APG classes vs core classes


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I think something people are missing is that you don't have to be tier 1.

Quite frankly I perfer games where everyone is closer to 3. It's realy the best tier - everyone is capable at a variety of things and can excel in a few without being stupidly strong and hard to manage. I'll take the Factotum over the Wizard any day.


Agreed, Tier 3 are one of the most fun for me.


ProfessorCirno wrote:

I think something people are missing is that you don't have to be tier 1.

I agree, but the main point of the tier system, to me, is:

1) When possible, most/all of the characters should be on about the same tier, maybe give or take +/- 1 and,

2) When they're not, the GM should be aware of it and, assuming players are on a relatively even keel, work to help bring the lower tiers characters up, one way or another.

It's not about "what are the best characters, so I can only play those" but more, "about how good are characters, so we can arrange things such that all the players have a good chance to contribute, and not just because the player whose character mechanically overshadows the rest of the party decides to be a good sport and allow it."

To me, the game is most fun when it's a legitimate team game, and the idea of the tier system is just a tool to help facilitate that.


Players should be tiered, not classes.

I'm tier 1. I don't mind admitting it. I have several tier 2 (2+) friends that are a joy to play with. I know many tier 3 (3-) players that are probably also tier 3 (3-) people -- I don't like playing with them.

IT doesn't matter what class they use these people just about always end up in these tiers.

It isn't the classes people -- it's the players.


Abraham spalding wrote:

Players should be tiered, not classes.

I'm tier 1. I don't mind admitting it. I have several tier 2 (2+) friends that are a joy to play with. I know many tier 3 (3-) players that are probably also tier 3 (3-) people -- I don't like playing with them.

IT doesn't matter what class they use these people just about always end up in these tiers.

It isn't the classes people -- it's the players.

I agree. Categorizing classes into tiers is an example of how people on message boards can make just as stupid statements as game designers can.

Players may fall in tiers, but classes don't.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

Players should be tiered, not classes.

I'm tier 1. I don't mind admitting it. I have several tier 2 (2+) friends that are a joy to play with. I know many tier 3 (3-) players that are probably also tier 3 (3-) people -- I don't like playing with them.

IT doesn't matter what class they use these people just about always end up in these tiers.

It isn't the classes people -- it's the players.

I agree. Categorizing classes into tiers is an example of how people on message boards can make just as stupid statements as game designers can.

Players may fall in tiers, but classes don't.

I disagree to an extent. Good players are good with any class, but you give a player a non-caster class, and you give the clone(assuming they existed) a full caster class, and the casting class will normally bring more to the table. The tier by class assumes all players are equal, and while this is far from true it is a decent way to measure class power. As for actual gameplay I do think tiering players is easier to do.


Well, the Cavalier got peanut butter in my chocolate, so that's the one big misfire of the APG for me.

The other classes are, I feel, pretty well in line with the core classes to which they are closest in spirit. You gain some really nifty stuff, but you definitely have to give up something else that the relevant core class would have given you.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post that was unnecessarily vulgar.


wraithstrike wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

Players should be tiered, not classes.

I'm tier 1. I don't mind admitting it. I have several tier 2 (2+) friends that are a joy to play with. I know many tier 3 (3-) players that are probably also tier 3 (3-) people -- I don't like playing with them.

IT doesn't matter what class they use these people just about always end up in these tiers.

It isn't the classes people -- it's the players.

I agree. Categorizing classes into tiers is an example of how people on message boards can make just as stupid statements as game designers can.

Players may fall in tiers, but classes don't.
I disagree to an extent. Good players are good with any class, but you give a player a non-caster class, and you give the clone(assuming they existed) a full caster class, and the casting class will normally bring more to the table. The tier by class assumes all players are equal, and while this is far from true it is a decent way to measure class power. As for actual gameplay I do think tiering players is easier to do.

And I think it's impossible to support the statement you have without knowing the GM's campaign style (forex. how much time does the party get to rest).


LilithsThrall wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

Players should be tiered, not classes.

I'm tier 1. I don't mind admitting it. I have several tier 2 (2+) friends that are a joy to play with. I know many tier 3 (3-) players that are probably also tier 3 (3-) people -- I don't like playing with them.

IT doesn't matter what class they use these people just about always end up in these tiers.

It isn't the classes people -- it's the players.

I agree. Categorizing classes into tiers is an example of how people on message boards can make just as stupid statements as game designers can.

Players may fall in tiers, but classes don't.
I disagree to an extent. Good players are good with any class, but you give a player a non-caster class, and you give the clone(assuming they existed) a full caster class, and the casting class will normally bring more to the table. The tier by class assumes all players are equal, and while this is far from true it is a decent way to measure class power. As for actual gameplay I do think tiering players is easier to do.
And I think it's impossible to support the statement you have without knowing the GM's campaign style (forex. how much time does the party get to rest).

While that is true to an extent since the DM can fiat any class to be better then any other class no matter what the rules say it also means that the rules can not be discussed. So if one is discussing the rules DM fiat should probably be discounted given that it makes the rules meaningless.


LilithsThrall wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

Players should be tiered, not classes.

I'm tier 1. I don't mind admitting it. I have several tier 2 (2+) friends that are a joy to play with. I know many tier 3 (3-) players that are probably also tier 3 (3-) people -- I don't like playing with them.

IT doesn't matter what class they use these people just about always end up in these tiers.

It isn't the classes people -- it's the players.

I agree. Categorizing classes into tiers is an example of how people on message boards can make just as stupid statements as game designers can.

Players may fall in tiers, but classes don't.
I disagree to an extent. Good players are good with any class, but you give a player a non-caster class, and you give the clone(assuming they existed) a full caster class, and the casting class will normally bring more to the table. The tier by class assumes all players are equal, and while this is far from true it is a decent way to measure class power. As for actual gameplay I do think tiering players is easier to do.
And I think it's impossible to support the statement you have without knowing the GM's campaign style (forex. how much time does the party get to rest).

Everyone's game is different, and it is up to the DM to adjust things so I can only assume the basic guides are being used even if most people don't. One of the basic guidelines is four fights a day. I have heard people complain that monks were broken as an example, but I down right ignore them, or I would if not for an unwritten social contract to keep everyone happy so I send a few monsters that way to keep them involved.

Why do I have to make this statement so much--->It is nigh impossible to make a statement that applies to everyone's game so all we can assume is that people play the game as intended(according to certain design intentions). It is impossible for me to account for everyone's house rules of course.

PS: Don't derail this into an anti/pro-monk thread anyone.


WWWW wrote:


While that is true to an extent since the DM can fiat any class to be better then any other class no matter what the rules say it also means that the rules can not be discussed. So if one is discussing the rules DM fiat should probably be discounted given that it makes the rules meaningless.

Certainly the rules can be discussed. Is a GM who gives his players little time to rest playing any less by the rules than a GM who gives his players all the time to rest they want?

No.

Just because different GMs have different styles doesn't mean that one must be playing less by the rules than another.

But, it does point out the fact that discussing classes as if they had some sort of objective tier system is nonsense.


LilithsThrall wrote:
WWWW wrote:


While that is true to an extent since the DM can fiat any class to be better then any other class no matter what the rules say it also means that the rules can not be discussed. So if one is discussing the rules DM fiat should probably be discounted given that it makes the rules meaningless.

Certainly the rules can be discussed. Is a GM who gives his players little time to rest playing any less by the rules than a GM who gives his players all the time to rest they want?

No.

Just because different GMs have different styles doesn't mean that one must be playing less by the rules than another.

But, it does point out the fact that discussing classes as if they had some sort of objective tier system is nonsense.

The issue is that unlimited resting might affect the number of encounters a day, which is not really a rule, but it is a standard the design of the game was based on.



wraithstrike wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
WWWW wrote:


While that is true to an extent since the DM can fiat any class to be better then any other class no matter what the rules say it also means that the rules can not be discussed. So if one is discussing the rules DM fiat should probably be discounted given that it makes the rules meaningless.

Certainly the rules can be discussed. Is a GM who gives his players little time to rest playing any less by the rules than a GM who gives his players all the time to rest they want?

No.

Just because different GMs have different styles doesn't mean that one must be playing less by the rules than another.

But, it does point out the fact that discussing classes as if they had some sort of objective tier system is nonsense.

The issue is that unlimited resting might affect the number of encounters a day, which is not really a rule, but it is a standard the design of the game was based on.

To continue with my point, what is an "encounter"? For many GMs, an "encounter" is 98% of the time "combat". But, again, different GMs have different styles - even when sticking strictly to the rules of the game - which make it impossible to set an objective tier system.


LilithsThrall wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
WWWW wrote:


While that is true to an extent since the DM can fiat any class to be better then any other class no matter what the rules say it also means that the rules can not be discussed. So if one is discussing the rules DM fiat should probably be discounted given that it makes the rules meaningless.

Certainly the rules can be discussed. Is a GM who gives his players little time to rest playing any less by the rules than a GM who gives his players all the time to rest they want?

No.

Just because different GMs have different styles doesn't mean that one must be playing less by the rules than another.

But, it does point out the fact that discussing classes as if they had some sort of objective tier system is nonsense.

The issue is that unlimited resting might affect the number of encounters a day, which is not really a rule, but it is a standard the design of the game was based on.
To continue with my point, what is an "encounter"? For many GMs, an "encounter" is 98% of the time "combat". But, again, different GMs have different styles - even when sticking strictly to the rules of the game - which make it impossible to set an objective tier system.

By encounter I meant combat. I already said I know everyone plays the game differently. I also said there is no way to account for all of that. Trying to account for every style is like having a discussion in the rules forum while using house rules. When DM's deviate from the standard* they just have to deal with it.

*Don't argue semantics with me when you know what I mean. I really don't want to have to define the meaning of standards when my intent is quiet clear. Argue the point, not the words.


wraithstrike wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
WWWW wrote:


While that is true to an extent since the DM can fiat any class to be better then any other class no matter what the rules say it also means that the rules can not be discussed. So if one is discussing the rules DM fiat should probably be discounted given that it makes the rules meaningless.

Certainly the rules can be discussed. Is a GM who gives his players little time to rest playing any less by the rules than a GM who gives his players all the time to rest they want?

No.

Just because different GMs have different styles doesn't mean that one must be playing less by the rules than another.

But, it does point out the fact that discussing classes as if they had some sort of objective tier system is nonsense.

The issue is that unlimited resting might affect the number of encounters a day, which is not really a rule, but it is a standard the design of the game was based on.
To continue with my point, what is an "encounter"? For many GMs, an "encounter" is 98% of the time "combat". But, again, different GMs have different styles - even when sticking strictly to the rules of the game - which make it impossible to set an objective tier system.

By encounter I meant combat. I already said I know everyone plays the game differently. I also said there is no way to account for all of that. Trying to account for every style is like having a discussion in the rules forum while using house rules. When DM's deviate from the standard* they just have to deal with it.

*Don't argue semantics with me when you know what I mean. I really don't want to have to define the meaning of standards when my intent is quiet clear. Argue the point, not the words.

You're the one who started talking about "standards" (however or whomever sets those and whatever they are) when you knew I was taking about rules.

So, if anyone is playing semantic games, it isn't me.


LilithsThrall wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
WWWW wrote:


While that is true to an extent since the DM can fiat any class to be better then any other class no matter what the rules say it also means that the rules can not be discussed. So if one is discussing the rules DM fiat should probably be discounted given that it makes the rules meaningless.

Certainly the rules can be discussed. Is a GM who gives his players little time to rest playing any less by the rules than a GM who gives his players all the time to rest they want?

No.

Just because different GMs have different styles doesn't mean that one must be playing less by the rules than another.

But, it does point out the fact that discussing classes as if they had some sort of objective tier system is nonsense.

The issue is that unlimited resting might affect the number of encounters a day, which is not really a rule, but it is a standard the design of the game was based on.
To continue with my point, what is an "encounter"? For many GMs, an "encounter" is 98% of the time "combat". But, again, different GMs have different styles - even when sticking strictly to the rules of the game - which make it impossible to set an objective tier system.

So like I said DM fiat should be discounted because it makes the rules meaning less. Sure it is "within the rules" because a DM can make the rules whatever is wanted but then discussion of the rules is useless since any rule may or may not even exist. The exception would be a set of given houserules as those are a known set of changes rather then an unknown set of changes which can not really be discussed since they are unknown.


WWWW wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
WWWW wrote:


While that is true to an extent since the DM can fiat any class to be better then any other class no matter what the rules say it also means that the rules can not be discussed. So if one is discussing the rules DM fiat should probably be discounted given that it makes the rules meaningless.

Certainly the rules can be discussed. Is a GM who gives his players little time to rest playing any less by the rules than a GM who gives his players all the time to rest they want?

No.

Just because different GMs have different styles doesn't mean that one must be playing less by the rules than another.

But, it does point out the fact that discussing classes as if they had some sort of objective tier system is nonsense.

The issue is that unlimited resting might affect the number of encounters a day, which is not really a rule, but it is a standard the design of the game was based on.
To continue with my point, what is an "encounter"? For many GMs, an "encounter" is 98% of the time "combat". But, again, different GMs have different styles - even when sticking strictly to the rules of the game - which make it impossible to set an objective tier system.
So like I said DM fiat should be discounted because it makes the rules meaning less. Sure it is "within the rules" because a DM can make the rules whatever is wanted but then discussion of the rules is useless since any rule may or may not even exist. The exception would be a set of given houserules as those are a known set of changes rather then an unknown set of changes which can not really be discussed since they are unknown.

Again, tell me where -in the rule book- it gives a rule that some specific percentage of the encounters are to be combat and that there should be some specific number of encounters between rests.

I mean, that rule might exist. if it does, I don't know about it.


LilithsThrall wrote:

Again, tell me where -in the rule book- it gives a rule that some specific percentage of the encounters are to be combat and that there should be some specific number of encounters between rests.

I mean, that rule might exist. if it does, I don't know about it.

What does that have to do with anything. Again unless you are removing DM fiat you can not even say that encounters exist because depending on the DM they may not. You know or that classes even exist.


LilithsThrall wrote:
WWWW wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:
WWWW wrote:


While that is true to an extent since the DM can fiat any class to be better then any other class no matter what the rules say it also means that the rules can not be discussed. So if one is discussing the rules DM fiat should probably be discounted given that it makes the rules meaningless.

Certainly the rules can be discussed. Is a GM who gives his players little time to rest playing any less by the rules than a GM who gives his players all the time to rest they want?

No.

Just because different GMs have different styles doesn't mean that one must be playing less by the rules than another.

But, it does point out the fact that discussing classes as if they had some sort of objective tier system is nonsense.

The issue is that unlimited resting might affect the number of encounters a day, which is not really a rule, but it is a standard the design of the game was based on.
To continue with my point, what is an "encounter"? For many GMs, an "encounter" is 98% of the time "combat". But, again, different GMs have different styles - even when sticking strictly to the rules of the game - which make it impossible to set an objective tier system.
So like I said DM fiat should be discounted because it makes the rules meaning less. Sure it is "within the rules" because a DM can make the rules whatever is wanted but then discussion of the rules is useless since any rule may or may not even exist. The exception would be a set of given houserules as those are a known set of changes rather then an unknown set of changes which can not really be discussed since they are unknown.

Again, tell me where -in the rule book- it gives a rule that some specific percentage of the encounters are to be combat and that there should be some specific number of encounters between rests.

I mean, that rule might exist. if it does, I don't know about it.

The 4 encounters per day guideline(not rule as you keep calling it) has been there since 3.5. It is also a guideline the game was based upon when they made the game. We know the game is not in a vacumn and nobody(nobody I know anyway) plays by RAW, but once again we can only assume the default when discussing any issue. It is also common knowledge that there are assumed to be 4 encounters a day. It has been discussed on these boards many times. It is in the DMG(3.5), and it should be in the core book, but since the game did not change enough to change the encounter number, and others have used the number "4" I will assume the majority of the posters here know what they are talking about.

With that said do I need to find a page number for you since you seem to assume I am making things up, or can you answer the question(which I have forgotten what it was by now. Darn it woman, stop trying to distract me.


Abraham spalding wrote:
It isn't the classes people -- it's the players.

It's clearly both.

It might be best to think of the strength of the class as representing the maximum level of awesomeness it can crank out.

So a bad player is bad with everything, and a good player with a weaker class often outshines even a bad player with a much stronger class, but a strong player with a class that allows them their full potential always outshines everyone.

If you even once see a truly great player with wizard/cleric/druid, there's just nothing that compares to that, and it doesn't matter if encounters are one per day or twenty per day.


wraithstrike wrote:

The 4 encounters per day guideline(not rule as you keep calling it) has been there since 3.5. It is also a guideline the game was based upon when they made the game. We know the game is not in a vacumn and nobody(nobody I know anyway) plays by RAW, but once again we can only assume the default when discussing any issue. It is also common knowledge that there are assumed to be 4 encounters a day. It has been discussed on these boards many times. It is in the DMG(3.5), and it should be in the core book, but since the game did not change enough to change the encounter number, and others have used the number "4" I will assume the majority of the posters here know what they are talking about.

With that said do I need to find a page number for you since you seem to assume I am making things up, or can you answer the question(which I have forgotten what it was by now. Darn it woman, stop trying to distract me.

What I said is that different GMs can play -within the rules- but with substantial differences in style such as to make it impossible to set an objective standard of what classes belong in which 'tiers'.

Then, you started talking about a 4 encounter per day guideline even though you admit that you don't have a reference to it in Pathfinder and that, even if it does exist somewhere, it's not a rule.
That makes your entire point a non sequitor with no relation to the point I made. This begs the question of what you're even talking about and how you think it is at all relevant to the point I made (which is in the first paragraph of this post).


The funny thing is, casters can easily destroy the "four fights a day" thing too, between teleporting or rope trick or a bevy of other tools they have to ensure they can sleep whenever, wherever.


LilithsThrall wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

The 4 encounters per day guideline(not rule as you keep calling it) has been there since 3.5. It is also a guideline the game was based upon when they made the game. We know the game is not in a vacumn and nobody(nobody I know anyway) plays by RAW, but once again we can only assume the default when discussing any issue. It is also common knowledge that there are assumed to be 4 encounters a day. It has been discussed on these boards many times. It is in the DMG(3.5), and it should be in the core book, but since the game did not change enough to change the encounter number, and others have used the number "4" I will assume the majority of the posters here know what they are talking about.

With that said do I need to find a page number for you since you seem to assume I am making things up, or can you answer the question(which I have forgotten what it was by now. Darn it woman, stop trying to distract me.

What I said is that different GMs can play -within the rules- but with substantial differences in style such as to make it impossible to set an objective standard of what classes belong in which 'tiers'.

Then, you started talking about a 4 encounter per day guideline even though you admit that you don't have a reference to it in Pathfinder and that, even if it does exist somewhere, it's not a rule.
That makes your entire point a non sequitor with no relation to the point I made. This begs the question of what you're even talking about and how you think it is at all relevant to the point I made (which is in the first paragraph of this post).

If the designers made a rule with a guideline in mind I think it makes sense to use it, and I never said I could not find the information. I said I did not see it in the book. There is a difference.

I will do this step by step since you like talking around questions more than you like to answer them.
Do you need me to find a reference for the 4 encounters a day guideline or will you go looking for it yourself?
For the same of my sanity only answer the bolded question.

Edit:PF does not mention the 4 encounter(fights or otherwise). Can we use 3.5's 4 a day or do you wish to assume the Pathfinder threw that in the trash when most of the game got ported over.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
The funny thing is, casters can easily destroy the "four fights a day" thing too, between teleporting or rope trick or a bevy of other tools they have to ensure they can sleep whenever, wherever.

I know, but I am trying to choose a common ground, while LT refuses to settle on one. I have actually forgotten my original point, and now I have to go back to where this thing started. I really think she is trying to annoy me into going away because she is wrong about whatever it was we started to debate about.


wraithstrike wrote:
Do you need me to find a reference for the 4 encounters a day guideline.

I -already- answered this question before you asked it.

LilithsThrall wrote:

tell me where -in the rule book- it gives a rule that some specific percentage of the encounters are to be combat and that there should be some specific number of encounters between rests.

I mean, that rule might exist. if it does, I don't know about it.


LilithsThrall wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Do you need me to find a reference for the 4 encounters a day guideline.

I -already- answered this question before you asked it.

LilithsThrall wrote:

tell me where -in the rule book- it gives a rule that some specific percentage of the encounters are to be combat and that there should be some specific number of encounters between rests.

I mean, that rule might exist. if it does, I don't know about it.

page 49 DMG

Read the "What's Challenging" paragraph at the bottom of the page.


wraithstrike wrote:

page 49 DMG

Read the "What's Challenging" paragraph at the bottom of the page.

Cutting through everything else I believe that this too is a very good point.

I see people all the time saying "wizard's are the broke because you can't challenge them" yet I've yet to have the wizard player that I can't challenge (please note I'm not saying I 'beat' wizard players -- such isn't the point -- but neither is allowing them to get away with anything they want either or being lax in how I handle them) -- it's a matter of knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each class -- how they combined in a party where the parties strengths and weaknesses are going to be and how to combined all this knowledge into an interesting game that both challenges the players and reaffirms their abilities too -- after all no one wants to play in a death crawl all the time.


I would say the APG classes, generally are a little easier to play in terms of requiring less optimisation. (exception being Cavalier)

EG
Inquisitor vs bard: versatile class that owns face without having to try.

Witch- plays like a wizard with less rescource management -their hexes don't really run out the way spells do.

Oracle- plays similar to a cleric with more definate specialisations (eg battle vs nature). Knowing all cures means they have enough spells known to easily cover their role (they don't stress about spell selection upon leveling up like a sorcerer would)

CAVALIER- this class can really rock. Unfortunately there is a 'must-have' combo to really make it good. Use your Tactician bonus feats for Paired Oppurtunists, then Outflank. Take Combat Expertise and Gangup and weild a scimitar (encourage your pals to do like wise). Squeeze in the practised Tactician feat early- if you can.

You'll then be swift action granting your buddies and you an auto flank +4 ability and getting heaps to free attacks at another +4 when you crit. Plus free AOO's for everyone when a bad guy provokes from any of you. This would be equivilent to at least an 8th level spell.

For the naysayers, actually try it and see...

Cavaliers are at least as decent as a fighter without this combo since while the fighters damage bonuses are always on, Cavaliers get big damage bonuses vs enough challange opponents to feel good. (And most fodder enemies can be dropped without damage bonueses anyway...)

The mount, even if you don't focus on it (which I don't) is your own personal flank buddy AND 'close faster than anyone else' vehicle on the odd occasions you can actually RIDE the thing.

Cavalier's make a decent face and a great combat general.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
The funny thing is, casters can easily destroy the "four fights a day" thing too, between teleporting or rope trick or a bevy of other tools they have to ensure they can sleep whenever, wherever.

This CAN happen. Contingencies (the events, not the spell :P) of the gameworld, the way enemies are played, the flow of the adventure can dramatically alter this assumption, at least IME.

IME, the "zomg unchallengeable casters" assume a gamestyle very narrow and a gameworld which is not living or at least "sleeping".


Actually I consider the Cavalier to be a combination of warrior's combat ability with part of bard's buffing and part fighter's feats. And he also has 4 skill points so he's not completely gimped skill-wise even if he invests in his riding abilities. I still fail to see the class as significantly worse than the other full BAB classes.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
The funny thing is, casters can easily destroy the "four fights a day" thing too, between teleporting or rope trick or a bevy of other tools they have to ensure they can sleep whenever, wherever.

And non-casters are shafted hard by endurance runs, unless there is a caster whom they can milk for resources in the immediate vicinity. Because they need to spend gold, instead of spells per day, to maintain their combat endurance. They need to be good enough at stealing casters' tricks just to keep GP bleed from healing HP damage alone manageable.


Kaiyanwang wrote:


IME, the "zomg unchallengeable casters" assume a gamestyle very narrow and a gameworld which is not living or at least "sleeping".

Casters are challengeable. By other casters or beings who otherwise can use enough of casters' tricks. Every proposal on how to challenge mid- to high-level casters ever (as evidenced by the recent thread) that is not based on liberal use of arbitrarium, is based on this. There is a reason, why even in published high-level adventures the overwhelming majority of BBEGs are casters or casting monsters and you need not look further than predominant reactions to BBEGs who aren't, to realize why.


carn wrote:

I have not played with APG classes, but it is my impression from the ability descriptions, that they are more powerful, than the core classes.

Right or wrong?

'

I have to say "wrong"

First off, remember that by introducing the APG all the core classes gain more options, and more options means more optimization, which means more power.

However, it's not like the APG core classes are remotely balanced against each other. The Witch is at least arguably the most powerful class in the game (it's certainly debatable - defensively the witch is a bit weak), and summoners may not be quite as tough as a witch but they are in the same league.

That said, Alchemists may be the weakest class in the game. Cavaliers are playable, but below average.

Inquisitors are nicely balanced and interesting, but very fiddly, with lots and lots of temporary limited use powers that overlap and create challenging accounting.

Overall though, the classes in APG probably average out to pretty close to even to the main core classes or slightly below IMO.


FatR wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
The funny thing is, casters can easily destroy the "four fights a day" thing too, between teleporting or rope trick or a bevy of other tools they have to ensure they can sleep whenever, wherever.
And non-casters are shafted hard by endurance runs, unless there is a caster whom they can milk for resources in the immediate vicinity. Because they need to spend gold, instead of spells per day, to maintain their combat endurance. They need to be good enough at stealing casters' tricks just to keep GP bleed from healing HP damage alone manageable.

I completely disagree with large parts of this -- your following one I'll agree with on several parts (but maybe not totality).

One need only grapple a wizard to see none magical means to drop one -- or ready to disturb with an attack.


Treantmonk wrote:
carn wrote:

I have not played with APG classes, but it is my impression from the ability descriptions, that they are more powerful, than the core classes.

Right or wrong?

'

I have to say "wrong"

First off, remember that by introducing the APG all the core classes gain more options, and more options means more optimization, which means more power.

However, it's not like the APG core classes are remotely balanced against each other. The Witch is at least arguably the most powerful class in the game (it's certainly debatable - defensively the witch is a bit weak), and summoners may not be quite as tough as a witch but they are in the same league.

That said, Alchemists may be the weakest class in the game. Cavaliers are playable, but below average.

Inquisitors are nicely balanced and interesting, but very fiddly, with lots and lots of temporary limited use powers that overlap and create challenging accounting.

Overall though, the classes in APG probably average out to pretty close to even to the main core classes or slightly below IMO.

While I know I'm no Optimization God like you, I'd argue the summoner is both the weakest and strongest class in the APG. It's got a lot of X-factors to it, inarguably more options than any other class in the game, which leads to a wide variation.

There's also the fact that its' editing is. . . not the best part of the book. There's a few key places (The "Improved Damage" evolution comes immediately to mind) where interpretation makes the swing factor even nastier. The Transmogrify spell, while not trivial is cheap enough later on that adjusting the Eidolon to deal with upcoming threats is a viable choice if you know what the next adventure is going to look like.

If the rules are interpreted to their most favorable, I would say the Summoner is far and away the most powerful class in the game. A more reasonable reading would make the Summoner . . . still really good.


Abraham spalding wrote:


One need only grapple a wizard to see none magical means to drop one -- or ready to disturb with an attack.

At low levels, sure, that can work,

By about 7 it's done.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:


One need only grapple a wizard to see none magical means to drop one -- or ready to disturb with an attack.

At low levels, sure, that can work,

By about 7 it's done.

Wrong.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Wrong.

Okay, to take the most trivial/common countertactic from a long, long list:

How does the grappler beat dimension door?


Dire Mongoose wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Wrong.

Okay, to take the most trivial/common countertactic from a long, long list:

How does the grappler beat dimension door?

How does the mage get dimension door off in a grapple?

I got a hint -- he doesn't.

DC 10 + CMD + spell level? It isn't happening -- combat casting or no.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Wrong.

Okay, to take the most trivial/common countertactic from a long, long list:

How does the grappler beat dimension door?

How does the mage get dimension door off in a grapple?

I got a hint -- he doesn't.

DC 10 + CMD + spell level? It isn't happening -- combat casting or no.

It is CMB for that formula, not CMD.


That is still roughly 50/50 at level 7 and might provoke an AoO. So two rolls at roughly 50% to loose your spell. Far from a sure shot


wraithstrike wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Wrong.

Okay, to take the most trivial/common countertactic from a long, long list:

How does the grappler beat dimension door?

How does the mage get dimension door off in a grapple?

I got a hint -- he doesn't.

DC 10 + CMD + spell level? It isn't happening -- combat casting or no.

It is CMB for that formula, not CMD.

I'm going to take a WAG and assume that a 13th level Wizard has a 30 Int. That means that he has a modifier to his Concentration check of +23.

Assume a 13th level monk with a 24 Dex (with Agile Manuevers) and Improved Grapple. The DC to cast will be 36.
If the caster rolls a 13 or higher on a d20, he can cast Dimn Door.
If the monk has Greater Grapple, the caster must roll a 15 or higher.
The caster has anywhere between a 25-35% chance of getting his spell off. That's as good as it gets, because if the caster does have dimn door memorized twice, the second round is only going to be harder to cast it on.


Um...

Does that monk have an amulet of the mighty fist (and why not) +1~3 on that grapple check DC then. Weapon focus unarmed strike? Another +1.

And this is assuming a monk -- as opposed to say a dragon which will have a MUCH better check -- or a Bone Devil (which also has dimensional anchor and a fly speed).

Let the giant throw a net at that wizard instead of a rock.

There are plenty of methods for messing with spellcasters at all levels.


LilithsThrall wrote:

I'm going to take a WAG and assume that a 13th level Wizard has a 30 Int. That means that he has a modifier to his Concentration check of +23.

I personally was talking about 7th level; at 13th, there are just too too many things that beat grappling to even take it seriously. For a grapple roll to even take place at level 13 requires the wizard make around a dozen serious mistakes, and if we're going to assume he's that stupid, we might as well go all the way decide he's going to try to beat the monk down with a mundane quarterstaff.

But that being said, why would you ever build a wizard with that poor of a concentration roll?

Anything looks good if you assume its opponents are idiots.


Abraham spalding wrote:

Um...

Does that monk have an amulet of the mighty fist (and why not) +1~3 on that grapple check DC then. Weapon focus unarmed strike? Another +1.

Since when does any of that affect CMB?


Dire Mongoose wrote:
why would you ever build a wizard with that poor of a concentration roll?

Tell me how you would get the concentration roll higher?

Combat Casting? That's an awfully high opportunity cost. And it still leaves the wizard with a pretty crappy chance given that if he fails his percentage roll, he's toast.


LilithsThrall wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Wrong.

Okay, to take the most trivial/common countertactic from a long, long list:

How does the grappler beat dimension door?

How does the mage get dimension door off in a grapple?

I got a hint -- he doesn't.

DC 10 + CMD + spell level? It isn't happening -- combat casting or no.

It is CMB for that formula, not CMD.

I'm going to take a WAG and assume that a 13th level Wizard has a 30 Int. That means that he has a modifier to his Concentration check of +23.

Assume a 13th level monk with a 24 Dex (with Agile Manuevers) and Improved Grapple. The DC to cast will be 36.
If the caster rolls a 13 or higher on a d20, he can cast Dimn Door.
If the monk has Greater Grapple, the caster must roll a 15 or higher.
The caster has anywhere between a 25-35% chance of getting his spell off. That's as good as it gets, because if the caster does have dimn door memorized twice, the second round is only going to be harder to cast it on.

I am going to assume that a 30 by level 13 is because of crafting feats and a DM that allows the feats to bypass WBL. I will also assume you are using the +5 rule for the second grapple check, but the thing is that you CMB does not increase by 5. You do however get a +5 bonus to your CMB roll, when trying to maintain the grapple, a small but vital difference.

prd:If your target does not break the grapple, you get a +5 circumstance bonus on grapple checks made against the same target in subsequent rounds.

That +5 is a result of an action on your part, not just a +5 to CMB.

51 to 100 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / APG classes vs core classes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.