Tiers?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 340 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Daw wrote:

Tiers are the polite way of saying that something is bogus. C/M D is codeword for" this is too deeply an emotional issue to ever be solvable."

Use these words as warning signs to flee the scene.

I do not even know where to begin with this @_@


Investigator, high 3 if well-played?


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
Investigator, high 3 if well-played?

The investigator is pretty universally agreed to be tier 3, in my understanding, and in my personal opinion it's probably the most versatile of those classes. Its skill list is enormous, and int as a casting stat combined with Inspiration means it is almost impossible for a properly played Investigator to not be one of the best skill monkeys in the game, and alchemy allows it to respond to a great many situations. Extracts give buffs, movement, healing, and other such problem-solving, inspiration helps boost both combat and skills as needed, the investigator can build a truly impressive skill list that makes it excellent at information gathering, tracking, exploration, trap-busting, social interaction, infiltration, scouting, and a great many other roles, and to top it all off, with Studied Combat the Investigator is more than capable of keeping up in combat. Then you add in that its archetypes mean it can cast (well "cast" with extracts for normal versions) from the alchemist, psychic, or bard spell list, and you've got quite a lot to work with.

6th-level casting is a good niche, in my view. It doesn't hit the PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWER nonsense that 9th-level casting all too often brings as you start to get out of the early levels in nearly the same way, while at the same time giving a character a very handy toolbox to augment their skills, gear, and feats. Being good at crafting handy alchemical items is nothing to sneeze at, either; there's a lot of useful things you can make for the party with a little time and the investigator's wonderful Craft (Alchemy) checks. This can be anything from the smokesticks and sun rods you use to keep visibility in your favor while dungeon-delving to the Alchemist's Fire that keeps your weapon-using dudes from being helpless against a swarm of bees.


yeah, if I have a cheater Tier 1 player someone who tries to change the spells they have memorized to match the situation instead of using what they memorized in the first place, or try to give themselves more spells then they actually have, as opposed to someone who actually knows the rules and is playing a Tier 1 normally), I usually kill them with a Tier 4.

They start crying because they didn't think a Tier 1 could be taken out so easily.

It's only because the don't understand that there really is only ONE tier one class, and it is NOT a wizard.

The Dungeonmaster rules supreme.

:P

PS: Before the above starts a mini-war...realize I was giving out a snarky joke in a sarcastic way (though in truth, the DM DOES rule the table, but I normally don't go out of my way to kill PC's...that's simply rude and a good way to have no one to play with anymore).


I will say the idea that the players skills will make the tiers not show up or show up more is pretty accurate a 1st time player playing a fighter (charge attack) will probably not seem that such different to a veteran played fighter (maybe some tactics) but a 9th level caster however could be tier 6 in the wrong hands (i know there not meant for case per case) theirs a lot to learn for wizards also it takes a lot of investment for the wizard to get good there kind of meh until about 6-8th level and not game breaking till about 11-13 (roughly)
the one thing i will say they have convinced me of is the base fighter could use like 4 skills per level and maybe some sort of ooc extra ability (probably chosen from a list with options like natural leader, always aware etc. of cool things they can do out of combat that fits into fighter soldier theme ) the one thing i don't want the base line fighter to have is a lot of silly limited use abilities the base fighter should play easily and not be bogged down by to many other mechanics (imo)
also some class differences is good otherwise we get 4th edition :P (no offense if you liked it but it wasn't for me)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I don't have any popcorn, but I am drinking a nice, dark red. Awaiting the turd flinging, though I must admit, what I've read so far is interesting. I never knew...


taks wrote:
I don't have any popcorn, but I am drinking a nice, dark red. Awaiting the turd flinging, though I must admit, what I've read so far is interesting. I never knew...

It doesn't have to go down like that some people just get to passionate and it runs away with them. everything is so polarized now if you don't agree with me 100% or <edit> your wrong attitude. when really most things are in the middle ground somewhere.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
I will say the idea that the players skills will make the tiers not show up or show up more is pretty accurate a 1st time player playing a fighter (charge attack) will probably not seem that such different to a veteran played fighter (maybe some tactics)

I was once banned from playing fighters after I broke the game with one >:)


Out of curiosity, how did you manage to break the game? Most fighters only become very, very good at killing things... which, frankly, is kind of the goal of most encounters. XD It might make other people feel irrelevant if you can always kill everything before they even act, but I wouldn't say it's breaking the game.

Sovereign Court

GM Rednal wrote:
Out of curiosity, how did you manage to break the game? Most fighters only become very, very good at killing things... which, frankly, is kind of the goal of most encounters. XD It might make other people feel irrelevant if you can always kill everything before they even act, but I wouldn't say it's breaking the game.

I'd guess some sort of crazy reach build. Maybe mixed with a maneuver or two.

It could seem sorta game-breaking to a low optimized group.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've seen the disparity show its ugly head even in games with only noob players... And I've seen that happen multiple times in both 3.5 and PF.

There's just no credible way to deny the existence of C/M d or class tiers. When I started playing 3.5, it didn't take long for me to notice how my Ranger's tracking skills were completely pointless when my friend's Wizard had divination spells... Or how my Druid was better than my friend's Fighter at quite literally everything!

The gap is not as wide in PF, but it's still there.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
GM Rednal wrote:
Out of curiosity, how did you manage to break the game? Most fighters only become very, very good at killing things... which, frankly, is kind of the goal of most encounters. XD It might make other people feel irrelevant if you can always kill everything before they even act, but I wouldn't say it's breaking the game.

I'd guess some sort of crazy reach build. Maybe mixed with a maneuver or two.

It could seem sorta game-breaking to a low optimized group.

People lack imagination.

You don't break the game with just DPR.

Shadow Lodge

Snowlilly wrote:

People lack imagination.

You don't break the game with just DPR.

So enlighten me. Because DPR is all the fighter has.


TOZ wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:

People lack imagination.

You don't break the game with just DPR.

So enlighten me. Because DPR is all the fighter has.

Well the general consensus is the fighter can't break the game, the guy who got banned was probably just doing far more damage than any of the other martials in the group and got banned for that, not breaking the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
412294 wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:

People lack imagination.

You don't break the game with just DPR.

So enlighten me. Because DPR is all the fighter has.
Well the general consensus is the fighter can't break the game, the guy who got banned was probably just doing far more damage than any of the other martials in the group and got banned for that, not breaking the game.

There are also a couple of other ways a fighter can break the game. As CLH pointed out, a maneuver specialist, esp. with a lot of reach, can render bucketloads of opponents helpless and trivialize many encounters. (Which may not "break the game" in a strong sense, but if no one else is having fun, then the game is effectively broken.)

The fragility of the game is also related to the skill of the game master. If the GM, for instance, overuses a particular type of encounter, then a character built to handle that specific type of encounter will appear overpowered even if it's not. Similarly, a GM who doesn't know the rules may not be aware of the various limitations (for instance, not realizing that a reach weapon prevents attacks on adjacent foes, or not counting diagonal spaces correctly and effectively giving a reach build another 50% area they can control).

But the easiest way to break the game is available to any player of any character of any class, and that's simply to be a jerk about following the narrative. Kill Elrond and burn Rivendell to the ground. Tell the Witch of the North to get stuffed and rule Munchkinland yourself with an iron fist. Wander into the White Witch's lair and offer to arm Narnia with guns instead of swords. Join Slytherin House.


My "issue" with a maneuver specialist "breaking a game" is that, why maneuver them when you could have killed them? So I don't see how a maneuver specialist could be considered worse than a DPR build. The maneuver guy at least lets everyone else take a turn, the DPR guy just killed the dude.


Maneuvers can be "game-breaking" if they are too effective. Maneuvers are usually way too good (trip vs non-flying humanoids) or completely useless (trip vs flying opponents).

They aren't "game breaking" like a Wizard, of course, but they can still cause a headache to the GM. In fact, at low levels, maneuvers can be very abusable.


Chess Pwn wrote:
My "issue" with a maneuver specialist "breaking a game" is that, why maneuver them when you could have killed them? So I don't see how a maneuver specialist could be considered worse than a DPR build. The maneuver guy at least lets everyone else take a turn, the DPR guy just killed the dude.

Yeah, but the maneuver guy "at least lets everyone else take a [VERY BORING] turn" since there's nothing there to do.

Sometimes the monsters are too tough even for the DPR monster to kill in one hit. But everything trippable gets tripped in one hit, at which point everyone else is reduced simply to cleaning up the mess.

Sovereign Court

Chess Pwn wrote:
My "issue" with a maneuver specialist "breaking a game" is that, why maneuver them when you could have killed them? So I don't see how a maneuver specialist could be considered worse than a DPR build. The maneuver guy at least lets everyone else take a turn, the DPR guy just killed the dude.

Against NPCs, a high Dex trip-master can do both since each trip gives them another AOO. (Trip not working vs flyers like it did in 3.5 does make me a bit sad. *heavy sigh* Though there is a magic item which let you trip flyers.)


there's also a fighter advanced training or weapon mastery that lets you do it too.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
It doesn't have to go down like that some people just get to passionate and it runs away with them. everything is so polarized now if you don't agree with me 100% or <edit> your wrong attitude. when really most things are in the middle ground somewhere.

Hehe, sure, it doesn't have to, but I'm pretty sure it always does. ;)

Murphy was an optimist.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
GM Rednal wrote:
Out of curiosity, how did you manage to break the game? Most fighters only become very, very good at killing things... which, frankly, is kind of the goal of most encounters. XD It might make other people feel irrelevant if you can always kill everything before they even act, but I wouldn't say it's breaking the game.

I'd guess some sort of crazy reach build. Maybe mixed with a maneuver or two.

It could seem sorta game-breaking to a low optimized group.

People lack imagination.

You don't break the game with just DPR.

Hi, Snowlilly. I think you might be having a communication issue with some of the other folks here, perhaps partially based on a misunderstanding of what exactly other folks are meaning with some of their descriptions/complaints regarding class comparisons. For what it's worth, I once wrote something to try to smooth discussions on a related topic by clarifying some often misunderstood ideas, and I think you might find it helpful. LINK

Also, if you'd like some relevant designer commentary on a related topic, I recently had a dialogue (completely free of flame-wars!) with designer Mark Seifter, which starts HERE and continues for a few posts of back-and-forth (though of course it's mixed in with posts on other topics, so you'll have to do some sifting).

Hopefully, with a fuller understanding of the issue being discussed, you can be more precise and enlightening in your own posts. Hope that helps! :)


Oh boy someone's linked the C/M D thread.


Lemmy wrote:

Maneuvers can be "game-breaking" if they are too effective. Maneuvers are usually way too good (trip vs non-flying humanoids) or completely useless (trip vs flying opponents).

They aren't "game breaking" like a Wizard, of course, but they can still cause a headache to the GM. In fact, at low levels, maneuvers can be very abusable.

Is there a way to incorporate trip such that it is not either way too good or completely useless? Doesn't even need to be in such as state at all times either, but strike some kind of balance.


Ranishe wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Maneuvers can be "game-breaking" if they are too effective. Maneuvers are usually way too good (trip vs non-flying humanoids) or completely useless (trip vs flying opponents).

They aren't "game breaking" like a Wizard, of course, but they can still cause a headache to the GM. In fact, at low levels, maneuvers can be very abusable.

Is there a way to incorporate trip such that it is not either way too good or completely useless? Doesn't even need to be in such as state at all times either, but strike some kind of balance.

Don't make your trip-focused character trip every possibile target and it won't be a problem. Only use it either when fights are getting too tough or as a way to manage many opponents at once and reduce their options. Used in moderation it isn't as much of an issue.


Ranishe wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Maneuvers can be "game-breaking" if they are too effective. Maneuvers are usually way too good (trip vs non-flying humanoids) or completely useless (trip vs flying opponents).

They aren't "game breaking" like a Wizard, of course, but they can still cause a headache to the GM. In fact, at low levels, maneuvers can be very abusable.

Is there a way to incorporate trip such that it is not either way too good or completely useless? Doesn't even need to be in such as state at all times either, but strike some kind of balance.

Well... Other than holding back on purpose... Not really. At least, not with house-rules. I have a couple ideas about making trip/disarm/etc less all-or-nothing, but nothing too concrete yet, so I won't post it here yet.

PM me if you want my very early concepts of house-rules.


Jiggy wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
GM Rednal wrote:
Out of curiosity, how did you manage to break the game? Most fighters only become very, very good at killing things... which, frankly, is kind of the goal of most encounters. XD It might make other people feel irrelevant if you can always kill everything before they even act, but I wouldn't say it's breaking the game.

I'd guess some sort of crazy reach build. Maybe mixed with a maneuver or two.

It could seem sorta game-breaking to a low optimized group.

People lack imagination.

You don't break the game with just DPR.

Hi, Snowlilly. I think you might be having a communication issue with some of the other folks here, perhaps partially based on a misunderstanding of what exactly other folks are meaning with some of their descriptions/complaints regarding class comparisons. For what it's worth, I once wrote something to try to smooth discussions on a related topic by clarifying some often misunderstood ideas, and I think you might find it helpful. LINK

Also, if you'd like some relevant designer commentary on a related topic, I recently had a dialogue (completely free of flame-wars!) with designer Mark Seifter, which starts HERE and continues for a few posts of back-and-forth (though of course it's mixed in with posts on other topics, so you'll have to do some sifting).

Hopefully, with a fuller understanding of the issue being discussed, you can be more precise and enlightening in your own posts. Hope that helps! :)

wow marks remarks pretty well sum it up nicely it depends on DM, group and play style and a few others I literally feel like I can ignore this argument from now on cause in my mind its settled its like most things its subjective depending on who you are and who you play with. I literally suggest everyone read that wall of text mark so elegantly cast I think i'm done here.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
GM Rednal wrote:
Out of curiosity, how did you manage to break the game? Most fighters only become very, very good at killing things... which, frankly, is kind of the goal of most encounters. XD It might make other people feel irrelevant if you can always kill everything before they even act, but I wouldn't say it's breaking the game.

I'd guess some sort of crazy reach build. Maybe mixed with a maneuver or two.

It could seem sorta game-breaking to a low optimized group.

People lack imagination.

You don't break the game with just DPR.

Hi, Snowlilly. I think you might be having a communication issue with some of the other folks here, perhaps partially based on a misunderstanding of what exactly other folks are meaning with some of their descriptions/complaints regarding class comparisons. For what it's worth, I once wrote something to try to smooth discussions on a related topic by clarifying some often misunderstood ideas, and I think you might find it helpful. LINK

Also, if you'd like some relevant designer commentary on a related topic, I recently had a dialogue (completely free of flame-wars!) with designer Mark Seifter, which starts HERE and continues for a few posts of back-and-forth (though of course it's mixed in with posts on other topics, so you'll have to do some sifting).

Hopefully, with a fuller understanding of the issue being discussed, you can be more precise and enlightening in your own posts. Hope that helps! :)

wow marks remarks pretty well sum it up nicely it depends on DM, group and play style and a few others I literally feel like I can ignore this argument from now on cause in my mind its settled its like most things its subjective depending on who you are...

While the way I look at it, it is indeed experiential and thus not guaranteed for each group, I think that in order to communicate my main message, it's also important to note that there are indeed factors in the Pathfinder RPG's engine that increase the likelihood and potential magnitude of experiencing such a disparity, and that thus those players and GMs who identify those factors and tell us about them here have provided valuable and insightful analysis, often based on substantial valuable empirical evidence they have collected in their own games. Similarly, it's important to note that not everyone has a common ground on what they mean by "disparity", even including the idea I just posted that a disparity is experiential is not going to be universal in any discourse (some might actually see the systematic factors that increase the likelihood and potential magnitude of experiencing a disparity to themselves be the disparity, and thus by the definition they are using, it's not subjective). It's why communication is so tricky on such a nuanced and complex idea, and it's why so far both summaries of my giant wall-of-text post, while both solid and well-thought-out summaries, have simplified it to the point where I feared the summary could be misunderstood.

Whoops, I'll try not to wall of text too much here too!


It's OK when its a good wall (So moral being feedback is good then?)


Jiggy wrote:
Hopefully, with a fuller understanding of the issue being discussed, you can be more precise and enlightening in your own posts. Hope that helps! :)

I understand the issue, I just choose to view it from a different perspective. Simply agreeing with popular opinion does not an interesting conversation make.

My post had precisely the desired effect. People starting looking for ways to break with game with a fighter. None of them are close to what I did, but that is not important. What matters is people are thinking and exploring options.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Hopefully, with a fuller understanding of the issue being discussed, you can be more precise and enlightening in your own posts. Hope that helps! :)

I understand the issue, I just choose to view it from a different perspective. Simply agreeing with popular opinion does not an interesting conversation make.

My post had precisely the desired effect. People starting looking for ways to break with game with a fighter. None of them are close to what I did, but that is not important. What matters is people are thinking and exploring options.

I don't consider what I mentioned to be at all game-breaking. It's only game-breaking relative to a group who is bad at making characters.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Snowlilly wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Hopefully, with a fuller understanding of the issue being discussed, you can be more precise and enlightening in your own posts. Hope that helps! :)

I understand the issue, I just choose to view it from a different perspective. Simply agreeing with popular opinion does not an interesting conversation make.

My post had precisely the desired effect. People starting looking for ways to break with game with a fighter. None of them are close to what I did, but that is not important. What matters is people are thinking and exploring options.

I don't consider what I mentioned to be at all game-breaking. It's only game-breaking relative to a group who is bad at making characters.

I agree, but is still fun to see discourse other than the standard caster/martial disparity going back and forth.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Hopefully, with a fuller understanding of the issue being discussed, you can be more precise and enlightening in your own posts. Hope that helps! :)
I understand the issue, I just choose to view it from a different perspective. Simply agreeing with popular opinion does not an interesting conversation make.

I'm not asking you to agree with any particular opinion (popular or otherwise). I'm inviting you to do your disagreeing from a more well-informed position than you currently inhabit.

For example, in this post of yours, you assert that the game can be broken by any class, disagreeing with the notion that a caster is needed. That's fine; go ahead and voice that disagreement.

However, in that same post, you cite as one of your premises the idea that the complaints about casters are based on "schrodinger's wizard"; this demonstrates that you haven't really understood your fellow posters' positions. (I discussed this topic in a bit more detail in my post I linked that tries to clarify communications.) Other examples of misunderstanding your peers are present in that post as well.

That's where I'm trying to help you; not to make you stop disagreeing, but to help you start disagreeing in a better-informed manner. :)


I'm pretty excited to find out how it was done.


fighter's can't break the game any more than a commoner could.


CWheezy wrote:
I'm pretty excited to find out how it was done.

Honestly, I rather doubt you will. I suspect that if/when Snowy shares her story with you, you'll say "that is considered breaking the game?"

Shadow Lodge

I expect that result as well, but you never know.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
I'm pretty excited to find out how it was done.
Honestly, I rather doubt you will. I suspect that if/when Snowy shares her story with you, you'll say "that is considered breaking the game?"

I broke the game in a very literal sense after getting into a war of escalation with the GM.

Ugly story, with way too much drama.

Spoiler:
He was a megalomaniac that had to "win" everything and his NPC's had to always take center stage.

I was barred from playing wizards because I kept circumventing encounters we were meant to loose. Nothing earth shattering (no planar binding, no simulacrums, etc.), the GM was knowledgeable, but predictable, which made spell choices and usage easy. I got pissed and built a fighter that managed to overcome every obstacle thrown, in or out of combat. After the 4th or 5th time everyone else died in the GM's attempts to force me to concede to his NPC's, the game imploded. The fighter was broken in the sense that he was significantly better at everything he did than anyone else in the group, and not by a small margin.

The usage of first person tense is intentional. It was not just a conflict between characters and NPC's. His wife's rubber tree was a sad casualty after we went after each other with real maces and shields.

Afterwards, everyone else asked me go back to playing my wizard, until the DM instituted a house rule that all monsters had 95% spell resistance.

These days, I still optimize, but take a much more laid back approach. The group I play with jokes around about how I've never had a character die, but I make a point not to take center stage too often. The only spot of trouble I've had was when the group decided to try a PvP tournament and I showed up with a 10'th level rogue. I had to volunteer to help DM. (The rogue was able to meet the first 9 or 10 items on the list that was posted, without using magic items or UMD, including swimming in the lava that turned out to be a major feature of the arena.)


So you could have done the same thing with a commoner then in that game, yes?


Chess Pwn wrote:
So you could have done the same thing with a commoner then in that game, yes?

Yeah. These commoners. Cutting the air, throwing great swords like boomerangs, imbuing weapons with desire effects thru th spirit of a warrior, and climbing in full plate+a tower shield as easily as of they were naked. Yup. Absolutely anything a fighter can do, a commoner can do just as easily. No problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

do any of those things listed "break the game?" I think not.

Did Snowlilly suggest that anything they did to break their game was something special or interesting based off being a fighter?

To me it seems like they just had a bad GM, low optimization for everyone else, and them with good optimization who was breaking the game with every character and continued to break the game as a fighter because they couldn't die. So if succeeding the challenges thrown at the group "broke the game" then there wasn't much of a game to break.


Chess Pwn wrote:

do any of those things listed "break the game?" I think not.

Did Snowlilly suggest that anything they did to break their game was something special or interesting based off being a fighter?

To me it seems like they just had a bad GM, low optimization for everyone else, and them with good optimization who was breaking the game with every character and continued to break the game as a fighter because they couldn't die. So if succeeding the challenges thrown at the group "broke the game" then there wasn't much of a game to break.

Called it:

Orfamay Quest wrote:


I suspect that if/when Snowy shares her story with you, you'll say "that is considered breaking the game?"

I wonder this well-documented instance of my sooper sekrit sikick powerz are good for James Randi's million dollars.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That's an important distinction for the tier concept. You're not evaluating builds or characters. You're evaluating classes much the same way you'd compare one feat to another or a spell to another. You don't put the feat or spell in a build and then compare it. You just focus on the merits of the feat or spell by themselves. For tiers, this same analysis and isolation applies to the class itself.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowlilly wrote:
I got pissed and built a fighter that managed to overcome every obstacle thrown, in or out of combat. .... The fighter was broken in the sense that he was significantly better at everything he did than anyone else in the group, and not by a small margin.

I'm not sure this actually answers the question of how you broke the game with a fighter. It mostly just re-states that you did, without really giving any new information.

For example, you say you "overcame every obstacle", but what does that mean? What sorts of obstacles? After all, there's a big difference between picking a lock and then fighting the ogre behind the door, and needing to track and chase an invisible glabrezu across the planes.

Similarly, can you elaborate on "he was significantly better at everything he did than anyone else in the group"? Which things are "everything he did"? After all, most folks agree that fighters are good at what they do; the usual complaint is that it's the only thing they can do. So what things were you excelling at as a fighter, and how would those tasks compare with the things you couldn't do at all? Also, can you give us a ballpark of how much of the gap between your and your teammates' capabilities in those areas was due to your excellence as opposed to their low optimization level? After all, there are some tables where I could grab a fighter out of the NPC Codex and be outshining the party, and it wouldn't be because of how strong the fighter class is. Knowing that you were stronger than your teammates at X task is purely relative, and therefore doesn't actually tell us anything.

Please, give us some real information. Answering "How did you break the game as a fighter?" with "By being the best at everything!" isn't really an answer at all. If I had posted that I broke the game with an Expert or Adept and you asked me how, and I replied with a story just like the one you posted, what would you think of that reply? Would it satisfy you at all? Would you even feel like it was really an answer to your question?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:

do any of those things listed "break the game?" I think not.

Did Snowlilly suggest that anything they did to break their game was something special or interesting based off being a fighter?

To me it seems like they just had a bad GM, low optimization for everyone else, and them with good optimization who was breaking the game with every character and continued to break the game as a fighter because they couldn't die. So if succeeding the challenges thrown at the group "broke the game" then there wasn't much of a game to break.

I'm more remarking about comparing a fighter to a commoner, and how you thought that was a legitimate argument in any way. It's sort of an asinine non-statement. Now what you just said actually makes sense and contributes to the discussion.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frosty Ace wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

do any of those things listed "break the game?" I think not.

Did Snowlilly suggest that anything they did to break their game was something special or interesting based off being a fighter?

To me it seems like they just had a bad GM, low optimization for everyone else, and them with good optimization who was breaking the game with every character and continued to break the game as a fighter because they couldn't die. So if succeeding the challenges thrown at the group "broke the game" then there wasn't much of a game to break.

I'm more remarking about comparing a fighter to a commoner, and how you thought that was a legitimate argument in any way. It's sort of an asinine non-statement. Now what you just said actually makes sense and contributes to the discussion.

To be fair, most of the things that a fighter can do that a sufficiently-high-statted commoner can't do, are very recent additions to the game, and could be argued to have been designed specifically to address the "fighters are just commoners with bigger numbers" issue.

If you go back and look at the Core Rulebook fighter, how many things can you find that the fighter can do which can't be replicated by a commoner just by boosting his stats/level? The answer is "none". In fact, if you were in a campaign that didn't use any recent splatbooks, and the GM offered to let you play as a commoner who levels twice as fast instead of just playing a fighter, an argument could be made that it would be a deal worth taking.

It's only very, very recently that the fighter started (through extra books) to be able to do things that a commoner can't do, instead of only things that a commoner needs a really high bonus to do.

EDIT: Also, Chess Pwn's comment that you had replied to was referring to one specific game, and we don't know whether any of the new options you listed in your retort were even legal, let alone being used by the fighter. It's entirely possible that the things done by that fighter really were all things that could also be done by a commoner.


Jiggy has it right. 1st I was referencing Snowlilly's explanation of a fighter breaking a game. As Jiggy said 2nd) a fighter is basically a commoner with a bit bigger combat numbers.

can a commoner cut something out of the air, no, but is that ability really making the fighter better than a commoner? to me not really, is basically deflect arrows and deflect ray with shield using your weapon.

Is there really a difference to mundanely scale a wall in full plate and tower shield as easily as of they were naked opposed to scaling a wall in full plate and a tower shield?

throwing great swords like boomerangs with enough returning greatswords sure a commoner can throw great swords like boomerangs. Does it matter? No, it's the fighter can maybe turn a bad idea of combat into a passable option for combat, that doesn't change that it's still just doing that to kill things and normal full attacking melee or with a bow, is just as good if not better.

imbuing weapons with desire effects thru the spirit of a warrior, no, but a commoner can have a +10 sword. it's good enough.

Like, NPC warrior is commoner +numbers, a fighter is warrior +numbers. So at it's base a fighter is just a commoner with ++numbers. Nothing a fighter does, like "imbuing weapons with desire effects thru the spirit of a warrior" that a commoner can't doesn't actually let it do more things to "break a game".


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Frosty Ace wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

do any of those things listed "break the game?" I think not.

Did Snowlilly suggest that anything they did to break their game was something special or interesting based off being a fighter?

To me it seems like they just had a bad GM, low optimization for everyone else, and them with good optimization who was breaking the game with every character and continued to break the game as a fighter because they couldn't die. So if succeeding the challenges thrown at the group "broke the game" then there wasn't much of a game to break.

I'm more remarking about comparing a fighter to a commoner, and how you thought that was a legitimate argument in any way. It's sort of an asinine non-statement. Now what you just said actually makes sense and contributes to the discussion.

To be fair, most of the things that a fighter can do that a sufficiently-high-statted commoner can't do, are very recent additions to the game, and could be argued to have been designed specifically to address the "fighters are just commoners with bigger numbers" issue.

If you go back and look at the Core Rulebook fighter, how many things can you find that the fighter can do which can't be replicated by a commoner just by boosting his stats/level? The answer is "none". In fact, if you were in a campaign that didn't use any recent splatbooks, and the GM offered to let you play as a commoner who levels twice as fast instead of just playing a fighter, an argument could be made that it would be a deal worth taking.

It's only very, very recently that the fighter started (through extra books) to be able to do things that a commoner can't do, instead of only things that a commoner needs a really high bonus to do.

EDIT: Also, Chess Pwn's comment that you had replied to was referring to one specific game, and we don't know whether any of the new options you listed in your retort were even legal, let alone being used by the fighter. It's entirely possible that the...

Well, there is one thing the fighter can do that a commoner with ridiculously high stats couldn't.

Move full speed in plate armor!

It's kind of depressing that for about seven years, one of the only unique things the Fighter had over other martial classes besides paying feat taxes a little faster was that he could wear armor better.


fighting man, general of armies. Barbarian, crazy rage guy, twice as good at being a general then fighting man


Chess Pwn wrote:


Is there really a difference to mundanely scale a wall in full plate and tower shield as easily as of they were naked opposed to scaling a wall in full plate and a tower shield?

Yeah, the difference is about -15 ACP lol.

As for the rest of the comments... most complaints can be made of many martials. Even a ranger is just better stats with spells easily reproduced with wands. There are feats to get a full level animal companion as well.

I dunno, the idea that "a commoner can do it with every feat dedicated to one option and near infinite wealth" is poor in my opinion.

Just as well, you're really selling short a lot of abilities. You say cut/smash the air and ricochet toss aren't that great, but I'm fairly certain people love that a Barbarian can eat magic, and a Startoss, switch hitting fighter is all the rage right now.

@Jiggy. Yeah, I bring up a lot of recent options, but I think that's still a valid argument. The same way core monk compared to current/Unchained monk is night and day, so is the fighter.

51 to 100 of 340 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Tiers? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.