|
Butterfly net and a torch. Every martial should have a butterfly net.This is why tiers ignores gear, feats, and other decisions. The class itself doesn't lend you any favors for this scenario which is the whole point to tiers.
Actually they do, because the wizard won't be as effective with the butterfly net.
But - that wasn't my point anyway. You brought out swarms as something that a level 1 martial (fighter specifically) can't deal with, and I pointed out that it is very easy for martials to deal with them. Now you're just moving the goalposts.
Are you going to say that the fighter's sword doesn't count next since it's gear? What about the wizard's spellbook? Fighters can't deal with going down a sheer cliff because you can't count having rope?
Note: I'm not saying that there aren't tiers. There are. But your argument for it is still bad.
I'm mostly going on what I understand the original criteria of tiers are (or were, I guess). A class gets "normal" gear, gear that someone of that class would be expected to have. Though, note that as part of the class a wizard specifically gets granted a spellbook. Nets are arguable. Regardless of what every class "should" have, what they are likely to have is what matters. However, you expressly don't get to do the "what if" game with magic items since the whole point is to evaluate the class itself.
That a fighter couldn't deal with a swarm is evidence under that test the fighter is objectively worse than the wizard and are therefore in different tiers. What displays the fairness of the test is that as the tests change, the same criteria is still employed. Sure, that fighter could deal with the orc that was mentioned and so could the wizard.
Also, when talking about tiers, you don't bring in your "other class friend." If you can't do it yourself then you fail that challenge.
Yeah, but Pathfinder is a cooperative game, where players take up a role of some fantasy creatures and work together towards a common aim. That's how most game look like and therefore I would like to quote one of the first posts in this topic:
There is just no such thing as a rigid, accurate categorization for classes and I really would love to see the whole Tier quasi theory just fade away once and for all. It's such an over-simplistic, completely arbitrary and, frankly, meaningless attempt at trying to quantify something that just doesn't need quantifying.
I just couldn't agree more. Look, there is just so many options in Pathfinder that almost every class is capable to shine in one or more areas. Wizards have options to shine on many levels, but this is when they have a good warrior in front of them (so that they don't need to worry about protecting themselves and instead focus on what they do best - desintegrate enemies), and that warrior is able to withstand a great amount of punishment when there is cleric or any other support caster to back him up. This is how it works.
Though most "Gods" fear nothing more than an orc with a Falchion at level 1 hahah.What can a level 1 wizard do about that orc? Hmm.
charm
color spray
sleep
vanishOne of those followed up with lose the trail.
And how many will this level 1 Wizard take care of, I wonder. Orcs are CR 1/3, so there being 3 for a 4 man party is quite the norm. Just as well, what if it makes he save? None of these are guaranteed, and once you use that spell, you likely won't have another prepared, and I'm certain this enemy orc isn't going to just idly stand by after s scrawny youth with a book shot colorful streamers ar their face.
Vanish is the best option (If you know you have 1 shot then it's Falchion time) with leave no trail, but... that's not taking care of anything. That's running/spending an action (Or 2) to hide, then casting a spell to hopefully incapacitate, which is 3 spells/turns right there.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but the idea that a level one Wizard doesn't really care if there is a competent Fighter in the fray at most levels is quite the lofty ideal. And even though it is possible, well congratulations, you've spent all your resources in being a one man show, although a Wizard does far better with prior knowledge than in random encounters.
Again, if most classes can easily attain tier 3, what's the discussion? Hahah. Everyone is glad the others are there for a bevy of reasons at that point. Are we just arguing how powerful a Wizard is VS how SUPER powerful a Wizard is? The class grows on an extreme geometric scale, as opposed to almost everyone else that has to wait till 4-7 to start raising in power and then raise at a more linear rate (Exceptions being others super duper casters obviously).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(...)although wizards can be extreamly potent even at low levels, it's the martial classes that take the most kills.
Who cares about kills? It's a team game, how much you contribute matters. And lower tier characters just don't contribute as much.
A wizard could totally do the killing blows, but he doesn't because that would a) be a waste of his recources and b) means that the guy playing the fighter doesn't get to do anything. A Sleep or Color Spray does zero damage, yet has way more impact on a first level encounter than anything a martial does. A single spell can completely end an encounter. What can a martial do at first level (or any level, for that matter) that completely breaks the encounter in a single turn?Without protection of their meatshields, they are nothing in games that demand skill and tactical thinking. For example, they can't clear dungeons in SWAT-style, because after 4-5 spells they run out of usability (...)
Caster's don't do SWAT style because they don't need to. Apart from the fact that classes like witch and summoner can be stronger than martials without spending any recources, a caster doesn't need to be able to handle a dozen groups in a row. The caster can just sneak by with invisibility and kill the target. If you play a caster, tactical thinking in combination with spells means you have better options than going in guns blazing.
Yes, an all-wizard party might not be the best party combination. But one with a martial in it isn't either - replace the martial with a summoner, wildshape druid, or even tier 3 character like a magus, and the party gets stronger. And that is what the tier list is all about.
My current Summoner (and her Eidolon) can match your fighter's DPR at level 1 (and completly outdamage any fighter soon afterwards), can continue to fight all day long, brings her own meat shield, and got plently of spells and skill ranks for other stuff, too.
Orcs are CR 1/3, so there being 3 for a 4 man party is quite the norm. Just as well, what if it makes he save?
Sleep and Color Spray are AoE. Let's presume 18 INT, without any further investment, that's 25% chance to make the save. On average, the wizard just completely annihilated 2/3rd to 3/4th of the enemies on his first turn.
and that warrior is able to withstand a great amount of punishment when there is cleric or any other support caster to back him up. This is how it works.
See, this is just wrong. A "warrior" isn't able to withstand a great amount of punishment, the cleric is through the warrior. Lets say you have a party of wizard, cleric, fighter, and rogue. Now lets remove the rogue from the equation for now.
wizard, cleric, fighter can go and do X amount of stuff in a day, because that's when the cleric is out of heal spells and the fighter out of HP.swapping the fighter for another cleric and having wizard, cleric, cleric will be able to do X+ because they will run out of healing later. The cleric can absorb basically as much as a fighter at any one time, but it can increase it's own survivability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just putting in a reminder that the tier system is exclusively about classes. Not characters, gear, player/GM skills, fun, etc. All it says is that the fighter class has less options than the wizard class, not that a wizard is inherently more fun/better/well-built/etc. The wizard/fighter difference (and the greater caster/martial disparity) is its own issue, related to but not inherently caused by the tier system.
|
|
I'm mostly going on what I understand the original criteria of tiers are (or were, I guess). A class gets "normal" gear, gear that someone of that class would be expected to have. Though, note that as part of the class a wizard specifically gets granted a spellbook. Nets are arguable. Regardless of what every class "should" have, what they are likely to have is what matters. However, you expressly don't get to do the "what if" game with magic items since the whole point is to evaluate the class itself.
That a fighter couldn't deal with a swarm is evidence under that test the fighter is objectively worse than the wizard and are therefore in different tiers. What displays the fairness of the test is that as the tests change, the same criteria is still employed. Sure, that fighter could deal with the orc that was mentioned and so could the wizard.
A 5gp net is hardly in the same category as niche magical items & wands with UMD.
So yes, they CAN deal with a swarm. (I do consider a butterfly net to be something that a martial "should" have.) Probably more easily than a level 1 wizard actually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing about being a fighter lets them deal with swarms. A warrior NPC can use that net too, just as effectively. Nothing about being a fighter helps with this. Thus it doesn't factor when determining tiers.
The cleric can absorb basically as much as a fighter at any one time, but it can increase it's own survivability.
I don't think that's true. Like... even slightly.
|
|
Nothing about being a fighter lets them deal with swarms. A warrior NPC can use that net too, just as effectively. Nothing about being a fighter helps with this. Thus it doesn't factor when determining tiers.
I didn't say that they could do it better than a warrior. But they can likely do it better than a wizard due to BAB & STR.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The cleric can absorb basically as much as a fighter at any one time, but it can increase it's own survivability.I don't think that's true. Like... even slightly.
The difference between a d8 and d10 HD is an average of 1 HP/level. And the fighter doesn't have channels or heals.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between a d8 and d10 HD is an average of 1 HP/level. And the fighter doesn't have channels or heals.The cleric can absorb basically as much as a fighter at any one time, but it can increase it's own survivability.I don't think that's true. Like... even slightly.
Or summons/undead minions to take the hit for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing about being a fighter lets them deal with swarms. A warrior NPC can use that net too, just as effectively. Nothing about being a fighter helps with this. Thus it doesn't factor when determining tiers.I didn't say that they could do it better than a warrior. But they can likely do it better than a wizard due to BAB & STR.
The issue is, if an NPC class can do it, then it's nothing intrinsic to the class. And if it's not intrinsic to the class, it doesn't effect it's tier.
commoner has net + alchemical items.
fighter has same options as commoner.
wizard has same options as fighter + more options.
This is what the tier system is about. options. And a fighter has about as many options as a commoner does. Hence it's low tier. A wizard has all those options plus more. Hence it's in a higher tier than the fighter.
|
|
The issue is, if an NPC class can do it, then it's nothing intrinsic to the class. And if it's not intrinsic to the class, it doesn't effect it's tier.Nothing about being a fighter lets them deal with swarms. A warrior NPC can use that net too, just as effectively. Nothing about being a fighter helps with this. Thus it doesn't factor when determining tiers.I didn't say that they could do it better than a warrior. But they can likely do it better than a wizard due to BAB & STR.
I agree. I never said that it was intrinsic to the class or had an impact upon a martial's tier.
All I did was refute the idea that level 1 martials had no good way to deal with diminutive swarms. If you have a butterfly net they're not very hard to deal with no matter what your class is.
The difference between a d8 and d10 HD is an average of 1 HP/level. And the fighter doesn't have channels or heals.The cleric can absorb basically as much as a fighter at any one time, but it can increase it's own survivability.I don't think that's true. Like... even slightly.And the Cleric can wear the same types of armor as well as self buff for defenses.
At 10th level, the average cleric and fighter have around 10 points difference in HP, but the cleric can make back many times that amount without help through making himself harder to hit, harder to damage, or just healing back lost HP.
Well this certainly feels remarkably disingenuous. The only difference between a fighter and a cleric in defenses is HD?
So a run of the mill cleric has the ability to ignore and soak up as much as say... an Unbreakable Half-Orc with Stalwart, the deathless feats, toughness, Armor Specialization (Scaling Bonus to AC) and Armored Juggernaut (Scaling DR)? How about an Armor Master with Mobile Bulwark Style, Armor Specialization, Secures Armor (Flat 25% change to ignore a critical that stacks with the archetype's built in fortification) and maybe shield brace for damage and lulz? Or just a Core Fighter that picks any of the aforementioned things while keeping weapon training...? No? 2 HP per level and that's all. Give a cleric scale mail and it's all even.
you missed the implied intent that the post was meant for this thread about tiers and thus in the scope of the discussion, martial classes don't have any way to deal with swarms.
|
|
you missed the implied intent that the post was meant for this thread about tiers and thus in the scope of the discussion, martial classes don't have any way to deal with swarms.
Except... they do. It's called a butterfly net combined with a torch.
That's like saying that martials have no way to deal with not freezing to death in the winter because clothing, shelter, and campfires aren't class abilities.
Silliness in both cases.
Well this certainly feels remarkably disingenuous. The only difference between a fighter and a cleric in defenses is HD?
So a run of the mill cleric has the ability to ignore and soak up as much as say... an Unbreakable Half-Orc with Stalwart, the deathless feats, toughness, Armor Specialization (Scaling Bonus to AC) and Armored Juggernaut (Scaling DR)? How about an Armor Master with Mobile Bulwark Style, Armor Specialization, Secures Armor (Flat 25% change to ignore a critical that stacks with the archetype's built in fortification) and maybe shield brace for damage and lulz? Or just a Core Fighter that picks any of the aforementioned things while keeping weapon training...? No? 2 HP per level and that's all. Give a cleric scale mail and it's all even.
lets see here. fighter v cleric.
I'm not going to indepth see everything you wrote, to find the exact numbers, so if you have them feel free to share. Provide a build with a level and explaining when you're getting these things and what your tank stats are and I'll gladly make a cleric to see how it compares.but just off the top of my head
cleric can get full plate with a feat and tower shield with a feat.
cleric can cast barkskin and shield of faith to up their own AC.
Cleric can get stoneskin from domain for DR.
Clerics can get miss-chance to add in addition to AC.
And remember the original statement. "The cleric can absorb basically as much as a fighter at any one time" so your 1 specific fighter build can absorb how much more damage than a non-tank fighter? If you sub in a cleric taking that beating instead of your super-tank fighter how much of the time is this causing noticeable difference?
And this is assuming no summoning, which can soak up even more damage than the comparable cure spell is healing. Thus providing a net positive to use summoning instead of healing a fighter.
and that's just the one cleric that's the replacement. This is also freeing up the original cleric from being the fighter's supporter. So they are free to use more spells than just curing the fighter.
@Frosty
Just stop arguing with them. They have never played fighter or they did, but back in 3.5... All the difference between cleric and a fighter is 2 HP per level and items don't matter in this shit Tier-theory, so basically a sorcerer is a king, because he is a wizard, just without spellbook! Whoa!
My current Summoner (and her Eidolon) can match your fighter's DPR at level 1 (and completly outdamage any fighter soon afterwards), can continue to fight all day long, brings her own meat shield, and got plently of spells and skill ranks for other stuff, too.
Yea, with that HP pool your eidolon is going to last so long at first level, oh my... I had seen many summoners (even master and synthesist - that one was OP, I agree) and without their summons they've meant nothing, just like wizards without their spellbooks. It was far easier for me and the monsters I've controlled to kill eidolon than it was with propely build martial classes (yes, that includes fighter).
Caster's don't do SWAT style because they don't need to. Apart from the fact that classes like witch and summoner can be stronger than martials without spending any recources, a caster doesn't need to be able to handle a dozen groups in a row. The caster can just sneak by with invisibility and kill the target. If you play a caster, tactical thinking in combination with spells means you have better options than going in guns blazing.
What you mean "without spending any resources"? Oh, and yeah, because every time you sneak into dungeon you kill everyone in sight without them having a chance to escape. EVERY SINGLE TIME, SINCE LEVEL ONE...
Ninja can sneak up too, and deal 30k6+33 damage in a single hit on level 10. I agree that spells give you better tactical options in combat, but having two bulwark meatshields in a narrow corridor lets you lure entire army of foes and kill them in one, single encounter. Compare that to your glass-cannon summoner, but please, forget Master Summoner and Synthesist Summoner for a second.Eidolons are good, but comparing them to any kind of martial class is a joke and without them summoners are joke too.
you missed the implied intent that the post was meant for this thread about tiers and thus in the scope of the discussion, martial classes don't have any way to deal with swarms.Except... they do. It's called a butterfly net combined with a torch.
That's like saying that martials have no way to deal with not freezing to death in the winter because clothing, shelter, and campfires aren't class abilities.
Silliness in both cases.
Not in class, which is what the tier discussion is about. This tier discussion IS solely about class abilities. Basically the discussion is take all the options you have and remove any option open to a commoner class. The leftovers are what we're discussing.
a fighter's only advantage to not freezing to death is a better base fort save than some casters. Outside of this they don't have anything to prevent freezing. They are even worse than other classes because their low skill points makes it harder for them to have a good survival skill to aid in not freezing than other classes.
|
|
Of course, I think the point is measuring their power by class abilities, not gear that, presumably, any character could have.
And any character could have a longsword, the wizard just won't be as good with it.
I understand why UMD & wand/scroll craziness shouldn't apply in these discussions. Maybe even alchemists fire at low levels due to the cost involved being a significant resource. But are we really saying that the martials' abilities aren't even allowed to include the use of cheap mundane gear?
|
|
a fighter's only advantage to not freezing to death is a better base fort save than some casters. Outside of this they don't have anything to prevent freezing. They are even worse than other classes because their low skill points makes it harder for them to have a good survival skill to aid in not freezing than other classes.
That & improved HP are his only advantages - yes. But the whole thing is a non-issue in the first place, and thus meaningless to discuss.
you missed the implied intent that the post was meant for this thread about tiers and thus in the scope of the discussion, martial classes don't have any way to deal with swarms.
Okay. Cool... and? You responded to Omernon that another Cleric is better than a Fighter due to being as tanky, and I replied to that statement. If you want a survivable front liner, it's mighty difficult to do better than a Fighter. Or rather, the Fighter is way up there.
Yes. Most martials has no built in class feature to deal with a swarm. Well, technically a Fighter can get item mastery via class features, and a gunslinger has access to dragonfire/ rounds/scatter weapons he can make (Or something like that), and Rogue can make alchemical bombs, and a Monk can get several AoEs via style feats... but that's besides the point.
Is a Cleric ultimately more powerful than a Fighter? Yes. Will a cleric appreciate a Fighter's presence in party? Yes. Why? Because Cleavus Christ the Dwarven Armor Master or Jerry the Unbreakably Scary Half-Orc are good at not dying, but ensuring enemies do, while also, via class features, can aid the party out of combat as well.
That & improved HP are his only advantages - yes. But the whole thing is a non-issue in the first place, and thus meaningless to discuss.
a fighter's only advantage to not freezing to death is a better base fort save than some casters. Outside of this they don't have anything to prevent freezing. They are even worse than other classes because their low skill points makes it harder for them to have a good survival skill to aid in not freezing than other classes.
So you're on an arctic adventure. How long until the fighter freezes to death? Even with his mundane gear he'll eventually freeze to death. Enough fort rolls and a nat 1 auto-failing ensures this. A caster doing this having as much time to prepare as getting the mundane gear the fighter got will last a lot longer or never die.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yea, with that HP pool your eidolon is going to last so long at first level, oh my...
Eidolon has the same HP as a fighter though, so I'm not sure how you can be so sure the eidolon is going to drop in a couple combats yet the fighter is going to last all day?
I had seen many summoners (even master and synthesist - that one was OP, I agree) and without their summons they've meant nothing, just like wizards without their spellbooks
A level 1 summoner without their eidolon is still a d8 3/4 BAB class with some pretty solid first level spells and 3+Cha SM1 per day. That seems pretty far from 'nothing'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you missed the implied intent that the post was meant for this thread about tiers and thus in the scope of the discussion, martial classes don't have any way to deal with swarms.Okay. Cool... and? You responded to Omernon that another Cleric is better than a Fighter due to being as tanky, and I replied to that statement. If you want a survivable front liner, it's mighty difficult to do better than a Fighter. Or rather, the Fighter is way up there.
Yes. Most martials has no built in class feature to deal with a swarm. Well, technically a Fighter can get item mastery via class features, and a gunslinger has access to dragonfire/ rounds/scatter weapons he can make (Or something like that), and Rogue can make alchemical bombs, and a Monk can get several AoEs via style feats... but that's besides the point.
Is a Cleric ultimately more powerful than a Fighter? Yes. Will a cleric appreciate a Fighter's presence in party? Yes. Why? Because Cleavus Christ the Dwarven Armor Master or Jerry the Unbreakably Scary Half-Orc are good at not dying, but ensuring enemies do, while also, via class features, can aid the party out of combat as well.
first, that post was to charon about swarms. Not your fighter post.
Fighters don't offer much out of combat via class features. And it seems like you're using lots of your feats and AWT and AAT to be a tank.
Personally, unless the martial is dealing large amounts of damage I'd prefer a caster. Because basically all classes are good at not dying and killing enemies. A fighter brings HP, AC, and Damage. Unless those number are significant enough to make a meaningful difference in a standard adventure day then it's not statistically different from having a caster in that spot in all the things the fighter is doing. BUT casters will always provide things that the fighter can't, and that is always a meaningful difference in a standard adventure day.
So you're on an arctic adventure. How long until the fighter freezes to death? Even with his mundane gear he'll eventually freeze to death. Enough fort rolls and a nat 1 auto-failing ensures this. A caster doing this having as much time to prepare as getting the mundane gear the fighter got will last a lot longer or never die.That & improved HP are his only advantages - yes. But the whole thing is a non-issue in the first place, and thus meaningless to discuss.
a fighter's only advantage to not freezing to death is a better base fort save than some casters. Outside of this they don't have anything to prevent freezing. They are even worse than other classes because their low skill points makes it harder for them to have a good survival skill to aid in not freezing than other classes.
Why are either of them alone? Can a fire not be made? Unless there is a constant blizzard and/or literally 0 places to get away from the wind, it's not that hard to survive this ordeal, unless you stand around naked the whole time.
If there discussions prove anything it's that a kineticist truly is tier 1 lol?
|
|
So you're on an arctic adventure. How long until the fighter freezes to death? Even with his mundane gear he'll eventually freeze to death. Enough fort rolls and a nat 1 auto-failing ensures this. A caster doing this having as much time to prepare as getting the mundane gear the fighter got will last a lot longer or never die.That & improved HP are his only advantages - yes. But the whole thing is a non-issue in the first place, and thus meaningless to discuss.
a fighter's only advantage to not freezing to death is a better base fort save than some casters. Outside of this they don't have anything to prevent freezing. They are even worse than other classes because their low skill points makes it harder for them to have a good survival skill to aid in not freezing than other classes.
Except - the fighter will also never die. As soon as he takes nonlethal damage he can just start a fire to warm up, recover the damage, and move on. It's a nonissue.
It might be a time issue, but no threat of death.
So you're on an arctic adventure. How long until the fighter freezes to death? Even with his mundane gear he'll eventually freeze to death. Enough fort rolls and a nat 1 auto-failing ensures this. A caster doing this having as much time to prepare as getting the mundane gear the fighter got will last a lot longer or never die.That & improved HP are his only advantages - yes. But the whole thing is a non-issue in the first place, and thus meaningless to discuss.
a fighter's only advantage to not freezing to death is a better base fort save than some casters. Outside of this they don't have anything to prevent freezing. They are even worse than other classes because their low skill points makes it harder for them to have a good survival skill to aid in not freezing than other classes.Except - the fighter will also never die. As soon as he takes nonlethal damage he can just start a fire to warm up, recover the damage, and move on. It's a nonissue.
It might be a time issue, but no threat of death.
How long does his food and fire supply last? A fighter lives that long.
you missed the implied intent that the post was meant for this thread about tiers and thus in the scope of the discussion, martial classes don't have any way to deal with swarms.Okay. Cool... and? You responded to Omernon that another Cleric is better than a Fighter due to being as tanky, and I replied to that statement. If you want a survivable front liner, it's mighty difficult to do better than a Fighter. Or rather, the Fighter is way up there.
Yes. Most martials has no built in class feature to deal with a swarm. Well, technically a Fighter can get item mastery via class features, and a gunslinger has access to dragonfire/ rounds/scatter weapons he can make (Or something like that), and Rogue can make alchemical bombs, and a Monk can get several AoEs via style feats... but that's besides the point.
Is a Cleric ultimately more powerful than a Fighter? Yes. Will a cleric appreciate a Fighter's presence in party? Yes. Why? Because Cleavus Christ the Dwarven Armor Master or Jerry the Unbreakably Scary Half-Orc are good at not dying, but ensuring enemies do, while also, via class features, can aid the party out of combat as well.
first, that post was to charon about swarms. Not your fighter post.
Fighters don't offer much out of combat via class features. And it seems like you're using lots of your feats and AWT and AAT to be a tank.
Personally, unless the martial is dealing large amounts of damage I'd prefer a caster. Because basically all classes are good at not dying and killing enemies. A fighter brings HP, AC, and Damage. Unless those number are significant enough to make a meaningful difference in a standard adventure day then it's not statistically different from having a caster in that spot in all the things the fighter is doing. BUT casters will always provide things that the fighter can't, and that is always a meaningful difference in a standard adventure day.
Master Armorer and the Versatile trainings offer good versatility and utility. Enough to warrant tier 3 anyways. Which, as I said... means the class is fine.
So casters are better. Yeah. Okay. I know that. I've said this several times already. Hahah. And that's not really a lot given up to be honest. A level 7 Fighter with MBS dedicating everything to allow shield brace with a tower shield still has space for power attack and Weapon Focus/Specialization. The Unbreakable has plenty of room outside the options I mentioned. Plenty of space for the typical offensive options for all the builds mentioned. Hell a core Fighter only need take Armor Specialization and he's far and above right there.
And what do you consider significant? Best AC possible? Best accuracy and damage? Cause... the Fighter can do this.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tiers and C/MD are not entirely (arguably, not even primarily) about combat. A common refrain from the True ROLE Players is that you don't need to grub for the maximum possible optimized damage, AC, etc, and I agree. Very well: An unbuffed Cleric can't pull the same damage or AC as a Fighter, but they can deal *enough* damage with *enough* resilience, and get a gigantic pile of Things The Fighter Cannot Do thrown on top.
The Tier list goes back to the Same Game Test as a measure of a class' abilities. Paradozen posted another example on page 1 of this thread. The more challenges the class can beat using only the features of that class, the more powerful the class is. Of course all other variables are disregarded because if your objective is to compare apples, you need to be comparing apples to apples and not apples-in-a-pie to apples-in-a-salad.
The Fighter gets Bonus Combat Feats, and the Cleric gets the Cleric Spell List. The vast gulf in power between the two classes is self-evident. Hence their tiers.
I believe a paladin and a barb can still be built to be better than a fighter.
Though I feel a good frontliner actually would be some to a lot of multi-classing.
Paladin that takes a Vow of Vengeance is a Lay on Hands fiend. And nothing is better than her with smite up (Duh). And a barb has... a lot of antics. But at that point it's a matter of what you want out of he character (And a debate of AC vs DR vs LoH and Rage vs Smite vs [Advanced] Weapon Training). With he Advent of the Weapon and Armor Master's Handbook, there is a lot of things a fighter can pull off the other two can't, so I think it's fair to say he stacks up with them evenly.
This tier discussion IS solely about class abilities. Basically the discussion is take all the options you have and remove any option open to a commoner class. The leftovers are what we're discussing.
I'm lost, because some people talk about "your normal adventuring day", others bring up arctic adventures and now I'm waiting for someone to came up with inside a volcano adventure.
Yes, without their shiny items and in the middle of ice tundra or inside fiery caldera fighters are useless and pretty much dead. Everyone happy now?
Now, enough of this nonsense. From a combat perspective only one thing is imporant - how fast can you kill the enemy and this is what strictly melee classes are designed for. Outside of this area you can have your tier category, because wizards can go invisible, can fly, teleport or visit other planes and pretty much do godlike stuff, but at the end of the day you will probably have at least one fight in which you will have to bring your foes health pool from maximum to zero.
I've seen many martial classes going crazy and not just fighters. Samurai, ninja, paladin, barbarian... all of them are capable of going through hordes of enemies like a warm knife's blade through butter and all of this can be done without 3PP, on latest errata and at the end of a day this is all that matters. Combat is never the same, but depending on scenario, martial classes can outshine casters and so it can be the other way.
Outside of combat casters might have more to say, although some martial classes are great skill-monkeys, which can be very useful, especially in urban environment. Everything I've said so far was meant to change people minds about martial classes, because I've seen many players that went mad (to the point of being insulting) when they've seen someone coming to the table with a fighter on the character sheet. They had very hard time changing their mind about martial classes, even though said fighter proved many times his worth.
Eidolon has the same HP as a fighter though, so I'm not sure how you can be so sure the eidolon is going to drop in a couple combats yet the fighter is going to last all day?
Except that Eidolon doesn't have access to the same feats that fighter does and can be dispelled with one spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless a fighter is killing things significantly faster/better than a caster substitute then the fighter isn't worth having over a caster because of all the non-combat things.
fighter who fights better than cleric, I don't die and I kill most things in 2 rounds or less.
cleric/druid/summoner/etc..., I don't die either and I kill most things in 2 rounds or less too.
So I have fighting presence in both, but only one brings spells, the other doesn't. which should I pick?
Enemy is Golem
fighter has to hack at it's high AC and deal with it's DR.
Caster creates a pit and the golem is stuck and no longer a threat.
Goal is to get princess out of the castle.
Fighter could fight through the mobs of enemies like a hot knife and get to the princess.
Caster can invisibly fly to the princess and teleport/turn her invisible too and both fly away together.
Feel free to crucify me but Fighter's main draw to me is enough feats to create a one-or-two trick CMB pony specialized beyond what other Classes can hope to build. Vanilla combat-heavy campaign, with lackluster foes that do not take advantage of invisibility, teleport, DR, incorporeal, save-or-suck, flight, etc -yeah, Fighter is gonna be toe-to-toe with the Barbarian for raw numbers hitting the board. After all, he can infinite-cast "Sword" compared to the Cleric's precious prepared spell slots.
They have a use in the party (Vanguard DPS, out of combat, that Player may be twiddling his thumbs while the rest of the party are using skills), but Cleric is so versatile that I would take the Spell Level 1-9 Armored Medium-BAB Caster if we were picking teams over a plain Fighter. Just kidding: Oracle all the way!
C/MD is such a foolish debate -play what you love and play it to the best of your ability, not what someone dictates is META -let me toddle along with my sub-par concept that makes me smile! Unless Paizo is hosting PvP Olympics, it's a very moot point. The only thing worse than nerds fanboying together are nerds fanboying over whose Skub is better. Looking at it from the outside I'd want to beat myself up for being involved in the circlejerk.
Yeah, being fair I'd play a Fighter if the team needed one... I'd simply find a way to Archetype Stack out every class feature from it first.
From a combat perspective only one thing is imporant - how fast can you kill the enemy and this is what strictly melee classes are designed for.
Ignoring the number of melee caster classes, does anyone else find this general attitude about combat troublesome? I tend to think it is far superior to knock out enemies generally, simply because you are less likely to be a felon afterwards. Murder is one solution, but Colorspray+Rope, or Sleep+Rope, or Daze+Grapple, or saps, or merciful weapons, or any number of other things can solve combats and still have the enemy alive afterwards. Maybe I just assume too many NPC enemies have families though.
@Paradozen: I do have that view of Pixel Families when playing games (gives me an investment to both win and preserve my units).
Humanizing NPCs livens up the campaign from being a simple analog to video game RPGs, and when beaten enemies are begging for their lives/surrender/parley it helps sort out the Adventurers from the Murder-Hobos.
Placing Murder vs. Killing implications can either enrich or bog down your campaign, because without a hard corruption/ethics system that actually has effects (insanity, depravity) it's not going to hinder your resident psychopath. With most casuals, it's going to be an inconvenience that detracts from the appeal of combat. If they think they are the Good Guys they probably don't want to deal with the grayscale of morality regarding their actions.
The cheesiest moment I had of this was after subduing a Tyrannosaur in an arena-fight (they were captives, and everyone loves a Gladiator segue), the PCs were treated to the sight of a bawling adolescent girl running out into the bloody sands to prevent the Coup-de-Grace by directly appealing to them over the body of her dying T-Rex. The crowds cheered her and booed them. They weren't used to that, I could tell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've said this before and will continue to say it many times, the game will be better off balance wise if you scrap the 9th level casters and the classes without spells. You need to adjust a lot of things, but limiting everything to tier 3s and tier 4s makes it much harder to break games while also making it much harder to get into a situation where No-Spells McGee is sitting on his ass doing nothing.
As a GM that wants everyone playing and contributing in every notable encounter classes without spells (or spell-like abilities) are my least favorite thing because they severely limit the amount of things I can throw at my party.