Fighters vs. Wizards -- Unbalanced = Broken?


General Discussion (Prerelease)

251 to 296 of 296 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

I dunno about spell rarity, and since it's just the same DM fiat as gear... not a fan of it at all. I mean, once you get to where you're allowing any book but know how to ID brokenness when you see it, and allowing any items they can afford the non casters aren't so bad anymore because they can get exactly what they need to function. Casters are less exacting and thus more forgiving. They can stick to core only spells and still be incredible. There's very little non core better than what they have because it's hard to go up much further. Mostly, non core magic just gives them random cool stuff.

Moral of the story: DM fiat just tends to backfire as it does not meet the requisite standards to make such a decision.

I am ignoring Paul until such time as he actually reads my work because if he had, he would not be asking questions I have already answered multiple times.

Liberty's Edge

Set wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Squirrelloid wrote:
Oberoni Fallacy
The Oberoni Fallacy is an invalid argument because it affirms the consequent.

No one who quotes it (or the 'Stormwind Fallacy') cares that their logic is specious. It has the word 'fallacy' which is related to 'fail,' and therefore it is perfect and incontrovertible, and allows someone who wasn't clever enough to write such an epic put-down of other people's playstyle himself to reference it and bask in reflected cleverness, as if linking to something makes you worthy of respect for it's authorship. It's also pretentious and dismissive, the pseudo-intellectual snobbery version of, 'Talk to the hand, girlfriend.'

On the other hand, the argument, 'Well any *sane* DM wouldn't allow that, so there isn't a problem' (with the often-unspoken-but-obvious caveat that if there's a problem, it isn't with the game or the rules, it's with the poster who pointed out the problem for being a twinky munchkin), isn't terribly helpful either, being primarily a passive-aggressive dig at anyone who thinks that the rules should be worded in such a way as to not create these divisions in the first place.

Technically that argument (the "The GM shouldn't allow it" one) is invalid as well since it denies the antecedent. The essence of the argument appears to be that one group that feels that the rules are proscriptive and anything they don't deny explicitly or implicitly through loopholes or omission must necessarily be allowed. The other side views the rules a prescriptive, and accepts the premise that a game system generally states as rule zero explicitly admits that the system is not perfect and can not cover all eventualities so a GM must use proper judgment.

The first group tends to be very direct in it's style of argument and, in their favor, actually lays out it's actual arguments, where the second is more passive and poorly articulates it's central premise that most of the issues involved are not errors in the rules per say, but errors cause by the game not providing significant guidelines and instruction regarding the handling of whatever the issue at hand is.

I believe the suggestion about addressing the omission in the rules regarding availability, if properly written into the system would provide the tools for most inexperienced GMs to avoid many of these issues. As for the relative powers of casters vs melee characters, they are there, but fixing them is a systematic issue. No single change or even a small group of changes will address this. Fighters need a boost in power and ability, casters need a reduction in power and ability along with some limitations, parts of the combat sub-system need modification, and the economy of numeric bonus items need to be address.

The problem is that doing all of these things will render Pathfinder into something other then a tweak of 3.X and might well render it incompatible with 3.X's material.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Squirrelloid wrote:
The problem with that suggestion Jess is it really limits how effective a spellcaster can be in combat because they have few even plausibly effective actions each day. A few encounter ending powers per day is not game balance. Under your new proposal casters can't last 4 encounters unless they only prepare combat spells, and often only if they prepare the *right* ones. And lets face it, while the Druid is probably fine with that, the wizard has nothing to do outside of casting spells.

I would agree, it's a drastic change. Maybe too drastic. But a 20th level wizard with an intelligence of 16 + 4 (level increases) + 6 (enhancement item) = 26 would have spells per day totaling:

1 + 2, 1 + 2, 1 + 2, 1 + 2, 2 + 1, 2 + 1, 2 + 1, 3 + 1, 4

So at level 20 the difference would be:

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4

vs.

6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4

I see it as a power down, but not a ridiculous one.

I would agree that given the general power increase across the board, fighters need more options even more than casters need a nerf!

I want to give fighters defensive options versus spells, offensive options versus spellcasters, options for movement to match casters' movement modes, reduce terrain penalties, options to reduce dependence on items, and options to allow them to excercise battlefield control. :)

I don't like flat DCs to avoid an attack of opportunity. I'm glad that the Acrobatics check to move and avoid an AoO scales with the enemy's BaB. spellcraft (concentration) checks to cast defensively should scale at the same rate. You don't have to concentrate as hard to avoid a fellow wizard's physical attack as you would a trained warrior's.


Set wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Squirrelloid wrote:
Oberoni Fallacy
The Oberoni Fallacy is an invalid argument because it affirms the consequent.
No one who quotes it (or the 'Stormwind Fallacy') cares that their logic is specious. It has the word 'fallacy' which is related to 'fail,' and therefore it is perfect and incontrovertible, and allows someone who wasn't clever enough to write such an epic put-down of other people's playstyle himself to reference it and bask in reflected cleverness, as if linking to something makes you worthy of respect for it's authorship. It's also pretentious and dismissive, the pseudo-intellectual snobbery version of, 'Talk to the hand, girlfriend.'

I'm quite capable of making the argument myself. But it gets repetitive to type a paragraph or two 10x a day because people can't seem to grasp the idea that making houserules does not solve issues in the actual published ruleset. And since there's already a wonderful written explanation of it available online, referencing is a lot easier than typing. Seriously, do you have a problem with refering to previous results, or should we have to re-invent the wheel every time we want to go into town? I mean, I could write up a couple paragraphs, save a wordfile, and just copy/paste every time someone says 'there's no rule problem, you can just houserule it' or similar - how is that any different from linking the existing thread.

Finally, it does not insult someone's playstyle. The fallacy doesn't care what you do at your own table. I'll be happy to grant the problem is not an issue for you. That does not mean you can conclude the issue doesn't exist - you aren't playing with the published rules, you're playing with a modified version of the rules which fixed the problem. The thing is, its still a problem with the published rules, and should be fixed in the published rules. This has nothing to do with your playstyle and everything to do with drawing faulty conclusions. In fact, you'd be perfectly in your rights to say 'if you houserule it this way, its not an issue' - its the claim, implicit or explicit, that there is no problem because you *can* houserule it.

----------

I'd love to hear how it affirms the consequent. It basically runs as:

Suppose there exists issue X within ruleset Q.
Claim: "You should houserule it" -> You should play with some ruleset Q' which fixes issue X.
Fallacious Claim: "Since you can houserule it, issue X doesn't exist/doesn't need to be fixed in the rules." -> Q' without X => Q without X

This argument is invalid on face. The last claim does not logically follow from its premises.

Basically, the fallacious claim is the ability to houserule X away somehow means X doesn't exist in the rules without houserules. The Oberoni fallacy merely points out that your derivative ruleset Q' is not Q, and Q still has issue X. Houseruling did not fix the problem, it just created a different ruleset. No consequent is ever affirmed, its pointing out a fallacy in someone else's reasoning. The 'argument' being made by the Oberoni fallacy runs something like the following:

Premise 1: A conclusion only follows iff (<==>) the argument is both sound and valid
Premise 2: Your argument is not valid.
Conclusion: Your conclusion does not follow.

Iff claims work both ways, so affirming the consequent is in fact impossible, because there is no singular consequent. Both sides are the consequent of the other.

Liberty's Edge

Squirrelloid wrote:
I'd love to hear how it affirms the consequent.

It does because of the logic that Oberoni uses to define and justify it:

If the rules are broken, then you change the rules.
You have changed the rules.
Therefore the game is broken.

Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy which renders the entire argument invalid. What Oberoni should have said, as I pointed out, is that saying it's not broken because I've house ruled is denying the antecedent. The formal structure of that invalid argument is:

If the rules are broken then you change the rules.
I have changed the rules.
Therefore the game is not broken.

Both arguments are invalid and using either argument renders the entire argument that includes them invalid. The house rule argument is superficially correct, but only because people mentally convert the conclusion to:

Therefore the game is no longer broken.

The proper, and I believe often intended structure of the 'house rule argument' should be:

If the rules are broken, then you change the rules.
I have changed the rules.
Therefore these changes will fix the rules.


The issue here is buffing the fighters and monks *as well as all the martial classes; don't nerf the casters. Perhaps individual spells need to be looked at, but I like the way wizards and clerics are right now.

I think Crusader of Logic and Psychic Robot have the most insight into the disparity between martial and magical classes. The "tier system" explaination was particularly eye-opening.

I would like to see CREATIVE solutions posted by the community, on how we can make fighters more powerful and increase their combat and support options.

Please, no more bickering or crying for nerfs. This isn't a video game, where players are going to fight each other anyway.


S W:
I've already posted Fighter and Monk rewrites during Alpha 3 on its Rules Suggestions board. They should still be easy to find. Not going to say they're perfect, but my guess is they're close.


I like your ideas. I am in the process of finishing up a monk and fighter rewrite myself. I actually planned 3 paths for the monk - the Path of Aggression, the Path of Enlightenment and (closer to the original monk, for the backward-compatibility concerns) the Path of No Path. Each focuses on ONE Primary Ability Score, with WIS as the important secondary. So no more 4- or 5- score MAD.

One things Monks seemed to lack in 3.5 is a focus. They were the only characters without full BAB, a d10 hit die, spellcasting abilities, or 6 +int skill ranks per level. They were also the most MAD character in the entire book.

The things that Monks need most are: full BAB, a d10 or d12 hit die (I also see them as being as physically tough as a barbarian), and lots of ki powers and martial maneuvers. The class concept should have been "a martial arts fighter-type," not a "rogue/bard without magic or sneak attack."

What is the ideal Monk's role in a party? Answer: Combat. What does a monk do in combat? Answer: Frontal damage dealer. He kills things fast, and can pursue and take out magic users and flank brutes if need be. With scaling damage dice and a great number of attacks, and the abundant step/teleport power to pursue targets, there is no reason not to focus this character on face-to-face slugfests. He won't replace fighters any more than barbarians do - he will just be an exotic brute variant.

Seriously, what was the 3.5 rationale to giving him usless powers like "Slow fall"? Why the d8 hit die? Why 3/4 BAB? Why so much MAD? The 3.5 character was a rogue with a few magic tricks and no sneak attacks. You had to spread out attribute points to the point where, if you didn't roll high stats 3 to 4 times, you were only partially effective. The monk got powers much later than equivalent spells for other classes, and even then, could only use a significant SoD one per week. There was no real power in the class. Literally everyone else could do the same things better, or better things that made the monk obsolete.


I seen a humor article somewhere that was basically something like this:

Monk: So in other words, you just wanted an excuse to keep me ineffective.

Master: ...Yes.

With that said, look at any other game with a martial artist type. Often they have the highest HP, but low defense. Since barring blowing almost all your cash on AC boosters (which anything other than physical attackers doesn't care about), they do have low defense and even their saves are only decent at best.

Full BAB, D10 HD minimum, D12 preferred. They still aren't going to be overpowered but will at least be useful, provided they also get some focus.

Though for the record, Paladins are actually more MAD (they need 5 stats, not 4).


The monk's powers are mostly ripped straight out of 1st edition. The problem is that the game changed while the class basically didn't. That's a big problem.


Squirrelloid wrote:
The monk's powers are mostly ripped straight out of 1st edition. The problem is that the game changed while the class basically didn't. That's a big problem.

Suggestion:

Monk = Skirmisher, i.e. mobile, resistant, durable, decent melee with debuff abilities (i.e. ability to negate magical and nonmagical abilities of his enemies) - for example, melee dispel magic, melee fear, melee hold person and melee curse (you know, all those dreaded palm techniques).

Regards,
Ruemere


Crusader of Logic wrote:

I seen a humor article somewhere that was basically something like this:

Monk: So in other words, you just wanted an excuse to keep me ineffective.

Master: ...Yes.

With that said, look at any other game with a martial artist type. Often they have the highest HP, but low defense. Since barring blowing almost all your cash on AC boosters (which anything other than physical attackers doesn't care about), they do have low defense and even their saves are only decent at best.

Full BAB, D10 HD minimum, D12 preferred. They still aren't going to be overpowered but will at least be useful, provided they also get some focus.

Though for the record, Paladins are actually more MAD (they need 5 stats, not 4).

I totally agree with you. Full BAB, d12 hit die, damage dice scale a lot faster (get max unarmed attack damage at level 14 or so, since 2d10 at level 20 is meaningless anyway), and a lot of combat powers would need to be added, lots of new uses for stunning fist and ki powers that would make them dangerous to enemies at that level. Give them powers that let them see through illusions like displacement with a concentration check, and various SoS effects other than stun. Let them use full attack actions after the abundant step move, to give them mobility and offensive potential after they teleport, etc. A lot could be done to make the monk a tier 3 class instead of tier 6.

I think the best we can hope for, is to make non-casters a solid tier 3, don't you agree?


Monks are Tier 5 (true NPC classes exist) but otherwise yes.


Well I'm sure you could think of something to make monks tier 3 ;).

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Quick question..

Who made up theses tiers? and what are you basing them on?


Dragnmoon wrote:

Quick question..

Who made up theses tiers? and what are you basing them on?

That's a good question. I've wondered myself.

It's somewhat discourteous to wield the cudgel of authoritative tiers without first explaining how they are derived. Please include a link or something whenever you feel you need to refer to things like this, or we ignorant plebeians have a difficult time following the conversation.

EDIT: Especially since 4e's use of the word "tier" makes normal searches completely fruitless.


It was linked in multiple places, which is why people are bringing it up. Here we go again.

Spoiler:
The following is a repost of something I made over on the WotC forums. I'm not exactly sure which forum to put it on, as it's intended for a variety of purposes. It's here mostly because I'd like to get some feedback from knowledgeable minds, but it's also a useful tool, much like a handbook, and available for use.

My general philosophy is that the only balance that really matters in D&D is the interclass balance between the various PCs in a group. If the group as a whole is very powerful and flexible, the DM can simply up the challenge level and complexity of the encounters. If it's weak and inflexible, the DM can lower the challenge level and complexity. Serious issues arise when the party is composed of some members which are extremely powerful and others which are extremely weak, leading to a situation where the DM has two choices: either make the game too easy for the strong members, or too hard for the weak members. Neither is desireable. Thus, this system is created for the following purposes:

1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group

2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.

3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).

4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. It may sound cheesy when the Fighter player wants to be a Half Minotaur Water Orc, but if the rest of his party is Druid, Cloistered Cleric, Archivist, and Artificer, then maybe you should allow that to balance things out. However, if the player is asking to be allowed to be a Venerable White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer and the rest of the party is a Monk, a Fighter, and a Rogue, maybe you shouldn't let that fly.

5) To help homebrewers judge the power and balance of their new classes. Pick a Tier you think your class should be in, and when you've made your class compare it to the rest of the Tier. Generally, I like Tier 3 as a balance point, but I know many people prefer Tier 4. If it's stronger than Tier 1, you definitely blew it.

Psionic classes are mostly absent simply because I don't have enough experience with them. Other absent classes are generally missing because I don't know them well enough to comment, though if I've heard a lot about them they're listed in itallics. Note that "useless" here means "the class isn't particularly useful for dealing with situation X" not "it's totally impossible with enough splat books to make a build that involves that class deal with situation X." "Capable of doing one thing" means that any given build does one thing, not that the class itself is incapable of being built in different ways. Also, "encounters" here refers to appropriate encounters... obviously, anyone can solve an encounter with purely mechanical abilities if they're level 20 and it's CR 1.

Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging, assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level. As a rule, parties function best when everyone in the party is within 2 Tiers of each other (so a party that's all Tier 2-4 is generally fine, and so is a party that's all Tier 3-5, but a party that has Tier 1 and Tier 5s in it may have issues).

The Tier System

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer.

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways.

Examples: Sorcerer, Favoured Soul, Psion, Binder (with access to online vestiges)

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Examples: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factorum, Warblade

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

Examples: Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Warmage, Scout, Ranger, Hexblade, Adept, Spellthief, Marshal, Fighter (Dungeoncrasher Varient), Psionic Warrior

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

Examples: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert

Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

Examples: CW Samurai, Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner

And then there's the Truenamer, which is just broken (as in, the class was improperly made and doesn't function appropriately).

Now, obviously these rankings only apply when mechanical abilities are being used... in a more social oriented game where talking is the main way of solving things (without using diplomacy checks), any character can shine. However, when the mechanical abilities of the classes in question are being used, it's a bad idea to have parties with more than two tiers of difference.

It is interesting to note the disparity between the core classes... one of the reasons core has so many problems. If two players want to play a nature oriented shapeshifter and a general sword weilder, you're stuck with two very different tiered guys in the party (Fighter and Druid). Outside of core, it's possible to do it while staying on close Tiers... Wild Shape Varient Ranger and Warblade, for example.

JaronK

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Crusader of Logic wrote:

It was linked in multiple places, which is why people are bringing it up. Here we go again.

Spoiler:
The following is a repost of something I made over on the WotC forums. I'm not exactly sure which forum to put it on, as it's intended for a variety of purposes. It's here mostly because I'd like to get some feedback from knowledgeable minds, but it's also a useful tool, much like a handbook, and available for use.

My general philosophy is that the only balance that really matters in D&D is the interclass balance between the various PCs in a group. If the group as a whole is very powerful and flexible, the DM can simply up the challenge level and complexity of the encounters. If it's weak and inflexible, the DM can lower the challenge level and complexity. Serious issues arise when the party is composed of some members which are extremely powerful and others which are extremely weak, leading to a situation where the DM has two choices: either make the game too easy for the strong members, or too hard for the weak members. Neither is desireable. Thus, this system is created for the following purposes:

1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group

2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.

3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).

4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. It may sound cheesy when the Fighter player wants to be a Half Minotaur Water Orc, but if the rest of his party is Druid, Cloistered Cleric, Archivist, and Artificer, then maybe you should allow that to balance things out. However, if the player is asking to be allowed to be a Venerable White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer and the rest of the party is a Monk, a...

Though I appreciate your work on that, It seems a bit subjective for my taste.

Since this is a group game would not a system based on the roll of the classes be a better choice?

In other words a Fighter should outclass all melee classes and describing what a melee class is and see how other classes fall into that roll and if they do better then who should be the best of that class.

In that way we can find fixes on that based on the criteria of that roll to make those who should do well in that roll better then those who should not.

Hope I explained that well.


You could if you wanted to. But that's not the point.

The point of JaronK's tier list is to demonstrate, in the setting of "all system resources," which classes have an innate disposition to power- usually through versatility (wizard, sorc, archivist, cleric), or occasionally raw power (druid). Thus, we can see that a wizard (past yet-to-be-undeniably-defined Point of No Return Level) will always outclass a fighter because he has a large repertoire of spells, which he can change day-to-day, or sometimes even in just fifteen minutes. The fighter usually ends up "hitting the thing with the other thing," as it were.

[EDIT]: Also, roll = "to roll a die"; role = "character role." I wouldn't usually bother to correct something with such an obvious intent, but the "roll v role" bit has a dark past in the RPG community, ya know?

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Big B wrote:

You could if you wanted to. But that's not the point.

The point of JaronK's tier list is to demonstrate, in the setting of "all system resources," which classes have an innate disposition to power- usually through versatility (wizard, sorc, archivist, cleric), or occasionally raw power (druid). Thus, we can see that a wizard (past yet-to-be-undeniably-defined Point of No Return Level) will always outclass a fighter because he has a large repertoire of spells, which he can change day-to-day, or sometimes even in just fifteen minutes. The fighter usually ends up "hitting the thing with the other thing," as it were.

[EDIT]: Also, roll = "to roll a die"; role = "character role." I wouldn't usually bother to correct something with such an obvious intent, but the "roll v role" bit has a dark past in the RPG community, ya know?

EEK!!!. sorry for the misspelling..

But my point is.. That the level of 'power' should be subdivided into the roles (Wheeeeeeee) of how the classes fit into a group.

During a well balanced Adventure or story each role should be needed.

If a Wizard can out 'Fight' A fighter in the fighters role then something is broken and it needs to be fixed.

A wizard should always 'outclass' a fighter, but only in its role.


Dragnmoon wrote:


But my point is.. That the level of 'power' should be subdivided into the roles (Wheeeeeeee) of how the classes fit into a group.

During a well balanced Adventure or story each role should be needed.

If a Wizard can out 'Fight' A fighter in the fighters role then something is broken and it needs to be fixed.

A wizard should always 'outclass' a fighter, but only in its role.

Exactly and the problem is that a wizard can be better at dealing with the sorts of encounters a fighter can.

Judging by "roles" is problematic because nothing that mandates you have one person of each "role" in your group. Because the designers didn't dictate that each party must have and X,Y and Z class, we can't know what a party will be made of. The only way to insure that a party can always be viable is to insure that each class individually is a viable and roughly equal contributor. If I need to reduce the CR of my encounters when I have a party of martial characters (and I almost had such a party once) than that is indicative that their is an inherent weakness in some classes.

When this fighter vs. Spellcaster thing first came up we put together a party of clerics and wizards and ran them through a few levels of an old campaign. It was scary how much better they performed (I don't have any notes of it sorry).

It would be nice is Paizo can look at this problem carefully, pick a balance point and fix this.


Dragnmoon wrote:

Though I appreciate your work on that, It seems a bit subjective for my taste.

Since this is a group game would not a system based on the roll of the classes be a better choice?

In other words a Fighter should outclass all melee classes and describing what a melee class is and see how other classes fall into that roll and if they do better then who should be the best of that class.

In that way we can find fixes on that based on the criteria of that roll to make those who should do well in that roll better then those who should not.

Hope I explained that well.

If you want to compare by role, just look at those entries only. In fact many of the divisions are already based on role. They're just all together there because the purpose of the guide is to get all the players on roughly the same page. So if one wants a trained warrior type, and the other wants a shapeshifting hunter Warblade and Wild Shape Ranger lets these guys play together well, whereas picking Fighter and Druid instead ensures the former will be useless compared to the enemies and obsolete compared to the other guy.

Example: Warriors are a Tier 6 melee, because there is absolutely nothing they do another melee doesn't do better. Fighters are Tier 5 because other than the Warrior, they don't really outshine anyone in that role. In other words all they can do is fight, and not even that well which fits the description. Barbarians are Tier 4 because while their fighting ability is about the same, they can also do a few things besides fight. Warblades are tier 3s because they can fight, and fight fairly well. They can also do things besides fight with a reasonable degree of competence. Favored Souls, if you made one to melee are Tier 2 because they can do all the uber melee cleric tricks. It just takes more of their 'trick slots' as it were because they don't get to change their spell list on a daily basis. This is why you can easily get a 10 str cleric with no melee feats who does about as much melee damage as the THF with melee feats, and we haven't touched Persist yet. And of course Druids are Tier 1 melees because a single class feature of theirs is as good or better than many low tier melee classes by itself. The fact Wild Shape doesn't make them into a second melee while still being a spellcaster at the same time (Oh noes!) is purely academic.

The skill monkeys are also sorted well. Experts are Tier 5 (yes, that means an NPC class is as good as Fighters and Monks) because 'any 10 class skills' means they can get things like Use Magic Device, Iaijutsu Focus (do almost as much damage as a sneak attacker) and so forth. Rogues are Tier 4 because they get UMD and other useful skills, and fairly decent abilities. Beguilers are Tier 3 because they get just about everything the Rogue does, and also gets full casting. Sure, it's from a limited list. But 1: It contains most of the spells you care about anyways. 2: It's spontaneous. 3: Anything that adds new spells to that list expands your spells available more than it would for anyone else. Lastly, Cloistered Clerics are Tier 1 because... aside from a HD size decrease and a BAB step decrease they get everything clerics do and more. Starting with 4 more skill points and a broader skill list. Seeing as if you cared about hitting the thing with the other thing you can just Divine Power it up, that means you're just down 1 HP a level.

Edit: Tier 1s are Tier 1s because of versatility and power. It doesn't become an or question until Tier 3, or maybe Tier 4.

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

You guys must play this game differently then me.. Because I don't see this Tier thing as true through out the game.. This is what I see..

Low level the melee shine because the wizards are weak and get neutralized easily.

At mid levels the Arcane shine because they have better defenses and their opponents have very little defense against their spells.

At high levels the group starts working better as a group because the opponents magical defenses make it very difficult for the Arcane casters and they do their best to weaken them so the melee can take them out.

What I see is the group as a whole need to work together at high levels and no class outshines another.

But like I said...that must just be me.


Dragnmoon wrote:
[...]At high levels the group starts working better as a group because the opponents magical defenses make it very difficult for the Arcane casters and they do their best to weaken them so the melee can take them out.[...]

Hmm. Examples please? Even Iron Golem is not invlunerable to properly attired wizard (for example: rock + 200 feet = 20d6 nonmagical damage). Though last session the wizard limited himself to simply slowing the golem down so that it would not have two attacks.

regards,
Ruemere

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
ruemere wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
[...]At high levels the group starts working better as a group because the opponents magical defenses make it very difficult for the Arcane casters and they do their best to weaken them so the melee can take them out.[...]

Hmm. Examples please? Even Iron Golem is not invlunerable to properly attired wizard (for example: rock + 200 feet = 20d6 nonmagical damage). Though last session the wizard limited himself to simply slowing the golem down so that it would not have two attacks.

regards,
Ruemere

A CR 10 Creature is not an example of a High Level Encounter.

Now the Iron Golem Plus other minions, and the Level 18 Wizard that made it and controls it.. Is an example of a High level Encounter.

A High level encounter The wizard would have problems with SR and high Saving throws. His Spells would be countered by what they are facing.

The Group as a whole would have to work together to solve the problem because they are countered at every step, because what they are facing have Immense powers.


Dragnmoon wrote:

You guys must play this game differently then me.. Because I don't see this Tier thing as true through out the game.. This is what I see..

Low level the melee shine because the wizards are weak and get neutralized easily.

At mid levels the Arcane shine because they have better defenses and their opponents have very little defense against their spells.

At high levels the group starts working better as a group because the opponents magical defenses make it very difficult for the Arcane casters and they do their best to weaken them so the melee can take them out.

What I see is the group as a whole need to work together at high levels and no class outshines another.

But like I said...that must just be me.

Low level it doesn't matter what you do for the most part. Opponents are weak and simple with few exceptions. A two handed weapon is a save or die attacking the armor class save. Color Spray is an AoE save or die, but close range and you only get 2 a day not counting scrolls.

Mid levels opponents start getting smarter, and becoming stronger faster. Naturally this results in the weak (non casters) falling behind the most. Casters are getting their better spells around now too, though they had some winners before.

High levels you can pretty much forget about your melee brute being able to do much except fight enemy melee brutes. Even that isn't assured, just compare full attack routines. Meanwhile enemies counter some caster tricks, but not all.

So... I'm guessing your high level opponents, and your casters are both playing dumb.

Edit: Are there still people who actually think golems are a threat to wizards? Seriously?

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Crusader of Logic wrote:

So... I'm guessing your high level opponents, and your casters are both playing dumb.

Edit: Are there still people who actually think golems are a threat to wizards? Seriously?

That is the second time you have called me and my players dumb.. I would appreciate if you refrain from that.

That said.

If your High level Wizards are so in control of the game.. The DM needs to re look at the tactics they are using. They are not using the full abilities of what a High level group is facing.


Playing dumb =/= are dumb. There is simply no other explanation why the one trick ponies aren't being shut down hard other than enemies just auto attacking whoever is closest instead of playing intelligently. And if the one trick ponies are not one trick ponies, they're instead completely irrelevant.

Any enemy that shuts down a high level Wizard is shutting down the entire party. Period. If every trick a Wizard can use is blocked, guess what? That means nothing works. It really is that simple.

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Crusader of Logic wrote:

Playing dumb =/= are dumb. There is simply no other explanation why the one trick ponies aren't being shut down hard other than enemies just auto attacking whoever is closest instead of playing intelligently. And if the one trick ponies are not one trick ponies, they're instead completely irrelevant.

Any enemy that shuts down a high level Wizard is shutting down the entire party. Period. If every trick a Wizard can use is blocked, guess what? That means nothing works. It really is that simple.

This is where the problem comes in..you are assuming the Wizard is the only one adding to the game.. Which is utterly false.

The Wizard If they can't get through the defenses because what they are facing is able to counter their spells, be it through a High SR or High Saving throw or other tactics, can still do many things, they are not 'shut down'. And even then not everything they will cast will be countered ofcourse, something will get through if they get lucky or if the group is able to bring down the defenses.

A melee character is very useful at this point because the wizard can't get through everything and the thing does need a beat down, and that is what they are there for. Almost anything can be brought down with a good beat down.

A Wizard can't and should not be able to whole hardly control high level play, because what they are facing is as powerful or more then they are, that is why they need the other players in the group to counter that.

One thing.. remember I am talking combat here.. If the group can think of other ways to avoid combat through tactics that make sense, more power to them.

The Exchange

Dragnmoon wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:

So... I'm guessing your high level opponents, and your casters are both playing dumb.

Edit: Are there still people who actually think golems are a threat to wizards? Seriously?

That is the second time you have called me and my players dumb.. I would appreciate if you refrain from that.

That said.

If your High level Wizards are so in control of the game.. The DM needs to re look at the tactics they are using. They are not using the full abilities of what a High level group is facing.

Dragnmoon, this seems top be the standard defense many of these "wizards are all powerful" people are using. When someone points out a possible flaw in their arguments or a counter argument they simply say you're playing it wrong.

They're happy to ignore years of gaming experience, they completely misrepresent the players at your table (I play with people who have multiple degrees and at least one of them has a PhD, but apparently they're dumb and we have no idea what we're talking about). I of course would throw in the counter argument that any DM that lets his players interpret spell combinations and some of these rules the way these guys are playing, is of course playing the game wrong or must be dumb. However, I don't believe that to be true, I just feel some people are good at pushing their own agendas at a table. In his defense, Crusader has never attacked me in that way, but there are others who have said just that.

I took myself out of these arguments for just that reason. However, I saw you copping the same kind of ridicule so thought I'd drop you a supporting voice.

Ultimately, I'd just save my time and effort for reporting your findings in the appropriate playtests. I'm fairly sure from things I've read that threads like this are being politely ignored by the developers for the moment. They wan't playtest experiences, not postulates or trumped up "playtests" with one shot encounters. Play your games and report them is my advice, ignore some of the more volatile posters who argue everything that doesn't match their "solutions". The developers will pick what they want from the reports and I have neough faith in them to keep the game a good one.

Sounds like you and I play similar games, some of these guys don't.

Sorry to thread jack.


Wrath wrote:

They're happy to ignore years of gaming experience, they completely misrepresent the players at your table (I play with people who have multiple degrees and at least one of them has a PhD, but apparently they're dumb and we have no idea what we're talking about).

The extent of my knowledge of biological science is 9th grade AP Bio. I suppose I wouldn't look like a complete idiot if I attended some sort of PhD-level biology conference?

Apples and Oranges, people. Come on.

Some people refuse to see problems in the system, and will gladly shove their fingers in their ears and sing "LA LA LA THE DM WILL FIX IT LALA LA." This does not work. You cannot ignore a problem and simply hope it "goes away." Casters who can own and subdue reality are an actual problem in the system (See the various guides on Clerics, Druids, Wizards, et al), and can (and do) fill the melee and skillmonkey roles ("healbot" is a Timmy Role) just as well as the non-spellcaster classes do, if not better.

How would you fix this power disparity? You rewrite the system. The WHOLE thing. If you nerf spellcasters, then party power drops, and the CR system becomes all kinds of crazy. If you buff non-spellcasters...well, you'd have to buff them far enough to match the spellcasters (which just makes the problem worse) or leave them below spellcasters in power (which doesn't fix the problem, just cover it up a bit). What you have to do is let fighters have nice things, reduce the power of spellcasters (via spell rewrites or a change in the magic system), and somehow get the CR system to line up with these changes. Unfortunately, due to the stated design goals of PRPG (full backwards compatibility), this can never happen, since 3.5 splats would become wholly unusable with the new system. Personally, if someone tried to do this, and made it modular enough to be standalone with just a "core trio," I'd be very likely to lay done some greenbacks for it.

PS: 4e takes this philosophy too far. It's fun in its own right, but instead of actually rebalancing the system, it simply used the meleers as the baseline for power, then designed spellcasters (if you can call them that anymore...) and monsters around that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Big B wrote:
Wrath wrote:

They're happy to ignore years of gaming experience, they completely misrepresent the players at your table (I play with people who have multiple degrees and at least one of them has a PhD, but apparently they're dumb and we have no idea what we're talking about).

The extent of my knowledge of biological science is 9th grade AP Bio. I suppose I wouldn't look like a complete idiot if I attended some sort of PhD-level biology conference?

Apples and Oranges, people. Come on.

Some people refuse to see problems in the system, and will gladly shove their fingers in their ears and sing "LA LA LA THE DM WILL FIX IT LALA LA." This does not work. You cannot ignore a problem and simply hope it "goes away." Casters who can own and subdue reality are an actual problem in the system (See the various guides on Clerics, Druids, Wizards, et al), and can (and do) fill the melee and skillmonkey roles ("healbot" is a Timmy Role) just as well as the non-spellcaster classes do, if not better.

How would you fix this power disparity? You rewrite the system. The WHOLE thing. If you nerf spellcasters, then party power drops, and the CR system becomes all kinds of crazy. If you buff non-spellcasters...well, you'd have to buff them far enough to match the spellcasters (which just makes the problem worse) or leave them below spellcasters in power (which doesn't fix the problem, just cover it up a bit). What you have to do is let fighters have nice things, reduce the power of spellcasters (via spell rewrites or a change in the magic system), and somehow get the CR system to line up with these changes. Unfortunately, due to the stated design goals of PRPG (full backwards compatibility), this can never happen, since 3.5 splats would become wholly unusable with the new system. Personally, if someone tried to do this, and made it modular enough to be standalone with just a "core trio," I'd be very likely to lay done some...

That won't be happening with Pathfinder, as you say. How many times does Jason have to say that the game will basically be the same as 3.5 with some small tweaks to improve problems, not a whole new game system.

As it won't be happening, what people clamouring for it are doing is not helpful and, in fact, actively disruptive to the playtesting. So why do people keep doing it when, as you've said, it's not the purpose of the playtest?


Dragnmoon wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:

Playing dumb =/= are dumb. There is simply no other explanation why the one trick ponies aren't being shut down hard other than enemies just auto attacking whoever is closest instead of playing intelligently. And if the one trick ponies are not one trick ponies, they're instead completely irrelevant.

Any enemy that shuts down a high level Wizard is shutting down the entire party. Period. If every trick a Wizard can use is blocked, guess what? That means nothing works. It really is that simple.

This is where the problem comes in..you are assuming the Wizard is the only one adding to the game.. Which is utterly false.

The Wizard If they can't get through the defenses because what they are facing is able to counter their spells, be it through a High SR or High Saving throw or other tactics, can still do many things, they are not 'shut down'. And even then not everything they will cast will be countered ofcourse, something will get through if they get lucky or if the group is able to bring down the defenses.

A melee character is very useful at this point because the wizard can't get through everything and the thing does need a beat down, and that is what they are there for. Almost anything can be brought down with a good beat down.

A Wizard can't and should not be able to whole hardly control high level play, because what they are facing is as powerful or more then they are, that is why they need the other players in the group to counter that.

One thing.. remember I am talking combat here.. If the group can think of other ways to avoid combat through tactics that make sense, more power to them.

Last I checked, Wizards have a wide array of tricks. They also have all Knowledge skills available, ergo they know the strengths and weaknesses of various creatures. Class levels can throw this off because humanoid opponents are a lot more diverse than monsters, but then vs humanoids you stick to generalistic tactics that work in as many circumstances as possible to maximize your odds. And if they aren't caster humanoids they're not relevant anyways as humanoid power = magic, those that cannot cast magic must make up the balance from items, and NPCs get less items (so that the subsequent taking their stuff doesn't result in broken PCs). Regardless, they both have the right tools and know how to apply them.

The smart enemies that predominate high levels shut down some of their tricks. But the Wizard knows which are shut down and can just use the ones that are not. Meanwhile, what's that melee guy doing? Oh right, running up and hitting it, same as he has at every other level.

So unless you are honestly trying to tell me it's harder for creatures who are often far more mobile than you to get out of, and stay out of melee range than it is to negate several dozen tricks that do all sorts of different things... you are simply wrong.

This only happens when enemies become poorly played auto attackers when they can do so much better, and when all the casters are just goofing off (preparing nothing but fire magic for example, then crying when a Baatezu appears) to put it nicely. It is far easier to negate one trick than several dozen. This is just very basic math.

I'm not assuming the Wizard is the only one doing anything. The standard party also includes a Cleric. The Rogue can still be relevant if he uses the right tricks, he'll just be about average instead of a god. That just leaves 1/4 useless entirely and objectively. Outside of standard, Druids (god) and Bards (average) exist. Also Sorcerers (demigods).

Wrath: Degrees mean you are highly educated in your chosen field. It does not mean you are highly educated overall (degrees are specialized). It does not even mean you are highly intelligent. Not that these people aren't intelligent, but unless their degrees are in relevant fields such as statistical analysis it has little to no bearing on the discussion and is just ego stroking. Had you said these people were doing 11th grade math at age 5 with little effort, I'd be impressed with their relevant, and equal abilities. Instead it's just pointless bragging.

Last ninja edit: Big B is correct. Including, and especially regarding the backwards compatibility bit meaning non casters are doomed to be second rate citizens at best no matter what.

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Paul Watson wrote:

That won't be happening with Pathfinder, as you say. How many times does Jason have to say that the game will basically be the same as 3.5 with some small tweaks to improve problems, not a whole new game system.

As it won't be happening, what people clamouring for it are doing is not helpful and, in fact, actively disruptive to the playtesting. So why do people keep doing it when, as you've said, it's not the purpose of the playtest?

That is a very good point Paul, May I call you Paul? ;-)

That is why I keep on suggesting using what we have as a balance fix and not adding a whole new system.

For the Wizard the Best balancer is the DM, and it can be done with out changing any rules. It is up to the DM to make the game challenging for everyone and if he is letting the Wizard control the game he is not doing his job.

For the other classes that people see as weak, i think the best way is to see what that class is supposed to be good at and using what we have suggest ways of making sure they are good at that.

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Crusader of Logic wrote:

Last I checked, Wizards have a wide array of tricks. They also have all Knowledge skills available, ergo they know the strengths and weaknesses of various creatures. Class levels can throw this off because humanoid opponents are a lot more diverse than monsters, but then vs humanoids you stick to generalistic tactics that work in as many circumstances as possible to maximize your odds. And if they aren't caster humanoids they're not relevant anyways as humanoid power = magic, those that cannot cast magic must make up the balance from items, and NPCs get less items (so that the subsequent taking their stuff doesn't result in broken PCs). Regardless, they both have the right tools and know how to apply them.

The smart enemies that predominate high levels shut down some of their tricks. But the Wizard knows which are shut down and can just use the ones that are not. Meanwhile, what's that melee guy doing? Oh right, running up and hitting it, same as he has at every other level.

So unless you are honestly trying to tell me it's harder for creatures who are often far more mobile than you to get out of, and stay out of melee range than it is to negate several dozen tricks that do all sorts of different things... you are simply wrong.

This only happens when enemies become poorly played auto attackers when they can do so much better, and when all the casters are just goofing off (preparing nothing but fire magic for example, then crying when a Baatezu appears) to put it nicely. It is far easier to negate one trick than several dozen. This is just very basic math.

You have to think past the Idea that the NPCs are dumb and the wizard can whole hardly run over them. the wide variety of trick a wizard has is the same wide variety of trick high level NPCs have.

And ofcourse the melee is running up and hitting everything.. that is their job.. I don't see a problem there..

And you keep assuming a NPC who is not getting into reach is non tragetable from everyone other then the wizard.

Part of the job of a group working together is using tactics to get what they are facing within range.


Balance by DM fiat does not 1: Indicate a lack of a problem but in fact proves its existence beyond all doubt by validating it. 2: Indicate a viable fix as it presumes the DM is at least as competent as people that are supposed to be professionals designing the system in the first place. 3: Present a profitable approach as either leaving it to those not equipped to handle it, or those that could clearly make a product superior to yours and thereby steal your sales just isn't good business sense. Instead, you should try to do it yourself. If you screw up, you're no worse off than if you left it blank. You have nowhere to go but up.


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I have challenged the wizards are so much better crowd to post some build examples, level 5, 10 and 15.

This is so that we can look at what they are saying, at the spellbooks, feats, items, etc.... To see if their interpretation of the rules are the same as the rest of us.

One of the key issues that they keep coming back with, is that they have spells that will take care of (insert any situation here). Well, I want to see what their standard spell load out it, what is in their spellbook, etc... I am not able come up with their ultimate, so much better than any other class build, so I would either like to learn, or to be able to point out their errors or weaknesses.

So far, only Crusader of Logic has responded with a build, an artificer. One of his more powerful looking items is from the Tome of Magic, so will be a while before I can take a proper look.

Well, I should also say that LogicNinja posted an 11th level wizard, that when looked at, was not as powerful as he had indicated, and had a few errors in it. He has not yet responded to my questions on those errors/issues.

So, until I actually see some of these builds, I will cheerfully ignore the casters are soo good, and the fighter is soo bad crowd.


Dragnmoon wrote:


You have to think past the Idea that the NPCs are dumb and the wizard can whole hardly run over them. the wide variety of trick a wizard has is the same wide variety of trick high level NPCs have.

Are all high-level NPCs also high-level Wizards? How boring. I thought they were stuff like Balors and Solars and advanced monsters and such. And I doing DnD wrong?

Dragnmoon wrote:
And ofcourse the melee is running up and hitting everything.. that is their job.. I don't see a problem there..

I'll let CoL handle this. I like how he talks.

Dragnmoon wrote:

And you keep assuming a NPC who is not getting into reach is non tragetable from everyone other then the wizard.

Part of the job of a group working together is using tactics to get what they are facing within range.

If said enemy is not in reach, how are the non-casters (not a cleric, druid, wizard, etc) managing to get them into reach? The casters don't care if the fighter can't reach the enemy, because they're too busy pegging the target with SoD or SoL spells.

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Balance by DM fiat does not 1: Indicate a lack of a problem but in fact proves its existence beyond all doubt by validating it. 2: Indicate a viable fix as it presumes the DM is at least as competent as people that are supposed to be professionals designing the system in the first place. 3: Present a profitable approach as either leaving it to those not equipped to handle it, or those that could clearly make a product superior to yours and thereby steal your sales just isn't good business sense. Instead, you should try to do it yourself. If you screw up, you're no worse off than if you left it blank. You have nowhere to go but up.

See this is where are philosophies differ..

I see it as the Job of the DM to Balance the game and to make the game challenging to there groups.

I do not see it as a rule problem... But as part of the rules..

I don't see the game as one sided as players only but as a game with players and a DM and it is the DM job to run the story not to let the players run the story.

I don't see the Wizards as Broken, but as the Wizards do what they do and they are challenged by the DM by what they face.

I see each class as having a role in the group and they should excel at that role.

What needs to be fixed is if another class excel at that role.

A wizard should not be able to do a beat down as well as a Fighter and a Fighter should not be able to remove the magical defenses of the NPC.

Also, I am not advocating Rule 0.


Man named Dragnmoon who did not read the post wrote:
You have to think past the Idea that the NPCs are dumb and the wizard can whole hardly run over them. the wide variety of trick a wizard has is the same wide variety of trick high level NPCs have.

Not validating the question I have answered before it was asked and therefore should not exist with a response.

Dragnmoon, on false claims wrote:
And ofcourse the melee is running up and hitting everything.. that is their job.. I don't see a problem there...

You presume they are able to do their job. I'm not assuming everything takes full fire damage, even when resistances and immunities clearly exist am I? So why are you assuming that everything will just sit there and drool while the melee guy runs up to it and uses his one trick? Refraining from logical fallacies applies to both sides of the argument.

Likewise, having a job does not automatically grant one perfect ability to do it. If you believe it does, try seeing if getting a job as a SWAT sniper gives you perfect aim. Hint: You have to train a lot just to get hired, much less fielded, then there are still things you just can't do. And if it doesn't involve a sniper rifle... well you get the idea.

Dragnmoon, Logically Fallacious wrote:
And you keep assuming a NPC who is not getting into reach is non tragetable from everyone other then the wizard.

Straw man. I am assuming he is non targetable by the melee guy.

Dragnmoon, no witty comment this time wrote:
Part of the job of a group working together is using tactics to get what they are facing within range.

And you get it down out of the sky by... Oh right. Killing it with viable ranged attacks. I specify viable so you can't say 'But wait a minute, the Fighter does 1d8+Small Number with his Longbow. He can totally help out past level 5 or so!' That's just looking busy.

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Big B wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:


You have to think past the Idea that the NPCs are dumb and the wizard can whole hardly run over them. the wide variety of trick a wizard has is the same wide variety of trick high level NPCs have.

Are all high-level NPCs also high-level Wizards? How boring. I thought they were stuff like Balors and Solars and advanced monsters and such. And I doing DnD wrong?

Dragnmoon wrote:
And ofcourse the melee is running up and hitting everything.. that is their job.. I don't see a problem there..

I'll let CoL handle this. I like how he talks.

Dragnmoon wrote:

And you keep assuming a NPC who is not getting into reach is non tragetable from everyone other then the wizard.

Part of the job of a group working together is using tactics to get what they are facing within range.

If said enemy is not in reach, how are the non-casters (not a cleric, druid, wizard, etc) managing to get them into reach? The casters don't care if the fighter can't reach the enemy, because they're too busy pegging the target with SoD or SoL spells.

I never said all high level NPCs where wizards.. I just say that High level NPC have the same variety of tricks.

And to your last part.. depends on the situation... to many variables to go into exacts, but many minds can work on tactics to get them into reach.

Ok and I am going to admit my ignorance.. SoD SoL?

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Crusader of Logic wrote:

And you get it down out of the sky by... Oh right. Killing it with viable ranged attacks. I specify viable so you can't say 'But wait a minute, the Fighter does 1d8+Small Number with his Longbow. He can totally help out past level 5 or so!' That's just looking busy.

So all the wizards spells against this NPC out of range is hitting it to?.. That is not someone using the tactics and abilities at hand for the NPC to its full extent.

And there are ways to get something into melee range.. And I have seen some nasty thing done with Longbows.

Not everything all the time is going to work.. The wizard is not going to be able to always hurt are effect what they are fighting and the same for the melee.

That is why once again they need to work as a group to get what they are facing to the point that what can be done against them is working, be it melee or spell casting.

Liberty's Edge

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Balance by DM fiat does not 1: Indicate a lack of a problem but in fact proves its existence beyond all doubt by validating it. 2: Indicate a viable fix as it presumes the DM is at least as competent as people that are supposed to be professionals designing the system in the first place. 3: Present a profitable approach as either leaving it to those not equipped to handle it, or those that could clearly make a product superior to yours and thereby steal your sales just isn't good business sense. Instead, you should try to do it yourself. If you screw up, you're no worse off than if you left it blank. You have nowhere to go but up.

GM fiat has always been part of the game and always will be. Also, a ssytem that requires a DM to take affirmative action to maintain balance is neither broken or inferior to one that requires no thought or effort on their part. Designers are not and have never been perfect. Honestly, if you have such a low opinion of Jason, the other people on the credits page, and the rest of the people on the boards as your snarky, when not insulting, comments seem to imply, why are you even posting?


Mistwalker wrote:

I have challenged the wizards are so much better crowd to post some build examples, level 5, 10 and 15.

This is so that we can look at what they are saying, at the spellbooks, feats, items, etc.... To see if their interpretation of the rules are the same as the rest of us.

One of the key issues that they keep coming back with, is that they have spells that will take care of (insert any situation here). Well, I want to see what their standard spell load out it, what is in their spellbook, etc... I am not able come up with their ultimate, so much better than any other class build, so I would either like to learn, or to be able to point out their errors or weaknesses.

So far, only Crusader of Logic has responded with a build, an artificer. One of his more powerful looking items is from the Tome of Magic, so will be a while before I can take a proper look.

Well, I should also say that LogicNinja posted an 11th level wizard, that when looked at, was not as powerful as he had indicated, and had a few errors in it. He has not yet responded to my questions on those errors/issues.

So, until I actually see some of these builds, I will cheerfully ignore the casters are soo good, and the fighter is soo bad crowd.

The Collar is primarily there for HiPS. Aka you can Hide while being watched. Well, it also grants unnamed skill bonuses, and random other stuff but that's the main reason.

As for the other optimizers here... quite frankly they are not nearly as patient as I. While I have more of an 'enlightenment' mindset going on, the others just tend to facepalm when faced with stuff like that because it's like proving the sky is blue. Just look. Done. Then people look and it isn't done. They aren't blind, so why can't they see it? That's the thought process I predict.


Dragnmoon wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:

And you get it down out of the sky by... Oh right. Killing it with viable ranged attacks. I specify viable so you can't say 'But wait a minute, the Fighter does 1d8+Small Number with his Longbow. He can totally help out past level 5 or so!' That's just looking busy.

So all the wizards spells against this NPC out of range is hitting it to?.. That is not someone using the tactics and abilities at hand for the NPC to its full extent.

And there are ways to get something into melee range.. And I have seen some nasty thing done with Longbows.

Not everything all the time is going to work.. The wizard is not going to be able to always hurt are effect what they are fighting and the same for the melee.

That is why once again they need to work as a group to get what they are facing to the point that what can be done against them is working, be it melee or spell casting.

What are you talking about? Can you rephrase this better? In the present form, you are making no sense.

I am ignoring Krensky entirely as he is completely falsifying my position by claiming I said things I did not and are in fact the opposite of what was said. Unless saying that whichever DM is Rule 0ing is not professional is somehow an insult to professionals? Eh, I'm not even going to think about that logic fail too hard.

Liberty's Edge

Crusader of Logic wrote:
I am ignoring Krensky entirely as he is completely falsifying my position by claiming I said things I did not and are in fact the opposite of what was said. Unless saying that whichever DM is Rule 0ing is not professional is somehow an insult to professionals? Eh, I'm not even going to think about that logic fail too hard.

I did nothing of the sort. However, let me simplify.

You are an arrogant prick. Your posts are invariably snarky and often downright insulting. You misused logic constantly, insist anyone disagreeing with you is an imbecile or worse, and your comments add nothing to the discourse.


Dragnmoon wrote:
A CR 10 Creature is not an example of a High Level Encounter.

Standard Iron Golem is CR13.

You should have also noted that I talked about invulnerability - meaning, I have not even hinted about other aspects of the encounter. I have merely pointed out that properly attired wizard can easily work around opponents immune to magic.

Dragnmoon wrote:
Now the Iron Golem Plus other minions, and the Level 18 Wizard that made it and controls it.. Is an example of a High level Encounter.

This thread is specifically about Wizards vs Fighters. Adding Wizard to support melee opponents, even as an example, is totally off topic.

Dragnmoon wrote:
A High level encounter The wizard would have problems with SR and high Saving throws. His Spells would be countered by what they are facing.

In case you missed previous posts in this and other threads, this particular argument was countered with array of spells which circumvent such defenses or force opponents to make several rolls at the same time.

And, golems, are actually immune to magic, therefore, you have not just failed to read the previous posts, but you have actually failed to take into account the point I made - wizardly abilities may work around saves and SR. Actually, controller type wizards excel at using such spells.

Dragnmoon wrote:
The Group as a whole would have to work together to solve the problem because they are countered at every step, because what they are facing have Immense powers.

The problem here is that if the group is built out of wizards with their cohorts (healers and tanks), they would have much easier time than canonical party.

And the reason we talk about balancing the stuff, is to provide an attractive alternative to folks who don't want to play wizards. Otherwise you may want to experience the syndrome of Spellcaster-Only (in most long AD&D and D20 campaigns I have participated all non spellcasters eventually quit or quietly faded into background).

The immense powers you speak of... well, examples please? And please, do explain, what kind of powers would be easier to defeat by a canonical party instead of wizards + cohorts?

Regards,
Ruemere

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Crusader of Logic wrote:

What are you talking about? Can you rephrase this better? In the present form, you are making no sense.

sure no problem..

My argument has been spread out through many posts and has been thinned because of that so I will place the whole thing here.

- The Balancer for wizard at High play is the DM. It is the Job of the DM to challenge the players within the rules and if he is letting the Wizard wholly control the game he is not doing it right. The wizard is not broken because if they were nothing could stop them which is untrue.

- Each class has a Role and those roles through the the story should be used. If the wizard is the only thing that is needed then those roles are not being used and the DM is not doing their job.

-It is not the role of the Fighter to do what a Wizard does just as it is not the role of the Wizard to do what a Fighter does. I don't expect the fighter to Remove buffs just as I don't expect the Wizard to give the opponent a beat down.

- many times the wizard in a challenging story will find his/herself less useful at high level play and that is when the other players of the group jump in, be it with melee, using tactics to bring their targets closer, healing or 'debuffing' or the many other things that can be done.

- What does need to be worked on is making sure that the roles that the classes fit in should be excelled by those classes by suggesting changes that fit with the system and do not hurt backwards capability. This should be done by changing things around and not by whole sale 'nerfing'

Is that everything?

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Krensky wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
I am ignoring Krensky entirely as he is completely falsifying my position by claiming I said things I did not and are in fact the opposite of what was said. Unless saying that whichever DM is Rule 0ing is not professional is somehow an insult to professionals? Eh, I'm not even going to think about that logic fail too hard.

I did nothing of the sort. However, let me simplify.

You are an arrogant prick. Your posts are invariably snarky and often downright insulting. You misused logic constantly, insist anyone disagreeing with you is an imbecile or worse, and your comments add nothing to the discourse.

Your not helping, please refrain from these type of posts.


Krensky wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
I am ignoring Krensky entirely as he is completely falsifying my position by claiming I said things I did not and are in fact the opposite of what was said. Unless saying that whichever DM is Rule 0ing is not professional is somehow an insult to professionals? Eh, I'm not even going to think about that logic fail too hard.

I did nothing of the sort. However, let me simplify.

You are an arrogant prick. Your posts are invariably snarky and often downright insulting. You misused logic constantly, insist anyone disagreeing with you is an imbecile or worse, and your comments add nothing to the discourse.

Arrogance is more confidence than is warranted. This is not the case.

My posts are 'invariably snarky and often downright insulting' only to those who are doing the exact things to warrant such responses and not to all people here.

I do not bash people for disagreeing, which you would know if you took a look at the many posts where a disagreement took place and that was it because the person on the other end was not being willfully ignorant and antagonistic.

My comments have been praised by multiple people for adding quite a bit to the discourse. I don't recall seeing you having said anything constructive. Feel free to prove me wrong, but if I were not me I'd take the guy who only starts throwing fireballs to fend off trolls over the guy whose answer to everything is fire, fire, and more fire.

No redeeming correctness whatsoever.

251 to 296 of 296 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Fighters vs. Wizards -- Unbalanced = Broken? All Messageboards