Mister Fishy's snark would be more appreciated if it were more productive.
Mr. Fishy is cold send the flames. Is that productive?
So if the original premise of the thread was a discussion on why the tier system came about, then might it not be said that the thread has pretty much run its course?
While I can understand that not everyone will care for the logic behind the tier system, and I get that some people think its a useful tool, like any tool, if it doesn't serve your purpose, that's cool. I'm not sure that there is much of a point in saying anything beyond the fact that you don't like that tool.
I'm not much of an optimizer, myself, but I'm fairly convinced that the tier system may have been misunderstood by some of the people that were rubbed the wrong way by it, and I think that's pretty much it.
While I'm not sure why this discussion keeps going round and round into the same territory, while collecting old side arguments along the way, I'm even less sure why its generating any degree of passion, since is basically arguing over whether something that already exists should have existed in the first place.
I wrote some stuff for Candlekeep. I'm sure lots of people think a lot of what I wrote is crap (I often share that same opinion). That having been said, I'm not sure what the point of arguing that I should have never written any of it would be. Use or do not, there is no temporal revision . . . or something like that.
Your situation has no mechanical basis within the game, whereas a wizard's options being nigh on limitless are a mechanical part of the game.While the spellcaster may not ALWAYS have what he needs at hand, he can get it. Where the fighter or barbarian will never "win the lottery" in this sense.
That is where the probability factor is nullified. Now if winning the lottery involves hitting things with pointy sticks, then our martial friends win every time!
Really? If the character has a 1 in 10 billion chance of ending any encounter with a single action, then they are strictly better than the characters that have 0 chance?
That is where "statistically significant" comes into play. Yes, the chance exists, but the probability is too low to be statistically significant. If the peasant has the Ex ability to cause anything to die just by wishing it, but needed to roll 5 nat 20's consecutively, that would NOT make him better than a Monk, who gets no such ability.
Use Magic Device and Skill focus. An Expertise Fighter will be very good at this.
If you think the tier system has anything to do with powergaming, you haven't really read it. Like, at all.
Honestly, the idea isn't to be tier 1 played as such. That's boring as hell. Ideally, the group would stray to the middle, where each member can effect the story and do more then have just one schtick that they're bound to for life.
The goal isn't to be the best there ever was. The goal is to make sure your entire party can have fun.
The way I see it, a group of 4's is Shadowrun, a group of 2's is M&M, a group of 3's is where I want D&D.
And the usefulness of a playtest is all about how the data is put to use. Just because there was a playtest doesn't mean the game's magically perfect.
I think the animal companion stat blocks prove the system wasn't perfect right out of the box, but I don't think that any of the classes are flawed to the point of requiring this tier breakdown. Unless, of course, the tiers are so miniscule in their scale with each other that they all exist between tier 1 and tier 3 while player ability and DM ability can skew the tiers by a factor of 20 steps.
Holy carp! We can add magic items to the mix. Mr. Fishy challeges you to a slap fight. Mr. Fishy is a rogue with Use Magic maxed out, skill focus (use magic), magical aptitude, and Mr. Fishy stole your stuff...TIER FISHY.
Tier Fishy is the highest of all tiers.
Use Magic Device and Skill focus. An Expertise Fighter will be very good at this.Your situation has no mechanical basis within the game, whereas a wizard's options being nigh on limitless are a mechanical part of the game.While the spellcaster may not ALWAYS have what he needs at hand, he can get it. Where the fighter or barbarian will never "win the lottery" in this sense.
That is where the probability factor is nullified. Now if winning the lottery involves hitting things with pointy sticks, then our martial friends win every time!
Really? If the character has a 1 in 10 billion chance of ending any encounter with a single action, then they are strictly better than the characters that have 0 chance?
That is where "statistically significant" comes into play. Yes, the chance exists, but the probability is too low to be statistically significant. If the peasant has the Ex ability to cause anything to die just by wishing it, but needed to roll 5 nat 20's consecutively, that would NOT make him better than a Monk, who gets no such ability.
Sure, if you have ridiculous high ability scores. To pull this off with a Fighter you are going to need charisma for the UMD checks, intelligence for the skill points and so you don't need to use the emulate ability score feature of UMD on lower level scrolls, and then strength, dex, and con. Sure, you can forgo some strength in favor of a ranged build, but if scrolls are going to be your schtick, you might as well play a wizard since it can emulate the fighter's forte much better than the reverse.
Casters might have a spell that is useful is fine and good. but what about the squeking noise they make when you hit them. Or when they don't have a spell that's useful, like fire spells againist a creature that has or has gained resistance to fire.(I know that wizards have other spells it is an example.) Wizards are only as good as the player and prep make them. Defalting to a high tier because you might and that is a big might be able to over come a challenge.
The so called tier one classes require expert player to work. Lower tier are easier to run with the expection of the lowest tier, (bards and monks.) Bards and Monk take TIER FISHY players to run. Just because a class does solve the problem as prefectly or with a large crater doesn't mean the the class is weaker it means you need to play the class. Wizard do have nigh on limitless options X-number of times a day. Tiering a class on what it could do is like count eggs for fry (baby fish for the nonaqua). You could be right but probably not.
I like this assessment. The Monk is reliable. Even moreso than the Fighter. If all else fails, if the Wizard doesn't have the right spells prepared, if the opponent has good saves, if the Fighter is locked up by a failed will save, if the opponent is immune to sneak attack, or any other number of situations the Monk is probably still there and can probably reach their opponent and do damage... or do SOMETHING. Even if it means just running away and getting the frickin cavalry.
And then Mr. Fishy runs out of money for his wands and scrolls and has no gear to go get more, since he used all his gear trying to be a wizard instead of...being a wizard?
Mr. Fishy was using your wand. Hee.
Sure, if you have ridiculous high ability scores. To pull this off with a Fighter you are going to need charisma for the UMD checks, intelligence for the skill points and so you don't need to use the emulate ability score feature of UMD on lower level scrolls, and then strength, dex, and con. Sure, you can forgo some strength in favor of a ranged build, but if scrolls are going to be your schtick, you might as well play a wizard since it can emulate the fighter's forte much better than the reverse.Use Magic Device and Skill focus. An Expertise Fighter will be very good at this.Your situation has no mechanical basis within the game, whereas a wizard's options being nigh on limitless are a mechanical part of the game.While the spellcaster may not ALWAYS have what he needs at hand, he can get it. Where the fighter or barbarian will never "win the lottery" in this sense.
That is where the probability factor is nullified. Now if winning the lottery involves hitting things with pointy sticks, then our martial friends win every time!
Really? If the character has a 1 in 10 billion chance of ending any encounter with a single action, then they are strictly better than the characters that have 0 chance?
That is where "statistically significant" comes into play. Yes, the chance exists, but the probability is too low to be statistically significant. If the peasant has the Ex ability to cause anything to die just by wishing it, but needed to roll 5 nat 20's consecutively, that would NOT make him better than a Monk, who gets no such ability.
You're wrong. You don't need to have rediculously high ability scores to make UMD work for a Fighter. I'm not saying you'll be as good as a Wizard at casting spells of course, but you're just plain wrong when you insinuate that the Fighter doesn't have these kinds of options, ESPECIALLY in Pathfinder.
And when that wand runs out?
The point is you can be just as prepared as a wizard's backup scroll case with a decent UMD. Your not using them for combat. Your using them for all the abilities they claim wizards can pull out on the fly.
And when that wand runs out?
The same thing that happens when a Wizard's spells run out.
Except that you still have beating jerks in the face as an option.
Besides, we're not talking about having a full complement of wands for offensive use at our disposal. Probably just buffs and a few ripcords. Lumbo was insinuating that the Fighter may not have as many options as a Wizard has and I was just proving him wrong is all.
I certainly wouldn't take UMD as a Fighter in a balanced party.
You're wrong. You don't need to have rediculously high ability scores to make UMD work for a Fighter. I'm not saying you'll be as good as a Wizard at casting spells of course, but you're just plain wrong when you insinuate that the Fighter doesn't have these kinds of options, ESPECIALLY in Pathfinder.
Show me a Fighter with good chance at using scrolls of spells that wizard his level would be using that is still useful in combat. By useful I mean has the ability to deal damage on par with some of the characters in the DPR olympics post.
That means a level 10 fighter using elite array stats.
When the wand runs out Mr. Fishy steals a new one. Mr. Fishy is a ROGUE.
Can you make a wizard that can rip a trolls arm off? 10th level elite array.
When the wand runs out Mr. Fishy steals a new one. Mr. Fishy is a ROGUE.
Can you make a wizard that can rip a trolls arm off? 10th level elite array.
I can make a 10th level wizard that casts hold monster against the troll's weakest save, or cast beast shape 3 and literally rip it's arm off if that's more what you were looking for, or summon monster V bringin forth a celestial dire lion or other such critter.
You're wrong. You don't need to have rediculously high ability scores to make UMD work for a Fighter. I'm not saying you'll be as good as a Wizard at casting spells of course, but you're just plain wrong when you insinuate that the Fighter doesn't have these kinds of options, ESPECIALLY in Pathfinder.
Show me a Fighter with good chance at using scrolls of spells that wizard his level would be using that is still useful in combat. By useful I mean has the ability to deal damage on par with some of the characters in the DPR olympics post.
That means a level 10 fighter using elite array stats.
Why would I ever bother using combat spells with UMD? I'm talking about things like teleport, speak with dead, illusions. Spells that are usefull, but you have stuff to do in combat as a fighter.
A lvl 10 fighter has greater than 50/50 chance of using a scroll of 5th lvl or lower spending 1 feat and having a 10 charisma. If he doesn't have the intelligence or wisdom it gets a little harder, needing to roll a 14 to emulate ability scores as well on a seprate check. As he gains levels from there, it gets easier to cast level appropriate spells.
Like Loopy said, I wouldn't use this in a ballanced party, but its certainly doable. Rogue faces can do it even better, but the feat matters more to them.
You're wrong. You don't need to have rediculously high ability scores to make UMD work for a Fighter. I'm not saying you'll be as good as a Wizard at casting spells of course, but you're just plain wrong when you insinuate that the Fighter doesn't have these kinds of options, ESPECIALLY in Pathfinder.
Show me a Fighter with good chance at using scrolls of spells that wizard his level would be using that is still useful in combat. By useful I mean has the ability to deal damage on par with some of the characters in the DPR olympics post.
That means a level 10 fighter using elite array stats.
Why would I ever bother using combat spells with UMD? I'm talking about things like teleport, speak with dead, illusions. Spells that are usefull, but you have stuff to do in combat as a fighter.
A lvl 10 fighter has greater than 50/50 chance of using a scroll of 5th lvl or lower spending 1 feat and having a 10 charisma. If he doesn't have the intelligence or wisdom it gets a little harder, needing to roll a 14 to emulate ability scores as well on a seprate check. As he gains levels from there, it gets easier.
Like Loopy said, I wouldn't use this in a ballanced party, but its certainly doable. Rogue faces can do it even better, but the feat matters more to them.
I didn't mean the spells had to be combat spells, i meant the fighter that could use the utility spells needed to remain viable in combat.
EDIT: Is a 50/50 chance of using said spells really replicating the wizards ability? and to get the 15 INT emulated he would need a 14 or better with the same feat allotment and 10 CHA
I didn't mean the spells had to be combat spells, i meant the fighter that could use the utility spells needed to remain viable in combat.
You're wrong. You don't need to have rediculously high ability scores to make UMD work for a Fighter. I'm not saying you'll be as good as a Wizard at casting spells of course, but you're just plain wrong when you insinuate that the Fighter doesn't have these kinds of options, ESPECIALLY in Pathfinder.
Show me a Fighter with good chance at using scrolls of spells that wizard his level would be using that is still useful in combat. By useful I mean has the ability to deal damage on par with some of the characters in the DPR olympics post.
That means a level 10 fighter using elite array stats.
Why would I ever bother using combat spells with UMD? I'm talking about things like teleport, speak with dead, illusions. Spells that are usefull, but you have stuff to do in combat as a fighter.
A lvl 10 fighter has greater than 50/50 chance of using a scroll of 5th lvl or lower spending 1 feat and having a 10 charisma. If he doesn't have the intelligence or wisdom it gets a little harder, needing to roll a 14 to emulate ability scores as well on a seprate check. As he gains levels from there, it gets easier.
Like Loopy said, I wouldn't use this in a ballanced party, but its certainly doable. Rogue faces can do it even better, but the feat matters more to them.
1 feat, skill focus, will get you a +6. +16 at lvl 10, you can hit the DC25 needed for a 5th lvl scroll. Wands you can get on 4.
I can make a 10th level wizard that casts hold monster against the troll's weakest save, or cast beast shape 3 and literally rip it's arm off if that's more what you were looking for, or summon monster V bringin forth a celestial dire lion or other such critter.When the wand runs out Mr. Fishy steals a new one. Mr. Fishy is a ROGUE.
Can you make a wizard that can rip a trolls arm off? 10th level elite array.
Don't forget the troll is trying to rip your arm off too. Hold monster saves every round and you just wasted one. Casting beast shape 3 and literally rip it's arm off while it regenerates and claw/claw/bites you, concentration please. Summon monster takes a full round of troll ripping goodness.
Strengths and weakness every class has them. Fighters can't cast spells and wizards can't melee trolls...safely.
I can make a 10th level wizard that casts hold monster against the troll's weakest save, or cast beast shape 3 and literally rip it's arm off if that's more what you were looking for, or summon monster V bringin forth a celestial dire lion or other such critter.When the wand runs out Mr. Fishy steals a new one. Mr. Fishy is a ROGUE.
Can you make a wizard that can rip a trolls arm off? 10th level elite array.
Don't forget the troll is trying to rip your arm off too. Hold monster saves every round and you just wasted one. Casting beast shape 3 and literally rip it's arm off while it regenerates and claw/claw/bites you, concentration please. Summon monster takes a full round of troll ripping goodness.
Strengths and weakness every class has them. Fighters can't cast spells and wizards can't melee trolls...safely.
Fly, Greater Invisibility, proceed to win by whichever method you choose.
Trolls have scent and the task was to rip off his arm off. A tier fishy wizard would tell the fighter to do it. Or charm moster the troll and ask to borrow his arm. Thinking makes miracles.
I didn't mean the spells had to be combat spells, i meant the fighter that could use the utility spells needed to remain viable in combat.
EDIT: Is a 50/50 chance of using said spells really replicating the wizards ability? and to get the 15 INT emulated he would need a 14 or better with the same feat allotment and 10 CHA
Do we have to replicate a Wizard's ability or does the ability have to remain viable in combat? I'm confoozled.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Um, Fish, look. Leaving the Tier argument alone for a moment, you challenged Lumbo to show how a 10th-level Wizard could tear a troll's arm off. He showed you, politely and simply. You then mocked him, saying, well, yeah, but trolls regenerate, and then it attacks you. Scott then understood "tear its arm off" to mean "defeat the troll" and showed you, politely and simply. And now you've gone back to claiming that the task was to literally tear the monster's arm off.
I think the troll in question is a scrag.
In any case, the fighter and even the rogue have a limited number of skill ranks and feats. You're right, that devoting one feat and several skill ranks to Use Magic Device can help make a lower-tier class more versatile, but at the opportunity cost of some other feat and some other skill. (And in a point-buy campaign, reducing some other attributes to prop up Charisma.) Meanwhile, the Wizard is able to use the same toys, without the need to those skill ranks or feat.
The issue isn't how powerful Wizards are versus fighters. The issue is how versatile they are. The case has been made, repeatedly and eloquently.
The point, again, becomes statistical significance. Wizards can certainly present the perefct solution. Can that be reliably counted upon, or are there too many other variables that can skew the analysis? The latter is my contention, and is why I say tier rankings are a useful tool for theoretical analysis, but worthless in actual play.
The tier analysis is always an "all other things being equal" tool. If your campaign has a goofball player making decisions for the Cleric and a scheming genius playing the Monk, then the PCs' capabilities will reflect that.
But let me ask you this: we're playing roulette. I place a bet on "red". My friend places a bet on "23 black". There's a variable that can skew the analysis, but if you want to give both me and my friend some "winning time", you're going to need to take the disparity between our winning odds into account.
You are right, it is difficult.
The spell you are referring to is Favor of the Martyr. It's not a wizard spell, so you would need another source.
I'm told there is a PrC as well called Sanctified Mind, though I haven't specifically looked into it. I think it's in one of the underdark books.
Not sure what else their is. in 3.5 Stun immunity is a piece of cake, but daze is definitely more difficult.
Mark of the Dauntless (Dragonmarked) is pretty much the easiest way to get daze immunity. It's a feat that requires a true dragonmark, and it grants flat immunity daze, among other perks.
Thanks, even if I never use it. It's nice to know about.
The issue isn't how powerful Wizards are versus fighters. The issue is how versatile they are. The case has been made, repeatedly and eloquently.
Exactly! The Fighter is just as versatile as the Wizard! The question isn't how many crazy-funky-cool events you can think of in your head that the Wizard might be able to prepare for.
EDITZ:
The question is, how many of the encounters in an adventurer's career will the class be prepared for and at the time, how useful will they be? I'm ready to argue that the Wizard and the Fighter will come up just about even.
Unless you SPECIFICALLY tailor your adventures to F with melee combatants, this will be TRUE.
Tiering a class on what it could do is like count eggs for fry (baby fish for the nonaqua). You could be right but probably not.
Discounting probabilities is good way to make sure you don't succeed at ________.*
*Just put anything in the blank that you think it really important.
The issue isn't how powerful Wizards are versus fighters. The issue is how versatile they are. The case has been made, repeatedly and eloquently.Exactly! The Fighter is just as versatile as the Wizard!
Nope, not even close. There are examples in this thread that show that, and the fighter can go around trying to buy wands for everything, but his traditional gear will suffer greatly. He still has to make the UMD check also. Going from what works for you(swords) to what might work is normally a bad idea.
Please note that, of course you should prepare your BBEG and his lair to fight melee combatants, but you really have to be an A-hole to just F them in everything they do. Just as any DM who gives every damn room in a dungeon dispel magic turrets to F with Wizards is a butthead.
Exactly! The Fighter is just as versatile as the Wizard!Loopy, you need to read more than one paragraph of a post.
I know you were saying the opposite.
Nope, not even close. There are examples in this thread that show that, and the fighter can go around trying to buy wands for everything, but his traditional gear will suffer greatly. He still has to make the UMD check also. Going from what works for you(swords) to what might work is normally a bad idea.The issue isn't how powerful Wizards are versus fighters. The issue is how versatile they are. The case has been made, repeatedly and eloquently.Exactly! The Fighter is just as versatile as the Wizard!
Why would you have to be able to cast spells to be prepared for most of the encounters in a campaign? If you do, that's bad adventure design.
Nope, not even close. There are examples in this thread that show that, and the fighter can go around trying to buy wands for everything, but his traditional gear will suffer greatly. He still has to make the UMD check also. Going from what works for you(swords) to what might work is normally a bad idea.The issue isn't how powerful Wizards are versus fighters. The issue is how versatile they are. The case has been made, repeatedly and eloquently.Exactly! The Fighter is just as versatile as the Wizard!
A roll of 9 is less than most wizards need to use their primary ability in combat. Sure wizards have I win buttons, the problem is half the time they are busted, and half of those they don't have what they need prepared.
The Fighter alway has a strong, reliable button, and he can get some other buttons.
The tier system claim that because the wizard has more buttons, he is inately more powerful and disruptive to a game. The problem is that the unreliability of it is just too high for that to actually come up in most games IME.
The issue isn't how powerful Wizards are versus fighters. The issue is how versatile they are. The case has been made, repeatedly and eloquently.Exactly! The Fighter is just as versatile as the Wizard! The question isn't how many crazy-funky-cool events you can think of in your head that the Wizard might be able to prepare for.
EDITZ:
The question is, how many of the encounters in an adventurer's career will the class be prepared for and at the time, how useful will they be? I'm ready to argue that the Wizard and the Fighter will come up just about even.
Unless you SPECIFICALLY tailor your adventures to F with melee combatants, this will be TRUE.
It is not just about combat, but situations(which include noncombat). These were covered on previous pages. I will also say a wizard will be more useful than a fighter, most of the time. Once again this assumes this assumes the wizard is well played.
Nope, not even close. There are examples in this thread that show that, and the fighter can go around trying to buy wands for everything, but his traditional gear will suffer greatly. He still has to make the UMD check also. Going from what works for you(swords) to what might work is normally a bad idea.The issue isn't how powerful Wizards are versus fighters. The issue is how versatile they are. The case has been made, repeatedly and eloquently.Exactly! The Fighter is just as versatile as the Wizard!A roll of 9 is less than most wizards need to use their primary ability in combat. Sure wizards have I win buttons, the problem is half the time they are busted, and half of those they don't have what they need prepared.
The Fighter alway has a strong, reliable button, and he can get some other buttons.
The tier system claim that because the wizard has more buttons, he is inately more powerful and disruptive to a game. The problem is that the unreliability of it is just too high for that to actually come up in most games IME.
I am not talking about SoD based wizards. You don't have to insta-kill a horde of enemies to be effective. My bad luck would have all of them making their saves at the worst possible time for me, so I never made one.
It is not just about combat, but situations(which include noncombat). These were covered on previous pages. I will also say a wizard will be more useful than a fighter, most of the time. Once again this assumes this assumes the wizard is well played.The issue isn't how powerful Wizards are versus fighters. The issue is how versatile they are. The case has been made, repeatedly and eloquently.Exactly! The Fighter is just as versatile as the Wizard! The question isn't how many crazy-funky-cool events you can think of in your head that the Wizard might be able to prepare for.
EDITZ:
The question is, how many of the encounters in an adventurer's career will the class be prepared for and at the time, how useful will they be? I'm ready to argue that the Wizard and the Fighter will come up just about even.
Unless you SPECIFICALLY tailor your adventures to F with melee combatants, this will be TRUE.
OMG do we really have to go over how Fighters are free to use some of their general feats, heavystufflifting abilities, and much-improved-from-3.5 skill list to improve their out-of combat abilities if they want to again? Assuming, of course, the Fighter is well-played.
Why would you have to be able to cast spells to be prepared for most of the encounters in a campaign? If you do, that's bad adventure design.Nope, not even close. There are examples in this thread that show that, and the fighter can go around trying to buy wands for everything, but his traditional gear will suffer greatly. He still has to make the UMD check also. Going from what works for you(swords) to what might work is normally a bad idea.The issue isn't how powerful Wizards are versus fighters. The issue is how versatile they are. The case has been made, repeatedly and eloquently.Exactly! The Fighter is just as versatile as the Wizard!
In order for the wizard to do something in combat he has to cast spells. It is assumed by the game that spells will be cast.
By the words you used its also bad adventure design to expect a fighter to swing a sword every combat unless I misunderstood you.PS: I was talking about utility spells for the fighter, not combat ones.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Why would you have to be able to cast spells to be prepared for most of the encounters in a campaign? If you do, that's bad adventure design.
That's an excellent question.
I don't think you necessarily need to cast spells. But you need to have some variety of game mechanics that are at your disposal more than other classes.
For example, there may be a locked iron door blocking the party's way. A Fighter could have invested half her skill ranks, and a general feat, in picking locks, but the Rogue disables devices with a much less stringent commitment.
There are enough of these common situations that, if an adventure designer isn't paying attention, he's likely to end up giving the Rogue more chances to do fun stuff than the Fighter. (Combat? Both the Rogue and Fighter get to have fun.) The tier system is a reminder to the adventure designer: make sure there's some stuff for the fighters to do, and make sure that the guy with knock in his spellbook doesn't just plough through everything.
Put another way, yes, coming up with a whole bunch of stuff that hoses the Fighter is bad adventure design. And the tier system is a way to double-check your adventure to make sure that doesn't happen.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The tier system claim that because the wizard has more buttons, he is inately more powerful and disruptive to a game. The problem is that the unreliability of it is just too high for that to actually come up in most games IME.
No, it does not. The issue is versatility, not power. The claim is not that Wizards are disruptive. The claim is that having a wide disparity is disruptive.
Loopy, you need to read more than one paragraph of a post.
Follow your own advice.
The Challenge WAS to rip the troll's arm off not MDK the poor troll. Troll HaterAs for mocking him I was showing him another way to solve the challenge. If the only thing you do well is cast then that means you are only good at one thing. The point wasn't if but how efficent is it for a wizard to get into a slap fight with a troll verus a fighter using wand to replace the caster.
Hey that Scrag crack was uncalled for Mr. Fishy never attacked your spouse.
Why would you have to be able to cast spells to be prepared for most of the encounters in a campaign? If you do, that's bad adventure design.Nope, not even close. There are examples in this thread that show that, and the fighter can go around trying to buy wands for everything, but his traditional gear will suffer greatly. He still has to make the UMD check also. Going from what works for you(swords) to what might work is normally a bad idea.The issue isn't how powerful Wizards are versus fighters. The issue is how versatile they are. The case has been made, repeatedly and eloquently.Exactly! The Fighter is just as versatile as the Wizard!In order for the wizard to do something in combat he has to cast spells. It is assumed by the game that spells will be cast.
By the words you used its also bad adventure design to expect a fighter to swing a sword every combat unless I misunderstood you.PS: I was talking about utility spells for the fighter, not combat ones.
I think you did misunderstand. He is saying that non-casters can be prepared for encounters just like casters.
In order for the wizard to do something in combat he has to cast spells. It is assumed by the game that spells will be cast.
By the words you used its also bad adventure design to expect a fighter to swing a sword every combat unless I misunderstood you.PS: I was talking about utility spells for the fighter, not combat ones.
In the average combat encounter, spells will be useful and physical combat will also be useful. Both should be interchangeable for MOST combat encounters.
BBEG fights and obstacles are a little more tricky.
As a DM, I expect party synergy to be of utmost importance in BBEG fights. If the players don't have their game on and don't want to use the resources at their disposal, including the other PCs, then they're probably going to be in trouble.
Obstacles are the tough one. We could have standard obstacles like great spans or cliffs. At the lower levels, the Fighter might shine here with his climbing and jumping skills (with the help of the Rogue's escape artist check on the rope tied to the Fighter's waist). Later on, mundane obstacles are the purview of the wizard with the fighter as backup in case the wizard's solution fails. ("Let's tie a rope to Bob and send him over first, just in case.") At the later levels, the Fighter is backup for resolving mundane obstacles, but still serving a purpose.
Traps are right out. Disabling traps without a Rogue is a total crapshoot. Yeah, you can waste resources dispelling every damn thing in a dungoen with a Wizard or have the fighter buffed by the Wizard or Cleric just run down a hallway and take his licks, but a Rogue is ideal.
Breaking & Entering is for the Rogue if you've got one, or one of the spellcasters if you don't, though to be honest the Fighter, Barbarian, and Paladin should do nicely as well. :)
Social obstacles are the most rough, I think. For Wizards, relying on spells can be very dangerous depending on the adjudication of failed saves and assuming you have Silent Spell and Still Spell. Paladins, Sorcerers, Rogues, and of course, Bards will excel here because of skills. I think the best social contribution a Fighter can make is with interrogation using Intimidate... an extremely important thing in some campaigns.
Equipping the party is an interesting subject. Anyone can do it. The wizard has bonus feats, so he's a good candidate, as is the Fighter for the same reasons. I don't really think anyone else can really spare the feats.
Skill use in general is better now in Pathfinder. A fighter can be reasonable at anything and good at his own class skills with little to no effort. The skill choices are much better, too. I really don't see how anyone can look at the Fighter's skill list and massive amount of feat choices and say they can't be helpful outside of combat. The Monk... well, you don't have to stretch your imagination very far to figure out situations where the Monk is useful outside of combat.
I think you did misunderstand. He is saying that non-casters can be prepared for encounters just like casters.Why would you have to be able to cast spells to be prepared for most of the encounters in a campaign? If you do, that's bad adventure design.Nope, not even close. There are examples in this thread that show that, and the fighter can go around trying to buy wands for everything, but his traditional gear will suffer greatly. He still has to make the UMD check also. Going from what works for you(swords) to what might work is normally a bad idea.The issue isn't how powerful Wizards are versus fighters. The issue is how versatile they are. The case has been made, repeatedly and eloquently.Exactly! The Fighter is just as versatile as the Wizard!In order for the wizard to do something in combat he has to cast spells. It is assumed by the game that spells will be cast.
By the words you used its also bad adventure design to expect a fighter to swing a sword every combat unless I misunderstood you.PS: I was talking about utility spells for the fighter, not combat ones.
They can be prepared, but I would not say "just like caster", because that assumes the to the same degree.
Skill use in general is better now in Pathfinder. A fighter can be reasonable at anything and good at his own class skills with little to no effort. The skill choices are much better, too. I really don't see how anyone can look at the Fighter's skill list and massive amount of feat choices and say they can't be helpful outside of combat. The Monk... well, you don't have to stretch your imagination very far to figure out situations where the Monk is useful outside of combat.
The fighter gets 2 skill points, and most of the skills are ones that don't matter most of the time. That -3* for a skill not being a class skill will hurt.
*Ok, its not really a -3 put that is how I look at it.
The Challenge WAS to rip the troll's arm off not MDK the poor troll.
Yawn.
Fly.
Summon Monster V.
"RIP OFF THAT TROLL'S ARMS!"
Then chop up the arms, put them in a box, fly over the enemy castle, and drop the thousands of troll bits in the courtyard.
Watch and laugh.
(Sorry - I know that doesn't work in Pathfinder, but it worked wonderfully in a 1e campaign once. We always kept some troll bits in something which was too small to allow full troll regen)