|
a. An organic story is still building a story together. The only real difference is how much the DM uses hooks to lead the players. Cutting the story short because of a random encounter sucks more in organic stories, IMO, because the players tend to have goals of their own designs instead of ones based off of the GM's plot.
Actually it's more organic. Best laid plans can always be derailed by random and stupid things irl, should be the same in the game. Random encounters do not always need to result in a tpk, it really does come down to how the party wants to handle things based on the threat. Not every encounter should be at "appropriate level". Sometimes PC should learn to run away from an encounter instead of having the expectation that they can kill everything they meet (I know, very tough in 3rd edition).
Also random encounters can make the story less linear and can provide twists which could increase character immersion. It all comes down to the DM skill and how he runs those encounters.If 4 dragons swoop down on your party in a random encounter on an open plane and TPK you, that is random luck and the GM being a dick or not knowing what he is doing.
That's the whole thing though. If you are running a pre-made mod with random encounters then the party should be within reasonable range of fighting any threat on the table. If using true random wilderness encounters the DM should use some discretion on throwing high level encounters at the party. Every time the PCs have an encounter it doesn't have to result in a fight - that is incredibly 1-dimensional DMing.
This was an issue with old 1st-2nd ed AD&D and early editions of Gamma World. You could often (as a DM) roll some wild encounters but they didn't always need to end in fights (dragon flying overhead, warbot encounter is one which was destroyed and rusted out years prior, etc). If it's an issue of DM power or "he's out to get me" mentality then random encounters are not even the issue. If the DM is playing adversary he doesn't need random encounters to kill off PCs.Also random encounters are good for the game - the notion of 4 encounters at 20% resource use is such incredibly bad game design it has lead us to a ton of other problems -Novas and the 15 minute workday. As long as PCs have the expectation that bad things can happen, then they will be more cautious on how the use their resources. That helps keeps casters in check, less metagamey and it destroys PC encounter expectations/entitlements.
DMs should not intentionally put their PCs into a position where the expected outcome is a TPK. They should design the encounters to be difficult. They should design the encounters to need intelligent thinking. They should not design encounters to kill the players outright. Its too easy to do that, and if it is the GM's goal he cannot lose.
Disagree.
The DM should design encounters -sometimes that means follow the story and not the PC levels.If the encounter is a CR + 8 avg party level and the DM is expecting the PC to fight it (no choice) then yeah, that is unfair. If the same encounter has a way for it to be avoided - even if figuring a way out is the challenge or it’s one that uses up much of the party resources to do it then I would say that was a successful encounter on both sides of the screen.
Right. I can only speak from experience with the 50+ people I have played with, in multiple different communities, and having never met someone who likes players to randomly die and TPK to things entirely outside their control.
Depends on the type of play, the game and the players.
Caineach wrote:
a. An organic story is still building a story together. The only real difference is how much the DM uses hooks to lead the players. Cutting the story short because of a random encounter sucks more in organic stories, IMO, because the players tend to have goals of their own designs instead of ones based off of the GM's plot.Actually it's more organic. Best laid plans can always be derailed by random and stupid things irl, should be the same in the game. Random encounters do not always need to result in a tpk, it really does come down to how the party wants to handle things based on the threat. Not every encounter should be at "appropriate level". Sometimes PC should learn to run away from an encounter instead of having the expectation that they can kill everything they meet (I know, very tough in 3rd edition).
Also random encounters can make the story less linear and can provide twists which could increase character immersion. It all comes down to the DM skill and how he runs those encounters.
I never said they couldn't. I love random encounters. I just think that the GM needs to be intelligent about how he presents them to the party. They should not all be fights without ways to avoid them. The story does not need to go the way the players want it to, but ending the story before any resolution is reached in the plot is anti-climactic.
Quote:
If 4 dragons swoop down on your party in a random encounter on an open plane and TPK you, that is random luck and the GM being a dick or not knowing what he is doing.That's the whole thing though. If you are running a pre-made mod with random encounters then the party should be within reasonable range of fighting any threat on the table. If using true random wilderness encounters the DM should use some discretion on throwing high level encounters at the party. Every time the PCs have an encounter it doesn't have to result in a fight - that is incredibly 1-dimensional DMing.
This was an issue with old 1st-2nd ed AD&D and early editions of Gamma World. You could often (as a DM) roll some wild encounters but they didn't always need to end in fights (dragon flying overhead, warbot encounter is one which was destroyed and rusted out years prior, etc). If it's an issue of DM power or "he's out to get me" mentality then random encounters are not even the issue. If the DM is playing adversary he doesn't need random encounters to kill off PCs.Also random encounters are good for the game - the notion of 4 encounters at 20% resource use is such incredibly bad game design it has lead us to a ton of other problems -Novas and the 15 minute workday. As long as PCs have the expectation that bad things can happen, then they will be more cautious on how the use their resources. That helps keeps casters in check, less metagamey and it destroys PC encounter expectations/entitlements.
You should go back to the previous posts in this discussion, where I said exactly what you are saying now. OTOH, I will point you to the Kingmaker random encounter table.
Quote:
DMs should not intentionally put their PCs into a position where the expected outcome is a TPK. They should design the encounters to be difficult. They should design the encounters to need intelligent thinking. They should not design encounters to kill the players outright. Its too easy to do that, and if it is the GM's goal he cannot lose.Disagree.
The DM should design encounters -sometimes that means follow the story and not the PC levels.
If the encounter is a CR + 8 avg party level and the DM is expecting the PC to fight it (no choice) then yeah, that is unfair. If the same encounter has a way for it to be avoided - even if figuring a way out is the challenge or it’s one that uses up much of the party resources to do it then I would say that was a successful encounter on both sides of the screen.
Not sure why you disagree. This is exactly what I have been saying.
Quote:
Right. I can only speak from experience with the 50+ people I have played with, in multiple different communities, and having never met someone who likes players to randomly die and TPK to things entirely outside their control.Depends on the type of play, the game and the players.
I may be wrong, ignore this post!
I have noticed something about CoDzilla's scenarios:
* Monsters always have far more treasure than stated that they use as gear.
If I understand him correctly, his monsters have EXACTLY as much treasure as the MM/Bestiary entry indicates, and not a cp more or less. The difference is that they use their treasure in the form of magic items that make them tougher, rather than sitting on it in the form of a "horde" that does nothing for them.
If I understand him correctly, his monsters have EXACTLY as much treasure as the MM/Bestiary entry indicates, and not a cp more or less. The difference is that they use their treasure in the form of magic items that make them tougher, rather than sitting on it in the form of a "horde" that does nothing for them.I have noticed something about CoDzilla's scenarios:
* Monsters always have far more treasure than stated that they use as gear.
I thought he said at one point they had WBL like characters? If I was mistaken I retract my above comment!
I thought he said at one point they had WBL like characters? If I was mistaken I retract my above comment!
I believe you're mistaken.
There was a side argument going on about whether monsters could use their treasure or not, with some people saying it was okay and others insisting it massively bumped the CR. Someone else pointed out that for a monster to have full WBL as if it were a PC only bumps its CR by +1, and that logically anything short of that (i.e., monsters using their normal treasure against you) wouldn't bump the CR.
For me any intelligent NPC is going to use whatever magic items they qualify to use. Intelligent monsters will wear items that make sense according to body type and shape.
Humanoid Monsters like Mind Flayers, Intelligent Corporeal Undead, and most Outsiders typically will have a decent number of magic items that are boosting it's core competencies.
Non-humanoid monsters like Dragons, Beholders, and Aboleths don't typically have a ton of magic item slots or their magic items are explicitly designed for their anatomy. Such items are generally not compatible with humans.
I personally think a Dragon or a Beholder wearing a cloak of resistance looks pretty stupid but if that takes the form of eldritch runes carved onto the monster's scales then I'm okay with it.
I'll go with CR is not an exact science, rather it is an art.If you are trying to design an encounter so that it comes out to be EL X but is much tougher than that should indicate then you're abusing the system that assumes a reasonable human behind the curtain.
Have you ever played any of the adventures Jason Bulmahn wrote? The man is a master of wringing every ounce of toughness out of what technically qualifies as a given EL. You haven't lived until you've been molested by a barbarian half-clay-golem troll.
The problem with what you said in the context of Pathfinder is that it would require the lead designer of the game assume that people wouldn't approach the game the way he approaches the game, and I just don't think that's the case.
Now if you want that to be part of your encounter that's one thing.. but to label it like that is lunacy.
Get the distinction?
But it was standard practice in LG mod authoring to label the EL as what it technically counted as, even if its real danger was much higher.
That being the case I'm not understanding what your point is, in this context.
[I recall one BI where there was a 13th level cleric with 10 monster HD, a belt +6 on all stats, based off a 45 point buy that was labeled CR 9... Now if you want that to be part of your encounter that's one thing.. but to label it like that is lunacy.
The 2nd Age of Worms adventure
I'm generally reluctant to give monsters PC WBL outside of BBEG (and even then I'd rather cheat by increasing the point buy) mainly because PC WBL tends to result in far too much loot especially if we are talking an encounter with a CR significantly higher than the party.
I don't like to have one encounter give 100% of the expected wealth for a set of PC (especially if the items are significantly better than what the PCs already have) if it ends up making me have to have a bunch of encounters with no or limited loot.
Several encounters vs CR appropriate NPCs with anything resembling PC wealth tends to escalate PC wealth way past the optimal levels. Even if a large percentage is in the form of undesirable items, the PCs are going to want to sell off the loot and then re-invest it in desirable items.
[I recall one BI where there was a 13th level cleric with 10 monster HD, a belt +6 on all stats, based off a 45 point buy that was labeled CR 9... Now if you want that to be part of your encounter that's one thing.. but to label it like that is lunacy.The 2nd Age of Worms adventure ** spoiler omitted **After the obvious TPK, we ran that fight 2 more times from the top, just to see of there was any chance of survival. No matter what they did, it was an auto-TPK every time. And it was blocking the exit, so running away wasn't even a choice.
I would not rate the 2nd one as a 10 though. 6 or 7 by 3.5 standards is about right. Mine came from the it's "hiding area", which would not have it blocking the exit.
@Dire Mongoose:The point is consistency. The monsters in the book should have similar numbers to AP monsters.
There are two ways to do CR. You can go by the numbers they have or go by the building advice.
Example-An erenies is a CR 8. If I add 4 levels of scout(3.5 class) it is supposed to be 2 CR's lower than if I add 4 levels of ranger, but with the skirmish abilities and sniping, the ranger could be the easier option.
If the monster is supposed to use its treasure which is only suggested for class based NPC's then guidelines should be there for how much of the treasure is for the monster to use, and how much is loot.
PS:I noticed a while ago, that AP NPC's have better stats than monster book ones.
Balor, true seeing. No concealment.
Your wizard takes the dmg all at one time, as the Contingency activates. he'll be dead before it can zip him away.
And he has to have the proper wording on Contingency, without somehow activating all sorts of wild 'detect this event' which Contingency seems to acquire out of nowhere in the minds of some wizards.
==Aelryinth
Balor, true seeing. No concealment.
Within the range of true seeing, sure. The range of TK is bigger (even for this purpose, which has a shorter range) so that's not 100% a given.
Not that concealment is the only form of a miss chance.
Your wizard takes the dmg all at one time, as the Contingency activates. he'll be dead before it can zip him away.
Over two castings of the spell? Or were we not reading the thread?
And he has to have the proper wording on Contingency, without somehow activating all sorts of wild 'detect this event' which Contingency seems to acquire out of nowhere in the minds of some wizards.
I'm not sure what you think is so wild that would be necessary.
|
Not every encounter should be at "appropriate level". Sometimes PC should learn to run away from an encounter instead of having the expectation that they can kill everything they meet (I know, very tough in 3rd edition).
Also random encounters can make the story less linear and can provide twists which could increase character immersion. It all comes down to the DM skill and how he runs those encounters.
+1 and then some. Personally I think it gives a feeling of being 'in the World'. Four dragons flying overhead would put me a little on edge about drawing too much intention to myself while in that area.
No flame wars here. It's obvious that encounters usually start at range, so theres some closing in to do. Also there are several spells to slow your opponent or get away from her.
Do they?
I find that a great many combats in games I have been involved with, start within dagger. When discussion breaks down, or when investigations go wrong. If anything combat starting at range is a sign of pre-meditation be on side in the combat, it almost always is the result of an ambush.
[I recall one BI where there was a 13th level cleric with 10 monster HD, a belt +6 on all stats, based off a 45 point buy that was labeled CR 9... Now if you want that to be part of your encounter that's one thing.. but to label it like that is lunacy.The 2nd Age of Worms adventure ** spoiler omitted **After the obvious TPK, we ran that fight 2 more times from the top, just to see of there was any chance of survival. No matter what they did, it was an auto-TPK every time. And it was blocking the exit, so running away wasn't even a choice.
I ran my players through that same scenario and I was very concerned. Fortunately the party was 6 players and they managed to get a few crits in there. I was really concerned though. I even converted it to Pathfinder so it was a bit tougher.
I thought he said at one point they had WBL like characters? If I was mistaken I retract my above comment!If I understand him correctly, his monsters have EXACTLY as much treasure as the MM/Bestiary entry indicates, and not a cp more or less. The difference is that they use their treasure in the form of magic items that make them tougher, rather than sitting on it in the form of a "horde" that does nothing for them.I have noticed something about CoDzilla's scenarios:
* Monsters always have far more treasure than stated that they use as gear.I did not. I did say they would use the treasure they do have - which is substantially less than PC wealth intelligently. Not a scenario where the dragon has a major displacement cloak sitting right there in its horde, unused, along with a +3 tome (and some other items that it's a bit more understandable that they were not being used). Actual example, but replace dragon with any other intelligent creature and it still holds true.
Someone did point out PC WBL only raises CR by 1 though, so a Balor geared just like a level 20 PC? Still well within acceptable bounds for a level 20 party. You could even use two if you wanted it to actually be hard.
By the way, magic items resize to fit the wearer, with the exception of weapons and armor. This means anything with a humanoid body shape can wear anything a human can, with the aforementioned exceptions. And if sized to them, they can use weapons and armor too. Dragons are explicitly allowed to equip any non weapon, non armor magic item. For other creatures, it depends on what body parts they have. A Beholder can't wear much in the way of magic loot. An Aboleth can wear a bit more.
I'm perfectly fine with this, and I don't actually think it should change the CR by much if anything. A dragon using (for example) a cloak of displacement is not much different from a dragon casting the displacement spell. Giving a dragon WBL gear would be a totally different ballgame, that would certainly increase the CR.
Death to non-artifact magic items, inherent bonuses own zone
-James
PS: What region were you in?
Mostly Highfolk, though I lived in three different states in the first 2-3 years of LG so I got to see a bit of a mix. You?
It was interesting seeing how different areas had very different playstyles and what was accepted as THE way in one place, what was novel/blase, etc. It gave me a wonderful perspective that there isn't one way to play this game.
No doubt. I remember at one year's Winter Fantasy (3.0 era) sitting down with a table of five guys from one of the East Coast regions that I hadn't encountered before. They appeared to be a balanced-ish party with no arcane caster -- no problem, my primary character at that point was an arcane caster. We got into the first combat and literally all 5 of them spent their first round activating boots of speed (well, that made a certain amount of sense) and then casting Shield. It turned out they all had -- even the cleric -- exactly one level of wizard or sorcerer just for the purposes of casting Shield.
I'm not saying that was a bad strategy, but that wasn't what most people in the regions I'd been playing in at the time were doing.
|
|
It was interesting seeing how different areas had very different playstyles and what was accepted as THE way in one place, what was novel/blase, etc. It gave me a wonderful perspective that there isn't one way to play this game.
No doubt. I remember at one year's Winter Fantasy (3.0 era) sitting down with a table of five guys from one of the East Coast regions that I hadn't encountered before. They appeared to be a balanced-ish party with no arcane caster -- no problem, my primary character at that point was an arcane caster. We got into the first combat and literally all 5 of them spent their first round activating boots of speed (well, that made a certain amount of sense) and then casting Shield. It turned out they all had -- even the cleric -- exactly one level of wizard or sorcerer just for the purposes of casting Shield.
I'm not saying that was a bad strategy, but that wasn't what most people in the regions I'd been playing in at the time were doing.
That's...different.
...For what? Were there that many people using the Magic Missile spam technique?No doubt. I remember at one year's Winter Fantasy (3.0 era) sitting down with a table of five guys from one of the East Coast regions that I hadn't encountered before. They appeared to be a balanced-ish party with no arcane caster -- no problem, my primary character at that point was an arcane caster. We got into the first combat and literally all 5 of them spent their first round activating boots of speed (well, that made a certain amount of sense) and then casting Shield. It turned out they all had -- even the cleric -- exactly one level of wizard or sorcerer just for the purposes of casting Shield.
I'm not saying that was a bad strategy, but that wasn't what most people in the regions I'd been playing in at the time were doing.
+7 shield bonus to AC, I assume. This is something like an ~8th level group in 3.0.
|
|
+7 shield bonus to AC, I assume. This is something like an ~8th level group in 3.0....For what? Were there that many people using the Magic Missile spam technique?No doubt. I remember at one year's Winter Fantasy (3.0 era) sitting down with a table of five guys from one of the East Coast regions that I hadn't encountered before. They appeared to be a balanced-ish party with no arcane caster -- no problem, my primary character at that point was an arcane caster. We got into the first combat and literally all 5 of them spent their first round activating boots of speed (well, that made a certain amount of sense) and then casting Shield. It turned out they all had -- even the cleric -- exactly one level of wizard or sorcerer just for the purposes of casting Shield.
I'm not saying that was a bad strategy, but that wasn't what most people in the regions I'd been playing in at the time were doing.
Early 3.0 is understandable I guess. Lots of my groups still do pretty bad tactics. People do what they know throughout the years.
|
|
This might be a good thread to ask, so I will.
Have anybody ever tried allowed all bonuses to stack? Would that close the gap or increase the gap? I'm not knowledgeable about the serious side of numbers to be able to say.
Although it would increase the cost, if a fighter could wear full plate +10, a ring +5, and bracers of armor +5, wouldn't it help instead of hinder? Also it would increase the output of damage.
|
This might be a good thread to ask, so I will.
Have anybody ever tried allowed all bonuses to stack? Would that close the gap or increase the gap? I'm not knowledgeable about the serious side of numbers to be able to say.
Although it would increase the cost, if a fighter could wear full plate +10, a ring +5, and bracers of armor +5, wouldn't it help instead of hinder? Also it would increase the output of damage.
We played around with the idea while we were playing Age Of Worms and the beta was going on. What we found was it only stretched the gap between classes more. Remembering that it works for the baddies as well. You end up with baddies that have Save DC's through the roof, AC that can only be hit by one party memeber and mostly only first and second attacks for them.
Note we were playing with a mixture of classes and not an all magic casting group so I cannot comment on how that would work in that case.
|
|
If you're referring to what I think you are referring to, it's labeled as CR 6. And it doesn't seem that hard to me. Low damage, and poor tactics, and not a whole lot else.[I recall one BI where there was a 13th level cleric with 10 monster HD, a belt +6 on all stats, based off a 45 point buy that was labeled CR 9... Now if you want that to be part of your encounter that's one thing.. but to label it like that is lunacy.The 2nd Age of Worms adventure ** spoiler omitted **After the obvious TPK, we ran that fight 2 more times from the top, just to see of there was any chance of survival. No matter what they did, it was an auto-TPK every time. And it was blocking the exit, so running away wasn't even a choice.
For once, I'm going to agree woth CoD on this, assuming I have the correct situation
It also started a trend for that particular barbarian too. He ended more BBEGs with his damned greataxe and good crit rolls than I've ever seen.
If that fight were any good I, and my group would have remembered it. But I had to look it up.
Maybe I'm misremembering then; this was some years ago. I think I have a copy of that issue; I'll look it up when I get home.
|
|
This might be a good thread to ask, so I will.
Have anybody ever tried allowed all bonuses to stack? Would that close the gap or increase the gap? I'm not knowledgeable about the serious side of numbers to be able to say.
Although it would increase the cost, if a fighter could wear full plate +10, a ring +5, and bracers of armor +5, wouldn't it help instead of hinder? Also it would increase the output of damage.
In that example, he'd have +5 AC from the bracers stacking with his armor. Rings of deflection stack anyways, because they're a different bonus.
The end result would be you might actually be able to get a relevant AC... but as the gold cost is even higher, it's still not worth it.
It also wouldn't really help damage much, as the stuff that boosts that is generally of different types anyways.
I knew that bonuses weren't the same, but I figured others would know a bit better if things did stack. Rings stacks with Protect from Evil, and...other spells I guess.
I know Save DCs would go up, but wasn't sure if it can still be managed.
I have a player that's looking at a 50+ AC in his mid teens. (Pathfinder books ONLY, no splat) Paladin/Holy Vindicator/Stalwart Defender. Aside from Touch spells and Touch Attacks he'll be virtually unhittable by anything in the Bestiary. Most CR 20 foes will only hit him on a 15-17.
AC works just find, you just need to find a good target number to hit and build around it.
I can't help by feel that those who support the concept that 'melee is a liability' simply ignore the weaknesses inherent in all caster classes.
- Increadably limited resources.
- Requirements to rest.
- Loss of power
As unpopular as this thought might be, there comes a point beyond which a group of three fighters and a rogue can continue to deal with concurrent challanges indefinately.
Certainly such a party has weaknesses, massive, glaring weaknesses, but unlike say a party of wizards, when faced with enemies designed to force the wasting of PC resources and circumstances that demand continuous engagement to prevent failure, a fighter and rogue party stands a far better chance of success than wizards and druids, or wizards and clerics.
Why? Because harressing creatures get to choose when and where they strick, wittling away at the casters until they are forced to expend resources in responces, and then retreat, attacking again at leasure once injuries and conditions are resolved. Keep up such harressment for long enough and the casters will use up their resources most powerful resources. And thanks to pressing the threat, they cannot easily replenish their resources, without suffering a big picture defeat.
Hope the fighters can roll well on that if the rogue goes down.
No more cross-class skills, so yeah, they probably can ;)
Point is, though, that hit points are resources too.
The usual situation in which melee is most useful is when the last spells have been expended, the fighter and rogue are restored to full HP and the party rest for the night ... and something happens. That's when the all-caster party has problems if they have not kept a reserve of spells or consumables to deal with it.
The other is when you face something immune to conventional magic, such as golems, or something that makes it's save vs save-or-whatever. That's when the beefcake with the big sword and the held action can be a very welcome thing indeed.
I see where both sides are coming from.
However, with the PF rule-set a fighter can take a plethora of feats that can nullify a caster's ability to respond well in combat.
First to get in fast, they can charge.
But the feats Disruptive and Spellbreaker, make it much more difficult for casters to actually cast their spells when near a melee fighter. In addition the feats following critical focus, such as blinding critical and deafening critical also make casting with somatic components extremely difficult, especially when you cant see your target!
Check it:
Scimitar has a crit range of 18-20/X2. If you take improved crit, that becomes 15-20/X2. critical focus gives you a +4 to confirm those crits, and you only have to make a 15...
The above, in conjunction with the critical feats, makes a melee fighter extremely capable of taking on a spell caster. And this is even more the case, when at higher levels a fighter has magic items that make range a lesser issue - Moon bracers that allow dimensional step, boots of teleportation, helms of telekinesis...
So the argument that at higher levels mages are especially more powerful than fighters is false.
However, I will concede that in those late levels the power that mages can display is quite impressive - Meteor Swarm, Wish, Time Stop, Etc., the tactics are extremely different. As far as fighting general monsters/enemies, the fighter or monk (hell yeah monks are awesome...they have the will save that will push back against a lot of spells)are devastating to one opponent to several. while mages can devastate extremely large numbers of opponents.
Anyway I am rambling...I just think that if anyone feels that they are of equal match to anyone of your level, regardless of class, they are not being creative enough with the tools that PF has provided...
|
I see where both sides are coming from.
However, with the PF rule-set a fighter can take a plethora of feats that can nullify a caster's ability to respond well in combat.
First to get in fast, they can charge.
But the feats Disruptive and Spellbreaker, make it much more difficult for casters to actually cast their spells when near a melee fighter. In addition the feats following critical focus, such as blinding critical and deafening critical also make casting with somatic components extremely difficult, especially when you cant see your target!
Check it:
Scimitar has a crit range of 18-20/X2. If you take improved crit, that becomes 15-20/X2. critical focus gives you a +4 to confirm those crits, and you only have to make a 15...
The above, in conjunction with the critical feats, makes a melee fighter extremely capable of taking on a spell caster. And this is even more the case, when at higher levels a fighter has magic items that make range a lesser issue - Moon bracers that allow dimensional step, boots of teleportation, helms of telekinesis...
So the argument that at higher levels mages are especially more powerful than fighters is false.
However, I will concede that in those late levels the power that mages can display is quite impressive - Meteor Swarm, Wish, Time Stop, Etc., the tactics are extremely different. As far as fighting general monsters/enemies, the fighter or monk (hell yeah monks are awesome...they have the will save that will push back against a lot of spells)are devastating to one opponent to several. while mages can devastate extremely large numbers of opponents.
Anyway I am rambling...I just think that if anyone feels that they are of equal match to anyone of your level, regardless of class, they are not being creative enough with the tools that PF has provided...
Bumping this over to the new page.