Wow, for someone who constantly accuses CoD of being a "One right Way-ist", this may be the most arrogantly "One Right Way" post I've ever seen.
You missed the point of what I was saying. I was not discussing the right way to run a game. I was discussing the right way to create a theme and maintain it for an entire campaign. Episodic games are no better or worse than overall themes. I prefer themed campaigns and there is a right way to write them.
Lord of the Rings? It's based on a novel, and covers two years. Star Wars? Ditto (except the novel part). Both are arcs at best. Rocky? Yeah, run the same exact adventure four times in a row and see if your players are amused. the same with 24, CSI, House, or most any other TV show pretty much.
Every one of those are still themes that carry over from one storyline to the next.
If you're going to cite popular entertainment, go with Firefly. At least every episode was a different adventure. And was more plot driven than theme driven. Or Star Trek. Or anything episodic that actually had variety.
Firefly still had a theme. It's too bad it was cut short. I wanted to see where it could go.
You confuse formula with creativity, by the way. Everything you listed followed a formula. That's what Hollywood does. Formula sells to people with little imagination. It doesn't work so well for others (which is why indie films exist, not everyone likes formula). And sitcoms are about as unoriginal as you can get, why did you even cite any?
I intentionally chose HIMYM because it has an over arching theme. I never discussed creativity. I was discussing formula. Creativity is its own subject.
Star wars was much more of an arc than a campaign, actually. The whole thing might have taken the characters through level five, tops.
I'm talking about the overall theme of Star Wars, from Episode I through VI and including the comics, TV series, and novels. They all still follow the theme.
I'm glad you think every campaign should be like an AP. APs are cute, but they generally are BORING AS HELL. Let's look at RotRL: start out with goblins, move to humans, then ogres then giants. Wow, that hasn't been done to death in the 30 some-odd years of D&D. Second Darkness? Ooooohhhh! Drow! How 1979... Themed campaigns are FUN! (um, no...).
I didn't say all campaigns should be like an AP. I said that the APs are themed. Some people love them. Some people hate them. The fact still remains that they follow a theme and it can be done for an entire campaign.
And campaign settings? Yeah, hate to break it to you, but all those wonderful campaign settings are what killed TSR. Most people like generic D&D, they don't want Dark Sun, or Ravenloft, or whatever. There's a reason Forgotten Realms buried all of them, it's generic and flexible.
I'm not a fan of most of those settings. I was pointing out how themes determine what the encounters should be. If I am playing in Forgotten Realms then there are certain expectations I have of the setting. I don't expect to deal with Spelljammers. That's not part of the Forgotten Realms theme.
You sound like a boring DM if you post was anything but another attempt to insult CoD.
I wasn't trying to insult him. I was trying to point out how to write a themed campaign and that it can last through all levels of play. If people don't like themed campaigns, that's fine with me. Many of us do enjoy them and they can help drive the action. I hate episodic campaigns. It's not my style. It's not better or worse than themes. It's just different and not what I like.
Yes, your language appears fine, but your point falls short of the target, as we've not yet begun arguing fighter vs wizard in head to head cagematch, but rather in general effectiveness, which is more optimal, caster vs non caster.
That wasn't my whole point. I also would like to champion the wizards right to have all those awesome "superpowers" as some might call them. Even though I haven't played a wizard for the last couple of years.
|
You and Bob would make great friends. You both love the straw men arguments and absurdity.
Ok. You are a primary spellcaster. You do not only have an 18 prime stat, because PF kindly gives you 20s for free. You also have some irrelevant flavor abilities you'll never use, and a handful of abilities that act as minor conveniences like channel heal to save a few wand charges. But the main takeaway point is that you are a primary spellcaster. As long as you don't screw that up by random trap options associated with Golarion deities, you'll be fine.
Fine for what? You are showing me nothing, saying it is a strawman, whilst at the same time proving my point this whole time. I am asking for a nonstandard Cleric. You are showing me an exceptionally standard Cleric that is good at nothing except maybe some spellcasting, and not even that great at party healing curing. I say maybe because this Cleric does not have the ability to survive even going into danger when a team member(s) might need them to, isn't able to take options to match most themes, (Dex 8 - 10 means no Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Weapon Finesse, Combat Reflexes, so I guess you could call yourself a Dervish, but in name only). Crusader, why bother even mentioning. White Mage, ok, still a bit standard Cleric, but why not just play a Wizard? That seems to be what you want the Cleric to be anyway, right?
You are a Cleric. All you have to do is max Wis, have a solid Con, and throw save or loses. Alternately you can fall into any number of traps, such as taking Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, or Weapon Finesse on any character of any class, particularly a Cleric. Then you just fail at life. Literally.
Out of combat healing is solved by CLW/Lesser Vigor wands, and maybe channel saves you a few charges. In combat healing is non viable, sans the Heal spell so you don't do it.
It's easy to think a class sucks if you build them in the most atrocious way possible. All building an effective Cleric or Druid requires is to not walk into the incredibly obvious traps. Which is good, as most other classes don't put giant neon signs over their trap options.
. . . but don't seem to accept or remember that you have nerfed yourself in the ability to really use them effectively.
Ok, at what point are you getting lost? The challenge was to make a nonstandard Cleric. You say it is done with ease, but show a very standard Cleric, though exceptionally weak in all but one department (which happens to be the one we are not looking for) of the basics of the class, which it really isn't that great at either as it can not survive combat in order to get close and ue abilities. Fail.
I ask for alternatives, basically allowing you free latitude to give favorable circumstances for a concept build, but you have castrated your ability scores from the go, and seem to cast aside Feats and options. The only discernable concept seems to be the White Mage, typicaly an undesriable concept in my experience unless you are talking about an NPC sidekick,or that is your thing. Arguement = fail. Concept presentation = fail. Example = fail.
When asked to back up, explain, or show something, you respond with strawman and absurdity. I don't mean this as a personal insult. I actually want to see what you mean. But so far, this whole time all you are bringing is that you only accept one style of play, and like to argue regardless of logic or reason.
|
I think we in the opposing camp argue that:
1) It is more difficult for a fighter to cover his role than is often admitted (it can even be impossible, given poor circumstances, but this can be said of anything)
2) Damage in the face of SoL's/SoD's does not matter, as it matters not how many hp a monster has left when it eventually fails the save vs a SoL/SoD
3) Fighters do not have the tools to keep focus off the casters, lacking a guaranteed tanking mechanic and often struggling to provide sufficient damage to a monster to keep its attention.
4) Melee combat is difficult in a dynamic environment with mobile foes.I do think that if a fighter is properly supported with spells and a strong build, it can attract the attention of the enemy and thus do its job, but I also think the same of an animal companion, druid, or cleric.
I would say this, intending full respect as this is actually helpful.
1. Full attack is over rated, as it is hard to accomplish. However the amount you can do in a single attack is often under rated.
2. SoL spells got nerfed more than people want to admit, and often in these discussions people overlook the changes assuming it is the same as 3.5 and not realizing that while weakened they still need to be dealt with and represent a resource expenditure.
An equal CR encounter isn't supposed to be hard, even if you are the 15 pt buy, WBL party of 4 it was designed for. It is designed to force them to use about 1/4 of their resources. So if you used one of your 4 highest level spells in an encounter against an equal CR foe, it did it's job.
3. Fighters have more feats than levels, and by the time teleportation comes into play they have both feats available to mitigate it and slots enough to do it. If they want to. They can also just hit it in the face and leave the caster to fend for itself if that isn't a valued role in the party.
4. This goes back to underestimating how much you can do in a single attack and forgetting that also applies to AoO.
Martial classes are not as versatile, there is no doubt about that. But they are also less likely to be in a position where they can't contribute at all because they don't have the right spell. And they aren't as vulnerable to volume, which was the original point of the other thread now off the rails...
in Savage Tide, you will have more humanoids than devils and demons.For the record, Savage Tide has a couple of bullywugs and dinosaurs, and then it's ALL DEMONS. Like, 90% of the AP.
I meant Savage Coast.
|
So you are against nerfing casters to bring them in line with less optimized classes in the general metadiscussion. Got it.Or was that wizards in specific? I'd argue Clerics, Druids, and Sorcerers deserve the same protection, and that the rest should be redesigned to be competitive/comparable...
One of Kirth's goals with his game is to leave those world-shaking powers alone, but make the execution of them more difficult. Make it so the fighter as a matter of course can protect the wizard without having to build for it, and make it so if he doesn't do so, the wizard finds it near impossible to cast. Then, if and only if the party works together, the wizard can end the encounter.
I think we in the opposing camp argue that:
1) It is more difficult for a fighter to cover his role than is often admitted (it can even be impossible, given poor circumstances, but this can be said of anything)
2) Damage in the face of SoL's/SoD's does not matter, as it matters not how many hp a monster has left when it eventually fails the save vs a SoL/SoD
3) Fighters do not have the tools to keep focus off the casters, lacking a guaranteed tanking mechanic and often struggling to provide sufficient damage to a monster to keep its attention.
4) Melee combat is difficult in a dynamic environment with mobile foes.I do think that if a fighter is properly supported with spells and a strong build, it can attract the attention of the enemy and thus do its job, but I also think the same of an animal companion, druid, or cleric.
1. I have more often seen a caster fail to fill their role than a fighter fill theirs.
2. Damage can kill things at roughly the same speed as a SoD, once you factor in saves. Casters have the bennefit of a couple of AoE SoL, but those are generally much less effective.3. Why do the Fighters need a tanking mechanic? They deal enough damage to be a threat in their own right,
4. Yes, which is why you have multiple options, including a backup ranged weapon, trip, grapple, and numberous other ways of dealing mobile foes. Also, part of the role of a good caster is to remove their mobility. The game is played in a group, and it is much more effective for the caster to gimp the mobility and then have the fighter take it out than it is for the caster to try to take it out entirely himself
IME, animal companions last 1 round of combat as a nice speed bump for the enemy after early levels. The extra HP and AC of the fighter allows for it to last multiple rounds. For melee, I would take a dedicated character over a anicom any day of the week. Druids can fill this role, but I much prefer someone else.
Yeah. I think the APs are designed to remove Craft: (whatever) from the game to cripple casters a bit and make them less dominant.
I guess if you can't write the rules to make all classes relevant, write adventures that nerf the powerful ones.
Age of Worms continuously states that the GM should allow time to craft items. It's mentioned in every adventure so far in the path. I'm just starting chapter 7 and I haven't read the other adventures yet. So far though, for the first 12 levels, they have had ample time to craft. With the new crafting rules in Pathfinder, they have more time to craft as well at least for their consumable items.
(that the mages would, in theory, be crafting for the fighters)This is one statement I really like to point out.
The fighter advocates always bring up a wizard who doesn't do everything to make the fighter relevant is "selfish". If a class cannot stand on its own without considerable help from two other classes, they're weak sisters and need to be redesigned. Or they need to take leadership and have a dedicated wizard or cleric whose entire job is to keep them standing.
Martial types drain a lot of all the party's resources and offer little in return compared to another full caster. I'd much rather have a druid with an animal companion than a fighter in my party. The druid can do his or her job, I can do mine, and I don't have to waste time helping the druid do theirs.
I agree with you completely that if a class needs to rely on another then said class is too weak, which is why I never bring it up. I do think the non-casters can hold their own. In Pathfinder they have even more ways now that they can craft their own items without the need for casters.
in Savage Tide, you will have more humanoids than devils and demons.For the record, Savage Tide has a couple of bullywugs and dinosaurs, and then it's ALL DEMONS. Like, 90% of the AP.
This isn't really accurate. We're beginning Ch. 6 in my group, and we've fought about four demons so far.
All demons, all day doesn't kick in until about Ch. 9. And even then, I've noticed a high amount of undead, with lower amounts of humanoids and magical beasts.
Also, to address the AP tendency to gimp craft, Savage Tide also frequently says to give the PCs time to craft items and such.
Arguing that a fighter using feats isn't valid is like arguing a wizard using their spell selection isn't valid. It is their main class feature.
What makes wizards trump fighters here is that if their selection is crappy one day, it can be altered the next. Vice versa isn't true.
Yes, your language appears fine, but your point falls short of the target, as we've not yet begun arguing fighter vs wizard in head to head cagematch, but rather in general effectiveness, which is more optimal, caster vs non caster.That wasn't my whole point. I also would like to champion the wizards right to have all those awesome "superpowers" as some might call them. Even though I haven't played a wizard for the last couple of years.So you are against nerfing casters to bring them in line with less optimized classes in the general metadiscussion. Got it.
Or was that wizards in specific? I'd argue Clerics, Druids, and Sorcerers deserve the same protection, and that the rest should be redesigned to be competitive/comparable...
Huh? I don't follow. I don't think anyone need to be brought in line. Hence the cage fight.
Superpower-like spells are fun, so they must stay!
Arguing that a fighter using feats isn't valid is like arguing a wizard using their spell selection isn't valid. It is their main class feature.
What makes wizards trump fighters here is that if their selection is crappy one day, it can be altered the next. Vice versa isn't true.
I don't believe I was arguing a fighter using feats isn't valid, I believe I was arguing that a fighter, despite having superior access to feats compared to other classes, still has a limited number of feats, and thus cannot have 4 full feat chains and a few others for corner cases.
I merely exhibit concern regarding the number of feats a successful fighter must take, and doubt as to whether there are enough feat slots for a fighter to cover all the roles he needs to.
I wasn't even touching on the versatility of changing spells, as I assumed it's common knowledge by now. I will note I do prefer playing sorcerers though.
How many roles does the fighter need to fill? I generally try to have one major concept with the fighter and then bring in a secondary and tertiary one that builds on the primary as best I can. I don't expect my fighters to have the versatility of casting classes. I expect my fighters to have more consistency on what to expect from them.
|
|
1) yes, one can do sufficient damage in a single hit to make it worthwhile, if you build toward it. I am uncertain whether a fighter has enough feats (I mean that literally. Not be facetious) to cover that eventuality and still be able to Full Attack and Combat Maneuver and Maneuver in general.
2) SoL's are a resource expenditure. But they can also end a fight a lot faster than hp damage can, resulting in less inbound damage taken, resulting in less healing needing done, which is also an expenditure. An equal CR isn't supposed to be HARD, but it is supposed to be a CHALLENGE.
3) Fighters have as many feats as they have levels +1-2 more. While a fighter may be able to deal with teleporting foes with their feats (provided they get within reach of the teleporting critter), they had to take those feats, which also add to the pile, and the critter may be able to 5 ft step away from the fighter to teleport away. The fighter might be able to follow (Step Up feat, I think) but again, more feats spent. Lastly, a fighter's ability to teleport is predicated by their items, which may or may not allow for such tactics (last three games were resource starved AP's: STAP, LoF, and RHoD)
4)Most AoO's are avoidable with smart play.
This is very productive. Thank you.
1. Getting good damage doesn't take all your feats. 5 feats under 10th still available. 12 of the 22 unused, more if you forego the vital strike train.
2. I don't think we are far apart on this one.
3. This is something fighters do have to deal with, but I don't think the item costs make it unreasonable. As you pointed out with various AP's, YMMV. I don't know that casters have significantly less need for magic items though, unless you play as some do and ignore AC and such.
Higher level spell components aren't free, after all.
The excerpt from Don Quixote earlier reminded me of why Roleplaying is given a backseat to math in this game.
2 sessions back, while playing my paladin, the cleric got accused of cheating in a gambling game, and threatened with violence if he did not surrender his possessions. All revved up, I step in, hand on my pommel, theatrics flying, outraged rebukes and colorful threats of both divine and martial repercussions, remarking that the ante would be their lives, and their blood would be my prize.
Players are in awe, absorbed into the moment, bro levels gone through the roof for our characters. Now, GM calls for a skill check.
NATURAL 1.
RP NEGATED.
|
|
Arguing that a fighter using feats isn't valid is like arguing a wizard using their spell selection isn't valid. It is their main class feature.
What makes wizards trump fighters here is that if their selection is crappy one day, it can be altered the next. Vice versa isn't true.
Valid point, but I would say.
1. Feats are used up for the day once you use them the first time.
2. Pathfinder allows fighters to change feats now, which is helpful when the low level feats you got for specific purpose in low level fights aren't as useful and you want to trade them in for, better high level feats. No more get it now to use it later.
|
|
The excerpt from Don Quixote earlier reminded me of why Roleplaying is given a backseat to math in this game.
2 sessions back, while playing my paladin, the cleric got accused of cheating in a gambling game, and threatened with violence if he did not surrender his possessions. All revved up, I step in, hand on my pommel, theatrics flying, outraged rebukes and colorful threats of both divine and martial repercussions, remarking that the ante would be their lives, and their blood would be my prize.
Players are in awe, absorbed into the moment, bro levels gone through the roof for our characters. Now, GM calls for a skill check.
NATURAL 1.
RP NEGATED.
Your GM does know that, by RAW, a 1 on a skill roll isn't an auto-fail, right? And that Intimidate is an opposed roll?
|
|
Your GM does know that, by RAW, a 1 on a skill roll isn't an auto-fail, right? And that Intimidate is an opposed roll?The excerpt from Don Quixote earlier reminded me of why Roleplaying is given a backseat to math in this game.
2 sessions back, while playing my paladin, the cleric got accused of cheating in a gambling game, and threatened with violence if he did not surrender his possessions. All revved up, I step in, hand on my pommel, theatrics flying, outraged rebukes and colorful threats of both divine and martial repercussions, remarking that the ante would be their lives, and their blood would be my prize.
Players are in awe, absorbed into the moment, bro levels gone through the roof for our characters. Now, GM calls for a skill check.
NATURAL 1.
RP NEGATED.
+1
YMMV, and I know some people play natural 1 is always fail, but he's right RAW.
Spoiler tags are your friend (and mine). My group just started up this AP not three weeks ago. So thanks for that.
I'd apologize, except that one thing that AP isn't is "secretive." If your players haven't figured out the spoiler by the 2nd adventure, they're not paying attention. More worthy of a spoiler is the fact that...
In a campgain that was played in a hollow's last hope using bestiary creatures when they were available with three characters and 25 point buy I had a wizard a rouge and a cave druid. I planned to use my animal companion as a flanking buddy for my rouge. That is an interesting use of an animal companion to give my two weapon fighting rouge sneak attack. The boar companion did not do much damage at level 1 the 40 foot speed and ability to move into flanking helped the rouge do damage.
Animal companions can be used for flanking buddies for rouges.
as a flanking buddy for my rouge.
That's what eye liner is for. ;)
Your GM does know that, by RAW, a 1 on a skill roll isn't an auto-fail, right? And that Intimidate is an opposed roll?The excerpt from Don Quixote earlier reminded me of why Roleplaying is given a backseat to math in this game.
2 sessions back, while playing my paladin, the cleric got accused of cheating in a gambling game, and threatened with violence if he did not surrender his possessions. All revved up, I step in, hand on my pommel, theatrics flying, outraged rebukes and colorful threats of both divine and martial repercussions, remarking that the ante would be their lives, and their blood would be my prize.
Players are in awe, absorbed into the moment, bro levels gone through the roof for our characters. Now, GM calls for a skill check.
NATURAL 1.
RP NEGATED.
Sure, but it is not a class skill for a paladin, and we were lv5 at the time, meaning I needed a 5 or so.
I keep telling myself to roll first, RP later, and reflect roll. Had the same happen with my awesome sorcerer in Crimson Throne too. Made up an ingenious bluff, told it like a boss, and rolled a 1 afterwards.
I roll many 1s.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm admittingly somewhat irate that we've had nothing more then combat conversations for like fifty pages, leaving my three M-M-M-M-MEGAPOSTS in the dust for daring to talk about something like non-combat ability or narrative power.
|
|
Actually, the type of caster I play tends to avoid expensive spell components and has eschew mats (sorcerer) so they are free :) Well, and then there's wish. Stupid Wish.
1) Forgive me if I don't look overly much at the spreadsheet and take your word for it. Consider though we still need Nimble Moves and Acrobatic Steps to deal with terrain (or outsource to items), Disruptive, Spellbreaker, and Teleport Tactician to deal with casters and teleporters (poorly, more on that later), Combat Expertise, and two maneuver feats for our primary combat maneuver, two more maneuver feats for the secondary maneuver others espouse using... We're up to 10 more feats used. That's EVERYTHING up to 20th level. And because of the staggering, we're going to have to wait for a good 3/4 of our career till we can do EVERYTHING we're supposed to do to a sufficient ability.
Your spreadsheet is also missing Furious Focus, which is kind of important for a one swinger.
2) glad we're close to agreement then :)
3)item costs are significant concerns. Item availability moreso, which can hinge on item costs (as population center gp limits differ). Casters rely more on miss chances and staying out of harm's imminent way than AC, but even so I can drop Mage Armor and quicken'd shields (or regular shields if...
I'm bringing 4 back :)
1. Nimble Moves and Acrobatic step will eventually get outsources to items, and pathfinder lets you swap out feats now so it's viable. The teleport tree I agree with (and there is room for it, possibly when you swap out the above 2 since you don't need them anymore) and as to combat manuvers, I generally use them on casters when I don't care about taking an AoO.
2. Yeah.
3. This is fair, but unless you are picking up rings and bracers, your AC is still going to be low enough that 1st levels can hit you on occasion with ranged attacks. In volume, it's an issue.
4. Attacks of opportunities aren't that easily avoided with the new tumble rules. It isn't just rolling a 17 anymore, it's beating CMD, which for fighters is really good. Going around means no charge, meaning no pounce for example. And since combat maneuvers can be used as attacks of opportunity...
|
|
I think the implication was that the dice said he failed, which they did unless he would have auto passed the check. And he's right. All the colorful speeches in the world won't save you from your social numbers being bad.Your GM does know that, by RAW, a 1 on a skill roll isn't an auto-fail, right? And that Intimidate is an opposed roll?The excerpt from Don Quixote earlier reminded me of why Roleplaying is given a backseat to math in this game.
2 sessions back, while playing my paladin, the cleric got accused of cheating in a gambling game, and threatened with violence if he did not surrender his possessions. All revved up, I step in, hand on my pommel, theatrics flying, outraged rebukes and colorful threats of both divine and martial repercussions, remarking that the ante would be their lives, and their blood would be my prize.
Players are in awe, absorbed into the moment, bro levels gone through the roof for our characters. Now, GM calls for a skill check.
NATURAL 1.
RP NEGATED.
Oh, I agree 100%. I also think that one of the failings of anything based on 3x is that dice are too important in "role"playing situations. In a lot of ways, it makes roleplaying irrelevant.
Someone buy this man another alcoholic drink of his choosing. I like the cut of his jib.Huh? I don't follow. I don't think anyone need to be brought in line. Hence the cage fight.
Superpower-like spells are fun, so they must stay!
Thanks, cheers! I'm good tho, I was just out shopping alchohol for the new years celebrations earlier today, so I'm well stocked :-)
Merry christmas, and happy newyears from snowy Norway! I'm off to watch the end of the Black Books dvd box set I got for christmas. Bye!
|
|
I'm admittingly somewhat irate that we've had nothing more then combat conversations for like fifty pages, leaving my three M-M-M-M-MEGAPOSTS in the dust for daring to talk about something like non-combat ability or narrative power.Well... in non combat ability fighters are fairly fail. Same with narrative power.
for these things you'd want a caster or, if you're masochistic, a skillmonkey. I'd think that was fairly clear, particularly given your large, demonstrative posts on the issue. We didn't argue that because that's not in contention. What is still in contention is whether a fighter fights enough in fights to fight up to his fightery name, or if a casty caster is crafty enough to cast or craft in the caste of a crafty GM's cast.
Non combat is where Rogue, Bard, and Ranger conversations come into play. Fighters have to fight. It's their move.
|
|
I'm admittingly somewhat irate that we've had nothing more then combat conversations for like fifty pages, leaving my three M-M-M-M-MEGAPOSTS in the dust for daring to talk about something like non-combat ability or narrative power.
Well, we're discussing the mechanical superiority of wizards over fighters. All the stuff you were talking about was cool and all, but not really what we are arguing.
1. I have more often seen a caster fail to fill their role than a fighter fill theirs.
2. Damage can kill things at roughly the same speed as a SoD, once you factor in saves. Casters have the bennefit of a couple of AoE SoL, but those are generally much less effective.
3. Why do the Fighters need a tanking mechanic? They deal enough damage to be a threat in their own right,
4. Yes, which is why you have multiple options, including a backup ranged weapon, trip, grapple, and numberous other ways of dealing mobile foes. Also, part of the role of a good caster is to remove their mobility. The game is played in a group, and it is much more effective for the caster to gimp the mobility and then have the fighter take it out than it is for the caster to try to take it out entirely himself
1: Interesting. How so? Poor spell selection?
2: I disagree. If you're not one shotting mobs, casters have an advantage in that it is possible for their first spell to end the fight. I do not see fighters one shotting mobs of equal CR.
3: Yes and no. I've seen encounters where a fighter was able to hold his own, I've also seen encounters where the assailant ignored the fighter entirely (in LoF, I did this with a dragon, right up until the rest of the party fled into a building, then I took my full attack and slew the fighter outright.)
4: I agree with you, a good fighter should have options, no matter how limited, and a good caster works not to overshadow the group. Often this is through battlefield control, not SoL's and SoD's. The other option exists, though, and is less dependent on the enemy not having freedom of movement.
1. Wizards are usually expected to fill 3 roles with their spells. Battlefield control or SOS/SOL (depending on party makup), general utility and counters (fly, invisibility, detection, scrying, ect), and defensive abilities (miss chance, fogs, wind wall, ect). Many good spells are multi-function, and those are great spells. Their spell selection may be perfectly fine for 1 day, but if you do not have the right mix at any given time you can be useless. Also, if the caster is spending many slots on defenses, like your mention of dedicating an 8th level slot to Mind Blank earlier, they end up with a severely limmitted selection, often of their highest levels of spells. Wizards also lack the skills needed to get through many trivial encounters without resorting to more spell use and thus more demand.
2. The fighter will be 1 shotting most enemies in the mob, but not the mob itself. That is not his job though. He is best at the enemies you encounter in the 3-5 range.3. A well built fighter should be able to go toe to toe with a lvl = CR dragon and have a decent chance of survival. Just comparing numbers and trading full attacks (I have done the math before, but don't have it anymore) they can. Problem is, since dragons are solo encounters, usually they are CR+3 or so, and they are one of the nastiest creatures of their CR most times.
4. I have seen many people claim a caster can overshadow a group, but have never actually seen it in practice, even at high levels, since it is also a good GM's job to make sure everyone has a way of contributing to the encounter, and it is not hard to play to someone other than the caster's strengths. One of the strengths of most casters is their ability to be called upon as a backup to that though, which is why they often seem overpowered.
The excerpt from Don Quixote earlier reminded me of why Roleplaying is given a backseat to math in this game.
2 sessions back, while playing my paladin, the cleric got accused of cheating in a gambling game, and threatened with violence if he did not surrender his possessions. All revved up, I step in, hand on my pommel, theatrics flying, outraged rebukes and colorful threats of both divine and martial repercussions, remarking that the ante would be their lives, and their blood would be my prize.
Players are in awe, absorbed into the moment, bro levels gone through the roof for our characters. Now, GM calls for a skill check.
NATURAL 1.
RP NEGATED.
Your role playing wasn't negated. The NPC wasn't swayed. You still role played and it sounds like you role played well. The game uses math to determine out comes but Pathfinder is not a math game. It is still a role playing game first.
I'm admittingly somewhat irate that we've had nothing more then combat conversations for like fifty pages, leaving my three M-M-M-M-MEGAPOSTS in the dust for daring to talk about something like non-combat ability or narrative power.Well... in non combat ability fighters are fairly fail. Same with narrative power.
Why? They can have enough skill points to do quite a few things out of combat. What do you want them to do? Remember, no class, not even the rogue with his ton of skill points, can do everything.
|
|
1: Ooh, where did PF add the rebuild on feats? I didn't see those, our group still thinks feats are set in stone. If you don't CManeuver normal mobs, what do you do? Just whack em and hope for the best?
2: do a little dance.
3: Wind Wall. Why pump AC when one can invalidate the attack method?
4: (breathe 4! Breathe! Don't you die on me!) cast defensively, withdraw action, 5 foot step... there are methods other than Acrobatics to evade AoO's. I don't see them as much, for whatever reason, and am always able to avoid them. Only some Maneuvers can be used as AoO's if I recall. They have to take the place of an attack, and not be a standard action.
1. It only applies to fighter combat feats, but that is mainly what you would switch out. You can do it every 4 levels with one feat, but with proper planning...http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter
2. Make a little love, get down tonight.
3. You can, and that is your action for that round, losing economy of action. It is more the general "Even crappy things annoy me if they get an attack on me"
4. Cast on the defensive is harder now, particularly at low levels, 5 foot can be countered, full withdrawn loses the round.
The point was originally that Fighters can't be blockers, because AoO are easily avoided. If a fighter blocks a pounce, and forces a choice for an enemy about moving into a position to be vulnerable to a full round attack to get that single attack on the caster, it's a use.