|
Wei Je - while I enjoy your posts... sometimes it's a Monday and I just don't follow what you are trying to say...
Please expand/explain the following:
...I suspect that the reasoning behind the 'harsher' feel is because things that made sense and/or were flavorful one-off type items have now been potentially smote with the 'badwrongfun' hammer, when they really *haven't* been....
You lost me. I don't know what you were saying here... sorry!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...will drive away players
So will doing things that disappoint/aggravate the Paizo/OPF leadership causing them to reconsider deciding difficult cases in favor of the players. Ye old observation of "this is why we can't have nice things." Maybe one of the reasons the final disposition of the Lore Warden issue isn't yet resolved is because of things like the abusive speedruns that happened when the aasimar/tiefling issue was resolved. You call it how you see and I will call it how I see it. You see demonizing, I see loophole exploitation.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And, on the question of things like grandfathering, rebuilds, etc. A number of people have demonstrated that when the Team tries to soften the blow, when they try to accommodate players, they just take advantage of the Teams generosity. Many may not remember the great Aasimar/Tiefling issue of a few years back, but when the Team said "hey, no more of these characters after a certain date unless they were played at a certain level before, and we do not expect people to now just run out and start making new characters in a rush to qualify for grandfathering" that's exactly what people did. They created a bunch of Aasimar or Tiefling characters, and ran them through speed runs of Master of the Fallen Fortress, doing exactly what the Team expressly indicated they didn't want them to do.
Except that is NOT what happened. I know that is now the accepted wisdom but that wisdom is flat out wrong.
What happened was that Paizo told us in advance that 1st level characters WOULD be grandfathered and that it was perfectly acceptable to create a "reasonable" number. They also REFUSED to answer the question several of us asked as to what "reasonable" was. Lots of speed runs then ensued (which got tptb SERIOUSLY irked, it seemed to be the speedruns that were the main issue) and then people got all pissy because their notion of "reasonable" (the one they'd refused to share) wasn't the same as others.
The whole Aasimar thing was a mistake that could easily have been avoided.
I'm firmly in the camp that believes rebuilds should be very liberal. The cheaters and abusers will cheat and abuse but that is a better cost than having honest players lose.
20 speed runs of MoFF each lasting under 30 minutes was very clearly not reasonable. They did not want to put a limit on it, because what if someone already had 10 aasimar characters that they had been playing for a year.
In fact, several of the people involved came out and explicitly stated on the boards that since they disapproved of the removal, they were going to create enough that they would be able to never play any other character race ever again.
|
I suspect that the reasoning behind the 'harsher' feel is because things that made sense and/or were flavorful one-off type items have now been potentially smote with the 'badwrongfun' hammer, when they really *haven't* been all that abusive?
I believe the reason things "feel" harsher, is because of how long its been since the original was published and the general accepted feeling that fighters are a weak class anyways.
Not really seeking to fight about martials vs. casters or to argue about whether fighters are a good enough class on their own or not.
The fact of the matter, if you have an archetype that makes the class strictly better, then that breaks the rule of archetype design. And Lorewarden made the fighter strictly better on several fronts.
This change simply brings the archetype back in line with the power of a fighter.
|
|
And, on the question of things like grandfathering, rebuilds, etc. A number of people have demonstrated that when the Team tries to soften the blow, when they try to accommodate players, they just take advantage of the Teams generosity. Many may not remember the great Aasimar/Tiefling issue of a few years back, but when the Team said "hey, no more of these characters after a certain date unless they were played at a certain level before, and we do not expect people to now just run out and start making new characters in a rush to qualify for grandfathering" that's exactly what people did. They created a bunch of Aasimar or Tiefling characters, and ran them through speed runs of Master of the Fallen Fortress, doing exactly what the Team expressly indicated they didn't want them to do.
Except that is NOT what happened. I know that is now the accepted wisdom but that wisdom is flat out wrong.
What happened was that Paizo told us in advance that 1st level characters WOULD be grandfathered and that it was perfectly acceptable to create a "reasonable" number. They also REFUSED to answer the question several of us asked as to what "reasonable" was. Lots of speed runs then ensued (which got tptb SERIOUSLY irked, it seemed to be the speedruns that were the main issue) and then people got all pissy because their notion of "reasonable" (the one they'd refused to share) wasn't the same as others.
The whole Aasimar thing was a mistake that could easily have been avoided.
I'm firmly in the camp that believes rebuilds should be very liberal. The cheaters and abusers will cheat and abuse but that is a better cost than having honest players lose.
20 speed runs of MoFF each lasting under 30 minutes was very clearly not reasonable. They did not want to put a limit on it, because what if someone already had 10 aasimar characters that they had been playing for a year.
In fact, several of the people involved came out and explicitly stated on...
And Mike and John trusted the player base to be reasonable. That trust was unfortunately broken.
|
|
So maybe the 'better' fix is to just ban CORE fighter from the campaign, so that everyone has power-parity, and make it a boon-only class?But.. but I need 1-2 levels for feats! Let's compromise at 3+.
Dipping for feats is o/p, so the argument is invalid. Sorry, if we're going to do this, we have to do it for everyone going forward, and no sliding ruler, right?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I missed the Great Speedrun window, and every time I sit down at a table with someone I don't know who pulls out an aasimar, my immediate gut reaction is Are you one of THOSE people, or were you responsible? along with a certain tier of jealousy.
"I am much saddened to hear it, fine feathered friend. Bolt Vanderhuge strives to bring much joy to his battle brothers!"
|
|
So maybe the 'better' fix is to just ban CORE fighter from the campaign, so that everyone has power-parity, and make it a boon-only class?
Not sure I should dignify that with a response. This is obviously a sarcastic comment to try and needle and egg folks on.
The designers of the game fully feel that the caster/melee disparity is how they want the game to play.
Besides, I've seen many fighters completely destroy encounters as much as any other class out there.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't that be considered a relatively rare even unique boss and therefore an outlier to the typical effectiveness of a fighter build? I hear about fighters being comparatively weak, but IMO anecdotal experience, they are just as effective (and often moreso) than other melee builds. Now, there might be a disparity in the long-term effectiveness of melee vs arcane or spellcasters in general, but I've never seen a measurable disparity between fighters and other melee. Or maybe I'm missing the point of your commentary.
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may also be an aspect of PFS scenarios. This is highly anecdotal and only reflects my experience with a percentage of scenarios, of course, but I've only rarely seen encounters that took pains to create tactical situations disadvantageous to traditional fighters.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It may also be an aspect of PFS scenarios. This is highly anecdotal and only reflects my experience with a percentage of scenarios, of course, but I've only rarely seen encounters that took pains to create tactical situations disadvantageous to traditional fighters.
Rust Monsters need more love and affection.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It may also be an aspect of PFS scenarios. This is highly anecdotal and only reflects my experience with a percentage of scenarios, of course, but I've only rarely seen encounters that took pains to create tactical situations disadvantageous to traditional fighters.Rust Monsters need more love and affection.
*runs at one*
Cuddles it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It may also be an aspect of PFS scenarios. This is highly anecdotal and only reflects my experience with a percentage of scenarios, of course, but I've only rarely seen encounters that took pains to create tactical situations disadvantageous to traditional fighters.Rust Monsters need more love and affection.*runs at one*
Cuddles it.
See!?
*hops into cuddle pile*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Typically speaking, I've seen no 'good' advantages to having a pure fighter in a party in PFS
Only when they've multi-classed into something else to provide some 'rounding out' do they really seem to shine.
That's more a fault of someone applying the arithmetic of Feat=cost of several spells worth of caster power at the design level, perhaps informed by previous experiences with other game systems and dreading Featsplosions.
Being 'good at combat' is like 'winning at yelling' in a roleplay game. Sure, there's a niche for it, but you're not going to be yelling the whole time.
...if only they had more skill points, like most of the other martials...
Back on topic, though:
Is any perceived harshness related perhaps to the fact that when a rule is changed there's a lot of bureaucratic inertia and rulings to slog through now, to ensure that a given change is viable ?
|
|
The perceived ineffectualness of the fighter outside of combat is not due to it actually being ineffectual. Rather it has to do with the player min/maxing the fighter toward combat extremes. Yes, they are already weak on non-combat things. But with a very small sacrifice (take a 16 instead of an 18 Strength--still makes it a very viable Fighter) you can have an extra skill point or an above average Charisma, which allows you to at least viably aid during social situations or perhaps know a little bit about something.
Will they be the expert at anything outside of combat? No. That's not their niche. But you can make it possible for them to do something outside of combat by simply not overly optimizing for only combat. They are already optimized in that way by the way the class is designed. You don't need to get every last ounce out of combat effectiveness.
You just have to accept, however, that a fighter is not going to be the best Face or the best Skill Monkey, or particularly well rounded. They might have one or two things outside of combat that they can be passable at (or at least be able to assist with.)
But taking an archetype that essentially makes them able to be an expert at non-combat things (thus surplanting the niche of other classes) and making them better in combat as well, then you have a problem.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can recall encountering the "only two skill points" issue a different way. Back in season 1, my sister ran a fighter (high dex, specializing in using a bow)... and took a trait to give her Disable Device as a class skill. At a Special her Fighter was one of only two PCs (at 6+ tables) with Disable Device (yeah, 30 plus PCs and only two had Disable Device trained), so she had to run over to help out the Tier 7-8 table (from the Tier 1-2) when they needed a lock picked. Her FIGHTER did this.
Only two skill points - but she picked good skills ...
|
|
I can recall encountering the "only two skill points" issue a different way. Back in season 1, my sister ran a fighter (high dex, specializing in using a bow)... and took a trait to give her Disable Device as a class skill. At a Special her Fighter was one of only two PCs (at 6+ tables) with Disable Device (yeah, 30 plus PCs and only two had Disable Device trained), so she had to run over to help out the Tier 7-8 table (from the Tier 1-2) when they needed a lock picked. Her FIGHTER did this.
Only two skill points - but she picked good skills ...
I love anecdotes like these.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But taking an archetype that essentially makes them able to be an expert at non-combat things (thus surplanting the niche of other classes) and making them better in combat as well, then you have a problem.
The Lore Warden gets 4 skill points per level, and 2 of them have restricted use. A quick glance at other martial classes for comparison shows us that only the Paladin and Fighter get 2 skills points per level. All other martial classes (ie full BAB progression classes) get 4, except the Ranger and Slayer who get 6. A Lore Warden isn't supplanting the niche of any skill monkey. It's no more "expert" at non-combat things than a Brawler or a Barbarian is.
Plus, this view that the LW is overpowered and unbalanced is flawed.
I just played this weekend at a table with two lore wardens. First time that's happened. One was mine, a multiclassed tengu. The other was a single classed human lore warden. Did we break the scenario with our skill points and our manoeuvres? Heck no. The single classed LW passed a couple of knowledge checks. (I didn't). Neither of us attempted a combat manoeuvre throughout (it was a scenario with plenty of combat in it too, and most of the opponents were humanoid). The most over-the-top element of either character was my 2d6 sneak attack on 3 natural attacks which, obviously, had nothing to do with being a lore warden. The single classed LW went down into deep negatives in the final battle, maybe because he was easier to hit on account of being in light armour. The LW doesn't get its abilities at no cost, and losing armour proficiencies and armour training is fairly significant.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
So maybe the 'better' fix is to just ban CORE fighter from the campaign, so that everyone has power-parity, and make it a boon-only class?Not sure I should dignify that with a response. This is obviously a sarcastic comment to try and needle and egg folks on.
The designers of the game fully feel that the caster/melee disparity is how they want the game to play.
Besides, I've seen many fighters completely destroy encounters as much as any other class out there.
It's not really caster martial disparity because you can gut the caster elements of other classes and still have it end up being a better Lore Warden than the Lore Warden
|
|
It's not really caster martial disparity because you can gut the caster elements of other classes and still have it end up being a better Lore Warden than the Lore Warden
So maybe the 'better' fix is to just ban CORE fighter from the campaign, so that everyone has power-parity, and make it a boon-only class?Not sure I should dignify that with a response. This is obviously a sarcastic comment to try and needle and egg folks on.
The designers of the game fully feel that the caster/melee disparity is how they want the game to play.
Besides, I've seen many fighters completely destroy encounters as much as any other class out there.
That isn't the point.
The point is, archetypes are not supposed to be better than the parent class. Lorewarden is unarguably better than a straight fighter. You can make that an indictment of Fighter if you want.
It doesn't change the central point. Archetypes are, at best, supposed to be equal to the parent class. Never strictly better.
Any argument that says the Lorewarden shouldn't have been changed because the Fighter is weak and needs help the Lorewarden gives, is essentially agreeing that this archetype breaks the cardinal rule of archetypes, and as such, is overpowered for a fighter archetype.
|
|
So, from a completely different perspective, would it be 'harsher' if tomorrow they dropped a new 'Unchained Fighter' class that had 4-6 skill points and the same sort of feat advancement? And made it the *mandatory* class?
Some of us have been reeling from what has been done to Lore Warden, or have horrid memories of the Jingasa of the Not-So-Fortunate Soldier On A Budget or a dozen other 'nerfs' that have happened over time.
But what about things that have improved, either for characters or even for players, such as RSP (when implemented), reroll items, or Faction pins?
Sure, they do help push sales, but are they not also QoL improvements over degradations?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't change the central point. Archetypes are, at best, supposed to be equal to the parent class. Never strictly better.
Any argument that says the Lorewarden shouldn't have been changed because the Fighter is weak and needs help the Lorewarden gives, is essentially agreeing that this archetype breaks the cardinal rule of archetypes, and as such, is overpowered for a fighter archetype.
There is no such cardinal rule.
Every (chained) monk archetype is better than the monk. Several alchemist archetypes are strictly better than vanilla alchemist because poison use / immunity is almost always worth trading away. Several Barbarian archetypes are better than vanilla Barbarian - urban barbarians and invulnerable ragers are popular for a reason.
|
|
It doesn't change the central point. Archetypes are, at best, supposed to be equal to the parent class. Never strictly better.
Any argument that says the Lorewarden shouldn't have been changed because the Fighter is weak and needs help the Lorewarden gives, is essentially agreeing that this archetype breaks the cardinal rule of archetypes, and as such, is overpowered for a fighter archetype.
There is no such cardinal rule.
Every (chained) monk archetype is better than the monk. Several alchemist archetypes are strictly better than vanilla alchemist because poison use / immunity is almost always worth trading away. Several Barbarian archetypes are better than vanilla Barbarian - urban barbarians and invulnerable ragers are popular for a reason.
Go argue that with one of the guys who created Archetypes and said as much several times on the message boards.
And to determine if an archetype is better than the class its been created from, you don't look at the whole and determine if it just works better. You determine if each ability you give up is equal to or greater than the new ability you get.
I'm not going to argue with you on an archetype by archetype basis. I know I'm right on this one.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Go argue that with one of the guys who created Archetypes and said as much several times on the message boards.
Happily. The design philosophy of one designer does not constitute a "cardinal rule." Merely the design philosophy of one designer.
And to determine if an archetype is better than the class its been created from, you don't look at the whole and determine if it just works better. You determine if each ability you give up is equal to or greater than the new ability you get.
There's no logic to your argument. By your reasoning, if Ability A1 > Ability B1 but Ability A2 < Ability B2 we are unable to say whether Archetype A is better or worse than Parent Class B. The only way to make a reasonable assessment is to compare the functioning of the whole.
I'm not going to argue with you on an archetype by archetype basis. I know I'm right on this one.
Because you just know you're right? I reckon you've lost a bunch of readers there mate...
|
|
Go argue that with one of the guys who created Archetypes and said as much several times on the message boards.Happily. The design philosophy of one designer does not constitute a "cardinal rule." Merely the design philosophy of one designer.
And to determine if an archetype is better than the class its been created from, you don't look at the whole and determine if it just works better. You determine if each ability you give up is equal to or greater than the new ability you get.There's no logic to your argument. By your reasoning, if Ability A1 > Ability B1 but Ability A2 < Ability B2 we are unable to say whether Archetype A is better or worse than Parent Class B. The only way to make a reasonable assessment is to compare the functioning of the whole.
I'm not going to argue with you on an archetype by archetype basis. I know I'm right on this one.Because you just know you're right? I reckon you've lost a bunch of readers there mate...
that's fine. Their success at following their own rule does not dictate that the rule is not in existence.
|
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder makes big rock
Players pile big rocks.
Players pile little rocks.
Pathfinder removes big rock
Players now need to adjust the entire pile
Pathfinder makes little rocks
Normal players pile little rocks on top of big rocks, as intended
Some players gather up a bunch of little rocks and start forming roman arches. Also partially intended.
Pathfinder changes little rock. They expect the normal players can make little changes and allow those.
People making roman arches out of little rocks are out of luck
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not convinced that the Lore Warden is "strictly better" than the fighter. Just change that +2/+4/+6/+8 to CMB and CMD to +1/+2/+3/+4, and perhaps then to 1/2/3/4 specific maneuvers (similar to what's done with ranger favored enemies). At that point, it's not obvious at all that the PFS Field Guide Lore Warden is better than the fighter. The loss of medium and heavy armor, and shields, is a significant armor class hit. Lore Wardens become much more difficult to make into front-line tanks than vanilla fighters. Even without fixing the overpowered CMB/CMD bonuses, it's not obvious that the Lore Warden is strictly better.
The new Adventurer's Guide Lore Warden is pretty clearly worse than the vanilla fighter. You give up too much for too little return.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
It's not really caster martial disparity because you can gut the caster elements of other classes and still have it end up being a better Lore Warden than the Lore Warden
So maybe the 'better' fix is to just ban CORE fighter from the campaign, so that everyone has power-parity, and make it a boon-only class?Not sure I should dignify that with a response. This is obviously a sarcastic comment to try and needle and egg folks on.
The designers of the game fully feel that the caster/melee disparity is how they want the game to play.
Besides, I've seen many fighters completely destroy encounters as much as any other class out there.
That isn't the point.
The point is, archetypes are not supposed to be better than the parent class. Lorewarden is unarguably better than a straight fighter. You can make that an indictment of Fighter if you want.
It doesn't change the central point. Archetypes are, at best, supposed to be equal to the parent class. Never strictly better.
Any argument that says the Lorewarden shouldn't have been changed because the Fighter is weak and needs help the Lorewarden gives, is essentially agreeing that this archetype breaks the cardinal rule of archetypes, and as such, is overpowered for a fighter archetype.
You missed the point I was making. The Lore Warden no matter how you sliced it was a poorly built archetype on a class chassis that is kind of irredeemable.
The loss of medium and heavy armor, and shields, is a significant armor class hit.
You don't actually loose out on shields if you aren't proficient with them. Medium is a pain in the butt but doable and is easier to do with the fighter feats than any other class. Its such an annoying thing to realize you could do that too because its apparently really common.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, from a completely different perspective, would it be 'harsher' if tomorrow they dropped a new 'Unchained Fighter' class that had 4-6 skill points and the same sort of feat advancement? And made it the *mandatory* class?
The most straightforward way to make the fighter class better would be to:
- Give it 4 skill points per level.
- Broaden its class skills to be more like the cavalier (i.e. include Diplomacy, Bluff and Sense Motive).
These changes are simple enough (change a number, add a few words) that it might even be possible to squeeze them into the CRB without messing up page numbering. Why go Unchained when you can fix the core so easily?
It was done for the monk, many ages ago. By now Paizo is well aware that the number of skill points per level for some core classes (cleric, fighter, paladin, sorcerer) is a problem. Changing a 2 to a 4 would solve so many problems.
If you look at the skill points per level in Starfinder, you can see this is where Paizo is headed already.
If you run into a new player who wants something simple to start with, what would you rather have?
- A fighter with 4 skill points per level
- A slayer, where you sort of need to plan in advance which combat style to pursue
- Leveraging advanced weapon/armor training to get skills via the backdoor
Isn't giving a few more skill points way simpler?
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
Honestly even as reformulated, I don't think the Lore Warden would be THAT terrible if they didn't tax them an extra feat for no reason.
That was uncalled for.
You want to bring the combat maneuver thing in line with the Brawler? Fine. Brawler already gets the incredible advantage of Martial flexibility, but fine.
Taxing another feat AND doing that was too much.
And as others have suggested the Slayer or Brawler DOES pretty well fill the role the Lore Warden once did which is WHY it feels so incredibly silly to even mess with it at all but that's really neither here nor there.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And Mike and John trusted the player base to be reasonable. That trust was unfortunately broken.Shifting blame to the player base is pretty easy and one-sided though
In the end it is also dismissive of the real power and responsibility that sits heavily on the shoulders of the Leadership team.
Sooooooooooo Leadership is to blame for being trusting?