Ziegander's page

"Where'd you scrape together all that coin, Thanagar? That was a big save back there. If you require any extra gear during our journey, I'll try to keep you well-equipped."

Perception: 1d20 + 0 ⇒ (20) + 0 = 20

Oh, really? My mistake. I'm still very new to Golarion. Well, everyone disregard my previous post, then.

Cal listened to veiled woman and smiled after he'd understood what she said. "I'm no lion," he answered her. "I didn't catch your name before. You're with us, right?"

Cal didn't understand Taldane, so he simply listened, nodded nervously and replied, "Yeah..."

Hadn't noticed that I wasn't the only character without a backstory. Cool. I think you're doing a great job roleplaying Joesef and I am beyond intrigued by this Rat Man plot thread you've just dangled.

Go to Heldren, they said, Celiaea thought to herself, Keep an eye on the locals, note any interesting findings in your journal, and report back to us after a month's visit. Did they know this was going to happen? How?

The lithe elf warrior had only just arrived the night before, sent by the Grand Lodge to observe. Until now she was annoyed and skeptical of her assignment, reconsidering her choice to join the organization. With the rumors pouring in of unseasonable weather and strange, cold creatures in the woods, she was beginning to wonder about the motives of the masked Decemvirate council. She was certain it could not be mere coincidence.

Knowledge (Arcana): 1d20 + 8 ⇒ (1) + 8 = 9
Celiaea tries to remember if she's learned anything about magic that can bring about this sort of "cold snap."

She had been frequenting the local temple, asking questions about faith and the gods. It was a raw subject for her, having fallen out of favor with her parents for disagreeing with their religion, though she couldn't help herself nontheless. Her interest was genuine. That it helped her gain insight into the community was a handy side effect. And that was where she found herself now.

"Priestess, how are you?" Celiaea tried to sound cordial but her words rang guarded nonetheless, "Have there been any new refugees? And the bodyguard, is he going to be okay?"

Ziegander wrote:

I don't think anyone understands what you mean when you keep talking about "the real problem."

Is "the real problem" that MAD and SAD classes exist?

Is "the real problem" that even should a Wizard be as MAD as a Monk it would still be orders of magnitude more powerful?

Is "the real problem" a combination of the above two?

Because that problem will persist whether or not you're rolling for stats, using point buy, or using class-based arrays.

Furthermore, you undermine your own point when you say that point buy is a serious problem, going on to state that one cannot simply give each class its own different point buy, because in the very next paragraph you suggest not only using point buy, but giving each class its own different point buy...

Yes. We get it. Class imbalance exists. That's not the point buy system's fault. Don't go dumping all of Pathfinder's and D&D's problems into point buy's lap. Point buy doesn't create any fresh imbalances by itself, rather they are baked into the class design and game design as a whole (yes, even Synthesist Summoner). Say it with me, "it's not point buy's fault." There.

Now, your suggestion on the other hand does create plenty of opportunity to dip classes just because they get way better stat adjustments. Why wouldn't a Wizard dip one level of Monk when they can get their 18 Intelligence and a host of other good scores as well as a slight AC and HP boost? Clerics and Druids have been occasionally dipping Monk for years for that crucial Wisdom to AC that everyone wants. Now they'll do it much more often, because they also get much stronger ability scores that way. If you're looking to curb system abuse and make the classes overall more balanced against each other, then point buy is superior to your suggestion and rolling stats doesn't help one way or the other.

The "real problem" is that those problems exist in the game and we (subjective term) are trying to fix it with something like point buy.

No one is saying that point buy fixes those problems! No one is trying to use point buy to fix those problems!

And don't go criticizing my hypothetical solution, I came up with it in 5 minutes as an example of how a baseline could be made if we hold ourselves to the caveat of 'balance at all costs.'

No one is arguing that Pathfinder must be balanced at all costs!

The "real problem" is that we want to play Pathfinder with the classes that exist, and still want to preach 'balance at all costs' as if it was an achievable goal.

Ah. Well, if that's your real problem, then you have nothing to worry about. Because, wait for it, no one is preaching balance at all costs and very few people want to play Pathfinder with the classes that exist as written. Or have you not noticed the dozens, if not hundreds, of threads about fixing Fighters and Rogues and talking about how Wizards are overpowered?

Power gamers will never accept anything other than a very strict point buy system, and they will tell themselves and the internet anything to justify it, that doesn't mean it's not the source of almost all problems with class imbalance.

Okay, buddy. Keep telling yourself that.

Ziegander wrote:

Point buy is evil, guys, plain and simple. We need to have everyone roll 3d6 six times in a row, assigning each result as determined in the following order: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha. Then, instead of the players getting to choose what they play as, there should be a table that is consulted that tells you what class you will be playing based on the scores you rolled.

THAT is the only way to avoid min-maxing, the evils of optimization, and finally usher in a glorious rebirth of roleplaying in our favorite table-top miniatures wargame RPG. Nobody wants to play at a table with Simon Belmont, Link, Merlin, and Ryu Hayabusa. That's stupid! What we're looking for is that perfect Lord of the Rings balance of Aragorn, Boromir, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin. If everyone's got the same level of power, that's just not possible!

Troll post is trolling.

What's ironic is that you are suggesting that point buy actually grants players the same level of power.

Okay, so I'll try being more agreeable and see where that gets me, because I'm not sure you're not just trolling in a less spectacular fashion.

I get your argument that point buy is a large part of what makes the Synthesist unbalanced compared to other characters. You have sound mathematical evidence to back up the argument and it pretty much pans out.

But you seem to have a deep-seated, eternal grudge against point buy in general for reasons that appear to be based in a "optimization is wrongbad," and "I roleplay my characters, so I'm better than you min/maxers" kind of way. If that's not your intention, explain yourself. What is your problem with point buy aside that it attempts to make building characters more fair for everyone at the table? Do you have any other reasons to dislike the system than your ill-conceived and logically-indefensible notion that it has ushered in an era that makes optimization matter more than roleplaying?

Point buy is evil, guys, plain and simple. We need to have everyone roll 3d6 six times in a row, assigning each result as determined in the following order: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha. Then, instead of the players getting to choose what they play as, there should be a table that is consulted that tells you what class you will be playing based on the scores you rolled.

THAT is the only way to avoid min-maxing, the evils of optimization, and finally usher in a glorious rebirth of roleplaying in our favorite table-top miniatures wargame RPG. Nobody wants to play at a table with Simon Belmont, Link, Merlin, and Ryu Hayabusa. That's stupid! What we're looking for is that perfect Lord of the Rings balance of Aragorn, Boromir, Gandalf, Legolas, Gimli, Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin. If everyone's got the same level of power, that's just not possible!

Every five second they are not involved with combat he tells me he is going to start making vials of cure light, and I then respond in a cave they have neither the equipment (he wasn't gotten a portable lab even though I have recommended it about five times) nor the time unless the party wants to wait hours for him to maybe make one (they don't). He says okay and then asks to do it again shortly after that.

He sounds like the most annoying little git... I don't know that I could stop myself from just kicking him out of the game. Okay, actually it would be a conversation off to the side after the session was over where I said something like, "next week either show up with the knowledge of crafting, or show up with a new character." Sheesh!

The arguments haven't changed from anyone.

I changed my arguments years ago after I looked at a lot of in-depth game analysis and gained a better understanding of how the game works.

The only reason I get engaged in these discussions is so that lurkers don't get the wrong impression: i.e., everyone thinks the fighter is a bad class.

I understand that.

The fighter holds his own.

But this is the claim you have made for years and years and struggle to back up with solid evidence.

Look, I can even vet your argument. I've played tons of Fighters, and gotten a lot of enjoyment out of the class. In fact, even with all its flaws, it's probably my favorite class. In most games I've played, Fighters have held their own, but that's not for lack of optimization or lack of DMs ignoring most if not all of a monster's attacks, spells, abilities and tactical strengths. A lot of tables play that way---it's just a massive amount of information that's difficult for many DMs to worry about tracking when we're talking about potentially dozens of statblocks per session each with unique feat and skill arrays to say the least. If you're playing at a table where you don't have to contend with monsters at their full potential, then Fighters can definitely hold their own. It's when you play with the monsters as written, taking advantage of the fullest of their capabilities and their best tactics, in a variety of settings, and a variety of different challenges---then the Fighter starts to lose traction.

Every class has its weakness. The trick is to shore that weakness up so that it's not so bad.

You tend to suggest that Fighters spend so much of their resources, not only WBL resources, but also permanent resources such as class levels and feats, that they become even worse at contributing effectively than an optimized Fighter who often struggles to do the same. If you can show me how a Fighter can cover all of his weaknesses well enough that they are no longer liabilities and also be a viable offensive threat in combat in levels 6+, then you might start convincing me and others.

Bob Loblaw, ladies and gentlemen. Man, that takes me back. Didn't realize you were still around. "We've been coming to the same party for 12 years... and in no way is that depressing." ;) I see you're still pushing the same argument too.

This is the fallacy. You assume that if one does not back up the claim, then that claim is false or that the person making it concedes it. Which is not logical and does not follow.

I don't think you understand what I am saying. Or what you are saying for that matter.

1) I never assumed that your claim was false because you did not back it up.

2) I never assumed that you had conceded your point because you did not back it up, I only asked you if you did.

It would appear that you do not concede, which is your right. If you do not concede your point, then you must, logically, back your point up with evidence to support it if you wish to further this conversation in any useful direction. To continue...

Premise: "Fighters wreck dungeon combat"

Apply P = P
Therefore: "Fighters wreck dungeon combat"

A valid argument. What I am asking for is a counter example that shows that that argument is not sound. Or better know as a contradiction proof. Assume a premise, draw a contradiction, therefore premise is false.

Simply asserting that Premise = Premise is not a valid argument. As I said before that is akin to a tautology. Perhaps you don't know what that word means. You cannot define a thing by its being that thing. That is in no way a useful definition to persons that don't already know what that thing is, and that's what a tautology is. In the same vein, you cannot prove a thing to be true by saying that it is true. You cannot make a hypothesis and expect it to be accepted if you do not provide evidence to show that it is more than a hypothesis.

You seem to be under the faulty assumption that in order to prove your point others must attempt to prove you wrong. This is not the case. I haven't seen anyone make the statement, "Fighters do not wreck at dungeon combat," at least none so openly as you who continue to state that, indeed, "Fighters wreck dungeons all the time." It is up to you, and only you, to provide examples that show us why you think that is the case.

For me a large part of having fun at the table is coming up with a unique, fleshed out character, complete with personality, and his own build that does not follow optimizational standards but that character's personal history.

But all of that flies out the window when my character is not effective in-game at doing any of the things his personal history indicates he should be effective at.

Let's say I want to play an intelligent mercenary with a strong arm and a mind for tactics. He takes dirty jobs, but lives by his own code of ethics, and has gotten into trouble in the past for not completing or actively hi-jacking jobs when he decided the ends just didn't justify the means. He is a practical man who lives by the sword and has no magical powers to call his own, and so does everything he can to ensure he has a tactical option for as many situations as he can. He doesn't like to be left without a way out.

It's not an uncommon character trope, but it's not one that works well following standard optimization practices. How do you build an effective version of that character if you ignore the "math" of the game as you call it? Intelligence and mundane combat don't mix very well in Pathfinder, and non-magical versatility isn't easy to attain. I can tell you I was immensely disappointed with the character I tried to build to that concept in D&D 3.5. I would be marginally better off in Pathfinder (Lore Warden Fighter), but I would still be forced to specialize rather than be capable of much diversity in play. The diversity is part of the roleplaying element. If my character isn't as versatile as he is supposed to be, then I can't have as much fun as I would like.

Ziegander wrote:

The burden of proof for that statement is not on the forum.

I don't really like to argue people who apply this particular fallacy.

What fallacy is that? If you claim something to be true, and you want people to believe that it is, you have to provide proof that what you're saying is true. No fallacy.

Basically, I made a claim and don't see how it is wrong. One or two corner case examples of a fighter wrecking combat proves little.

You made a claim. If you can't back it up, then you concede that it isn't necessarily true. Are you conceding?

Situations where the fighter fails in the situation outlined actually would prove something and further the discussion.

If someone were to make the statement, "Fighters do not wreck in dungeon combat," then, yes, they should be expected to go on to say, "and here's why..." wherein they provide examples of Fighters not wrecking in dungeon combat.

Has someone made that statement? Keep in mind that even if someone has that does not absolve you of your obligation to prove your statement. You made a statement. Now if you don't care to convince anyone of that statement's validity, then you don't have to say anything or do anything more than repeat yourself over and over. But, if you do want to convince us that your statement is true, then, yes, the burden of your statement's proof is on you. That's not a fallacy, that's just practical logic to live by. We don't have to believe you just because you said something, and we surely don't have to help you convince ourselves... because that just makes no sense.

Ziegander wrote:

Marthkus wrote:

[...] a fighter already wrecks dungeon combat.

Prove it. For the love of Pelor, PROVE IT.

This is difficult. It is more apt to create examples of common situations where they would fail as others have tried.

Spoiler:

Human Fighter || 18 14 14 10 10 10 || Intimidate, Profession(engineer), Climb, Survival, Swim; Perception, Knowledge(dungeoneering, engineering)|| Resilient(+1 fort saves), Indomitable Faith(+1 Will)
1 |Toughness, Intimidating Prowess, Combat Reflexes
2 |Bravery, Power Attack
3 |Armor training, Cleave
4 |Great Cleave
5 |Weapon training(Blades, Heavy), Blind-Fight
6 |Bravery, Lunge
7 |Armor training, Iron Will
8 |Quick Draw
9 |Weapon training(Thrown), Step Up
10|Bravery, Vital Strike
11|Armor training, Improved Vital Strike
12|Strike Back
13|Weapon training(Bows), Improved Iron Will
14|Bravery, Stand Still
15|Armor training, Deadly Aim
16|Greater Vital Strike
17|Weapon training(Close), Disruptive
18|Bravery, Spellbreaker
19|Armor mastery, Great Fortitude
20|weapon mastery(GS), Improved Critical(GS)

You're part of the way there. Now show how this build "wrecks" at dungeon combat.

Step into my position. I haven't conceived yet of dungeon combat situations where the fighter falters and doesn't just wreck everything.

You can't say "fighters wreck at dungeon combat," but then tell us that they only wreck at dungeon combat because you can't think of any situations in which they do not wreck.

That's almost a tautology. You're defining "wreck at combat" as "I can't think of a situation in which wrecking is not possible, therefore it must wreck at combat."

When I ask you, or anyone else for that matter, to prove something they are stating is true, I mean to show examples, and/or provide evidence that, you know, proves what you're stating. A build doesn't do that. You have to put the principles behind that build and the mechanics inherent to it into practice. In this case, put them into practice in dungeon combat and show how they wreck.

Now, that you can't imagine a situation in which a fighter does not wreck in dungeon combat implies that you can imagine one or more situations in which the fighter does wreck in combat. So why don't we start with those situations?

[...] a fighter already wrecks dungeon combat.

Prove it. For the love of Pelor, PROVE IT.

It sounds to me like you're just realizing that high-level magic is ridiculously powerful. It definitely is, and that's definitely a big problem with D&D 3.5 and with Pathfinder too. Low-level magic's got its crazy spells as well if you're players know what to look for, especially if they aren't concentrating on nukes.

In fact, since you say you like the low-level spells, I'm going to suggest something radical--magic is SO overwhelmingly more powerful than anything else that you can cut all spells of 6th level and higher out of the game entirely and Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards would still be both more powerful and far more versatile in the later character levels than Barbarians, Fighters, and Rogues. If you limit full casters to 5th level spells, its only fair to cut back the Bard to 4th level spells, and the Paladin and Ranger to 3rd level spells.

Now, to avoid making the game a lot less fun for Bards, Sorcerers, and Wizards especially you'll want to give them new class features and/or amp up their existing ones. Clerics could also use more significant class features in being cut to 5th level spells maximum (I'd recommend more domains and domain powers as one alternative). Interestingly, Druids should be completely fine with this nerf at all levels of play with no other changes, and Paladins and Rangers will barely notice the change (especially if you bump at least a few of their thematic 4th level spells down to 3rd level).

The only problem I foresee with this rather heavy-handed approach is that your players may despise losing out on all that power. Many players of spellcasters rejoice in the fact that they are so much more powerful than non-casters and would throw a fit if they were forced to play a game where they were more balanced against their non-casting party members. Even though they can still achieve crazy levels of power and versatility that non-casters can't possibly match just with their 5th level spells, these players could still feel entitled to their Mass Dominate Monsters and Miracles.

At the moment the entirety of the Fighter class can be summed up as Bonus Feats, Bravery, Armor Training, Weapon Training, Armor Mastery, and Weapon Mastery. About 3-6 class features, depending on how you slice it. I think everyone agrees that Bravery is a joke feature, while the masteries are basically part of the training. Most people would also agree that the Fighter needs 4 + Int modifier skills. I would add the following skills to his class skill list: Diplomacy, Knowledge (Geography), Knowledge (History), Perception, and Sense Motive.

Anyway, if the Fighter class table was expressed so that it got Bonus Feats and Weapon Training as class features at 1st level, and Armor Training as a class feature at 3rd level, and they still encompassed the full number of feats and bonuses they used to, then that leaves 18 dead levels to fill in with other class features. That's where we as a community come in.

So, if you had 18 dead levels to fill in for the Fighter, what you give them that would put them on par with Barbarians, Rangers, and Paladins?

My two cents:

Tactical Awareness (Ex): At 2nd level the Fighter gains a +1 bonus to CMB, CMD, Initiative, and Perception. This bonus increases by +1 at 6th level and every four levels thereafter.

Combat Superiority (Ex): Starting at 4th level, a Fighter's skill is sufficient to allow him to ignore all ability score requirements of combat feats he takes. Furthermore, for the purpose of qualifying for combat feats, his base attack bonus is treated as being +1 higher than it is at 4th level, +2 higher at 8th level, +3 higher at 12th level, and so on.