the character is far from unplayable and it only took minor tweaking to get her there.
I never said anything about unplayable. I am only stating that monks are for the most part suboptimal(below the bar of "Standard").
I dont think full casters are the measuring stick unless you had another definition of top shelf.If you publish new options that are across the board strictly weaker than all the Core options, then you're not going to sell many books.That is all the explanation needed.Yet paizo does that.
For the most put, everything printed is weaker than top shelf CRB.
Then what is the measuring stick?
Because that's kind of the key question here. The answers here are tending to focus on one of two things. Either the big guns of the CRB; Leadership and item crafting and 9th level casters, or the underdogs; Fighter and Mobility and such. Do we have a metric for "average" power in the CRB? The Bard?
But the OP does have a point-- compare the baseline Fighter to the Mutation Warrior. I'm at the point that I'd never run a baseline Fighter and Mutation Warrior is my default unless I need another archetype that it doesn't work with.
*Shrug* Really, it looks to me like power convergence more than creep. The CRB was a diverse book that give us both Leadership and Mobility, Wizard and Rogue. Later books generally have a tighter power spread that cuts out both the top and bottom 10% or so.
Yeah, there's a problem with what people define as power creep. If the fighter gets better, is that power creep even though he doesn't come close to a core wizard?
The truth is, Barbarians and Paladins still sit atop the melee builds. Archery builds still pump out the most damage, and the builds are largely identical. Full casters are still the tippy-top of the power spectrum and there's not much change in power levels there.
Nothing has ever improved on Wish/Miracle, Power Attack, Deadly Aim-Rapid Shot, Leadership, or crafting feats. People still "Christmas Tree" with the same equipment. And usually, when people talk about an option being "better", they are referring to an incremental increase in utility based on spreadsheet calculations and averages... not a massive change in game playability during actual gameplay.
There has been some talk of "bloat" lately, but what about just plain power creep? Reading through the Advanced Class Guide, there are several situations where the new options appear to just be better than Core rulebook options. Setting the Hybrid Classes aside for a moment, let's take a look at the Counterfeit Mage archetype compared to a baseline Rogue:
- Magical Expertise does everything that Trapfinder does, *plus* it adds a bonus to UMD
- Signature Wand replaces the 4th level Rogue Talent with something that is objectively better than any of the basic Rogue talents.
- Wand Adept doesn't replace anything, and again adds a useful bonus to UMD.
It seems like this option is just flat-out better than the Core Rulebook Rogue.
Similarly, the Martial Master archetype seems objectively better than the baseline Fighter. In exchange for giving up a maximum of +4 to attack/damage and a crit buff, you gain the ability to re-write your feat loadout on the fly.
Well I would say you are comparing improvements to the unmodified versions of what are arguably the 2 worst classes in the core rule book. Though they do have some fans, most people seem to say those are just plain sub par.
At the other end of the spectrum are the new options better than a well done wizard, druid, or cleric? Probably not. I think some of them might be more fun to play and have some nifty new abilities. But it is really difficult to compete with the awesomeness of a well run wizard (always assuming a reasonably cooperative GM and group).
I might be willing to go as far as saying the average is going up but not the top end. I don't think the new books have very much that looks completely worthless or unplayable. A lot of what they have is in the upper level of power and playability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As always, banning stuff beyond the core is an option (that will result in alienating a multitude of potential players who won't look twice at your game beyond the first sentence that says CRB-only...but still, an option nonetheless) if your goal is to keep all in line with how it was back-in-the-day. "It may be unbalanced, dangit, but it's unbalanced in a way I know, and understand. And we walked uphill both ways through the snow. Also, we wore an onion in our belt, because it was the style at the time!"
Right, it's not like the core is some masterpiece of game balance that needs to be preserved at all costs.
The core is terrible. There's no balance there at all. Power creep is a good thing if it breaks us out of the CRB 'balance', with the stated goal of keeping Wish as the cap on caster power, and Power Attack as the best thing martials are allowed.(Had to get Martials Aren't Allowed Nice Things in alongside rogues and bloat. Ain't even sorry.)
Having played a rogue, I enjoyed it immensely so it always has a place in my mind. I similarly do not understand the "don't play a rogue" advise. That said, I do let the class description affect how I play a character. I know I can take a full/RP style to another class but it's hella handy to see the words on the page and formulate ideas based on that with the options surrounding it.
Looks like you had a good GM.
If you could flank fairly regularly, that was the GM either playing the monsters dumb, or being nice.
If you were able to make full use of your skills, that was thanks to the GM.
Having played a rogue, I enjoyed it immensely so it always has a place in my mind. I similarly do not understand the "don't play a rogue" advise. That said, I do let the class description affect how I play a character. I know I can take a full/RP style to another class but it's hella handy to see the words on the page and formulate ideas based on that with the options surrounding it.Looks like you had a good GM.
If you could flank fairly regularly, that was the GM either playing the monsters dumb, or being nice.
If you were able to make full use of your skills, that was thanks to the GM.
I would never (or at least rarely) tell a player to not pick a certain class. However, I will make sure they are aware that rogue is considered by most to be the least powerful class and it takes a fair amount of skill to not end up feeling like an anchor. Not impossible, but also not easy.
Short answer is YES
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Short answer is YES
Longer answer is 'yes, and the game needs it'.
Yes, there is inevitably power creep in any evolving gaming system. Designers think up new things, new mechanics, that simply didn't exist in the original version, and allow for much more flexibility in both character design and play. Often there are unseen synergies that become abused, especially by power gamers.
The problem is rather than designing for backward compatibility (which archetypes began to address), they simply created "new" classes.
And there are usually a handful of good new feats, often allowing players to do things they should have been able to do officially from day one, but also a ton of useless and incredibly situational feats that no one uses (unless they get extra feats somehow so they can burn one or two one these).
I use the rules as guidelines rather than absolutes because I, or one of my players, will come up with a character that should be playable using existing mechanics and so on but simply hasn't been spelled out by Paizo.
I like the development of archetypes, but it has supplanted the Rogue because they no longer had a unique role to fill. Which is why PF should go "classless". This doesn't make them OP, just more attractive and useful than the CRB version.
Classless PF won't be the same game. Classes are at the fundamental crux of what makes PF the game it is.
Classless systems are great, but they're not PF.
I've had a lot of fun making PF class-less. It works pretty well, besides some minor balance issues.
Having played a rogue, I enjoyed it immensely so it always has a place in my mind. I similarly do not understand the "don't play a rogue" advise. That said, I do let the class description affect how I play a character. I know I can take a full/RP style to another class but it's hella handy to see the words on the page and formulate ideas based on that with the options surrounding it.
Besides the name rogue, what did the class give you mechanically that you couldn't have had otherwise?
+More skill ranks per level just means you're better at your 7th and 8th choices for skills. They will not be as good as your 1st, 2nd and third choices. The rogue is no better at stealth than anyone else with maxed ranks in the skill.
You do not need the same person to sneak past the guards, unlock the door, talk to the princess, and then appraise her crown. Other characters can be good at skills to.
Stealth doesn't work against monsters, is almost impossible to do in a group setting, and getting on the same page as the dm so you can even make the role is a pain sometimes.
Magic does it better.
Full attack sneak attacks are good, but a rare celestial event to pull off. They stand out when they happen, but the rogue has no way of making them happen all that often.
Traits: Resilient(+1 fort saves), Indomitable Faith(+1 Will)
1 |Stealthy, Skill Focus(Stealth)
2 |Finesse Rogue
3 |Deceitful
4 |Combat Trick(Shadow Strike)
5 |Skill Focus(Bluff)
6 |Fast Stealth
7 |Hellcat Stealth
8 |Bleeding Attack, Skill Focus(UMD)
9 |Deft Hands
10|Skill Mastery(Bluff, UMD, Stealth, Disguise, Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand)
11|Alertness
12|Skill Mastery(Diplomacy, Escape Artist, Sense Motive, Climb, Perception, Disable Device)
13|Skill Focus(Perception)
14|Hard Minded
15|Skill Focus (Acrobatics)
16|Crippling Strike, Skill Focus(Diplomacy)
17|Skill Focus(Sleight of Hand)
18|Feat(Skill Focus(Escape Artist)
19|Skill Focus(Sense Motive)
20|Improved Evasion
Trickster(Surprise Strike)
Mythic Feats: Weapon Finesse, Stealthy, Deceitful, Deft Hands, Alertness
Mythic Path: Longevity, This Just Might Work, Master of Escape, Impeccable Balance, Combat Trickery, Slayer’s Cyclone, Precision Critical, Perfect Mimic, Improbable Prestidigitation, Astounding Disable
Sure you are looking at one sneak attack per round, but you are better than invisible and can actually be good at skills.
Most monks are still at the bottom with archetypes such as the zen archer being an exception. Overall I still consider the monk to be at the bottom because you either need a good archetype, multiclassing and/or good system mastery to make it work.Just going to disagree with this. After pummeling charge and the ability to fly from quiggong the monk has passed up to as good as the ZAM is normally. Quiggong is really the largest buff any class has gotten in all of pathfinder.
Quiggong sorta proves my point and pummeling style alone is not saving the monk nor putting it on par with zen archers.
|
pummeling style alone is not saving the monk nor putting it on par with zen archers.
It really does. It makes bypassing alingment DR much less painful, and the crit effects combined with improve critical puts unarmed crit chances on par with a rapier.
Pummeling Charge allows you to full attack even if you need to move, which is the other major advantage archers have.
Pummelling Style and Pummelling Charge are certainly great for monks but monks definitely seem to be a case of getting incrementally better with each hardcover.
In Ultimate Combat the style feats opened up a wide range options to enhance a monk's prowess.
Ultimate Equipment the temple sword was a desperately needed weapon that made using a weapon to bypass DR less painful.
Ultimate Magic of course the qinggong monk.
Of course the Advanced Class Guide lets you ignore weapons and go pummelling style to simply overwhelm DR.
Having at least 3 of these 4 books seems to be an absolute necessity to make a good monk with perhaps a few very specific exceptions but I think it's still something that's attainable by a fairly inexperienced player as long as they know the game well enough to understand what's good and what's awful about the CRB monk.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most monks are still at the bottom with archetypes such as the zen archer being an exception. Overall I still consider the monk to be at the bottom because you either need a good archetype, multiclassing and/or good system mastery to make it work.But is it really bad power creep when a bottom-tier class creeps into the middle tier?
I do agree that the monk is the most dramatic change in a class' viability.
Tier lists are constructed with the assumption that the players involved are at the absolute peak of system mastery with the classes they're playing. That you're using the Monk at the very best of its abilities is assumed so writing out archetypes like the Qinggong isn't quite fair.
After all, if you don't assume system mastery then the Wizard is mid-tier at best.
I'd agree with that placement. The Zen Archer, Sohei, and Hungry Ghost are all low tier 3's, though I'd say that the Sensei has enough versatility to be closer to the top of that tier.