I've never really participated in the "Fighters are too weak, wizards too powerful" discussions, nor in the seemingly opposed "Wizard spells are all nerfed, they are unable to do the crippling damage of a fighter!" discussions.
If you have a strong opinion on either of the above statements, you should probably stop reading, as I know you're not going to like this.
For the rest of us, doesn't the existence of these two arguments make a case for the greater balance? If the wizard can never achieve the same sheer damage output as the fighter, that doesn't make him inferior, just different. If the Fighter can't really hope to battle magical creatures of immense power without some help from the Wizard, the former doctrine does seem to preserve a niche for him in the party.
I know there are some exceptions, mainly once we start examining the wizard spells that do other things but pump damage. But even so, does not the simple existence of these two ubiquitous arguments make the case for some kind of balance between the two meta-classes?
My hope is that we can have this discussion for those who believe that the balance is there, and how to augment and improve it. Oh, and keep it civil. And if you're a firm believer that I'm wrong and one class is clearly superior (whatever that means) you were supposed to stop reading 3 paragraphs ago! Please don't post!
This whole thing stems from 3.0 -> thinking. Prior to third edition, I never heard anyone argue that all classes had to be equal in combat. The idea is just silly. It assumes that combat is the only important aspect of the game. I never hear anyone saying everyone should be as skilled as rogues, or everyone should be able to cast spells (well, maybe some 4e people, but we'll ignore that).
Fighters should be good in some circumstances, Wizards/Sorcerers in others, and Rogues in others still. Sure, everybody has to have SOME usefulness in combat, as it is a common occurrence in the game, but certainly there is room for characters whose focus is outside the realm of beating big monsters. Similarly, some monsters will be easier defeated by Wizards, others by Fighters. Most often, it's the combination of several classes that is most effective.
This whole thing stems from 3.0 -> thinking. Prior to third edition, I never heard anyone argue that all classes had to be equal in combat. The idea is just silly. It assumes that combat is the only important aspect of the game. I never hear anyone saying everyone should be as skilled as rogues, or everyone should be able to cast spells (well, maybe some 4e people, but we'll ignore that).
Fighters should be good in some circumstances, Wizards/Sorcerers in others, and Rogues in others still. Sure, everybody has to have SOME usefulness in combat, as it is a common occurrence in the game, but certainly there is room for characters whose focus is outside the realm of beating big monsters. Similarly, some monsters will be easier defeated by Wizards, others by Fighters. Most often, it's the combination of several classes that is most effective.
I think you're right, but there is the sense of "balance" that they tried to inject in 3rd ed. Someone decided that the game was primarily about combat, and during that sequence where everyone is taking turns, each player should feel they're contributing something.
So while I agree as to the origin, I disagree that combat can't be "balanced". I think it's great the the wizards can damage many targets more effectively than a fighter, and nothing has displaced the fighter as the focused damage-dealer of the party. Combat balance can work, just as long as you mean "everyone does something cool on their turn" and not "every class is mathematically identical."
This whole thing stems from 3.0 -> thinking. Prior to third edition, I never heard anyone argue that all classes had to be equal in combat. The idea is just silly. It assumes that combat is the only important aspect of the game. I never hear anyone saying everyone should be as skilled as rogues, or everyone should be able to cast spells (well, maybe some 4e people, but we'll ignore that).
Fighters should be good in some circumstances, Wizards/Sorcerers in others, and Rogues in others still. Sure, everybody has to have SOME usefulness in combat, as it is a common occurrence in the game, but certainly there is room for characters whose focus is outside the realm of beating big monsters. Similarly, some monsters will be easier defeated by Wizards, others by Fighters. Most often, it's the combination of several classes that is most effective.
Oh the argument was there in 1st and 2nd edition as well as the problem was even worse in those editions. Just you didn't have internet as prevalent during the those edition days. So you wouldn't have a lot discussion on the problems of those versions.
|
This whole thing stems from 3.0 -> thinking. Prior to third edition, I never heard anyone argue that all classes had to be equal in combat. The idea is just silly. It assumes that combat is the only important aspect of the game. I never hear anyone saying everyone should be as skilled as rogues, or everyone should be able to cast spells (well, maybe some 4e people, but we'll ignore that).
I think that this type of thinking became more prevalent once WOTC's influence took over. I mean just look at Magic the Gathering for reference. It's a glorified game of rocks, paper, scissors where everything is balanced and everything has a counter. That type of thinking has crept into the way people see this game.
Ultimately a lot of the "problems" with the current game stem from the fact that this game is really comprised of two separate games or game styles mashed together with mixed results. On one hand you have the tactical/combat/miniatures side. Hard and fast rules reign supreme. On the other you have the role-playing aspect of the game. This is a lot harder to define with all encompassing rule sets. For the most part they exist separately, combat is combat and then there is the rest.
The problem is that they do influence each other more than some realize, or care to allow.
Further complicating things is that some players/groups emphasize one aspect over the other, which is fine, but they need to remember that both parts are equally important in the grand scheme of things.
That is why the rules need to remain "in the middle" so to speak.
Oh the argument was there in 1st and 2nd edition as well as the problem was even worse in those editions. Just you didn't have internet as prevalent during the those edition days. So you wouldn't have a lot discussion on the problems of those versions.
I never heard the argument seriously made by anyone I played with in my 10+ years of 1st & 2nd edition that all classes should be equal in combat. I agree there should be something of a balance, but it needs to take into account the game as a whole, not just combat. A campaign that only includes combat is little more than a board game.
No real comments about how to improve the balance that exists, but I wanted to add a voice that I *do* believe a decent balance exists between the classes.
I actually feel that balance is *strained* by the boosts fighters (and others) have gotten to combat, but by no means broken.
But, wizards can't bury the Hatchet!
Wizards cannot use Hatchets without spending a Feat!
There's only one place to bury the hatchet -- and the wizard won't like it. :)
|
|
I never heard the argument seriously made by anyone I played with in my 10+ years of 1st & 2nd edition that all classes should be equal in combat. I agree there should be something of a balance, but it needs to take into account the game as a whole, not just combat. A campaign that only includes combat is little more than a board game.
Oh the argument was there in 1st and 2nd edition as well as the problem was even worse in those editions. Just you didn't have internet as prevalent during the those edition days. So you wouldn't have a lot discussion on the problems of those versions.
Me neither. The problem in the groups I play in started in 3E -- "melee" classes became totally dependant on spellcasters and their "buffs" to survive. And the more tactical nature of the game required a whole new level of "rules mastery" and "min-maxing" -- especially when the hundreds of Prestige Classes and Feats started to pop up in every book.
I don't think it's just an "internet thing", as 3E and 4E "defenders" often claim -- I played the game with a large number of people, and nobody felt the classes weren't in balance back then.
In my early days of playing, the survivability of wizards always played a major part - 1d4 hp and 1 first level spell a day, you've got to be fairly clever to keep that alive. Many players were attracted to wizards but the difficulty of keeping them alive created an almost natural selection amongst those who wanted to play them - sure there is the promise of lots of power at the higher levels but surviving long enough to get there was the big issue.
It came to the point that those who played wizards well, those that could anticipate what spells to keep prepared and how to best use them, had their own skill-set to bring to the game. Balance didn't seem to be an issue.
I think the point raised about the internet and the popularized issue of balance is valid, but it makes it seem as though the problem has existed a long time. Wizards and Combat classes have always been balanced in a sense, just not in the modern way of thinking about it.
|
Human wizards can!But, wizards can't bury the Hatchet!
Wizards cannot use Hatchets without spending a Feat!
The hatchet's not a D&D weapon...
I've participated in the Fighter V Wizard (oddly not many talk about the sorc being unbalanced) fights in the past. I have to agree whole heartedly with the OP though. I don't see that either class is unbalanced.
On a side note, that's the real reason I participate in those debates. I end up defending both classes (though I must admit I see more fighter bashing on these boards than Wiz bashing). I think people are confusing a wanted play style for an unbalanced game. Its pretty easy to do when you see a certain thing being played over and over and seeing no easy counter come to mind.
And the more tactical nature of the game required a whole new level of "rules mastery" and "min-maxing"
Only if you play that way.
-- especially when the hundreds of Prestige Classes and Feats started to pop up in every book.
I agree. Those were bad times. I remember holding out on buying all those splat books until some guy in robes came to my house and held a gun to my head and forced me to buy and use them all. ;-P
I don't spend a lot of time on message boards anymore, but this thread kind of surprised me. In 20 years of gaming, I've never played with a group that had this discussion. Fighter and Wizard are my two favorite classes of all time.
I think the key to this is to remember that it isn't a competition. At low levels wizards depend on fighters to keep them from being impaled on a goblin spear. At higher levels the wizards keeps fighters from all manner of horrific deaths.
Also, who says everything has to be balanced? Some characters, even just through the luck of dice, will be more powerful than others in some respect. As long as the people in the group who play the wizard and the fighter are both having fun, who cares?
The hatchet's not a D&D weapon...
Throwing axe.
Human wizards can!But, wizards can't bury the Hatchet!
Wizards cannot use Hatchets without spending a Feat!
The hatchet's not a D&D weapon...
I've participated in the Fighter V Wizard (oddly not many talk about the sorc being unbalanced) fights in the past. I have to agree whole heartedly with the OP though. I don't see that either class is unbalanced.
On a side note, that's the real reason I participate in those debates. I end up defending both classes (though I must admit I see more fighter bashing on these boards than Wiz bashing). I think people are confusing a wanted play style for an unbalanced game. Its pretty easy to do when you see a certain thing being played over and over and seeing no easy counter come to mind.
Hello alltogether,
well first excuse me for my bad following, because it's not pretty well to understand what sort of thing is mentioned currently with "the hatchet".If it's not a weapon what's then in this case?
Second, the debate for Fighters vs. Wizards especially for me is really an annoying thing. Because when I remember back in 2nd edition that I've played about 4 years with my group (before we moved all to 3rd Edition), no one mentioned or argued very much about the wizard. By the way, when we started and created our first characters we were all beginners, as all of us! I mentioned that I would like to play a fighter but when our DM told me that there is another person who wants to play a fighter I just asked him, "what should I play then?" ... he answered me with "their is still a need for an arcane Spellcaster!" Well I wasn't happy to play at the beginning a wizard, but afterall I tried my best and I started to like the part the I played in our group. To be honest, the wizard is powerful, but as powerful he can be, as vulnerable he is! At 3rd Edition even in our group a debate started: e.g. haste (2 spells in a round) which in 3.5 is also possible now with some kinds of spells, feats or Prestige Classes. The problem is I think that Players of "Tank" Combat Classes in general tend to be the primary damage dealer and don't like to pushed away from the position by a haste boosted, prestige class featured overenchanted spellcaster, be it a wizard(specialist), sorcerer, or any other as the player chooses combat related scheme. That's maybe the main reason they start to cry out loudly.
I've in most cases played the wizard as an allrounder (as well as offensive and defensive spells used) and the roleplay part was always a scientific scheme. Scholar, Geologist, Alchemist, Paleontologist and something like that. The character was a profi in his domain of scientific things and the "Art". I've never became an oppenent of debate to my dear fighter fellow, until this 3rd and further edition split book expansion came out (but they are good) !!!
Now as a DM I've tried to integrate into the Pathfinder Campaign "The Book of Nine Swords". And the core combat classes may choose 1 or 2 combat schools from which they can draw then maneuvers and stances dependent on the CMB > Combat Maneuver Bonus. Until now I can say that no "Tank" (Melee) Combat Class has wailed arround that the wizard still is powerful.
Maybe the System became a little bit more complex, but until now I can say: "It's worth the trouble!"
I think we will still have crying morrons even if a complete new system would came out for our adorable D&D 3.5/Pathfinder!
I personaly thank Paizo that I can buy books that make me happy. The core classes shine like never before, and maybe until august they will get diamond status :P! 4th Edition wouldn't be my choice, even if I play it from time to time to share time with my friends.
In that case peace ^(o.o)^
I don't spend a lot of time on message boards anymore, but this thread kind of surprised me. In 20 years of gaming, I've never played with a group that had this discussion. Fighter and Wizard are my two favorite classes of all time.
I think the key to this is to remember that it isn't a competition. At low levels wizards depend on fighters to keep them from being impaled on a goblin spear. At higher levels the wizards keeps fighters from all manner of horrific deaths.
Also, who says everything has to be balanced? Some characters, even just through the luck of dice, will be more powerful than others in some respect. As long as the people in the group who play the wizard and the fighter are both having fun, who cares?
I totally agree with your comment, maybe something I would like to mentioned too, is that if someone has ever read some novels (Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, etc) and don't just play only D&D related Campaigns for Hack&Slay reasons, if yes? he should be than better equip himself with Diablo/WOW and the like.
The most powerful "classes" that are mentioned in many novels are wizards or sorcerers.One example:
that Elminster was at the beginning nothing more than a shepherd boy who became a fighter and "killed with a crossbow a wizard". Later he became a rogue, cleric and after a long time he could call himself a wizard and became a powerful man that became virtual immortal. It's maybe to far-fetched to kill a wizard as a fighter, but possible. It depends how good the fighter plays or vice versa!
Fighters were always the "I can be any alignment class"
Cavaliers, well Now that I remember they COULD be any alignment, but like paladins they had annoying codes of ethics and HAD to wear heavy plate at the first chance they got AND they had (like the paladin) ridiculous stats just in order to be one.
That was the argument for it being "more powerful" that the fighter.
In 1e, the ranger had to be good, the paladin had to be lawful good. The theif had to be any non good.Druids had to be neutral, Clerics had to follow their diety (fighters and wizards didnt need to bother following a diety which i always found to be annoying).
When it really came down to it. Fighters and magic users were the "Free willy class"
It always made me chuckle when I saw lawful good magic users and fighters.
But anyway, fighters were always the class one picked if you didnt want alot of decisions to make (alignment, class features, etc)
You just wanted to deal out some hurt at the end of a long pointy object.
did anyone ever notice fighters always seemed to be played by people who were the party "leader" or "thinker"?
It seemed the fighter player had less things to worry about on his character sheet s he was busy making more decisions on which way to go, what the marching order was, and how to get across the room with out getting smashed by the big boulder trap.
Fighters were just, simple.
but I will have to throw in my two coppers as there are more fantasy novels where the warrior defeats the spellcaster than the other way around,
As someone who's read one or two novels myself, I'd suggest that using them as support for an argument that wizards "should" be more powerful than warriors puts you at the mercy of all the other stories where the wizard/sorcerer/magic user gets beaten by a warrior. Conan, Sir Lancelot, Odysseus, Cuchulain, Hrolf Kraki, the knights from The Enchanted Forest, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser all disagree with your assertion that they can't fight casters.
On the balance question, it's been there since the first supplement. Anyone remember the Cavalier from 1E UA? That got a few comments about it's balance in relation to ordinary fighters.
I didn't get it exactly what you ment about that to put me in mercy? I just wanted to tell that even in novels non spellcasters were able to beat wizards, sorcerers and the like, as you put for example conan, odysseus, sir lancelot and the rest of them. They do even in the true pen&paper setting. It only just depends how strategic one player plays his character and of course the circumstances plus "dice luck"! But I don't want to tell that (arcane) spellcasters should be more powerful, they are powerful enough...and if they get played well, they beat the hell out of you.
So again what's the point?
For me, I have never been obsessed with total balance. However, when all of the PCs become one character’s sidekicks, the game looses its funness.
If you want to augment or improve the balance, then maybe some kind of social contract niche protection is needed.
In 1e, the ranger had to be good
I think 2e had a similar restriction.
The theif had to be any non good.
I remember thieves being banned from LG, but everything else was fine.
In both counts (rangers and rogues) I say good riddance. Makes no real sense and only limits character concepts. But then again, I'm only for alignment restrictions if someone can make a strong case about it. Right now, I can see the druid and his neutrality, the monk and his orderlyness, the barbarian and his disorderlyness, the cleric and his limit to alignments similar to his deity's, and, of course, the paladin with his LG-only limit, since the whole class is built around the concept of LG honour and goodness.
(fighters and wizards didnt need to bother following a diety which i always found to be annoying).
Why? Why should they follow a deity? Why should anyone who isn't receiving divine power from a deity follow a deity? It shouldn't be mandatory in such cases.
I totally agree with your comment, maybe something I would like to mentioned too, is that if someone has ever read some novels (Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, etc)
I read everything FR (up until it became clear that they were butchering the setting, at which point I stopped), as well as some Ravenloft.
The most powerful "classes" that are mentioned in many novels are wizards or sorcerers.
Yeah, I noticed that. Nut it often seemed to me that those combats were between low-level warriors and high-level arcanists. Of course the high-level wizard can beat the low-level warrior. Hell, if the level difference is big enough, the wizard can probably pummel the fighter to death with his bare hands.
In the end, I think it comes down to preparation - and resources. Be prepared and properly equipped and you have a chance, no matter what class you are, and what class your enemy is.
For me, I have never been obsessed with total balance. However, when all of the PCs become one character’s sidekicks, the game looses its funness.
If you want to augment or improve the balance, then maybe some kind of social contract niche protection is needed.
has anyone actually PLAYED a high level PATHFINDER fighter (as it is written in the beta rules)?
They really aren't that bad anymore.
I rarely find situations where I'm overshadowed by the sorceress/dragon disciple or the wizard/eldrtich knight, or the rogue or the cleric.
I usually find tactical ways to get my full attacks in (of course not every round) but everyone else in the party knows if I can in all my attacks whatever it is Im fighting in gonna go down or close to hit.
With the way shield master feat tree and cleave feat tree works IVe really got tons of attacks. you can shield rush/bull rush enemies into a corner one round and peal off their skin with a tirade of attacks the next round.
The Wizard/Eldrtich Knight and the cleric are both conjurers and often pop-up monsters to help me harry, flank or corner enemies, and the rogue usually attacks smaller, weaker cohort enemies, so she can finsih them off early because she knows Ill tackle the big baddie and then she can manuver around once the peons are down for a good sneak attack.
Summoned monsters often handle peons as well.
But our DM also doesnt have gymnastic monsters hopping around the battle field just for the sake of moving either.
Baddies run away from me 1) if they are spell casters (makes sense)
2) beat me in inititive and are low on hps and are not winning
3)are fliers (I was semi useless in a fight with a dragon that had room to scale walls and fly...white dragon)
4) are naturally mobile monsters, like baboons who swung around and did lots of charging attacks, or wolves/worgs didnt seem to stay still long. Swarms, sturges, things liek that all kept moving...
But honestly, things like golems, undead, even giants seem to make more sense trying to kill you rather than running around because the GM knows your weakness.
So suffice to say, I "built" this fighter at 1st level knowing I was deliberately trying to make a fighter that wouldnt easily be taken by mind control spells.
He certainly wasnt min maxed with all stats loaded into str and dex, he actually had a fairly high wisdom.
Its still his worse save but not as bad as it could have been.
do I still need certain buff from other party memebers? Yep.
But heck the Wizard couldnt do damage to save his life for the first three levels of the game so he came accustomed to buff me because well he wanted to do something. And know that he's an Eldritch Knight, he pretty much buffs himself alot too so its semi normal to buff me as well. Pretty much all his spells ar buffs or summons.
The sorceress is the "blaster" (and she like polymorph spells too)
The cleric, well he's mostly built to do alot of stuff with channel energy, and he became an ok secondary combatant,even though when he first started out he hoped to do alot of melee and it just wasnt in the dice for him I guess. Cleric also summons frequently.
The rogue/ranger/duelist is well of course an opportunist fighter and she makes a pretty good front line fighter too (thanks to a bump in HD for ranger and rogues according to pathfinder.)
She doesnt overshadow me at all, shes a dex fighter Im sword and board,both have strengths.
Of course we have only played around the Teens and havent done a level 20 encounter yet (planning to try it here soon)
Since you quoted me I am assuming at least part of your response was directed at me. I have never played a high level Pathfinder fighter. I have never played Pathfinder.
You may notice I never actually singled out any class.
In 1e, the ranger had to be good
(fighters and wizards didnt need to bother following a diety which i always found to be annoying).Why? Why should they follow a deity? Why should anyone who isn't receiving divine power from a deity follow a deity? It shouldn't be mandatory in such cases.
No, I agree with you,I found the whole following diety thing annoying.
Alot of games Ive been in, there has only been god and the anti god (good vs evil) with druids worshipping bunnies and trees in the middle and I liked that better.I hate alignment as a concept, I mean if you are a paladin you have a coe of ethics, clerics code of ethics (similar but different depending on beleifs of religion).
Thats why I like this new concept of "unaligned".
Its cool if its important to a character to devote himself to a way of thinking (lawful neutral) or a free the slaves cause (chaotic good)
But shouldnt be a requirement for existance or a limit to what he would or would not chose to do.
"you cant do that you're neutral good!"interestingly enough, (and I like this) the pregen characters for second darkness has a lawful evil character mixed in the party with other non evil characters. I like this.
It used to be all the other players would try and kill you if they found out you were "evil".
The way one thinks, the choices he's likely to make, or what he does , does not particularly preclude him from being a hero or a villan, or being trustworthy or not.a Lawful evil devil worshipper in a player character group. Thats got to be the first time that was ever done in a pregen PC group for a module.
It's great.I remember my first CN Cleric. I got killed by the party Paladin because I was one step away from chaotic evil.
Ive always hated alignment an diety restrictions.
I was just making a case that the fighter was always a free and easy to run/make character without worry to what alignment he was.
For me, I have never been obsessed with total balance. However, when all of the PCs become one character’s sidekicks, the game looses its funness.
If you want to augment or improve the balance, then maybe some kind of social contract niche protection is needed.
has anyone actually PLAYED a high level PATHFINDER fighter (as it is written in the beta rules)?
They really aren't that bad anymore.
I rarely find situations where I'm overshadowed by the sorceress/dragon disciple or the wizard/eldrtich knight, or the rogue or the cleric.
I usually find tactical ways to get my full attacks in (of course not every round) but everyone else in the party knows if I can in all my attacks whatever it is Im fighting in gonna go down or close to hit.
With the way shield master feat tree and cleave feat tree works IVe really got tons of attacks. you can shield rush/bull rush enemies into a corner one round and peal off their skin with a tirade of attacks the next round.
The Wizard/Eldrtich Knight and the cleric are both conjurers and often pop-up monsters to help me harry, flank or corner enemies, and the rogue usually attacks smaller, weaker cohort enemies, so she can finsih them off early because she knows Ill tackle the big baddie and then she can manuver around once the peons are down for a good sneak attack.
Summoned monsters often handle peons as well.
But our DM also doesnt have gymnastic monsters hopping around the battle field just for the sake of moving either.
Baddies run away from me 1) if they are spell casters (makes sense)
2) beat me in inititive and are low on hps and are not winning
3)are fliers (I was semi useless in a fight with a dragon that had room to scale walls and fly...white dragon)
4) are naturally mobile monsters, like baboons who swung around and did lots of charging attacks, or wolves/worgs didnt seem to stay still long. Swarms, sturges, things liek that all kept moving...But honestly, things like golems, undead, even giants seem...
I personaly don't played a high level fighter in Pathfinder but one of my player's did (Level 11), and indeed the fighter is more attractive than ever before. But to give him the cutting edge "CMB gives Maneuvers from Tome of Battle (only 2 disciplines)"...a little bit more work to do, but the fun is overwhelming!
I never heard the argument seriously made by anyone I played with in my 10+ years of 1st & 2nd edition that all classes should be equal in combat. I agree there should be something of a balance, but it needs to take into account the game as a whole, not just combat. A campaign that only includes combat is little more than a board game.
Oh the argument was there in 1st and 2nd edition as well as the problem was even worse in those editions. Just you didn't have internet as prevalent during the those edition days. So you wouldn't have a lot discussion on the problems of those versions.
I never heard the argument of in 1st or 2nd that the classes should be equal. Just I heard fighters and Rogue players kind of complain after hitting the higher levels above 12. After that neither class really got anything compared to the other classes. They really did become kind of dull, nothing to look forward to in leveling up after you got your 5/2 attacks as a fight or you maximum backstab multiplier as rogue. But Wizards, Clerics and every class that gained spell casting later in level had cool stuff they gained.
Another complaint was why play fighter when a Ranger or Paladin was just a fighter plus extra stuff for wee bit of extra XP to level up.
No one ever said the fighter should be equal to the wizard but toss them a bone at that higher levels. That's the stuff I heard DMing 1st and 2nd Edition. It's understandable. I mean a Wizard gets meteor swarm at 18th level. The fighter got nothing except 2 more HP than the Wizard and a +1 to hit.
I personally think 3rd did a lot for the fighter and PF does even more.
has anyone actually PLAYED a high level PATHFINDER fighter (as it is written in the beta rules)?
Sort of.
In my Rise of the Runelords campaign, I let a GMNPC wander around with the characters because we have chronic player shortage (CPS) and they had no fighter type, anyway.
It was Valeros on steroids (read: he was at the same general power level as the player characters, with the same point buy method and about the same amount of cash).
I used the beta (actually, alpha) fighter, and also extra stuff from books like PHB2 and the Book of Experimental Might 2.
He killed. He was death incarnate. Slashy doom walking around on foot. Unless the enemy had magical help to keep out of his reach, he took them to the cleaners. And since there were a lot of combat brutes in that AP, he had a lot of opportunity to train his Put Sharp Things Into Soft Things That Scream And Bleed skill. He easily outpaced the party rogue even if said rogue was able to make full attacks. And the evoker couldn't match that persistent damage output, either.
I hate alignment as a concept
I actually like it, as long as it is used properly: As a tool to add further depth into your characters and roleplaying, not as a mere limitation or excuse for the GM to mess with players.
Thats why I like this new concept of "unaligned".
New concept? About as new as this "apply heat to food in order to make it more tasty" concept ;-P.
You could always just go and ignore alignment, unless the GM wanted to mess with you, or you played a concept that heavily relies on alignment (paladins, clerics, and so on).
Just leave alignment blank and tell the GM that he can tell you after a couple of session what alignment you're playing there.
Unless you're playing a selfish, insane, mass-murdering, greedy sociopath (and not the "good" type people call adventurers ;-)) that shouldn't be a real problem.
"you cant do that you're neutral good!"
Well, depends.
If you were about to disembowel a child that tried to steal from you, I can see where the GM is coming from.
Other than that, keep things relaxed. If your actions don't match what you wrote onto the sheet, tell the GM you made a mistake and put soemthing else onto the sheet.
interestingly enough, (and I like this) the pregen characters for second darkness has a lawful evil character mixed in the party with other non evil characters. I like this.
Yeah. Seltyiel, the iconic evil character, iconic PrC character, iconic multiclass character, iconic odd-job guy ;-).
There's no reason this cannot work. There's evil and there's evil.
While many seem to equal "evil alignment" to "kills everything that moves and steals everything that isn't nailed down firmly enough", it doesn't have to be like that.
I played a LE character (a judge and hellish warrior of Asmodeus) in a party that contained a paladin, and it was great fun.
It used to be all the other players would try and kill you if they found out you were "evil".
That's something that would quickly get anyone arrested, including paladins. Being evil is not a crime. The greedy, merciless merchant who only looks out for himself is evil, even if he never commited a crime.
Some paladin players like to go "I spend a week using detect evil and attacking everything that lights up", but in my games, that would make them arrested ex-paladins in no time.
a Lawful evil devil worshipper in a player character group. Thats got to be the first time that was ever done in a pregen PC group for a module.
It's great.
Paizo's like that.
But note that Asmodeus is an established deity on Golarion. There's a whole empire that has diabolism as national religion, after all. He's one of the more civilised evil deities. A lot of his followers are useful adventuring companions - you just don't sign anything they hand you without proofreading it carefully :D
I remember my first CN Cleric. I got killed by the party Paladin because I was one step away from chaotic evil.
And he lost his paladin powers right there, right? Right? No? Lousy GM!
Ive always hated alignment an diety restrictions.
I used to have such restrictions. Nowadays, may restrictions have evolved.
I usually tell my players that their characters need to work within the party, and within the campaign. As long as they don't try to disrupt the adventure at every corner, or sow discord within the party, they can play the character they like. Of course, the party has to fit together - if one character has just announced that he's going to play a derwish paladin of serenrae, any request for being allowed to play a cleric of rovagug will be counted as the trolling it is.
There are also some campaign-specific requirements to the characters, but those merely extend the other two restrictions: For Curse of the Crimson Throne, for example, I required every character to have some attachment to Korvosa, some desire to see the city come to no harm, some vested interest in the well-being of its citicens.
I wouldn't have a problem with a priest of Asmodeus in that party (though since they had a paladin in there at first, that would have been problematic for other reasons), or something like a assassin praying to Father Skinsaw (Norgorber)
Well, I played for a REALLY long time a preist of deception. He could action cast "blasphemy spells" Which means he can cast spells in the names of other deities, basically saying things like "in the name of heironious I heal you" and having those spells work.
He was lawful evil.
He also had assassin as a PrC (i think it was 4 levels) and he rarely if ever actually did any "slaying" (in public).
I played the part of party healer (often pilfering items unseen or sticking a dagger in 'stabilized' enemies) and I was known for causing a few in game, intra party unrests from time to time (usually accusing someone else of stealing said missing magic ring etc etc)
But for the most part I played the party healer. I had a vested interest in the party suceeding (more power for them more power for me) I was active in defending our home base town against attacking orc hoardes (Im lawful Evil, we MUST have order! besides I didnt want them dirtying up my fine linens)
I was cooperative and helpful and never attacked a party member (why spend all this time deceiving them just to weaken or kill them?) Until ONE DAY, some nosey player looked at my character sheet.....
his excuse for doing so was that he "knew I leveled" and wanted to know why I hadnt gotten any new cleric spells (I had taken my 4th level of assassin instead)
The next session the paladin smited the funk out of my cleric, but not before I was able to kill the rogue and the ranger (slay living) in the processs.
Why did they attack me?
Because they "knew" I was evil and I was an assassin.
Mind you in my 15 years of play, this kind of thing has happened in at least 70% of parties Ive been in, and as much as I have moved around the country and been in the military its not liek the same group of people or DMs or anything.
|
I read everything FR (up until it became clear that they were butchering the setting, at which point I stopped), as well as some Ravenloft.
I'm going to say that I read everything FR until I grew up and read real books. There are some gems in there, and in the DL stuff, but most of it is pulp, or pulp quality. I still read it, but it isn't amazing, its just amusing, and a little nostalgic. What pains me the most is when you can almost hear the dice clack behind the authors keyboard as he leverages D&D game mechanics into her stories.
But to the topic at hand, using books as a measure will never work because some book feature powerful wizards as protagonist who slay all their foes, and others contain powerful other archetypes as there protagonists who then slay all the other archetypes. The protagonists are almost always paragons of their archetype, and their foes are unable to withstand them.
Pendagast I have to say, either you've played with some really poor role players, or people where out to get you.
It seems odd that someone in game would "know you just leveled" and knowing that you leveled "know you should be able to cast new spells"... that's what we would call metagaming around here and would get very heavy frowns at the minimum.
The next session the paladin smited the funk out of my cleric, but not before I was able to kill the rogue and the ranger (slay living) in the process.
Why did they attack me?
Because they "knew" I was evil and I was an assassin.
Outside of any other discussions, that just plain sucks. Totally totally sucks.
Pendagast I have to say, either you've played with some really poor role players, or people where out to get you.
It seems odd that someone in game would "know you just leveled" and knowing that you leveled "know you should be able to cast new spells"... that's what we would call metagaming around here and would get very heavy frowns at the minimum.
Yea we call it metagaming too. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen,constantly.
When we all do our "out of game" stuff (like expereince) pretty much everyone knows (out of game) "sweet I just got enough to level" Most of the time people level (especially now adays) close to when everyone else levels as well.
But no one in game says "hey the king is only 8th level, I think we can take him"
Any more than someone knows to cast enchantment spells at the guy in armor with a sword because he's a fighter and has alow will save. But It constantly happens.
Heck Ive been in such lousy games before, the DM describes bad guys as "the fighter" or "those two theives" or especially "the Death kight"it kinda takes the guess out of what they are and what they can do. I mean if something is definately, un mistakeable like a dragon or a mummy. well then call it was it is.
But anyway, back to the orginal discussion. I always loved the fighter because he was free willed not "tied" to alignment.
For example, I got away with doing "good" deeds as a deception cleric beause I was trying to "fool" people.
But is it so out of Character for Asmodeous himself to "love" his daughter? Or display acts of kindness toward powerful an worthy followers? He might even (I think) grant mercy upon a worthy foe, even though he was beaten, strip the paladin of all his goodies and anything of value and then let him go free? After all how often is that Asmedous himself gets amused by a good challenege?
Anyway for these reasons it was always simple to play a fighter. if you started out "chaotic good" but didnt act that way, what was the draw back to the DM saying you were chaotic neutral? Nada.
So fighters were always the "alignment-less" PC. At least to me that was a big attraction.
Wizards have another issue with "aligned" spells, which also annoys me.
the act of summoning a fiendish dire rat is "evil" and will eventually shift the wizards alignment, but he can fry people (killing them) all day with lightneing bolts?
Just seems odd.
So even though wizards can be any alignment like fighters, they still have draw back from being "aligned"
Conversly what if an evil wizard summoned a celestial bear? IS that an act of good even if he commanded the bear to kill all the gnomes and pixies with in his reach?
This is kinda of an issue for another thread with the spells and all, But wizard to fighter, they will NEVER be "Equal" other wise wewould have class-less adventurers.
I "Like" the idea of you NEED a wizard for this, as long as there is REASON to say you "need" a fighter for that.
So far inside Pathfinder I have found the Fighter much more kill worthy than before (especially higher) but even at first level!
I dont see why I would NOT play a pathfinder fighter in the future, but I can still see many reason why I would NOT want to travel without a wizard, so in a sense, isnt that "balance" in and of itself?
I was cooperative and helpful and never attacked a party member (why spend all this time deceiving them just to weaken or kill them?) Until ONE DAY, some nosey player looked at my character sheet.....
First error of yours right here: If you are going to deceive players, you must have a fake character sheet! Especially if you know them to be metagaming munchkins.
I once played a "gold elf" - he was actually a shape-changing elf tiefling (fey'ri from the Forgotten Realms). I had a second character sheet and everything, and managed to fool the players for quite some time and baffle them with my antics (suggestion as a spell-like ability means you just tell a guy to take a refreshing bath - in the sea, wearing armour - and he does it!) One of the players started looking up such abilities in forums - and I saw his posts and told him not to be nosy about it, and warned him about meta-gaming, because that player in his party (he didn't know it was me, as he didn't know my online handle yet) might find out and meta-game right back...
Anyway, it was a neutral-to-evil party, so the moral outrage was limited.
I did a similar thing with a full-fledged incubus (using succubus stats), later.
I also played the same fey'ri character later, with a different disguise, but the disguise was blown by a different character going out of his way to ruining the fun for me - but then again, ruining the fun by being intolerable was his MO.
Anyway, if you do stuff like that, tell the GM and have a second set of character sheets around to do things properly!
The next session the paladin smited the funk out of my cleric, but not before I was able to kill the rogue and the ranger (slay living) in the processs.
Why did they attack me?
Because they "knew" I was evil and I was an assassin.
The GM should have smitten them for being meta-gaming jerks.
I'm going to say that I read everything FR until I grew up and read real books.
I wouldn't call it growing up. I'd call it being condescending towards others.
There are some gems in there, and in the DL stuff, but most of it is pulp
You say that as if it were a bad thing. Long live pulp!
I still read it,
What happened to growing up?
but it isn't amazing, its just amusing, and a little nostalgic.
You talk as if amusing wasn't enough. And if it isn't, why waste your time?
Get off the bandwagon already.
But anyway, back to the orginal discussion. I always loved the fighter because he was free willed not "tied" to alignment.
I consider both those classes that can work with any moral or ethnical outlook and those that are required to behave in certain ways to offer good roleplaying opportunities.
It can be a blast to play a class with a codex because of that restriction. Getting into quandaries can be so very rewarding. It's not for everyone, of course. We had such a situation recently: Paladin is really pissed at enemy, who employs hit-and-run tactics in a large mension, hits him hard with spells and sneak attacks and spell sneak attacks and all that, only to surrender shorly before she's killed. He wanted nothing more to cut her down, but his codex forbade it. He was seething - I mean both the character and the player.
I simply love it when I can get such an intense reaction out of players.
Wizards have another issue with "aligned" spells, which also annoys me.the act of summoning a fiendish dire rat is "evil" and will eventually shift the wizards alignment, but he can fry people (killing them) all day with lightneing bolts?
I don't consider every [evil] descriptor to be equal. Some imply heavy tolls to your morals, others are very mild on the alignment.
In the case of summonings, I guess they're mainly to bar clerics from such critters - which makes sense: When you beseech your LG deity for aid, he won't sent you demons, because his divine host doesn't contain any, and he doesn't want you to hang out with demons.
I'd say wizards aren't in any danger of having an actual alignment change, even if they're conjurers and use [evil] summoning spells all day long.
Plus, remember that while lightning bolt does not have an alignment descriptor per se, the way you use it can still have an impact. Using it to defeat the evil mass murderer is not an evil thing - maybe it's even good. But using it at a bunch of orphans because you feel like it will get you onto the fast lane to evil, even if the spells descriptor says otherwise.
Conversly what if an evil wizard summoned a celestial bear? IS that an act of good even if he commanded the bear to kill all the gnomes and pixies with in his reach?
I'd say summoning a celestial creature nudges your alignment a millimeter towards good - and using it to slaughter innocent creatures (I assume you meant gnomes and pixies that weren't evil and so on) shoves your alignment a mile and a half towards evil.
Good points, Kae Yoss.
Yeah, good and evil have more to do with intent than descriptors.
It wouldn't matter what monster a wizard summons, really. It's there to fight for you, presumably to kill if it can, and has no other function.
A cleric will summon the monsters his deity likes and can send him, thus the alignment descriptors. Asmodeus ain't gonna send his clerics a celestial anything!
Though, thinking about it, a FALLEN celestial something-or-other might be doable. :P
Or one working off a contract.
In 20+ years of gaming (1e, 2e, other systems), I never had a problem with fighter vs. wizard balance, either. But in 3.5/Pathfinder, all of the sudden I do. Why? Maybe because I can no longer move and full attack, can no longer intercept enemies, can no longer disrupt spellcasting, and, at high levels, I need a 19-20 to save vs. effects that used to require a 4 or better.
Meanwhile, that BBEG wizard my party is fighting, who used to require bodyguards to keep me from butchering him before he could cast, can now cast while tumbling about the battlefield, ignoring AoO and making all his defensive casting checks with contemptuous ease, and I can't even catch up with him, much less kill him.
So, in the old days, I used to let our wizard take out the bodyguards, and I'd run in and kill the enemy wizard. When guys attacked our wizard, I'd protect him.
Now, at low levels I have lots of fun with feats. But at higher levels, I mostly stand around and watch while our wizard fights the enemy wizard. And occasionally the DM gives me a really dumb monster to fight, so I don't feel too useless. I get weapon training and cool faets that let me do lots of damage and have nifty crits and such, so I'm happy when a monster stands there and lets me full-attack it all day. But against intelligent opponents, my friends get to have all the fun now, and I get left out unless they do nothing but buff me and dispel effects on me, instead of just taking care of things themselves. And as a big, tough, manly fighter, I hate to be useless unless excessively coddled by my friends.
|
|
In 20+ years of gaming (1e, 2e, other systems), I never had a problem with fighter vs. wizard balance, either. But in 3.5/Pathfinder, all of the sudden I do. Why? Maybe because I can no longer move and full attack, can no longer intercept enemies, can no longer disrupt spellcasting, and, at high levels, I need a 19-20 to save vs. effects that used to require a 4 or better.
Meanwhile, that BBEG wizard my party is fighting, who used to require bodyguards to keep me from butchering him before he could cast, can now cast while tumbling about the battlefield, ignoring AoO and making all his defensive casting checks with contemptuous ease, and I can't even catch up with him, much less kill him.
So, in the old days, I used to let our wizard take out the bodyguards, and I'd run in and kill the enemy wizard. When guys attacked our wizard, I'd protect him.
Now, at low levels I have lots of fun with feats. But at higher levels, I mostly stand around and watch while our wizard fights the enemy wizard. And occasionally the DM gives me a really dumb monster to fight, so I don't feel too useless. I get weapon training and cool faets that let me do lots of damage and have nifty crits and such, so I'm happy when a monster stands there and lets me full-attack it all day. But against intelligent opponents, my friends get to have all the fun now, and I get left out unless they do nothing but buff me and dispel effects on me, instead of just taking care of things themselves. And as a big, tough, manly fighter, I hate to be useless unless excessively coddled by my friends.
This sums up my own thoughts perfectly! And it's not just BBEG wizards -- it's pretty much every high-level/high CR NPC and monster with spellcasting abilities.
...didn't have a problem, now does...This sums up my own thoughts perfectly! And it's not just BBEG wizards -- it's pretty much every high-level/high CR NPC and monster with spellcasting abilities.
I suggest removing a few defensive options from casters to be in line with the way Somatic Components used to work.
Those steps should help bring disruption back into the game, and multiclassers and melee-survivable casters will be the only ones with a decent chance to cast in melee. Therefor, a fighter can put the hurt on a caster, and bodyguards are back in vogue.
I fail to see the point in including spell disruption if all casters have a class feature (Concentration/Spellcraft) that allows them to ignore it nearly all of the time. Instead, I believe only physically tough casters should be casting in melee, and the Fort Save already delineates melee casters from "quarterbacks".
That said, this is houserule stuff. The balance between the classes is there, more or less, it's just the details of the combat system that have skewed slightly toward the casters. A lot of that is the pile of broken melee defense options for casters. I've fixed them in my game (by removing them as above) so I don't really have the issue, I suppose.
|
|
...didn't have a problem, now does...This sums up my own thoughts perfectly! And it's not just BBEG wizards -- it's pretty much every high-level/high CR NPC and monster with spellcasting abilities.I suggest removing a few defensive options from casters to be in line with the way Somatic Components used to work.
No casting defensively (only Somatic Components should incur AoO).
No tumbling while using Somatic Components. (no climbing or swimming either)
Use a Fort save for concentration when a spell is disrupted (I'm using damage as DC with nothing added). Those steps should help bring disruption back into the game, and multiclassers and melee-survivable casters will be the only ones with a decent chance to cast in melee. Therefor, a fighter can put the hurt on a caster, and bodyguards are back in vogue.
Defensive Casting: is really abused, i've seen. I've also seen it forgotten quite a bit. Weird I know...
Tumbling: If it wasn't for the bard i would totally agree with you here. Perhaps a consideration for them, such as with their spells and light armor?
Fort Save: I don't agree with this last one. Concentration checks (i've noticed) seem to have trouble keeping up with damage already. The Fort Save really is kind of over kill in my humble opinion.
Tumbling: If it wasn't for the bard i would totally agree with you here. Perhaps a consideration for them, such as with their spells and light armor?
Oh yeah, the Fort save is not something I expect anyone to agree with.
The bard thing: I've always hated the way Bards had that little exception to casting in armor. Not the ability itself, no, just that it's an exception to the arcane spell failure rule. Therefore, I suggest that all bard spells have only Verbal components. Makes perfect sense to me. Then they can cast and tumble all they wish, and their ignoring ASF is unified with the other rules.
|
|
Tumbling: If it wasn't for the bard i would totally agree with you here. Perhaps a consideration for them, such as with their spells and light armor?
Oh yeah, the Fort save is not something I expect anyone to agree with.
The bard thing: I've always hated the way Bards had that little exception to casting in armor. Not the ability itself, no, just that it's an exception to the arcane spell failure rule. Therefore, I suggest that all bard spells have only Verbal components. Makes perfect sense to me. Then they can cast and tumble all they wish, and their ignoring ASF is unified with the other rules.
This is the same as bards having insta-still spell. A bard whose pinned could still be an effective caster. A bard tied up could could still be an effective caster. A bard held in the jaws of a tyrannosaurus could still be an effective caster.
That's too much.
And its free.
Nu-uh, no way, nodda!
This is the same as bards having insta-still spell. A bard whose pinned could still be an effective caster. A bard tied up could could still be an effective caster. A bard held in the jaws of a tyrannosaurus could still be an effective caster.
That's a good point. So, why should the Bard be able to tumble and cast? Can't he be good at both without being good at both at the same time?
In 20+ years of gaming (other systems, 1e, 2e), I have always had a problem with fighter vs. wizard balance.
It could just be because every munchkin I have ever gamed with played a spell caster.
|
|
That's a good point. So, why should the Bard be able to tumble and cast? Can't he be good at both without being good at both at the same time?
I wouldn't say the bard is necessarily designed for heavy spellcasting. He's a skilled character first and foremost with spells to augment his abilities (or his parties). Their spells are already so minor that not letting them do something they can normally do (from last edition to this edition) would stifle them.
Basically, its to preserve the flavor of the class. They're skillful minor spellcasters. I would prefer to see both, not skillful OR minor spellcasters.
That's a good point. So, why should the Bard be able to tumble and cast? Can't he be good at both without being good at both at the same time?I wouldn't say the bard is necessarily designed for heavy spellcasting. He's a skilled character first and foremost with spells to augment his abilities (or his parties). Their spells are already so minor that not letting them do something they can normally do (from last edition to this edition) would stifle them.
Basically, its to preserve the flavor of the class. They're skillful minor spellcasters. I would prefer to see both, not skillful OR minor spellcasters.
I see where you are going with this. If they were one or the other, then they would be Rogues (skillful) or Sorcerers (spellcasters).
Perhaps the bards somantic components are more subtle like finger positions (ala spider man shooting webs) and lessarm waving of the stage magician (used only for flair and performance not actually spell casting)
Of course im one of those people who believes spell casting should be dropped from the bard and more oopmh given tospell like abilities (charm, performance counter song etc) but that is for another thread