To overshadow they would have to be able to do everything the martialist can do and more -- which they can't.
And if you say they can (like some here do) prove it.
I'll call overshadow like so: they can accomplish as much in combat as the classes that can't do much outside of it (e.g. fighter) and can accomplish as much out of combat as the classes built for that.
(And actually, my personal pick for demonstrating that would be something like druid more than, say, wizard probably, but to each his own.)
If you want to see it, I'm happy to invite you the next time I start running a campaign and one of the better wizard (or whatever class of your choice) players I know is available and willing to play said class. There isn't anything message board compatible that really demonstrates it -- even a play by play of a campaign I'm sure people would tear apart in completely stupid ways.
Heh, I'd like to see something similar from the casters.
Frankly, it would never be good enough for you, so there's not much point.
Some classes require more expertise in building; others require more expertise in playing. The second kind is basically impossible to demonstrate the toughness of to anyone's satisfaction on a message board because the whole art of it is in always having the right spell for whatever situation arises rather than in having a "good build".
|
Heh, I'd like to see something similar from the casters.Frankly, it would never be good enough for you, so there's not much point.
Some classes require more expertise in building; others require more expertise in playing. The second kind is basically impossible to demonstrate the toughness of to anyone's satisfaction on a message board because the whole art of it is in always having the right spell for whatever situation arises rather than in having a "good build".
Actually Mongoose, I'm quite open to being convinced. I've been shown a large number of things about how the game differs from my experience. On these very boards.
The defense here seems to be that people won't offer anything but claims that aren't substantited by anything more than personal experience in their games. How is that any better than me telling you your wrong based on my personal experiences.
You make the very wrong assumption that my players don't play their casters well. My guys read these forums, they chewed through all the "casters are great" threads and followed advice. It taught all of us some stuff.
But we don't see a disparity in the power of the classes like other people say. That's because the guys in my group who play fighters do so very well.
I GM by the rules, but I also run a game that exists in a campaign world and use the background info/alignments/personalities presented in the Golarian setting to run them. I make sure that the rules I tell my players to follow I use for my baddies. I cannot claim that I am a super genius of intelligence level 21 or some such, but I play my NPC's as creatures that want to survive and would quite happily kill the PC's to do so. I make my players play to their character, not to their metagame knowledge of the game and we all keep ourselves honest about it.
So, please stop telling me I won't understand or be convinced and actually do something to prove the claims you are making. Build the guy, then explain how you would use him. I am truly interested in learning why people think they are so powerful when it isn't apparent to a very large proportion of the gaming community.
Don't get me wrong, I do not believe the rules are perfect. There are things I'd like to see improved. But the differece in percieved power between the classes is not one of those I believe is an issue.
Please show me otherwise.
As absurd as arena/pvp arguments are, I feel like putting my 2cp on this one. The "lolz i run away full xp" isn't so much that as it is: i have now seen you. I will run away, scrye on you, and then teleport to you when you sleep and pre-game you to death.
I think also, in the end, the more arguments like "the fighter could totally have max ranks in UMD and a bunch of scrolls, boots of fly, goggles of true seeing, wand of rope trick" the more that fighter just seems like a poor man's caster or at least that he relies on a caster for all his toys.
But 20th level is a horrible place to balance classes, 7-13 is more the meat and potatoes of this game. As much as I think casters are the bees knees, I like playing melee as is (which means dedicated healers, ick. someone has to take one for the team and be a healbot!) and these levels are the most fun to me in part because it is when the melee start to taper off in usefulness and the casters take over as gods. Start. Really IMO unless you have a lenient DM who lets you buy whatever you want with WBL which I never get, wizards are only the best class not gods until lvl 15 or so.
Let's do this in bits shall we? Scrying does not require any clothing or anything of the sort. Read the spell. Go ahead I'll wait....Yeah if I have that you get a -10 or some nonsense to your save. Just having seen you I can scrye on you.
Yes, there's a will save. Your point? There's saves for everything. Fighter base will save is bad, and my save DC is very high. A couple tries and you're found.
What anti-scrying thing? You mean like a SPELL? Fighters cant cast spells.
This argument is not Wizard>All it's really Magic>No Magic. The INSTANT you say "well I have detect scrying" it becomes Magic vs. Other Magic which is a different argument and not the one we are having. Wizards have access to spells, fighters do not. Magic is incredibly powerful, versatile, and useful. Classes without it are by their nature lesser because of it. I'm saying this because it should be REMEDIED.
How is simply naming a very popular wizard tactic cowardly? It's the path of least resistance. I can't fight you? Ok then I teleport and wait for a time when I can win without a fight. The very fact that you call foul because the wizard won't meet the fighter on his very limited own terms shows that you don't really grasp the disconnect between magic/no magic.
Scry typically requires a piece of the persons either clothing or hair... you going to go claim that?
Also there is a will save, even if they are sleeping and if I was a fighter I might have an anti-scrying something around to help with that problem. Warlords can be paranoid too after all. (not trying to metagame here just saying if you are going to throw out random spells I am going to point out why its unfair to say that)
The whole sleeping trick thing is not a good arguement. Again cowardly and putting wizard on autowin. Everyone wins if you kill in sleep.
According to testimony given earlier in the thread, no wizard who was worth his salt would bother taking or preparing Enervation, and Disjunction provides for a will save. However, it suddenly seems incredibly useful, so conveniently the wizard has suddenly prepared it all along despite it being the worst 4th level spell in existence.
First, your strawman is lame even by strawman standards. Second, is it news to you that this is exactly how prepared casters function? The spell you didn't care about before, becomes remotely useful to you. And you prepare it. Not in the least Because 4th level slots at 20th level are your pocket change anyway.
First, I disagree with this. If you like, we can pull out any adventure path and go through it encounter by encounter in a spoiler thread.
Why???? If you disagree, just quote the pages at which reaction plans for NPCs are written.
Second look how many published adventures don't assume you know when and where the combat will take place so that you can buff prior.
Only those that present ways to prevent PCs from scouting or otherwise gathering information, or resting whenever they want. That is, very few of them. And once again, no party ever goes into known danger zones - which is where you go 90-95% of time in published adventures - non-buffed. Just, period. Never seen such stupidity in my life, and I've seen plenty of player stupidity.
What's considered 'broken' from 3.5 is different for different people and different groups.
Uh no. Infinite loop is an infinite loop no matter what anyone can think.
Hence when comparing characters on the boards it's rather simpler to compare pure PF characters rather than 'PF characters with non-broken 3.5 material' added in. For your home game you can use whatever you like from 3.5 and it will mostly work without too much trouble, I don't see where the backwards compatibility claims become a lie or BS.
If you can't material from 3.5 without breakin the game, then it's a lie. And BS.
That's all well and good, but this came about in the context of you talking about an atypical endurance run style adventure. Apparently we have very different ideas on what atypical is, because I wouldn't generally consider published adventures examples of atypical game play. An 'endurance run' which doesn't actually put any pressure on the PC's and which allows ample opportunity to rest isn't what I would call an endurance run. But yes, given that your 'endurance run' was around an hour of combat in any given day with nothing to prevent rest then I can see how your wizard did well at tanking.
You still refuse to understand how the system works. And the simple fact, that if you are "putting pressure" on PCs by using encounters an order of magnitude beyond daily allotment (which was required to genuinely drain the party in question out of resources), because they easily handle several times their daily allotment of encounters, you're killing them by GM fiat. And that party of any type will die in this case. And that a hour of combat is many times more than you need to waste any combination of encounters adding up to the daily norm in any dungeon that is not built around uber-magic meant to prevent exactly this.
Oh, and if encounters are sufficiently geographically separated to make time between them an issue, this just means that PCs have as much opportunity to hide and rest between them as they want.
|
Backwards compatability doesn't mean that broken 3.5 stuff is magically not broken. A flat tire is compatible with the vehicle that it fits on, but that doesn't mean that driving around on it is a good idea.
I remember seeing one of the Paizo staff state their goals in regards to the backwards compatibility of the system a while back. There were, IIRC several different levels of compatibility that were the goals. Compatibility with the existing Pathfinder setting was the highest priority. Compatibility with the random book of broken splat was NOT high on the priority list.
|
First, I disagree with this. If you like, we can pull out any adventure path and go through it encounter by encounter in a spoiler thread.Why???? If you disagree, just quote the pages at which reaction plans for NPCs are written.
Only those that present ways to prevent PCs from scouting or otherwise gathering information, or resting whenever they want. That is, very few of them. And once again, no party ever goes into known danger zones - which is where you go 90-95% of time in published adventures - non-buffed. Just, period. Never seen such stupidity in my life, and I've seen plenty of player stupidity.
Second look how many published adventures don't assume you know when and where the combat will take place so that you can buff prior.
You said that modules and adventure paths allow for rest in between encounters and foreknowledge for Wizard planning. So let us test your hypotheisis.
I'll start at Adventure Path 1, Rise of The Rune Lords: Burnt Offerings We can keep going from there if you like. Obviously putting the encounters under spoilers.
1. First few encounters are part of an ambush at the end of the day. No way you are planning anything for that and no time to rest between the encounters in the battle.
2. Then three Random encounters. A Hunting Trip which you can prep for, but buff would wear off depending on how long you are hunting, a "Monster in the Closet" which you can fully prep for, and the Shopkeepers Daughter which is mostly role play and not prepare. All three are short once offs that allow you to can rest after.
3. The Glassworks encounter you can plan for, as you know you are going to investigate the glassworks because someone is missing. But you can't rest between encounters as it is a rescue mission. If you leave and come back, you fail at the rescue.
4. Catacombs of Wrath in theory you could leave and come back, but your DM will likely penalize you by having Sinspawn run amok in the city.
5. Thistletop is an invasion. You can do it in parts to a point, but if you stop to rest before taking out Ripnugget, he can just reinforce whatever you got through last time and increase the watch, not to mention call the people downstairs upstairs to help him and make the whole thing harder.
Even if you rest after taking out Ripnugget, if you leave Nualia and the rest are still downstairs and will realize you are coming back (or worse camping there) and either reinforce or attack you...
Should I go on to The Skinsaw Murders, or is my point made?
stuff
#1 - The party explicitly can buff after the first small encounter. Standard SoLs work on everything, so memorize is no-brainer. In fact, there is true for almost all of the adventure. Color Spray might not work on 100% enemies, but it works on about 95%. Grease is effective about 80-90% of them.
#2 - Single encounters.#3 - Single encounter. PCs explicitly can get surprise if they try at all.
#4 - No penalty for leaving and returning. Your conjecture about GM's reaction is not in the text.
#5 - The only penalty for leaving and returning is... facing the same numbers of mooks. Assuming even that. Care to point the page where this is stated? I couldn't find it on skimming through.
Should I go on to The Skinsaw Murders, or is my point made?
How about... "no, it isn't made in the slightest"?
CoDzilla, you better should adress the build posted above by Abraham Spalding, if you want to continue with general statements about martial characters being ever inferior (I, personally, never denied that archer fighters, of all martial characters, were viable in PF, so I don't feel like bothering with character building and even reading PF books again for that matter).
|
|
stuff#1 - The party explicitly can buff after the first small encounter. Standard SoLs work on everything, so memorize is no-brainer. In fact, there is true for almost all of the adventure. Color Spray might not work on 100% enemies, but it works on about 95%. Grease is effective about 80-90% of them.
#2 - Single encounters.
#3 - Single encounter. PCs explicitly can get surprise if they try at all.
#4 - No penalty for leaving and returning. Your conjecture about GM's reaction is not in the text.
#5 - The only penalty for leaving and returning is... facing the same numbers of mooks. Assuming even that. Care to point the page where this is stated? I couldn't find it on skimming through.Should I go on to The Skinsaw Murders, or is my point made?How about... "no, it isn't made in the slightest"?
Did you even read the AP? RoTRL response.
1. There is no gap in the first encounter. It is an ongoing battle, where you get a few rounds to recover before a second thing happens in the battle.
How many times do you have Color Spray memorized? And how often are you planning on getting within 15 feet? What spells do you have memorized actually, since you are both buffing and attacking?
2. We agree here.
3. They can get surprise on the first encounter, not the ongoing encounters. If they don't follow any escaping goblins downstairs then Tsuto is alerted.
4. If your DM doesn't think that after you go in and stir up a hornets nest, the hornets nest won't come out, you have a very easy DM. Particularly since in the sidebar it says the sinspawn will eventually come into the city if left unattended.
5. Same number of mooks, different location. Try Thistletop with Nualia and all her friends up top rather than down below, since the place is on high alert...
If your DM allows you to rest without consequences, that is your DM.
Most DM's would consider what would actually happen in the game based on your actions.
Moving on to Skinsaw.
1. Mostly role play up through the Sanatorium.
2. Hambley Farm is an expected encounter. If you put your buffs on back at Sand Point, by this level you are going to be out by the time you get to the farm, so the question I would ask as a DM is when do you put them on. Now the issue comes when you consider that if you don't resolve the whole encounter in one go, anyone not dead yet will die and rise the next day as a ghoul. There are 12 Ghouls, plus Craesby that have to be dealt with before you can rest.
3. Foxglove Manor specifically says that if you leave you are attacked and if you sleep in the manor you have to make a will save. It could not be made more clear the intent is to prevent you from resting.
4. Foxglove townhouse you may be able to buff for, although it would border on metagaming and if I were DMing I may have a few other misdirection stops to have you waste your buffs just to stop all the metagaming. Also, you don't know they are enemies at first.
5. Sawmill you can plan for, but you have to finish in one go considering that if you leave, Judge Ironbriar will likely put a warrant out for your arrest for breaking into his Sawmill.
6. The Shadow Clock is also a one through. I supposed you could try to leave after the fight with the golem, but once you are on the stairs there aren't a lot of outs. Hence this being such a heavy TPK battle.
Still need to go on?
stuff#1 - The party explicitly can buff after the first small encounter. Standard SoLs work on everything, so memorize is no-brainer. In fact, there is true for almost all of the adventure. Color Spray might not work on 100% enemies, but it works on about 95%. Grease is effective about 80-90% of them.
#2 - Single encounters.
#3 - Single encounter. PCs explicitly can get surprise if they try at all.
#4 - No penalty for leaving and returning. Your conjecture about GM's reaction is not in the text.
#5 - The only penalty for leaving and returning is... facing the same numbers of mooks. Assuming even that. Care to point the page where this is stated? I couldn't find it on skimming through.Should I go on to The Skinsaw Murders, or is my point made?How about... "no, it isn't made in the slightest"?
I'm always amused when I find two people looking at the same thing, and seeing something entirely different.
@FatR:
An adventure path provides the backdrop and encounters for a campaign; but it is not a static world like a computer game that does not react to your actions (this is roleplaying after all).
In that sense, any GM that let's you assault Nualia, then retreat for half a day of rest and re-stocking, then come back for some more action and continue where you left of - is a crap GM. Don't hide behind what the book says, because it simply cannot go into all eventualities of possible events. A GM is required to let the world react to the players' actions.
I GM this specific path for my friends - and they actually did exactly what is described above. What happened was that Nualia and crew were not only very well prepared on their return - they actually let the PCs believe that they had fled. Nualia allowed them to explore the place until they did Nualia's work for her (namely free Malfeshnekor); then she and her allies attacked the PCs from behind while the monster they unleashed was in front of them.
Abraham, where can I find the celestial plate? I'd also be interested in a level progression to make sure he is viable through his career getting to 20th.
Wings of flying are the reserve item -- the celestial plate is in...pathfinder #11. It's celestial armor on plate mail instead of chain mail.
The insight bonus to AC comes from weapon master level 9, while the weapon training goes up to +7 off of the dueling gloves (instead of +5). Steel soul is where the secondary saves come from -- it turns the dwarf's +2 bonus against spells and spell likes into a +4 bonus.
I know for a fact that build is viable at all levels. It did use the 25 point buy that CoDzilla likes so much. I would juggle the feats just a little bit -- I just made sure that they were taken after the minimum levels.
Honestly give me till this evening and I'll post my cavalier on Dragonne Mount -- that thing is a bear and is level 11. I have a mounted barbarian that has blindsight 30 at level 20, on a mount that pounces (as does the barbarian) also that's very nasty. The paladin build I put up earlier is of course viable at any level too.
Basically put CoDzilla has no clue of the damage output, defenses, or abilities of the pathfinder martial characters (after all I've not even pulled out the ranger yet), and little appreciation for the problems that spell casters can easily face.
K and FatR at least discuss what's going on and acknowledge the viability of specific characters (I think FatR's main issue is on melee characters, not martial characters for example). K has yet to acknowledge viable builds but does discuss some of the weaknesses of the casters and attempts to build a point beyond "I'm right you are wrong and if you can't see it you're stupid."
Also CoDzilla completely ignores the mobile fighter that can full attack as a standard action at level 20, the archer/weapon master fighter than can simply shoot everything multiple times, mounted characters that can easily deal significant damage with a single attack.
|
|
Abraham, where can I find the celestial plate? I'd also be interested in a level progression to make sure he is viable through his career getting to 20th.Wings of flying are the reserve item -- the celestial plate is in...pathfinder #11. It's celestial armor on plate mail instead of chain mail.
The insight bonus to AC comes from weapon master level 9, while the weapon training goes up to +7 off of the dueling gloves (instead of +5). Steel soul is where the secondary saves come from -- it turns the dwarf's +2 bonus against spells and spell likes into a +4 bonus.
I know for a fact that build is viable at all levels. It did use the 25 point buy that CoDzilla likes so much. I would juggle the feats just a little bit -- I just made sure that they were taken after the minimum levels.
Honestly give me till this evening and I'll post my cavalier on Dragonne Mount -- that thing is a bear and is level 11. I have a mounted barbarian that has blindsight 30 at level 20, on a mount that pounces (as does the barbarian) also that's very nasty. The paladin build I put up earlier is of course viable at any level too.
Basically put CoDzilla has no clue of the damage output, defenses, or abilities of the pathfinder martial characters (after all I've not even pulled out the ranger yet), and little appreciation for the problems that spell casters can easily face.
K and FatR at least discuss what's going on and acknowledge the viability of specific characters (I think FatR's main issue is on melee characters, not martial characters for example). K has yet to acknowledge viable builds but does discuss some of the weaknesses of the casters and attempts to build a point beyond "I'm right you are wrong and if you can't see it you're stupid."
+1
|
|
Basically put CoDzilla has no clue of the damage output, defenses, or abilities of the pathfinder martial characters (after all I've not even pulled out the ranger yet), and little appreciation for the problems that spell casters can easily face.
K and FatR at least discuss what's going on and acknowledge the viability of specific characters (I think FatR's main issue is on melee characters, not martial characters for example). K has yet to acknowledge viable builds but does discuss some of the weaknesses of the casters and attempts to build a point beyond "I'm right you are wrong and if you can't see it you're stupid."
Between the classes themselves and the builds I've seen around here, I have no confidence in martial characters that aren't importing 3.5 rules, if not 3.5 material. Fixing PA for example.
As for spellcasters, they can be challenged by other spellcasters. Beyond low levels, and without 3.5 material nothing else stands up to them. Keep in mind that many monsters are spellcasters.
Even with 3.5 material the non caster builds end up extremely narrow and easily shut down, whereas a well made Wizard BBEG could stand there tanking the entire party of effective characters until long after any other encounter, even a higher level encounter would have been beaten into the ground and still be just fine. Been there, done that. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500 damage and at least a half dozen save or loses were shaken off like it wasn't nothing, because they didn't actually hit. Best defenses in the game, and all that. The Wizard's actual HP? About 10% of that number (PF caster buffs make it higher).
Like it or not, the only reason to play a martial anything past the first few levels is because you really like hitting things with a stick. And even that reason fades away when hit it with a stick isn't viable even when dealing with problems that can be solved by hitting things with a stick, aka PF martials.
As I've said several times in other threads, my wife has a Gnome Cavalier that does 3d8 + 84 damage on a charge AND is able to do so without taking an AoO and end the turn away from the monster.
That isn't a crit. That is the normal damage.
If you don't know the rules, you don't understand how much damage a melee character can do.
Even at level 1, a team of Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Sorcerer has around 15 good spells between them, possibly more. And any one of those can end a level appropriate fight instantly with a high success rate. It only gets better from there.
Assuming that you are up against something that can't get color sprayed or slept, name 1 winning spell.
I'll give you entangle in a few situations, but all the Save-or-Suck type stuff is higher level.
I'll listen to the caster rulezzz! stuff for higher levels, but at the lowest levels, barbarians, fighters and paladins are just better then most casters.
|
1: I don't own APG. If you state abilities without clearly defining their function, I will ignore them.
CoD has me on ignore, but it's funny how he pulls out anecdotal evidence of 3.5 splatbook stuff without clearly definig their function, yet demands it to be done whenever APG or some other source he doesn't own is used.
Which is of course even more funny if you consider that APG is pretty much entirely on d20pfsrd, while stuff like Shock Trooper comes from closed content sources.
|
|
97 damage. On a mounted charger, aka one attack shuts down all his abilities. At an undefined level.
Nope, not impressed.
Why am I not on your ignore list yet?
Anyway, the Cavalier is 12th Level. And I am going from memory so I either did the math wrong or I am missing a point of damage somewhere so for the purpose of this discussion it is only 3d8+81 on a charge.
Of course I also didn't add in the riding dogs attack (it has spring attack, so it can attack on a charge.)
It also does X3 on a Crit (Lance) and crits on 19/20 (mighty charge) and with a +4 rather than a +2 to the charge attack, with no AC penalty (Cavalier Charge)
Mounted on a riding dog, so no issues in small dungeons.
The builds posted above do very high damage on a single attack, and at various levels have disruptive effects to spells, but I'll stick to mine.
1d8 Lance
Damage X3 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/spirited-charge-combat---final)
+6 strength (6X318) + Power attack (-4 to hit +12x3= 36) +3 Lance (3X3=9)+ Order of the Sword Feature Mounted Master, which adds your mounts strength bonus (6X3=18) +1 for
18+36+9+18= +81
And the Gnome build is far from optimal.
As you said, you don't own the APG. It shows.
|
|
Anyway, the Cavalier is 12th Level.Of course I also didn't add in the riding dogs attack (it has spring attack, so it can attack on a charge.)
1d8 Lance
And the Gnome build is far from optimal.
As you said, you don't own the APG. It shows.
A few small quibbles.
1st it's not great damage for 12th level. It's nice damage for around 8th. But then again, don't cavaliers also get something that's +dam/lvl to their attacks? That would make it +115 which would be more reasonable.
2nd the riding dog needs to charge, which you can't do with spring attack.
3rd the gnome is small sized so doesn't the lance deal d6 rather than d8?
While I agree that the build does not seem optimized rather than obvious and out of the box, the end result and opinion I agree with however in that fighter-types can deal very reasonable damage.
-James
According to Sean K Reynolds in another thread your mount can attack as part of a charge using spring attack. The mount isn't charging, you are.
Edit: in this thread
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/mountsWithAttacksAndTheRideByAttackFeat&page=1&so urce=search#0
You are right on the size, my bad. 3d6.
Also I found the last 3 points, she has a 20 str, not an 18. I forgot she got an enhancer. So it is +84.
I don't know about the damage per level, that may be a specific order ability.
And if you argue that isn't great damage at that level, it only further illustrates the point.
How about a contest? Everyone makes a build, 25 point buy, wealth by level for level 20. I guess you can pick any items you want, though normal leveling wouldn't give you that.
Everyone fights the level 20 cr's in the srd, then duels each other. After all they are all level 20 cr opponents?
I've seen a lot of threads like this devolve down to a "post a character and test them out against one another" type argument. It doesn't solve anything because at the end of the day, when all is said and done, everyone will retain their personal bias that can only be gained through firsthand experience. The game wasn't intended as a series of arena matches between player classes; it is setup with a group of characters with complimentary abilities in mind, a team game. Each player in the group assumes a job for the bettering of the whole. I'm not just saying roles, whatever it is that you choose to do will vary greatly, be it a musclebound enforcer thug style rogue, or a stealthy fighter who dabbles in magic, or...whatever.
You can't even set definate perameters as to what defines a "superior" character, because everyone will have a different opinion. To some it will be AC, others damage, others veritility in skills, and still others number of feats/"effectiveness" of feats.
If you say to compare it against _________ monsters or each other then of course each person is going to walk up to the metaphorical table with something geared to do just that, but when it comes down to it; all characters that going to excell at where they place their emphasis, and this is by design. Does it matter if class X can do ___ more damage that class Y, if class Y is still very effective, and team XY is superior than either part alone?
If you were to say check to see which character would have the best shot at defeating the greatest number of high level monsters by himself/herself, you don't take into account that character's personality, motivations, background, non-combat capabilities, ect. Which removes role-playing entirely from the game and then what are you left with. Just a game, and not a terribly good one at that (not saying the core mechanics of PF, mind you, I think they are great - I'm refering to a game that will make friends argue over who could one-shot the other faster without even defining a characters personality).
Which class is "better" than which is entirely subjective.
In my opinion the "best" class is the one that a player enjoyed playing at his daily, weekly, or monthly playing session, without regard to how to min/max his combat capability.
|
|
In my opinion the "best" class is the one that a player enjoyed playing at his daily, weekly, or monthly playing session, without regard to how to min/max his combat capability.
Agreed 100%. And if any player doesn't want to play with someone else in the group because their "non-viable" character would just be so much "dead weight" then you should dump the dead weight. By which I mean the jerkass who's telling other people what they should and should not play.
<@><@> peeks in
Ekkkkkkkkkeekeke !!
|
|
Why am I not on your ignore list yet?
97 damage. On a mounted charger, aka one attack shuts down all his abilities. At an undefined level.
Nope, not impressed.
I took you off to see if you had gotten better. Since you're still making baiting remarks, you haven't, so you will be returned to it after this post.
Anyway, the Cavalier is 12th Level. And I am going from memory so I either did the math wrong or I am missing a point of damage somewhere so for the purpose of this discussion it is only 3d8+81 on a charge.94 damage at level 12. With all the weaknesses of mounted combat. Subpar. Granted, it is only mild to moderately subpar, but it is subpar nontheless.
And when your mount gets one shotted, then what?
You do realize the mounts have animal companion hit points, right?
I think the most important thing to note about Wizards vs Melee is this:
Typically, although not always the case, fighters are played by guys that just want to roll, swing, and roll damage. (definitely not the case from my advanced players or myself because we are experienced gamers and play fighters very well).
While the wizards are typically played by experienced players that know how to use spells.
The whole wizards are intelligent (ability score) so they will always think of the good spell is not accurate. The player says "I cast ____).
Therefore lets acknowledge this, how good a class is directly based upon who plays the class.
a wizard can be played by a guy that just likes blasting stuff, prepares fireball and scorching ray and magic missile til no days ends. But all of us are going to ask him "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?"
A fighter can have a lot going for him too, he has to choose the right feats, have a good battle strategy (no different than when you prepare your spells each morning), and know a monster (which could come from vaious knowledge checks of the party but this is half the battle for everyone, even a wizard sucks if they dont know what they are fighting.)
Would everyone here agree, it comes solely down to the ability of a player? I could play a battle master fighter, plans for things, comes up with clever solutions that require his strength, fortitude and tact. How is that any different than when you prepare spells each morning?
Just because the fighter can be roll, swing, damage. doesnt mean he is. Just like a wizard can be roll attack, ray, damage.
unfortunately, idiots apparently give the fighter a bad name :)
Even at level 1, a team of Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Sorcerer has around 15 good spells between them, possibly more. And any one of those can end a level appropriate fight instantly with a high success rate. It only gets better from there.
Assuming that you are up against something that can't get color sprayed or slept, name 1 winning spell.
Ok, so level 1 or 2?
Clerics and Druids can smash up Skeletons just fine. Zombies can be kited, or simply smashed.
And... that's about it, for immune enemies at those levels. Undead and that's it.
OK, so name me the spell that auto-beats lemures, ghouls, or vermin, or any spell other then just sleep or color spray. Of the 15 good spells you mentioned, the ones that "end a level appropriate fight instantly". I'm just looking for one.
One spell.
|
|
The damage is ok, but not great for 12. adding challenge to it (cavalier version of smite for Codzilla) takes it over 100.
Just making it a normal cavalier build takes it over 100. She has a -2 to Str for being a gnome, the dog is less strong than a horse, and as was pointed out it would be d8 rather than d6.
Not to mention she only has a +2 strength enhancement. Very suboptimal for 12th level.
My point is that the amount of Damage melee classes can do in a single round while moving is under estimated.
A 12th level wizard's damage spells aren't better. You've got max 6 level spells, doing 12th level caster damage, so Chain Lightning is doing 12d6 at that level for example.
Obviously there are a lot of utility spells as well, but the fact is the Gnome can charge and do that all day. The fighter can hit and do that all day. The caster has a limited number of spells per day.
Not saying Melee is better, just saying it isn't unbalanced. Each can do it's thing well.
I don't get this absolute need of gianormous damage after a move (even if it can be done).
If I move and trip two enemies with a Cleave, or Bull Rush an enemy into the Black Tentacles, I could have done enough for that round.
After that, I can place myself in an advantageous position, adjust the round after to offer the rogue a flank... situations arising in the battle will dictate my subsequent behaviour.
Finally, the Mundane Classes can help each other on this. A Order of the Dragon Cavalier can make ally move and hit as an immediate action. If this action is wisely used, the subsequent round will be plenty of full attacks.
|
|
I don't get this absolute need of gianormous damage after a move (even if it can be done).
If I move and trip two enemies with a Cleave, or Bull Rush an enemy into the Black Tentacles, I could have done enough for that round.
After that, I can place myself in an advantageous position, adjust the round after to offer the rogue a flank... situations arising in the battle will dictate my subsequent behaviour.
Finally, the Mundane Classes can help each other on this. A Order of the Dragon Cavalier can make ally move and hit as an immediate action. If this action is wisely used, the subsequent round will be plenty of full attacks.
I agree 100%. Damage is just one thing you can do. I'm just trying to dispel the "you can't hurt me, I'll just go around to get the caster" argument that some brought up.
And of course let's not forget that a well-built monk will tear apart a caster.
CoD has me on ignore...1: I don't own APG. If you state abilities without clearly defining their function, I will ignore them.
How did you get so lucky? What do I have to do to get on his ignore list?
I always had problems with casters vs noncasters in 3e, and am quite disappointed that Pathfinder didn't fix them. But wait, let me explain.
I don't like playing a roleplaying game like you would prepare your deck for a Magic: the Gathering tournament, all this CharOp stuff and talk of optimization and "hey wait there's this combo of options in this, that and that other source that totally proves my point" just confuses me.
What I know is: by playing with people that did not optimize, I have once made a wizard character that had probably one of the worst spell selections ever (don't ask me the details because I don't remember, honestly), but being 15th level, she had access to stuff like scry, detect location, teleport, phantom steed, fabricate, wall of iron and such.
The campaign was actually pretty "relaxed", in a way: to put it simply we were bad guys that got a castle by force of arms and the king just decided to play along and let us keep it.
At one point, I have stopped using divination spells, even though I was supposedly a specialist in the field, simply because it became clear after a while that my GM wasn't ready for that and I felt like a jerk for spoiling her investigation plots like that. I still did something here and there but it was minor. Arcane sight and prying eyes, mostly.
At another point, I had used wall of iron and move earth to rebuild way better fortifications than the place ever had, in about a week or so. Moat included, of course.
Even when I had the wrong spells, all it took was a bit of creativity: at one point we were chasing someone who could pass through walls more or less at will, and how did we enter a sanctum walled on all sides without opening and the right spell? Why, by casting "stone to flesh" and digging the flesh away. I never expected I'd use that spell that way.
tl;dr The problem is options. I might be a wizard with the wrong spell load, that has the wrong spells prepared, that doesn't have many of them, and those I have may not work for one reason or another. But by simple virtue of being a full spellcaster I have so many options that the higher we go in level, the lower the chances I can't do anything helpful in one way or the other.
I also keep seeing this "yeah but you can shank the wizard or he may have the wrong spells or run out of them" argument as something, if not positive, at least balancing. It's not balancing, it simply makes everything even more random: He may not have the right spell prepared, but what if he does? He may not one-shot an encounter way higher than his level, but what if he does? He may not be able to survive if he is caught pants down, but what if he does?
Non-spellcasters don't have anything like this, and that's the problem. I'm all fine with a fighter not casting spells, but his only option is "beating things with a stick", and if that isn't viable he has no way of doing anything.
Compare the chances a caster has to sit out of a situation because there's nothing he can contribute with those of a non-caster doing the same. Non casters have either skills or beating things with a stick, or a pointy thing thrown with a string at best: if that's not enough they're not only screwed, but there has never been anything they could have done about it at any time. That's worse than "you prepared the wrong spells" or "you ran out of them": even the latter means he did something earlier, or tried to at least.
That's the problem I have with the caster/noncaster divide: even taking out PvP and CharOp situations, it's still blatantly unfair.