Gorbacz: The way the material is written. Orc bloodline. Elven Archers. Dwarven Defender (once upon a time).
And "your character would own my character" is the very thing I am talking about. This game turns into a contest between builds. The most efficient build wins. Not fun.So ask the fighter to stop optimizing, since the wizard won't and you've nerfed the paladin's strengths.In my experience the problem isn't so much one player being optimized as other players not building well and then not being killed off quickly enough by natural selection.
An optimized Fighter is going to be great in some combats, not so great in others, and likely not very useful at all in non-combat settings.
That, however, I do think depends on what kind of challenge you want and how you view the game. Playstyle, in other words. I often enjoy dm'ing for new players more, since they often don't optimize well and focus a lot on themes and the like. I much rather DM with suboptimal but interesting and odd characters and challenge them easier, than with optimized character that are all to alike. I'm not saying you can't do interesting optimized characters, but if you're much into optimizing, it lowers the options. And if the players optimize much, I have to increase the difficulty of the enemies - so it doesn't end up well anyway.
Usually I try to run enemies as dictated by their CR, and a character is strong enough if he can contribute enough to that. Most character builds can do that. If someone DOES dominate, I usually try to adjust the challenges to play more to that players weaknesses, or talk to the player. When I play myself though, I usually prefer to optimize within my role - and because of that often pick odd roles and themes not to get overpowered compared to equal-CR opponents.
I understand the charm in the arms race of optimization vs. higher CR monsters, I really do, but when dming and playing I prefer not to.
Apparently Orcs are the best Wizards and Elves are the best Archers and... Not fun.
Well, if you're trying to build a character that does something not ordinary for their class - say I want a fighter that's good at picking locks - I of course has to optimize for that.
The more odd a concept is the bigger sacrifices you have to make to be good at it. Maybe I want to play a character that has had both arms ripped off - Sure, I can, but it's going to be hard as hell to get it to contribute meaningfully. A blaster caster is the same thing, though less extreme. You don't have to be an orc though, it only adds 1/2 level damage so not really a big deal. It's mostly at lower levels where you have to squeeze out every last bit of damage. I would suggest going with a sorcerer over a wizard though, as spontaneous casting is great for meta-magic and blasting is a lot about knowing when to meta-magic, and the higher number of spell slots surely are needed.Elves, best archers? I'd pick human any day but that's beside the point. It's easy to build a viable archer of any race. I could probably build a viable gnomish crossbowman, should I want. It will of course not be as high-damage as a greatsword-wielding human fighter, but I will deal enough damage to handle level-appropriate encounters.
To what extent should the rules allow anything to work well? If I want to be a blaster fighter, flinging fireballs, is it "class imbalance" that a high UMD and wands of fireballs won't make me effective at 13th level?
stringburka: I was referring to Arcane Archers. Requires you to be an Elf or Half-Elf.
I am not asking that every class be equal, just that they are not entirely defined by their class archetype. There should be some variety so that they're not limited to being the "lock pick guy" or the "party face guy." It's as though every character is an autistic savant... the Barbarian can swing an axe, but he can't tie his shoes and babbles incoherently if anyone gives him any attention.
|
stringburka: I was referring to Arcane Archers. Requires you to be an Elf or Half-Elf.
Notwithstanding the fact that devs hav stated that the racial restriction should be lifted, the Arcane Archer is rather so-so at being an Archer. It's a nice gimmick class that is miles ahead of the 3.5 version, but still it can't hold a candle to an archer specialized Fighter when it comes to pure damage.
I do get the vibe that you are theorycrafting a lot (somebody who has lots of 3.5/PF experience would never claim that AA is the best archer out there). Perhaps you should try out some of the concepts in the game. D&D isn't as restrictive as you think, but if you really think that the class concept is holding you back, it would be rather hard to go around it - class based design is a classic staple of D&D, it's trademark even.
|
And "your character would own my character" is the very thing I am talking about. This game turns into a contest between builds. The most efficient build wins. Not fun.So ask the fighter to stop optimizing, since the wizard won't and you've nerfed the paladin's strengths.In my experience the problem isn't so much one player being optimized as other players not building well and then not being killed off quickly enough by natural selection.
An optimized Fighter is going to be great in some combats, not so great in others, and likely not very useful at all in non-combat settings.
That, however, I do think depends on what kind of challenge you want and how you view the game. Playstyle, in other words. I often enjoy dm'ing for new players more, since they often don't optimize well and focus a lot on themes and the like. I much rather DM with suboptimal but interesting and odd characters and challenge them easier, than with optimized character that are all to alike. I'm not saying you can't do interesting optimized characters, but if you're much into optimizing, it lowers the options. And if the players optimize much, I have to increase the difficulty of the enemies - so it doesn't end up well anyway.
Usually I try to run enemies as dictated by their CR, and a character is strong enough if he can contribute enough to that. Most character builds can do that. If someone DOES dominate, I usually try to adjust the challenges to play more to that players weaknesses, or talk to the player. When I play myself though, I usually prefer to optimize within my role - and because of that often pick odd roles and themes not to get overpowered compared to equal-CR opponents.
I understand the charm in the arms race of optimization vs. higher CR monsters, I really do, but when dming and playing I prefer not to.
Absolutely. But in my experience optimized characters are just as dependent on other members of the party to fill in the gaps as any one else, generally more so in fact since they can't do more than a few things to start with.
If as a DM you vary the challenges, the people who can do more things (sub-optimal) will have more chances to shine, even if not as brightly as the "optimized" character does in the moment they were literally made for.
I think people undervalue rogues and bards for example, because DMs tend to remove the types of challenges they are good at if they don't have a rogue or bard in the party. I go the other way. No one wants to play a rogue? Well the traps and locks are still there, hope you're creative.
Gorbacz: I didn't know that. Stills says it does in the Core Rulebook. Just checked to make sure. That in the errata? Regardless, the idea was there and still lingers in the form of racial bonuses for favored classes and the like. Just a bad idea, glad it doesn't hold as much water as it once did.
stringburka: I was referring to Arcane Archers. Requires you to be an Elf or Half-Elf.
I am not asking that every class be equal, just that they are not entirely defined by their class archetype. There should be some variety so that they're not limited to being the "lock pick guy" or the "party face guy." It's as though every character is an autistic savant... the Barbarian can swing an axe, but he can't tie his shoes and babbles incoherently if anyone gives him any attention.
1. This has been errata'd to allow any race, IIRC. Paizo tries to get away from racial PRCs (see the dwarven defender that isn't dwarven anymore).
2. Arcane archers isn't "the best archer", they are a way to make a decent archer/spellcaster, much like how Eldritch Knight is a way to make a decent meleer/spellcaster. In no case will the AA be better at archery than a true archer (whether ranger, paladin, fighter, fighter with the archery archetype and so on).And no-one is limited to only one role, except for possibly the fighter. You can make a barbarian with a Cha 10 or 12 and still be able to beat level-appropriate encounters (with ease, if otherwise optimized). A barbarian, to take an example, can both be an aggressive damage machine that dabbles in skills, or a skillful tracker that's not as good in melee combat, or a bestial warrior that fights with his bare hands and so on. Yes, combat is it's major schtick, but it can do other things to.
Most classes are far less pidgeonholing than the fighter. The wizard can be an acceptable damage dealer, an acceptable sneak, summon creatures to work as an acceptable hindrance (you really don't have tanks in D&D in any shape), and even somewhat heal through summons. He's the best battlefield controller there is. That's his schtick. A rogue can be an excellent tracker, a swashbuckler, an assassin, a lockpick, a party face and so on. No-one will outsneak him or be bettar at trapfinding/disabling (if he gets aided by a caster), though. It's his major schtick.
The issue is when one player optimizes for the thing he's best at, while the other player tries to do somethign the class is only decent at, and doesn't even optimize for that.
If you want to have odd concepts, multiclassing is often a valid option.
Thanks for the suggestions, I will read up on those games. "Instead player description of their characters becomes the driving element of the game" sounds great.
If you want very powerful characters (30 pt buy implies this, and there's nothing wrong with that) I might suggest a gestalt game in which everyone has two classes and gains the benefits of both on a level.
I was thinking that Detect Magic's group may like gestalt characters too.
I know it's too late to add Ultimate Magic requests, but I was hoping for a blasty-caster class like the 3.5 warmage. There are are a lot of players who want to play spellcasters as DPR, and I think the game should support it.
|
Our rogues (and other medium BAB classes) generally bring decent damage to the table
I don't know who you are grouping with but I think I'd have a heart attack if I completed a PFS scenario where a rogue did >1/4 of my damage. There have been MANY times where I did more in one round than a rogue did in an entire scenario (counting haste as contributory DPR). And since I'm not even the top DPR class, I think Paizo is out of their mind thinking rogues don't need a severe buff.
You can't compare a Rogue with Bard DPR since Bard has way more contributory DPR, the song alone can do as much contributory DPR as the entire rogue output.
You do realize I can blow away a rogue's contributory DPR without an Eidolon OR summons just by casting Haste once and doing nothing the rest of the combat? This is why it takes about 4-5 rogues put together to match a summoner in combat.
KilroySummoner I've seen some of your eidolon posts before and I've seen several of the mistakes you make with them as well. Yes I will group the rogue in with the medium BAB classes and will state that I've seen rogues do just fine on damage.
I will agree that I'm not fond of the summoner for various reasons (their spell list being a very large part of that) but I haven't found it unbalanced yet, or impossible to handle if or when the need is there.
Post a level 5 rogue and I will post a legal level 5 summoner who will do over 4x the contributory DPR (assume in a group with 2 melees).
Please, not another thread derail into summoner argument.
I don't think you're seeing what a min maxing caster is capable of.
A caster doesn't contribute through damage: they contribute through screwing the enemy over. In that sense they work well WITH fighters. The problem is at some point (a point delayed by pathfinder but still there) that the fighters need to move every round and (in my experience hardly ever) get a full attack makes him fall behind BOTH an optimized blaster unless he's an archer, or behind Save Or Die spells because the DC quickly outstrips the saving throws. The abomination of persistent spell, once applied to save or die, means the caster is going to kill one character per round: probably the big bad.
Post a level 5 rogue and I will post a legal level 5 summoner who will do over 4x the contributory DPR (assume in a group with 2 melees).
Just a few quick points because I believe it would explain an appearance of difference in opinion that isn't really present.
I will not state in anyway shape or form that a rogue can out damage both a summoner and his eidolon. After all action economy and the math would never bear out a single character outdamaging two characters together without something specific going on.
However I would suggest a rogue that can come close to the eidolon's damage and match (if not beat) the summoner's damage.
I fully agree that a summoner/eidolon team should beat the rogue in raw damage -- after all two full attacks will beat a single full attack any day of the week!
When discussing a duel character (such as the summoner/eidolon, a druid with animal companion or the like) against a single character I take the position that the single character shouldn't try to out damage the combination, but instead concentrate on the parts of the sum.
|
|
I'm not talking about action economy, I'm talking about the effects of haste on an entire group and a level 6 Eidolon that does in one full attack:
+11, 2d6+16 + trip (bite)
+11, 2d6+16 + trip (hasted bite)
+11, d4+d6+11 (left claw)
+11, d4+d6+11 (right claw)
+10, 2d6+11 (gore)
+all of the extra hasted attacks on the rest of the party
That is one single full round attack at level 6. Why should anyone believe you if you can't post and prove that a rogue can do at least 1/4th the damage of a class that isn't the top DPR?
Actually your whole argument is predicated on economy of actions.
You are counting both a spell from the summoner and a full attack from an eidolon -- at level 6 and the extra attack on for the whole party.
That by its very definition is an argument based on economy of actions -- you have more and give everyone else more to boot. Your argument is predicated on extra attacks for everyone and a full attack from the eidolon while the summoner casts a spell.
Economy of actions.
Also you changed your level -- originally you stated 5.
Finally we've been asked not to go over this here -- as such I'm done in this thread on the subject. If you want to discuss this further else where go ahead and start a new thread.
Frankly if the Fighter is such a problem in your game, then remove it. Don't allow it as a class choice.
With the super generous 30 point buy you are allowing the other core melee's will have NO problem meeting any stat requirements to shine in or out of melee and can use their higher than average Int's to get skill points in the social skills they will need to participate.
But your going to have to remember that choosing a class means choosing it's limitations as well. Your current policy of 'letting everyone shine all the time' is part of the problem.
Players have to recognise and deal with their characters limitations, that is part and parcel of any RPG. The problem is not that the fighter is too strong in combat, it is as strong as it is supposed to be, it is that your not actually making them use the differences in their characters because your players are not willing to give others their chance to shine in the spotlight, not willing to sit out of the game area's that their chosen class is not strong in.
That is not a problem with the game, it is a problem with the players.
You cannot be everything all the time. If you chose a fighter then you should realise that the ONLY time you will shine is in combat and live with that. Each class comes with flavor and checks and balances. Remove a set and then the rest get skewed in comparison.
If your going to use nothing but pure RP to determine ALL social interactions then remove the social skills from your game and rebalance the skills and slill points for each class appropriately.
Gnome: That's exactly what I have. The players want powerful PCs and they want to role play and experience a story. Why can't they have both? I agree, the system breaks down.
Actually, you can have both optimization and story, as long as all players are equally concerned with both elements. Problems only appear when, say, half the party wants to play their flavorful, unoptimized builds while the other half tweaks the heck out of their builds with no consideration for roleplaying or story potential.
Frankly, I find the idea of a fighter being gamebreaking rather weird. The only way I can picture a fighter being overpowered is when you're playing DPR Olympics: The Game. In an actual game, fighter can be invaluable in combat situations, but he really shouldn't dominate a well-balanced, versatile scenario that involves things other than smashing stuff.
|
|
In an actual game, fighter can be invaluable in combat situations, but he really shouldn't dominate a well-balanced, versatile scenario that involves things other than smashing stuff.
Unfortunately things like PFS organized play (where no one ever dies from a trap and you can 'rush' to the next combat) make the emphasis on combat most important. I think all classes should be combat-balanced for this reason, and the rogue is clearly not.
I agree it is possible through a ton of GM engineering to balance the rogue (namely add many deadly magical traps), but Paizo should at least try to make the rogue appeal to combat-intensive scenarios in my opinion.
Also, people focus on combat because you have hard numbers to balance (like I posted above, which proves the rogue to be a relative total joke) and regardless of the balance in overly trapped scenarios, you want each class to give the impression of usefulness. Yes, I am a total min/maxing combat-focused player, but there are a lot of people like me who greatly weight combat-effectiveness in terms of party utility.
Since no one can post a rogue that does even a 1/4 of the damage of not even the top DPR class, can we all at least agree that the rogue is in severe need of a combat buff for combat-oriented scenarios? That is all I want to convince people of...
|
|
Post a level 5 rogue and I will post a legal level 5 summoner who will do over 4x the contributory DPR (assume in a group with 2 melees).
It is a ridiculous comparison. A rogue is best as part of a team (so it can flank) and is a skill based class, and so poorly equipped for PvP. Which is fine since the game is team based and included a lot of out of combat activity.
The problem is at some point (a point delayed by pathfinder but still there) that the fighters need to move every round and (in my experience hardly ever) get a full attack makes him fall behind BOTH an optimized blaster unless he's an archer, or behind Save Or Die spells because the DC quickly outstrips the saving throws. The abomination of persistent spell, once applied to save or die, means the caster is going to kill one character per round: probably the big bad.
This is a very good point. The "blaster wizard" can make a very useful contribution once the enemies are moving around rather than standing still and waiting for the fighter's full-attack every round.
May I ask the OP what level your characters' are at now? You mentioned they were 4th-level when you started. Has anything changed as they've gained levels and tried out multiple types of scenarios?
Post a level 5 rogue and I will post a legal level 5 summoner who will do over 4x the contributory DPR (assume in a group with 2 melees).It is a ridiculous comparison. A rogue is best as part of a team (so it can flank) and is a skill based class, and so poorly equipped for PvP. Which is fine since the game is team based and included a lot of out of combat activity.
KS didn't talk about PvP. He was talking about contributing to the group's DPR.
|
|
KS didn't talk about PvP. He was talking about contributing to the group's DPR.Post a level 5 rogue and I will post a legal level 5 summoner who will do over 4x the contributory DPR (assume in a group with 2 melees).It is a ridiculous comparison. A rogue is best as part of a team (so it can flank) and is a skill based class, and so poorly equipped for PvP. Which is fine since the game is team based and included a lot of out of combat activity.
And how would that be shown by posting two side by side? Would the fact the rogue has a high perception and/or stealth be taken into account, as it would increase the number of surprise rounds? Would problems of walking around with a eidelon (including the diffculty of being stealthy and inconspicuous) be taken into consideration?
It is like comparing a multi-tool to a machete. Both are knives, both are useful, which one you want to have depends on the problem you are dealing with at the time.
Ideally, you want both.
|
|
It sounds like everyone is in agreement that doing over 75% less damage than another class who also has non-combat utility is acceptable to some people. Since PFS organized play is very heavily oriented toward combat, it is reasonable to say that rogues are horrifically unbalanced in at least a very common form of Pathfinder. Point proven since I think even 40% less damage is appalling. I will stop replying here unless challenged...
|
|
It sounds like everyone is in agreement that doing over 75% less damage than another class who also has non-combat utility is acceptable to some people. Since PFS organized play is very heavily oriented toward combat, it is reasonable to say that rogues are horrifically unbalanced in at least a very common form of Pathfinder. Point proven since I think even 40% less damage is appalling. I will stop replying here unless challenged...
Sounds like you are trying to threadjack with a strawman. Start your own thread.
I see a few issues here. I do believe you have a somewhat optimizer among a crowd of non-optimizers. But that is only one of many issues that compound together. You stated you (as a DM) minimize spell casting encounters. That plays to the advantage of someone min/maxing. Knowing this, I can avoid worrying about dex or wisdom. You also say, that good RP trumps die rolls for character interaction. Gosh, now, if I am good at chattin' up the DM, I can dump Int ( don't need to build up those interaction skills ) and I can dump Cha ( why bother, I can chat kewl) So the fighter character only needs to focus on Str and Con with no reprecussions of his other stat placement. Oh, and the build points are strong enough, he can just avoid any negatives if he wants.
Seems to me, the DM style encourages play of fighters.
Advise. Maybe instead of letting good "chattin' skill" of the player trump the ability of the character, you just give a modifier of +/- 2 based on the speechcraft of the player. Honestly, is it "good" roleplay if one's character sheet doesn't reflect what the player is doing? If I am RP'ing a fighter with great diplomatic skills...shouldn't that fighter show it on the character sheet? Otherwise, why bother with the sheet in the first place? Reminds me of a Vamp game I played and the Storyteller ignored the character builds and gave everything a percentile chance of working based on whimsy.
As for encounters, D&D is RICH in many great encounters, don't do a disservice to your players and avoid challenges. Let them play up to those challenges. By avoiding things that will hurt the fighter's weaknesses, it WILL be overpowered.
As for roleplay being too limiting because of a class system... I got nuttin. Been RPing for thirty some years, most of which has been some form of D&D. Not been a problem. Perhaps your players are hooked on the names. I have one player that always wanted to play a rogue. But then proceeded to do "fighter" things. With 3.5, I got him to do a swashbuckler that we called a rogue, LIFE WAS SOOOOO MUCH EASIER. weapon finesse dex build fighter with skills and charisma. Turned out it was just the name, when we finally analyzed the "theme" of wht he wanted to play, it wasn't a rogue. Anywho... I digress and forget all my points. Bedtime beckons.
Greg
|
|
Yeah, the fact that Fighters out-damage everyone is a good thing in my mind. They give up a whole lot of other stuff in order to be good at fighting. It comes as no surprise to me that they are good at it.
Fortunately, Pathfinder is much, much, more than just DPR. There are encounters in which you can't full attack at all, decreasing DPR significantly for classes like the Fighter and less for the Rogue (who gets lots of precision damage on one attack).
There are encounters that require skill rolls in order to move, in order to do damage, or simply in order to succeed. Some encounters can be easily bypassed with a single spell, or made very easy by a spell. Others are fairly spell-resistant.
The amount of contribution each character makes should not be equal in each encounter. It is my understanding that this is what 4th edition strives to be. A good Pathfinder game gives everyone a chance to shine at different times, and in different encounters.
If your party has a fighter, please give him some encounters that are best solved via lots of damage. It'll make that player happy.
Abraham: Heh, I guess this might seem absurd, but we play with 30-pt. buy. I know, I know - it's insane, right?
I'm not going to say it's insane, but it's part of why you have a fighter dominance problem.
Play with 10 point buy and the wizard looks a looooooooot better relative to the fighter than he does in 30 point buy.
The other problem is your unwillingness to use save or die / dominate / etc. against the party. That, too, is your choice, but you have to understand that the problems you're having are a direct result of it. Football would look a lot different if there was a rule that no one could tackle the quarterback, too.
Abraham: Heh, I guess this might seem absurd, but we play with 30-pt. buy. I know, I know - it's insane, right?
Not insane -- however such a deviation from the "standard" will screw up the results a lot. As Dire pointed out a very high point buy favors martial characters more.
This is because attack bonus and damage have no cap -- but magic does.
In a very real sense magic is much more limited than physical attacks due to the way the system is structured. No matter what point buy you use there is a "hard" cap on the DC of any spell. There is no such cap on save throw bonuses however. So the higher the point buy the higher the save throw bonuses can be while the DC of the spells stays the same.
The maximum stat you can have in a casting stat with the core rules (and including the APG) is 36 (there is a single side stepping exception I'll cover later and the alchemist). The maximum spell level is 9 and there is only four feats to boost DCs of spells: Elemental focus, greater elemental focus, spell focus and greater spell focus.
Basically put once you figure everything in you end up with a maximum DC range (depending on exact character class, build, items, and such) between 36~44. The absolute maximum DC is the siide step exception I mentioned earlier which uses the rage prophet to add Con Mod to the DC of a spell.
Since save bonuses and immunities can quickly render most SoD spells useless falling back on a melee damage time while offering support in the form of debuffing, buffing, and control of the battle field quickly becomes the spellcaster's best means of contributing (since damaging spells are hard capped, allow saves, SR, resistances and are harder to increase the damage of).
In lower point buy games you tend to have a better success rate on SoD spells since the GM generally sends weaker things at you (meaning lower save bonuses with the same maximums on DC of spells).
One of the things that has always befuddled me in playing this game is how some DMs seem to totally misunderstand the concept of "role playing."
"Role Playing" is not "Acting out in real life a convincing scenario so the DM decides your character succeeded at some social task or skill check."
That is simply acting.
"Role Playing" is "Acting out in real life what your character as conceived, drawn up and statted out to be, can actually do in game."
In other words, if your character has low charisma and the player does a beautiful job of acting out a scenario where he charms the skirt off a barmaid, that is not actually "role playing" because in game that character would have had virtually no chance of succeeding in that attempt. Giving people "role playing bonuses" when they act in a way that is completely counter to their character concept, stats and abilities is simply rewarding someone for NOT role playing.
I just don't see why so many DMs completely miss this aspect of the game.
One of the things that has always befuddled me in playing this game is how some DMs seem to totally misunderstand the concept of "role playing."
"Role Playing" is not "Acting out in real life a convincing scenario so the DM decides your character succeeded at some social task or skill check."
That is simply acting.
"Role Playing" is "Acting out in real life what your character as conceived, drawn up and statted out to be, can actually do in game.
In other words, if your character has low charisma and the player does a beautiful job of acting out a scenario where he charms the skirt off a barmaid, that is not actually "role playing" because in game that character would have had virtually no chance of succeeding in that attempt. Giving people "role playing bonuses" when they act in a way that is completely counter to their character concept, stats and abilities is simply rewarding someone for NOT role playing.
I just don't see why so many DMs completely miss this aspect of the game.
I am going to put this in my list because it is simple, yet elegantly stated.
Sorcerers can be quite goof at blasting. There's a halfling aberrant sorc in one of my games currently, we're level 12 and she's heck-on-wheels. One opponent? Scorching ray for 12d6 damage. Lots of enemies, chain lightning. Mooks? Fireball or lightning bolt. She isn't even very optimized, finesse is one of her feats. And the power attacking paladin with a big ol hammer could easily outdamage a fighter vs evil things. And well most things good guys fight are evil.
Two handed weapons should do more damage than a fist.
Oh and in our other game there's a fighter wannabe monk with improved unarmed strike, adamantine spiked plate mail, and a bunch of grapple and combat maneuver feats. He's not the best damage dealer (that goes to the vital strike druid charger or my bow ranger) but he picks the deadliest target in a fight and takes it out of the fight via grapple. He's like a melee save-or-suck spell. But ultimately if your making fights where melee can be used effectively, and making skill checks matter less than rp, then in your game greatsword wielding martial types will always dominate. (Not just fighters, rangers with instant enemy and palys vs evil will be as good if not better)
Shrug, you can make all kinds of concepts in pathfinder, just gotta use the class that fits it, rather than trying to change a class to meet your concept.
Personally I always pick race based on fluff and do my optimizing after the fact.
@cooperton
I am trying to say anything offensive but i have to ask that:
How does your sorcerer is able to hit reliable with scorching ray? (i am not even asking about reliable damage because this is a whole other discussion)
|
The fighter is just that, the guy who hits things until they break. I would expect him to be awesome at doing it. Anything else and it's the problem with 3.x all over again. In 3.x casters were the best, they could beat everyone else at pretty much anything they did. This is exemplified by the 3.x cleric or druid, or CODzilla.
Clerics have a spell called Divine power, which in 3.x gave them a fighter's Base attack Bonus, +6 strength, and 1 temporary hp/level, now it's just a flat +1 luck bonus to hit, damage, and strength checks for every 3 caster levels and +1 temp hp/level. This means that a str 14 cleric, suddenly transforms into the equivalent of a str 20 fighter, only he has spells instead of feats, and spells are way better than feats. Especially when you don't care about armor.
The classes are more balanced in Pathfinder than they ever were in 3.x. Remember, balance isn't just about performance in combat.
@leo, no offence taken. It's a fair question. We use a pretty generous rolling method, so she's got good dex. I believe she also has point blank shot and precise shot. Also she usually has greater invisibility up, so it's a flat-footed touch attack. Meaning most targets have an ac of 10 or lower.