He scryed on his familiar who scouted ahead, silly.
Batman's familiar is a ...
...robin.
You thought I was gonna say "bat" didn'cha.
A Wizzy with no CON is like a gambler who bets everything, winnings and all, every hand. Just a matter of time...
That used to be a lot more true, before d6 HD, favored class bonuses, an improved Toughness feat, and Pathfinder combined stat-boost items, which make the fighter pay a lot more for +2 Str and Con than the wizard pays for +2 to Con and Int.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He scryed on his familiar who scouted ahead, silly.
Batman's familiar is a ......robin.
You thought I was gonna say "bat" didn'cha.
Or alternatively.
*party fights mooks one tries to run away, fighter gives chase*
Wizard: No you fool! Let him be.
Fighter: But, but he'll warn the others!
Wizard: *eyes narrow orchestral music plays as shadow covers most of brooding wizard* Good.
*meeanwhile in BBEG's impentrable fortress*
Mook: Sir! Sir! The heroes are coming!
BBEG: Did they have a wizard among them?
Mook: Yes!
BBEG: YOU FOOL! YOU'VE DOOMED US ALL!
*party crashes through ceiling window for effect beigns annihilating room*
Welcome to scry and die sir. It's as old as some of the posters here.
Andy Ferguson:
You are a silly man.
I originally brought up the stat point in this thread, and my point is that wizards use intelligence for their effectiveness. Anything past that is for -survivability-, which is needed less for a ranged character, especially a caster who spends his time buffing himself and debuffing the enemies.
Melees (not just fighters) will usually use strength (or maybe dexterity) for their effectiveness. Anything past that is for survivability, which is needed most of all, out of all the roles, because they are, in fact, in danger more.
If, after reading that, you cannot grasp what that means, then I'm just going to write you off as too stubborn.
Your scenario where the wizard is being blinded and thus apparently rendered entirely useless is odd to me, seeing as a fighter would have a greater chance of being blinded based on base will saves alone, before you consider the fact that the fighter needs Str for attacks/Dex for AC/Con for health, meanwhile the wizard needs Int for spells/usually Con (but maybe Dex) for health (or AC), and then can do as he wishes. In addition to simple math and excluding any buffs the wizard has protected himself with to avoid such situations (indeed, most wizards use a "proactive" play style), your overall point is that magic (I'm assuming that it's magic, anyway - blinding a person by mundane means requires very specific circumstances, which would be hard to catch a wizard in) can beat a wizard, which is EXACTLY why we're discussing this.
This thread is not about who you want to root for. We are examining how the two types (martial and caster) compare to each other, and there is a very LARGE consensus that casters are better. I think most of use would like them to be more in line, and I'm glad you're fighting so avidly for your favorite (though you could tone down the logical fallacies a bit), but you can't say "WELL IF X, Y, AND Z HAPPENED FIGHTERS R TEH BESTEST," because it just doesn't apply to the conversation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If every class can be just as effective as another, then what is the point having different classes? So while it may not have been "balance" I was referring to, but I don't know what else I'd call it...
You're referring to balance, but you're confusing it with homogeneity. Homogeneity is what happens when you make everything the same. Balance is what happens when you make everything (roughly) the same in terms of effectiveness.
A good example is Team Fortress 2. It has a bunch of different classes, and they are fairly well-balanced. Some are easier to play, some are harder. Some can take punishment, some can dish it out. Some directly support their teammates and some require that support. Some are fast, some are slow. But at the end of the day, it's pretty hard to say that one is better than another in absolute terms. They're all good at certain things, and because TF2 is a team-based game (like D&D), everyone gets to shine (assuming they have the skill to pull it off).
The problem we're identifying here is that the Fighter has his niche where he shines, but the Wizard doesn't really have a niche. He can do anything he wants, and be pretty confident that he'll kick butt at it.
The wizard is spending all day buffed with minute per caster level spells?If someone hits you with blindness at least flight will allow you to fly full speed into a wall.The Wizard isn't blind, because he's already invisible, flying, displaced, mirrored, save-buffed, and probably a handful of other protections.
Your typical adventuring routine (clearing a dungeon) doesn't take all that long. Most Wizards can afford to burn the spell slots on making themselves invincible. Or they can afford wands/scrolls, because, again, they're not wasting phenomenal stacks of gold pieces on magic weapons and armor they don't need.
The wizard is spending all day buffed with minute per caster level spells?If someone hits you with blindness at least flight will allow you to fly full speed into a wall.The Wizard isn't blind, because he's already invisible, flying, displaced, mirrored, save-buffed, and probably a handful of other protections.
No he buffed himself after scrying the area ahead of time before coercing his planar bound slaves to teleport him there.
The wizard is Batman.
I actually ended up running Red Hand of Doom for the guy who wrote the Wizard's Guide to Being Batman (he and I happened to go to the same school). That was an educational campaign for me, as the DM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If every class can be just as effective as another, then what is the point having different classes? So while it may not have been "balance" I was referring to, but I don't know what else I'd call it...
I can't speak for others, but when I talk about balance I don't refer to combat or traveling or lockpicking or any one specific thing, I refer to narrative power on the whole. The question for me is, given a set of situations, how often does my character meaningfully contribute?
Now, 3e is a class based game, not a skills based game. Each class should ideally have some form of niche protection - this isn't just a 4e thing, you saw it in previous editions, too. The problem with the "caster unbalance" is twofold: first, that there is no niche protection from spellcasters. Second, narrative power.
Really, it comes down to two statements that cause the issues.
1) "If it can be done, magic must be able to do it." This is where niche protection vanishes.
2) "If it can be done with magic, it must be a spell available to PCs." WARNING! WARNING! This is my really big issue. Casters get "plot powers" that others don't.
Let me give two examples. First, is Wish. Wish is an incredibly powerful spell that's based entirely around narrative and plot changing powers. It's a fantastic plot hook! Wizards shouldn't get it. Wish is something that the DM uses as a plot point. Now, if you want PCs with such big plot powers, that's cool - but then the ability to at large change reality isn't something that should be limited to just one or two PCs.
The second example is Miracle. Miracle takes something that's incredibly rich narratively and turns it into an x/day mechanic. In other words, Miracle takes out the magic of having a deity. It also limits "The god hears your prayers and intercedes on your behalf" into something that only one class can do.
Wizards are most versatille,true.Combatwise,fighters>wizards.I think where you say "combatwise" you actually mean "stabbingwithaswordwise". There is almost no scenario (save a fight in an anti-magic field) where I would not feel confident that a Wizard would outshine a Fighter.I really dont know what are you talking about.No scenario?o.O
Well i dont know what game are you playing but untill mid lvls fighter is more usefull in combat in like 80% of scenarios...than on mid lvls is mostly equall and on very high lvls wizards starts to shine more.As i bet 95% of campaigns end around 13-15 lvl tops,i dont see any imbalance going in wizard favour,on the contrary.After that,yes.But before that,will almost always go for fighters in combats.
Cheers:)
If I'm a 1st-level Wizard, I'm preparing Color Spray/Sleep. If I'm a 3rd-level Wizard, I'm preparing Glitterdust. If I'm a 5th-level Wizard, I'm preparing Fly.
Wizards wipe out entire encounters at 1st-level. 1st-level Fighters hack away at things until they run out of hit points, and then have to call in the party Cleric (also a spellcaster) to fix them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To quote from elsewhere:
you don't need to cast all day long to rock the cazbah. you just need to cast when necessary. a combat encounter in 3.5 is usually done by the 4th round IMO so you might really only need to cast 2 spells... maybe. you start preparing spells that do heavier effects then a one-shot xd6 [element] or start comboing two spells together.
you start preparing scrolls for situational spells like "stone to flesh" and keep a wand of "knock" or "unseen servant" around... just in case.
your spell list suddenly becomes extremely versatile, especially if you keep a few slots open for later study when you know better what you're going to be doing that day.
you're flying, turing invisible, changing shape, bypassing all sorts of terrain without a care in the world, etc...
and the fighter is stuck swinging his sword. all. day. long.
the "caster is limited" is a myth once you realize you don't need to cast spells all day long. you just need to cast them when they matter.
Hmmm this isnt 1vs1.Or,1vs1c on early lvls ranged fighter will smack wizard most prolly.But its not about 1vs,its team game.
That's why I explained it in the context of a team game, not 1-on-1.
Take for example group of cleric,wizard and fighter.Untill mid lvl in very most of combats fighter will do most of jobs,for sure.
Sure, no one is saying he can't. Fighters are very good at hitting things with swords.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To quote from elsewhere:
you don't need to cast all day long to rock the cazbah. you just need to cast when necessary. a combat encounter in 3.5 is usually done by the 4th round IMO so you might really only need to cast 2 spells... maybe. you start preparing spells that do heavier effects then a one-shot xd6 [element] or start comboing two spells together.
you start preparing scrolls for situational spells like "stone to flesh" and keep a wand of "knock" or "unseen servant" around... just in case.
your spell list suddenly becomes extremely versatile, especially if you keep a few slots open for later study when you know better what you're going to be doing that day.
you're flying, turing invisible, changing shape, bypassing all sorts of terrain without a care in the world, etc...
and the fighter is stuck swinging his sword. all. day. long.
the "caster is limited" is a myth once you realize you don't need to cast spells all day long. you just need to cast them when they matter.
To go more into class and system design:
Ideally, in a class-based system, all classes should 1) Have something that is uniquely theirs, and 2) that something matters on the wide scale of the game. I cannot emphasize this enough - both of these must be present. If a class is really good at something and that something doesn't matter, you have an issue. If the class doesn't have anything unique to it's name, you have an issue.
So if you, for example, have a class that's really good at mobility, but your system punishes mobility with full attacks, then there's a problem. This is where monk threads originate from: the question of "Is the monk's 'cool thing' noteworthy enough to be of importance?" Alternately, if you have a class with relatively little to no abilities, then the class is often seen as being p. boring. Thus why so many people want alternate fighters that actually have unique abilities.
This is also where a class's role comes in. See, a role can be potentially anything. It doesn't have to straight out be "do damage, absorb damage, heal." A role to put it simply is "a specialization that the system rewards." So you can have a system with all those but then sub-specializations (does damage with fire, does damage by backstabbing) or other roles entirely (buffs players, debuffs enemies, enables players).
You might note that so far this has been all combat based. That's because D&D (in comparison to other systems) is a very combat heavy game. In a view of combat roles, the problem the wizards has is threefold. One, spells are better then feats for applying role specializations. Two, spells can be changed. Three, spells are more versatile outside of pure specializations. Now this doesn't always hold true - fighters who specialize enough can beat spellcasters at "do damage." The problem there is that "do damage" is a subspecialty of "eliminate the enemy," which in turn can be done through spells that kill or paralyze or otherwise neutralize enemies instantaniously, be it wizard SoDs or cleric SoDs.
This problem of "do damage" being a subspecialty is one somewhat unique to 3e. Previous editions had save or die spells, but due to how saves were handled, they were far, far less likely to work on higher level opponents. And enemies had much more limited health, meaning doing damage mattered more.
Once we leave combat though, we see the real issue with wizards. In a skills based game, roles not only don't have to be combat related, they likely aren't in the first place. In the Eclipse Phase game I'm in, all the characters are good at combat with only one being "extra good;" everyone else's specializations lie outside of combat. Legends of Anglerre* handles it differently from that, encouraging having only one character based on "combat" (who still has skills in other things of course) and having other players "build him up" rather then everyone plink away.
But D&D isn't skills based, it's class based, and here we hit our major issue - the skills system. Normally in a class based system, each class has their own set of skills they're good at. Warriors get warrior related skills, bards get bard related skills, with some overlap. 3e - and really, D20 on the whole, because it's the D20 that's at fault here - tries to mesh a class-based system with a universal skills-based system, and the end results are messy. You have fighters with only two skill points because screw them I guess, while rangers get 6 skill points. Fighters have a list of "class skills," but rather then have access to all of them, they can only choose a limited amount. The D20 skills system suffers powerfully from trying to melt a class-based and universal skills based system together.
To call back to my previous example, Legends of Anglerre is a FATE based skills system. "Melee weapons" is a skill just as "Athletics" is just as "Investigation" is just as "burglary" is just as "Fists" is. All skills are given equal weight. And all characters get the same amount.
So, the skills system is <curse word>ed. How does this relate to balance? Simple: spells can replace anything. I'm serious! There's almost no skill that doesn't have a spell substitute in some way - and as you get higher in level, spells start replacing multiple skills. Even worse, as spells get higher level, they transcend the skills system entirely. There is no skill that lets you fly. There is no skill that lets you create earthquakes or control the weather or cast Wish.
In other words, 3e has a three tiered system. Combat, Skills, and Spells. Combat is basically fighting. Skills is basically mundane exploration and fantasy usage outside of combat, though skills can come into play with combat. Spells is advanced narrative power beyond the scope of skills...and it intercedes with skills...and it intercedes with fighting.
*For reference sake, LoA is currently my fantasy game of choice
informative stuff
I like your post.
I have limited experience of roleplay systems outside of d20, and most of what I have played in d20 is Dungeons and Dragons 3.5e and Pathfinder, with a small amount of others.
However, under the assumption your analysis is correct, this brings a lot of things into perspective and helps everyone understand the situation a bit better. While this leads to a conclusion, it doesn't in itself offer one.
It's not always a direct trade off, either. (I may speak for myself, but) I don't think we want fighters who can somehow perform a mundane version of Fireball, simply because the wizard can cast that spell. I think we just want fighters to be of actual use, in his own terms, instead of the wizard overriding his role with spells.
There are plenty who see and accept the imbalance between classes - my roommate/GM understands wizards can do everything better, but he doesn't mind. This originates from my group's mentality: play what you want to have fun with. In a more competitive setting (where it might be players wanting to outshine other players, or players vs GM, or maybe both), the differences in classes become a more of a problem. There's nothing wrong with competitive scenes, and I like them just as much as the way I currently play, but noting a problem's existence and explaining why it's like that doesn't fix it.
|
Are you fighters and wizards and such still babbling? Clearly us middle classers are the way to go. We have a better-than-your-fighter melee monster, 2 actions each per turn, battlefield control, buffing, and healing all rolled up. Our party of 2 Druids 2 summoners would crush your standard adventuring party, putting out more damage and more battlefield control than anyone. We would miss no classes, and since I'm so lovable I can even use the wands of other classes if I need to (I have no idea why I would though; my own spells are so great).
So wizards may need fighters, and fighters certainly need casters. But us pet classes can take the dungeon on our own, thank you very much.
Are you fighters and wizards and such still babbling? Clearly us middle classers are the way to go. We have a better-than-your-fighter melee monster, 2 actions each per turn, battlefield control, buffing, and healing all rolled up. Our party of 2 Druids 2 summoners would crush your standard adventuring party, putting out more damage and more battlefield control than anyone. We would miss no classes, and since I'm so lovable I can even use the wands of other classes if I need to (I have no idea why I would though; my own spells are so great).
So wizards may need fighters, and fighters certainly need casters. But us pet classes can take the dungeon on our own, thank you very much.
BARBARIAN AM SEEING PARTY LIKE DIS ONCE.
BARBARIAN AM HAVE OWN STANDARD ADVENTURING PARTY.
AM BARBARIAN/BARBARIAN/FIGHTY/FIGHTY. USED TO BE DRUID OVER OTHER BARBARIAN, BUT BARBARIAN SMASH AFTER HE AM AWAKENING BATTY BAT. AM NEVER ENOUGH BARBARIAN.
AM THE BEST PARTY. ONCE FOUGHT BUNCHA SUMMUNYGUYS. THEY AM CASTY BLOWY MAGIC WALL THINGY.
BARBARIAN AM SMASH BLOWY MAGIC WALL THINGY WITH RAGELANCE ON BATTY BAT.
THEY AM NOT HOLD UP SO WELL WHEN FIGHTYS AM SHOOTY ARROWS IN FACE. THINGYS THAT AM FULL ROUND ACTION SUMMON AM NOT HOLD UP WELL AGAINST POUNCE WITH LANCE. BEST PARTY AM CLEARLY BARBARIAN PARTY.
rage ain't got nothing on mutagen alchemist get meaner faster longer and with less penalty and if that is not enough i got potions.
middle classes revolt!!!
rage ain't got nothing on mutagen alchemist get meaner faster longer and with less penalty and if that is not enough i got potions.
middle classes revolt!!!
BARBARIAN AM ABLE TO PUNCH PRISM SHINEY WALL OUT OF EXISTENCE BY BEING MAD AT WALL.
AM LOVE TO SEE ALCHEMIST DO THIS WITH WIMPY NOODLEY ARMS.
WELL? AM WAITING.
rage ain't got nothing on mutagen alchemist get meaner faster longer and with less penalty and if that is not enough i got potions.
middle classes revolt!!!
BARBARIAN AM ABLE TO PUNCH PRISM SHINEY WALL OUT OF EXISTENCE BY BEING MAD AT WALL.
AM LOVE TO SEE ALCHEMIST DO THIS WITH WIMPY NOODLEY ARMS.
WELL? AM WAITING.
(a mutagen and enlarge person later which can easily bring me to 20 or better str)
bring it tiny
(a mutagen and enlarge person later which can easily bring me to 20 or better str)bring it tiny
Unfortunately in the two rounds it took to accomplish this the barbarian got in two full attacks.
Unfortunately in the two rounds it took to accomplish this the barbarian got in two full attacks.
(a mutagen and enlarge person later which can easily bring me to 20 or better str)bring it tiny
oh right but i have all the time in the world via fly or invisibility a alchemist can lay the hurt on a baddy with no where near the same burned resources as the wiz
|
|
Can't my Eidilon do this with 1/10th the resources? I mean, he starts with a 20 strength, can be enlarged or hasted (or if we are 8+ starts large and can be made huge), and can be evolution surged into flight and / or see invisible if we are at that level. Alchemist has nothing on.., well, anyone... alchemist gets to sit with the rogues and monks in the back corner while the rest of us fight this out.
rage ain't got nothing on mutagen alchemist get meaner faster longer and with less penalty and if that is not enough i got potions.
middle classes revolt!!!
Psst Middle classes ARE casters just so's you know.
oh right but i have all the time in the world via fly or invisibility a alchemist can lay the hurt on a baddy with no where near the same burned resources as the wizUnfortunately in the two rounds it took to accomplish this the barbarian got in two full attacks.
(a mutagen and enlarge person later which can easily bring me to 20 or better str)bring it tiny
People always tend to think of fly and invisibility as great defenses for casters but in all honesty, everyone flies past 10 lvl or so and the farther up in level you go the more likely it is that your walking around with true vision. So no, those don't help you.
Can't my Eidilon do this with 1/10th the resources? I mean, he starts with a 20 strength, can be enlarged or hasted (or if we are 8+ starts large and can be made huge), and can be evolution surged into flight and / or see invisible if we are at that level. Alchemist has nothing on.., well, anyone... alchemist gets to sit with the rogues and monks in the back corner while the rest of us fight this out.
Your eidolon is only as strong as you are unfortunately...so the barbarian's answer to it is to ignore it and kill you instead. When you go so does it.
Any squishy casters looking for a bodyguard? i'll gladly help. unlike these silly martials, i actually enjoy pain and i won't complain if i get a little beat up. *brandishes unholy symbol of Zon-Kuthon*
rage ain't got nothing on mutagen alchemist get meaner faster longer and with less penalty and if that is not enough i got potions.
middle classes revolt!!!
BARBARIAN AM ABLE TO PUNCH PRISM SHINEY WALL OUT OF EXISTENCE BY BEING MAD AT WALL.
AM LOVE TO SEE ALCHEMIST DO THIS WITH WIMPY NOODLEY ARMS.
WELL? AM WAITING.
(a mutagen and enlarge person later which can easily bring me to 20 or better str)
bring it tiny
BARBARIAN AM TALKING ABOUT SPELL SUNDER. GEEZ YOU AM SUCH NOOBLETS.
HEY, AM EIDOLON ONGOING MAGIC EFFECT? BARBARIAN THNKING AM SUNDER EIDOLON, NOT HAS TO CARE ABOUT HPS. ONLY AM CMD+15 TO DISPEL.
OR AM JUST FULL ATTACK. TWICE. BARBARIAN AM SMASH ALL.
i just derailed a derailment. where is Evil Lincoln? i win also
middle classes woot!!
|
|
Wait, That balanced silly party is better? At no point; we'll outdamage your front line, take your lunch money, buff our pets, AOO you into Oblivion, and laugh. Just comes down to action economy.
In the dungeon, our damage output glut, summons, etc makes us able to go further and end combats faster. Spells that should not be as low level as they are make cheaper meta-magic rods do far more. We can work on any stat buy, have great diplomats, good saves, and everything.
Meanwhile you have 2 front line to our 4, and ours each almost keep up in DPS. Both teams have DPS and save-or-sucks or buffs, we just have more.
Balanced parties. What a laugh!
Wait, That balanced silly party is better? At no point; we'll outdamage your front line, take your lunch money, buff our pets, AOO you into Oblivion, and laugh. Just comes down to action economy.
In the dungeon, our damage output glut, summons, etc makes us able to go further and end combats faster. Spells that should not be as low level as they are make cheaper meta-magic rods do far more. We can work on any stat buy, have great diplomats, good saves, and everything.
Meanwhile you have 2 front line to our 4, and ours each almost keep up in DPS. Both teams have DPS and save-or-sucks or buffs, we just have more.
Balanced parties. What a laugh!
AM STILL NO ARGUMENT FOR BALANCED, FACE-SMASH PORTFOLIO. AMINALS CANNOT RIDE BATTY BAT. ONLY BARBARIAN RIDE BATTY BAT.
ALSO FIGHTYS SOMETIMES RIDE ON BACK. THEY AM COOL WITH BARBARIAN, THEY AM GOOD AT SHOOTYS.
BARBARIAN AM RECCOMENDATION OF DIVERSIFIED PORTFOLIO OF SMASH, AS COMPANIONS AM DELIGHTFULLY SQUISHY, MUCH AM MAGES.
ACTION ECONOMY AM IRRELEVANT IF YOU AM HOLDING DIVERSIFIED PORTFOLIO OF SMASH. ACTIONS AM NEEDING TO MEAN SOMETHING FOR TO AM BEING GOOD.
THIS POST AM BROUGHT TO YOU BY BARBARIAN FINANCIAL INSTITUTE.
Wait, That balanced silly party is better? At no point; we'll outdamage your front line, take your lunch money, buff our pets, AOO you into Oblivion, and laugh. Just comes down to action economy.
In the dungeon, our damage output glut, summons, etc makes us able to go further and end combats faster. Spells that should not be as low level as they are make cheaper meta-magic rods do far more. We can work on any stat buy, have great diplomats, good saves, and everything.
Meanwhile you have 2 front line to our 4, and ours each almost keep up in DPS. Both teams have DPS and save-or-sucks or buffs, we just have more.
Balanced parties. What a laugh!
The major problem is that you are touting your ability to do all this spell casting. Barbarians don't care about spell casting. Superstition + rerolls make them basically immune to all saves. In addition, they can dispell any spell or spell-like ability in the game with a sunder check. Good luck with your barbarian stomping attempts. Your pet will be dead in the first round. Come and Get Me is a beautiful thing when a Barbarian has 6 AoO. You can not trade blows with a barbarian...they win.
This whole thread is about wanting the melee classes to have the capabilities that the barbarian now has. Barbarians are right now the only class that can go toe to toe with a full fledged spell caster and not have their ass handed to them in the first round.
Barbarians are king. Fighters struggle. But I wonder about Ranger's and Paladin's. They are both pretty strong classes as well.
What we need is some skills that can counter magic. For example, Knowledge(magic) ought to be able to create a Dispel Magic effect. Knowledge(religion) ought to be able to create a Magic Circle Against Evil effect.
No thank you.
You're right about a decent monk though, as long as there are saving throws involved (and there aren't always). Someone's gonna come along and argue that an über-caster isn't subject to this kind of thing, but whatever.
No thank you.Can I get you to explain why?
I can.
Because those classes that would benefit most from it would not take it as those are not on their class skill lists. Plus, the spelcasters can still take the skills. The idea is interesting but the execution would not work.
Ninja'd by Tark.
Also, it just strikes me as the kind of change that will have cascading consequences. I'm not saying "under no circumstances would this ever be acceptable"... if you were willing to do the work to reconcile these applications with the setting and the rest of the rules, fine.
Just dropped in, though, it would probably cause more problems than it solved.
*wonders how his player's 3.5 monk would have been affected by a PF upgrade*
Not that much. Monks have always had good saves and workable mobility. Only envelope-pushing players would devalue monk saves on the basis of caster expertise at bypassing saving throws. The case can be made, but it doesn't honestly come up for most of players...
|
I was more thinking of the time he took a rakshasa and fire giant on by himself for a few rounds while the fighter and cleric caught up. Stunning Fist prevented the rakshasa from doing anything while he pummeled the fire giant. When the giant's greatsword was dealing too much damage, he took it away from the giant and threw it behind himself. Then stopped the giant's overrun attempt with his AoO. Pretty boss encounter, but I wonder if CMD rules would have ruined it.
I was more thinking of the time he took a rakshasa and fire giant on by himself for a few rounds while the fighter and cleric caught up. Stunning Fist prevented the rakshasa from doing anything while he pummeled the fire giant. When the giant's greatsword was dealing too much damage, he took it away from the giant and threw it behind himself. Then stopped the giant's overrun attempt with his AoO. Pretty boss encounter, but I wonder if CMD rules would have ruined it.
Doubtful. I've seen a monk make a balloon animal out of an adult black dragon in PF. CMB/D is gamed a little differently, but monks are still the winners of that game (well, just behind fighters, actually).
You guys totally have it wrong about the middle caster classes. They aren't replacing the beatsticks at all.
They just mean AM BARBARIAN and STR RANGER don't have to hang out with weakling nerds or metro pretty boys anymore :)
I'll adventure with an Inquisitor, Arcane Duelist or Magus any day over that killjoy with the wussy glasses and rat on his shoulder.
This is Pathfinder, after all, not Hogwart's.
Hell, last time we all went out for a drink, the geek didn't come (said he wanted to READ), then AM BARBARIAN had to punch out the Sorcerer for looking at the barmaid he'd been 'celebrating' with. At least the bard isa good wingman.