Perhaps you missed the memo, but Pathfinder was advocated to be backwards compatible.
And so it is.
And in reality, you can be suboptimal in your tactics and survive in games other than type I games. The fact that I don't run a type I game and suboptimal builds manage to survive is proof enough of this for me.
I'll answer the one I know:
Basically, it's the idea that having characters that are well-roleplayed and having characters that are mechanically sound is an either-or proposition and you can't have both at the same time.
Thanks for enlightening me! I don't think it's true, but at least now I know what it is :)
Thanks for enlightening me! I don't think it's true, but at least now I know what it is :)I'll answer the one I know:
Basically, it's the idea that having characters that are well-roleplayed and having characters that are mechanically sound is an either-or proposition and you can't have both at the same time.
Well, that's why it's supposed to be a fallacy. :)
You'll usually see it come up in forum arguments in roughly this form:
Poster A: Well, an optimally built X would have Y and Z and could respond to that situation by doing Q.
Poster B: Look, in my game we're about roleplaying, so we wouldn't do that. Maybe you should be about roleplaying. This is a roleplaying game, not a rulesing game.
Not to mention AoO.
That's why it's around and not past. :)
If the only way you can full attack is by five-footing to the tin can, sure, why not -- but I think that's an edge case rather than a common case. It's more common that an enemy has to move no matter where they're going.
Define suboptimal. Not all optimization is created equal. Powerful classes have more allowance to screw around than the weaker ones.
Try a gnome fighter who specializes in crossbows and only had a 16 dex at level 10. Survived a brutal campaign level (8-15) where the average encounter was 3-4 levels above the party, and the enemies were equipped with real equipment and used tactics to lock down the party, time and again.
EDIT: Or, for that matter, the halfling paladin/rogue. Or any number of bards without a single combat-oriented feat. Those characters manage to survive encounters way out of their level.
|
Not to mention AoO.That's why it's around and not past. :)
If the only way you can full attack is by five-footing to the tin can, sure, why not -- but I think that's an edge case rather than a common case. It's more common that an enemy has to move no matter where they're going.
How much movement do you have, considering you have to avoid all threatened squares in order to go around.
In all games I play the melee tries to engage the enemy at the other end of the table. Monks are particularly good at this since they have good saves and immunities and can full retreat back to the cleric when needed.
By doing this you a) Block the charge and b) provoke if they move.
Since the caster can do most of their work from the other side of the board, this means you have effectively given your side an extra round or two, while slowing/soaking the other side.
This is twice as effective in confined spaces where they can't go around you, like dungeons.
Of course my game table is a board on top of my pool table, so we have a lot of space to deal with and generally have more open games as a result. But the philosophy of the melee being the blockers still works.
Yes, this at times makes the casters into the Quarterback, but all good quarterbacks still need blockers.
|
|
Define suboptimal. Not all optimization is created equal. Powerful classes have more allowance to screw around than the weaker ones.Try a gnome fighter who specializes in crossbows and only had a 16 dex at level 10. Survived a brutal campaign level (8-15) where the average encounter was 3-4 levels above the party, and the enemies were equipped with real equipment and used tactics to lock down the party, time and again.
EDIT: Or, for that matter, the halfling paladin/rogue. Or any number of bards without a single combat-oriented feat. Those characters manage to survive encounters way out of their level.
Not all levels are created equal. What, exactly was he fighting, and was it simply a matter of "party pulls the dead weight gnome through" as is obviously the case with such a poor character under any real harsh conditions or are you actually claiming that such a character was a productive and useful part of the effort?
Just surviving doesn't mean a lot either. After all, if they aren't a threat why would they be attacked? But if they aren't a threat, then why are they being kept in the party? They aren't helping.
Because I'm having trouble thinking of a single encounter in the past 3 levels (8-11) that would not ruthlessly slaughter such a weak character. Not even the ones deliberately designed to be mook filler.
That is because you have no idea how to design a melee character. This is the fundamental issue you seem to struggle with. Inability to build characters.
|
Because all attacks are melee attacks, and further none of those attacks have reach, and still further all hallways are five feet wide, even though every melee opponent past level 5 is Large or larger?
See previous about 5ft steps. I am of course assuming that your wizard defenses can handle ranged and magical attacks like you claim. As for reach, that works both ways.
You asked for an example, I provided one. The fact that it does not cover every situation does not invalidate it any more than the fact color spray doesn't work on everything does.
Not all levels are created equal. What, exactly was he fighting, and was it simply a matter of "party pulls the dead weight gnome through" as is obviously the case with such a poor character under any real harsh conditions or are you actually claiming that such a character was a productive and useful part of the effort?
He was highly productive and useful. No character is "dead weight" as long as they have the ability to act at all.
I wouldn't exactly build either of those characters that way myself, but just a few brief comments:1) I wouldn't dip the wizard's Dex below 10. Wisdom is a better stat to dump of the two.
2) You can make a relatively playable two-handed-weapon power-fighterish fighter on a low point buy; the thing is, that's about it. (My opinion, I know others will disagree.) For example, a fighter who wants the Expertise line of feats or wants the Two-Weapon Fighting feats is straight out unless he dumps CON relative to your Mr. Fighter.
3) Keep in mind that while people hone in on combat during comparisons, it's not the whole game; Mr. Wizard, for all his faults, is still probably in the top tier of non-combat-usefulness characters. Fighter with 7 Int? Not so much.
Yeah, I agree. I wouldn't build them that way for my games, either. Thank you for some input as to how you might build them, though, because I'm sure it's different than how I play. We tend to use suboptimal, relatively balanced characters at 15 pt buys (usually) and they get along alright. But as for a few brief thoughts on your comments:
1) Dumping the wisdom instead of the dexterity brings the wizard's initiative back up, which is cool beans. At the same time, it doesn't really do anything to alleviate his defensive vulnerabilities while, instead, introducing a new vulnerability in low will saves. In fact, he'll be neck and neck with a fighter for a while, as the fighter will likely pick up some iron will feats. The cleric and druid in the party can probably handle the will-based skills (such as perception), so no big loss there.
Because the dexterity increase bumps the initiative score up a couple of points, would it be appropriate to change the school from Divination to Illusion, perhaps? Though it would slow down initiative growth, it would provide better access to color spray/mirror image/displacement, etc. Which I'm assuming are relied upon for survival.
2) I was kind of putting the fighter together as the traditional "optimal" combat build which emphasizes strength and constitution above all else. Obviously, if you want a different build it won't be as optimized for combat. In fact, the two weapon fighter is inherently sub optimal, even in high point buy games, because he's introducing another ability score dependency in order to swing more times with less of a chance to hit on each swing to do less damage on each actual hit. It puts a greater emphasis on full attacking to do damage. And it's feat intensive. And more expensive to have multiple magic weapons. Even in a higher point buy, if I were going for "optimal," I'd continue to emphasize strength and constitution above all other stats. It's the only way to get the most bang for your buck. A ranger can get around these issues through their bonus feats... and a rogue can maybe get around them by taking finesse. But an optimized fighter will tend towards Two Handers or Ranged Combat.
Bear in mind, a two weapon fighter is plenty *viable* depending on player skill and party composition. That's not the issue. But he'll always be lagging behind in melee effectiveness compared to the two hander.
3) I agree with this. But I also kind of see that as the wizard's role. He's a wellspring of knowledge and his focus on intelligence gives him access to all sorts of skills.
On the flip side, his low-ish dexterity, wisdom, and charisma will make sure he's never at the top of his game comparable to other skillbots. And any out-of-combat situation that requires strength will shut the wizard down hard. He is ridiculously easy to encumber. Ugh.
I might throw up a couple of my (extremely suboptimal) builds later on, just as a comparison of viewpoints. I'm sure they'll get some laughs from the hardcore optimizers. (And note: I don't use the term "optimizer" in any sort of a derogatory manner.)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Perhaps you missed the memo, but Pathfinder was advocated to be backwards compatible. That means that > $1,000 USD spent on 3.5 books? Still good, still works with it.
Just a sidenote here, but that's not what Backwards Compatability means. (And looking through the collection of 3.5 books, and then the changes made to Pathfinder, it's obvious that they don't "still work with it." Pre-requisites for prestige classes, to find a very quick example.)
What "backwards compatability" means is that NPC stat blocks designed under OGL 3.5 can be interpretted under the Pathfinder rules system. "Cleave" may not work the same, "Appraise" may not do the same things, the grease spell on the sorcerer's list may not have the same mechanical effects under the two systems, but the stat block is still readable. (It won't be, strictly speaking, legal under Pathfinder, but it's understandable.)
The Paizo team has said, whenever the topic comes up, that they legally could not make Pathfinder seamless with non-OGL WotC IP. That's not what "backwards compatability" means.
It also means you're allowed to post here even if you don't mindlessly agree that Pathfinder is the best thing since sliced bread. Even if you don't happily buy up everything with the Paizo logo on it. Unless I missed the memo, and this is your way of telling me that if you have anything less than rabid adoration for PF that I don't belong here. If that is the case, well then I would hope the staff here have a more mature outlook than you.
I'm pretty sure you're completely confused with what "backwards compatability means, Stephen.
|
Explanation on how Backwards Compatibility is a meaningless term.You said it, not me. Though I believe that qualifies as dishonest business practices.
So, you're discussing a game that you don't play, made by a company which you consider to use dishonest business practices, on a forum where almost nobody understands you and almost everybody keeps antagonizing and harassing you, just as I am doing right now.
Man, you do have too much free time.
FEEEEEEEEED MEEEEEEEEEE!!!
|
|
Uh huh. And with what actual abilities does he do that? Non fatal HP damage? Doesn't even phase em. This is PF we're talking about, so he's not going to be one rounding any would be attackers.You're also still assuming all attackers are short range melee.
Two-handed reach fighter with backup ranged weapon. I'm not going to argue dpr or combat length because we will never agree on those subjects.
The Gaming Den is, from the few times I've looked at it, a forum that is filled with people who hate the Pathfinder RPG and hate Paizo, yet for some reason are the first in line to buy new Pathfinder products. Presumably so they can go through them line-by-line to say what all Paizo did wrong.
I think we should thank them for their support then. The more they buy, the more Paizo can put out more products and hire more people. I thank them for their contribution to the economy and keeping my friends at their jobs.
Show me a non Rogue character who has a bad Fortitude save and I'll show you a fool who can't build characters right.
I thought you said you wanted people to stop with the baiting. Maybe the problem isn't everyone else. Maybe, just maybe, the problem lies with the odd-man-out.
This thread hasn't been a useful discussion for many pages now. Thread locked. If you have something meaningful left to discuss, or want to revisit the topic in the title of the thread, please make a new thread.