Fighter/Ranger isn't necessarily a bad combo -- Fighter/sorcerer takes work to make happen but could be good -- Rogue/Sorcerer is messy at low levels...
The one I want more information on is the Wizard/halfwit -- what is this halfwit class? I am intrigued.
Er ... wizard/half-wit??
Your equipment seems significantly above average for your level.
And yes, with a party of multiclass spellcasters, you are probably going to have an easier time of being effective. They will have to use their abilities in a far more inventive manner to contribute, while you can just rush in and smash.
Levels matter too -- a single level dip into sorcerer might not be that bad, (or into rogue) but a mix of both hurts more.
Also dice rolls matter -- I've seen characters that are great on the optimization front that everyone scorned -- not because of "bad role play" -- but because of bad dice rolls!
The poor guy couldn't roll over a 5 it seemed like unless it was absolutely needed to keep from dying -- and then he would roll just enough to stay alive. Even though we all knew his numbers were great and the character should have been handling things with ease he never did due to the poor rolling.
Levels matter too -- a single level dip into sorcerer might not be that bad, (or into rogue) but a mix of both hurts more.
Also dice rolls matter -- I've seen characters that are great on the optimization front that everyone scorned -- not because of "bad role play" -- but because of bad dice rolls!
The poor guy couldn't roll over a 5 it seemed like unless it was absolutely needed to keep from dying -- and then he would roll just enough to stay alive. Even though we all knew his numbers were great and the character should have been handling things with ease he never did due to the poor rolling.
They multiclassed. You didn't. If the wizard didn't multiclass, he should be able to contribute something in most fights.
A true strike spell works on any attack, so the wiz could cast it and his next roll gets the +20 for any weapon or spell with an attack roll.
Levels matter too -- a single level dip into sorcerer might not be that bad, (or into rogue) but a mix of both hurts more.
Also dice rolls matter -- I've seen characters that are great on the optimization front that everyone scorned -- not because of "bad role play" -- but because of bad dice rolls!
The poor guy couldn't roll over a 5 it seemed like unless it was absolutely needed to keep from dying -- and then he would roll just enough to stay alive. Even though we all knew his numbers were great and the character should have been handling things with ease he never did due to the poor rolling.
They multiclassed. You didn't. If the wizard didn't multiclass, he should be able to contribute something in most fights.
A true strike spell works on any attack, so the wiz could cast it and his next roll gets the +20 for any weapon or spell with an attack roll.
Obviously you haven't been keeping up -- the wizard didn't multiclass.
I'm not saying that multiclassing is good or bad -- I'm discussing how dice rolls can make the difference in the game -- which they do.
The ranger/fighter mix isn't a bad multiclass -- and sorcerer/rogue can be fine too -- depending on how it's done.
The question is what are their stats, what are they doing, and what is their builds.
We don't have this information so we can't say "Oh they suck because they multiclassed" Such guesswork doesn't hold up until we have more information.
Generally I would say that you play straight forward character while the others are trying too much. I don't see anything alarming (cheesy 3rd party feats etc) in your barb.
Fighter/Ranger: Two weapon fighting really needs optimizing in order to work. Generally it still gives damage compared to 2h fighter when there are a lot of damage bonuses to add (= ranger favourite enemy etc... both weapons holy). Usually the advantages of 2 weapons come late (=11+ levels)
Rogue/Sorcerer: This sucks usually.
Fighter/Sorcerer: This might work. If he is wearing Full Plate & casting Shield, he should be ok. If he is running around in clothes and casting Mage Armor to himself (the usual case), he is wasting his fighter level(s).
Wizard/Halfwit: Wizards effectiviness requires keen knowledge of the battle situation (hard) & the effect in the best cases is not the damage
Up to about level 4-5 the barbarian is king of the melee classes. At 5th level, the fighter catches up big time. The ranger/fighter could be good, it depends on how he is played - if he is duel wielding light weapons he should be hitting a lot more often and matching the barbarian's average damage output. That said, duel wielding does take a lot of optimisation to work, and all the bonus feats you can get your hands on.
|
Tell the Ranger to buy new dice. The take a hammer to a few of the old ones to show the new ones the price of failure.
Seriously, though, I've noticed that older dice fail me more than new ones. I don't know if the friction of the dice bag or sitting in my car in summer heat or what does it but I've seen it. There a lots of good deals online for new sets.
On the topic of your Barb, I think you have the problem of a well put together PC v. PC's that for character reasons or what have you have made suboptimal choices. That's going to put you ahead of the curve. On the bright side, your skill will probably save the lives of the rest of the party and maybe in the future they'll check out the boards or your advice before making something that sucks.
Ok, I am relatively new to Pathfinder (this is my first character) but do have a fair bit of experience with 3.5 and played AD&D for longer than I care to admit. I also tried, sort of disliked, and am currently selling my 4th ed books lol.
Well, you're not a lone with that - the having been playing this game longer than you want to admit (though most people who have played for decades proudly say so around here. The freaks! ;-)), and not liking 4e. After all Pathfinder was created because a lot of people didn't like 4e (or at least didn't think it could replace 3e).
Here is my question, I am the tank in a party of 6th level adventurers. I play a full 6 levels of Barbarian (I have yet to find a class that I want to add to it just yet).
Don't look too hard. In Pathfinder the classes are fine to stay with for the entire campaign. That includes things like spellcasters!
In 3e, it made almost no sense to stick with classes like wizard or cleric - you lost power compared to those who selected one or more PrCs with full caster progression, and even if you just look at it from the flavour point of view, the classes were boring, not adding anything apart from spells, and those PrCs added that AND shiny new baubles.
But in Pathfinder, you will be rewarded for sticking to a class by getting something new all the time, and on higher levels, you usually get some quite powerful stuff!
And it seems like I am WAY more powerful than the rest of the party members. I don't consider myself a power gamer at all as I rarely read the build sections posted here and elsewhere.
I don't, either, and I consider myself at least part power gamer (I combine it with interesting characters that have more than one dimension, two on the outside).
It's bizzare how I do most of the damage.
Your character is a warrior. Doing copious amounts of damage (especially damage against a single enemy) is the most basic function of a warrior.
Spellcasters just can't keep up with that. No chance. They might sometimes get the chance for half-decent damage (with stuff like harm and disintegrate, but of course you only get to do that a few times before you've run out, and the guy gets a save to mitigate the damage - and a warrior of the same level is often not far behind with his damage per round even if you manage to get the spell through).
Spellcasters usually have different roles: Protect themselves and their party members, increase their power (buffing), mess with enemies by decreasing their abilities or taking them out of the fight entirely (hexing), or healing/curing.
That hexing stuff is where offensive spellcasters will hang out! Turn enemies into fluffy rabbits! Make them weak, tired, suck out their very life force, paralyse them, turn them to stone....
If a spellcaster (usually an evoker wizard or a sorcerer with the right bloodlines) goes for blasting magic, the ability to shine doesn't really come from point delivery of damage. Think big. Your fireball might only do 35 points of damage (if they fail their save) while the fighter can dish out twice that much, but you deal that to a whole bunch of rubes at once!
Fighter/Ranger
Rogue/Sorcerer
Fighter/Sorcerer
Wizard/Halfwit
Well, as the others have said: Fighter/Ranger should work - to a point. He might get full BAB and lots of HP and all that, but warrior classes do get other neat stuff on higher levels, and this guy is missing out.
A fighter 3 / ranger 3 will have armour training 1, one combat style feat, one favoured enemy and one favoured terrain, but a full fighter 6 would have weapon training 1, more feats and access to Weapon Specialisation and Disruptive.
And a full ranger 6 gets hunter's bond (either a pet or the power to share favoured enemies), another favoured enemy, another combat style feat (though two-weapon rangers don't get the really nice stuff - an archer ranger can get Improved Precise Shot at that level, 5 levels before other warrior classes!), and will have a bit magic.
The Sorcerers give up higher caster levels to gain those fighter and rogue abilities (or vice versa, depending on how they see themselves), and sorcerers in particular are really unfortunate that way.
And the wizard multiclassed into halfwit. That will always impinge upon your efficiency. ;-)
I am guessing that since they have multiclassed earlier, they are a bit watered down at lower levels and will catch up and completely outclass me later?
Multiclassed characters will generally not outclass single-classed fighters. And certainly not completely. It's those higher-level class abilities. And spellcasters need some time to come into their own anyway, taking some time off to learn fighting or sneaking isn't exactly helping.
They might be end up more versatile than their single-classed colleagues, but if you want to have a multiclassing combo that outclasses a "pure" character, you'll have to get real creative (i.e. muchkin the heck out of the character ;-))
I think pretty much every version of the game was similar in that the tanks were more powerful in the early game and less so as the game progressed but I would have thought that our wizard would be kicking @$$ and taking names by this point.
We're talking about level 6 here. That's not exactly archwizard territory. It's still close enough to low-level play that the newbloods cans till tap you on the shoulder.
3rd-level magic is a start to let spellcasters contribute more than a little bit to one fight or two per day, but not quite at the point where spellcasters start to make disparaging remarks about gods, safe in the knowledge that deicide is one of their lesser powers.
Actually the ranger fighter should have as many feats as the straight fighter (at level 6):
Straight fighter bonus feats: 4
Ranger fighter bonus feats: Endurance, Combat style feat, 2 bonus feats = 4.
But the ranger fighter does have other things too -- better saves, more skill points, favored enemy, favored terrian, wild empathy, tracking, and spells.
Not saying that the straight fighter is a losing option (he really isn't!) or that the ranger fighter isn't going to be missing stuff later (he is) but at level 6 I would probably put the Ranger/fighter(3/3) at a further point than the fighter 6 in over all ability/usefulness/power.
|
Actually the ranger fighter should have as many feats as the straight fighter (at level 6):
Straight fighter bonus feats: 4
Ranger fighter bonus feats: Endurance, Combat style feat, 2 bonus feats = 4.But the ranger fighter does have other things too -- better saves, more skill points, favored enemy, favored terrian, wild empathy, tracking, and spells.
Not saying that the straight fighter is a losing option (he really isn't!) or that the ranger fighter isn't going to be missing stuff later (he is) but at level 6 I would probably put the Ranger/fighter(3/3) at a further point than the fighter 6 in over all ability/usefulness/power.
Counting endurance as an actual feat is completely misleading. :(
That does seem like a LOT of magical gear at level 6.
I want to play with your GM!
Counting endurance as an actual feat is completely misleading. :(
I disagree -- sleeping in medium armor is really nice -- and the bonus on holding breath and what not can really help in several common dungeon dangers.
Counting endurance as an actual feat is completely misleading. :(I disagree -- sleeping in medium armor is really nice -- and the bonus on holding breath and what not can really help in several common dungeon dangers.
Agreed. Mithral Full-Plate is nice for when you're being attacked in your camp. lol.
Plus Diehard is amazingly good.
I don't see nothing wrong with anyone in the party :)
You have a dedicated Beat Stick and you are shining. I don't think you are broken, nor are you a munchkin manipulating numbers beyond their (arguable) intent.
Enjoy crumping mobs: it is a good time :D
GNOME
OK, so it's been 6 months since this thread started...
How has the original poster been doing in combat since then?
Good stuff in this thread, glad it got raised.