A Simple Proposition: an Argument Against Martial Inferiority


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 212 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

...
..
.

Things used to be worse.

Back on the WotC forums, "fighters suck" and "how to fix the fighter" threads were on the front page, every day. Here in the greener pastures of Pathfinder territory, the arguments aren't quite as common (and they're often a fair bit more civil), but it is an issue I've seen trending lately. And I have a simple proposition for any party interested in this subject. Skip to the final paragraphs, if you'd like to get right to the proposition itself - it's going to require a little audience-participation.

Let me make my stance clear, first: I don't think there's anything wrong with the non-casting classes. Not a thing. I think they fill the roles they were meant to fill as nicely as can be expected - and as nicely as the casters do. I also think that there is truth in the extremes. For example, let's address - to use the iconic offenders on either side of this argument - the idea that a wizard is better than a fighter.

If this is true, a party of wizards is superior to a party of fighters. If casters really are the flat-out better class types, then the best thing any party can do is to include nothing but full-casters. And if wizards are the "brokenest" of them all, then a party of wizards is the only logical choice, from a tactical standpoint. Why build a party out of inferior class choices if you don't have to?

Do I think a wizard can "beat" a fighter of equal level? Yes, I do. It's a fair match at lower levels, but at higher levels, it's usually no contest. A mid-to-high-level wizard will slay an equally-high-level fighter outright, nine times out of ten.

But does that mean the wizard is better? Why should it? Pathfinder isn't Rock-Em, Sock-Em Robots. It's a simulationist fantasy game. It's a tactical exercise in teamwork and team dynamics. It's an adventure game, not a pen-and-paper Street Fighter analogue.

So let's make this about the party. If one class is better than any other - can fill any and every role - then why bother building a team out of multiple classes? Let's build a team out of members of a single class. The BEST class, whatever that means to you. Is it wizards? Druids?

You - the good people of the forums and participants in the Great Debate that has been so prevalent in the tabletop world since gods-know-when - build the teams, and I'll run them through level-appropriate, tried-and-true adventure scenarios. The idea is simple: we'll see how the "best classes" making up the "best party" fare as a team against textbook D&D / fantasy scenarios.

Let's put our monies where our mouths are.

Four characters.
One class.
High-Fantasy point-buy (20 points).
Standard wealth-by-level.
Use the Core Rulebook, the GameMaster's Guide, all the Bestiaries, the Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic.

You can build characters at any level, and I will produce level-appropriate results. Keep in mind that the mid-level range is where most people spend most of their time playing. It's also where the alleged problems start.

I'd really like to see this get off the ground; I'm deeply curious. I'm also open-minded. I think summoners would fare exceptionally well, for example. But on the whole, I hope to demonstrate that martial classes fill necessary roles, and fill them well.

What do the forums say to my proposition?

The Exchange

Oooooh dear. I better get my popcorn: there're going to be fireworks. ;)


I say you have caught my interest.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

I am considering doing a "Best Party" event at PaizoCon. The event would be for four man parties at level 6, PFS legal character with wealth by level gear. The party would be ran through a dungeon with a time limit of one hour. There would be a scoring system, and the team with the highest score would win.

Right now, the idea is on the drawing board.

So, back to your idea. Are you asking for a party made up of all one class? Or are you asking for a party made up of any combination we want?

What about archetypes?


Of course there's a place for fighters!

After they fail their Charm Person roll, the enemy party needs somebody to act as a meat shield.


I appreciate your well written argument and proposal.

I disagree with one of your arguments, however. I don't think that it matters if a Wizard can kill a Fighter, or if a party of Wizards can trounce a party of Fighters. I think what matters in a caster/martial disparity is that a party containing X, Y, Z, Fighter, and Wizard, the Fighter will get frequently and consistently overshadowed by the Wizard.

Dark Archive

CalebTGordan wrote:
So, back to your idea. Are you asking for a party made up of all one class?

Correct - four members of the "best" class, whatever that means to you, making up what would logically, then, be the "best" party.

Use all the archetypes (and all the other content) from the books I mentioned to your heart's content.

Dark Archive

Blueluck wrote:

I appreciate your well written argument and proposal.

I disagree with one of your arguments, however. I don't think that it matters if a Wizard can kill a Fighter, or if a party of Wizards can trounce a party of Fighters. I think what matters in a caster/martial disparity is that a party containing X, Y, Z, Fighter, and Wizard, the Fighter will get frequently and consistently overshadowed by the Wizard.

Blueluck, I hear you loud and clear. It's that very idea (that class x makes class y irrelevant) that I hope to produce evidence against (or for, if that's the way it goes) by way of this proposal.


I feel obligated to say Master Summoner, Master Summoner, Master Summoner, and Master Summoner. Any level really. One guy picks up Rich Parents to start with a wand of clw. Eidolons are mostly irrelevant.

Dark Archive

Cheapy wrote:
I feel obligated to say Master Summoner, Master Summoner, Master Summoner, and Master Summoner. Any level really. One guy picks up Rich Parents to start with a wand of clw. Eidolons are mostly irrelevant.

Yeah - I don't know if summoners are really all that "broken" in the grand scheme of things, but they're really, really self-sufficient.

Liberty's Edge

I think Cheapy's right. That party is probably followed closely by 4 regular summoners, 4 oracles, 4 clerics, and finally 4 druids to round out the top 5.

Dark Archive

I actually think Master Summoner, Regular Summoner, 2 Synthasists will do better in generic scenarios. As funny as the master summoner dungeon-flood is, the tank setup is far more powerful. The regular summoner will buff, master will be high-Cha, and the 2 Synthasists will be a small dex build that will get a Amulet of agility and charge up riding the other one... a medium sized pounce-monster.

Dark Archive

2nd would probably be Druids, then team ranger. Basically versatile characters with access to cures (or Cha incentive for UMD) + free pet-tanks are going to rule any "battle of 4". I don't think those do as well as the Summoner though.

Liberty's Edge

I didn't think about team ranger, they've got good skills and really good combat ability, but they're still going to be limited against certain scenarios like "Get to the top of the mountain in less than 2 minutes to stop the BBEG."

I do think you're right about druids though, that team would be amazing in and out of combat.

I'm curious how team inquisitor would do.


If only someone would come up with a way to compare the different four person groups ....


I want to say 4 bards just because they are awesome though in reality its probably the summoners.

Actually on second thought, I'm throwing in my vote for four alchemists, seriously that class does it all once you throw in archetypes.

Sczarni RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

I for one am thinking about creating a team of four fighters just to take him up on this challenge.

I am going to guess that four fighters should be able to make it through fights at most levels. At the very least, I hope that a team of fighters should be able to show they can at least do some surprising things.

Now I just need time to create the four fighters. I am thinking of going for two melee, one ranged, and one switch hitter that covers what is needed.

I am worried though. How the PC is played is just as important as the build.


Team Four Fighters would have a hell of a time in an actual campaign, because as relatively inflexible as they are in combat compared to most classes, they're completely hosed out of combat. Fighters don't get to be even kind of good at anything besides combat.

I like Team Four Alchemists' chances, just because the class is absurdly versatile.

As far as Team Inquisitor goes, I think they'd be fine because they pass the basic bars (can heal, is either moderately survivable or has tanking pets), but I'd mostly be interested in seeing all those teamwork feats in a pile.

Also, speaking of teamwork feats, there's a few that get a lot more interesting in a monoparty, like Amplified Rage, and I think that Team Cavalier would be hilarious with the mounted ones.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
I didn't think about team ranger, they've got good skills and really good combat ability, but they're still going to be limited against certain scenarios like "Get to the top of the mountain in less than 2 minutes to stop the BBEG."

That isn't a problem with the character classes, ShadowcatX, it is a problem with the DM. My philosophy is this: NEVER put your players in a situation where they absolutely cannot stop the situation from happening because, well they should have had a wizard in the group. And I am going to punish them because they don't.

Bad form. I am not saying that your players should expect to win all the time, because defeats every now and them make far more appreciative of those wins. If the DM knows ahead of time that they party (without an arcane caster) has to travel many miles in mere minutes or seconds, then you should give them access to the means of doing so. Maybe a set of charged boots of teleportation they discovered on the last adventure. Can be used three times before becoming non-magical (so that they don't go too much over wealth-by-level guidelines). Or something similar.

That is one problem that I see with a lot of DMs, who seek to punish the players if no one sucks it up and plays a class he favors. No cleric or druid or paladin or ranger or bard who selects healing spells? Well, now, the local clergy don't sell their healing, not in this town. Cure potions? Remove disease? Nah . . . serves them right for not having the sense to have a cleric.

That is one example of what I am talking about. Even without having a divine or arcane caster in the party as a player, that does not and should not mean that the party doesn't have some access to certain spells that the DM feels are 100% necessary to finish an adventure. To do otherwise is to actively punish the players for building the character that they want to play. In a game where the sole purpose is to have fun.

And that ain't no fun.

Master Arminas


I find this intriguing--it'll be nice to prove how overpowered casters are. I think I'll be back eventually to post a Sorcerer party--I know Wizards and Witches are better, but they're easier to make for a blind scenario that I won't be there for. I mean, how could I prepare spells for such an open ended problem?

Right now, I'm thinking level 15. At the moment, I believe that I'll use a summoning focused Sorcerer with the Abyssal bloodline and Superior Summons (3 tanks per spell!), a Seeker Sorcerer with the Sage bloodline (for the skill monkey), a Verdant Sorcerer (for control), and for the hell of it, a Crossblooded Draconic/Primal or Orc Sorcerer (for some pure blasting for the hell of it).

It is going to take me a while for this, though.


Garden Tool wrote:
opening post

This comes up all the time. Before you get too deep into this I suggest you do some searches, and come up with a point that can't/won't be countered. This will most likely turn into a caster vs non-caster debate.

I will give the common reasons as to not always play the so called best class. The game is not about winning. It is about fun, and if I(most of us) can have more fun playing a superior class that is what most will do.
From an in game perspective not everyone can do magical things so it makes sense for those who can use weapons to be valuable.

Now I will read the rest of the thread.

edit:You running other people's characters won't work because of differences in playstyle, and the GM'ing they are used to. There will be a lot of "I would not do that" if the character dies.

I am sure other reasons will pop up.

Liberty's Edge

Part of the issue here is that the problem goes beyond party vs. party combat. It's always been about the number of roles each class is capable of filling, and the number of obstacles each class is capable of overcoming.

Convince a lord to let you cross his lands? Diplomacy or charm person are two obvious solutions. The fighter has neither. The wizard's also more likely to speak the native tongue and to have even heard of the guy they're supposed to talk to.
Scale a cliff, cross a pit? The fighter might fail a roll and fall, taking damage. The wizard likely flies over.
Kill a monster? Fighter swings a sword, wizard casts stone to flesh. Admittedly advantage fighter.
Occupy tactical space on the battlefield? A chain fighter has a 5x5 area he can threaten. A wizard has wall spells, web, solid fog, summon monster...
Survive overmatched fights that might not even last past the surprise round? A fighter might never get to act before he's dead. The wizard's contingency triggers, teleporting him back home or dimension dooring him far enough away such that it doesn't matter.
Perform two quests at once? Well, both could hire somebody, but a wizard would be better at getting extraplanar/more powerful help.

So it's never really been about who could kill who - or at least, it hasn't to me. It's always been about who has the right tools to survive a situation or accomplish a particular task. If the wizard repeatedly demonstrates that he can do everything the campaign requires with a standard action, then the fighter starts to feel a little superfluous.

Of course, it's all irrelevant if you have players who respect the roles of the other PCs at the table and just focus on doing their job really well. Not only does this make things more enjoyable by making sure everyone has fun, but it improves the party's power by allowing a specialized economy. A wizard who is dealing damage either with spells or through summoning isn't going to be as effective at buffing and battlefield control, even if spell count isn't a limiting factor (because action economy is.) But a wizard who leaves damage to the much more efficient fighter will be better in the other two listed areas and, by focusing more and allowing the fighter to focus on damage, increases the overall power of the party.

So, long story short, relative class power doesn't matter with players who value each other's fun.


wraithstrike wrote:
The game is not about winning. It is about fun,

blasphemy


"Woe unto those who call upon its fell name. For it is nigh impossible with humanoid tongues. To utter a syllable is to invite madness most foul."


Joyd wrote:

Team Four Fighters would have a hell of a time in an actual campaign, because as relatively inflexible as they are in combat compared to most classes, they're completely hosed out of combat. Fighters don't get to be even kind of good at anything besides combat.

I like Team Four Alchemists' chances, just because the class is absurdly versatile.

^This. A team of four Alchemists can have a dedicated tank, dedicated healer/buffer, dedicated sneak, and dedicated ranged damage-dealer (though this is a bit redundant, since they're all good at that) - without archetypes. Throw archetypes in and you have Chirurgeons for the healing, Preservationists and/or Reanimators for Battlefield Control, Vivisectionist for your dedicated sneak, Ragechemist for your tank. There's also Psychonauts for wizardly things like scrying (probably better for a Psychonaut to double as a sneak).

Furthermore, if all four of these guys take Infusion, they'll have one hell of a broad choice of extracts to choose from, available in just one minute.


Caster-Martial Disparity God wrote:
"Woe unto those who call upon its fell name. For it is nigh impossible with humanoid tongues. To utter a syllable is to invite madness most foul."

BARDICSCIMITARPOUNCE!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
master arminas wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
I didn't think about team ranger, they've got good skills and really good combat ability, but they're still going to be limited against certain scenarios like "Get to the top of the mountain in less than 2 minutes to stop the BBEG."

That isn't a problem with the character classes, ShadowcatX, it is a problem with the DM. My philosophy is this: NEVER put your players in a situation where they absolutely cannot stop the situation from happening because, well they should have had a wizard in the group. And I am going to punish them because they don't.

Bad form. I am not saying that your players should expect to win all the time, because defeats every now and them make far more appreciative of those wins. If the DM knows ahead of time that they party (without an arcane caster) has to travel many miles in mere minutes or seconds, then you should give them access to the means of doing so. Maybe a set of charged boots of teleportation they discovered on the last adventure. Can be used three times before becoming non-magical (so that they don't go too much over wealth-by-level guidelines). Or something similar.

That is one problem that I see with a lot of DMs, who seek to punish the players if no one sucks it up and plays a class he favors. No cleric or druid or paladin or ranger or bard who selects healing spells? Well, now, the local clergy don't sell their healing, not in this town. Cure potions? Remove disease? Nah . . . serves them right for not having the sense to have a cleric.

That is one example of what I am talking about. Even without having a divine or arcane caster in the party as a player, that does not and should not mean that the party doesn't have some access to certain spells that the DM feels are 100% necessary to finish an adventure. To do otherwise is to actively punish the players for building the character that they want to play. In a game where the sole purpose is to have fun.

And that ain't no fun.

Master Arminas

Do you avoid using magical traps if the group doesn't have a rogue? Do you avoid using diplomacy checks if everyone dumps charisma? Do you avoid using flying enemies if your group lacks an archaist and archer? I don't. My bad guys fight to win, not to give my pcs a fair shot. Then again, my pcs aren't interested in giving the bad guys a fair shot either.

Now my example was a bit over the top, and there was a reason for that. It is one of the many examples that will come up in play where an all caster party shrugs its shoulders and moves on as though it wasn't there while it presents an absolute unbeatable challenge for characters who don't have magic.


Uhm. I'm the first that as a gm give less money of what intended by developers at each level. This is good for game balance, I think. Even if you don't make this choice, I have to remember that rules permits EVERY char to take 4 different magic items +5 saving throw bonus that stacks (see under create magic item chart). This means a +20 on all saving throws with an expense of little more than 100k. Let's assume even more, if you want all in one item, but is less than 200k. Now add base bonuses and those derived from feats and untyped sources.
Now how a caster can defeat an enemy? Fighter, rogue or bard, doesn't matter. A fighter in my team focused on defense, at 9th level he can do from 40 to 70 dmg, depending if he can take full attack, if he crits, etc. He got good saving throws, since he even took iron will and has decent wisdom.
So, I revival the thread. Not only you should post a team build, but also builds that are expected to survive from level 1 to 20, not in an arena.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX said wrote:

Do you avoid using magical traps if the group doesn't have a rogue? Do you avoid using diplomacy checks if everyone dumps charisma? Do you avoid using flying enemies if your group lacks an archaist and archer? I don't. My bad guys fight to win, not to give my pcs a fair shot. Then again, my pcs aren't interested in giving the bad guys a fair shot either.

Now my example was a bit over the top, and there was a reason for that. It is one of the many examples that will come up in play where an all caster party shrugs its shoulders and moves on as though it wasn't there while it presents an absolute unbeatable challenge for characters who don't have magic.

Oh, I use traps. I just don't use Tomb of Horrors style traps that can't be disarmed or bypassed. No Rogue? Disarming that magic trap is out of the question--but there is a way around it. Somehow. But in all my years of playing and DMing, I have never seen a party without a rogue--they are too useful. I have seen parties without wizards or sorcerers. Of course this was in 3.5 where it cost double skill points for non-class skills--and skills was a big part of what made the rogue so popular.

And there is a reason that not everyone in my party dumps Charisma (and Intelligence and Wisdom and Strength) like the optimization guides suggest. My players and I look upon someone who comes to the table with an optimized character as a munchkin. Personal preference, perhaps, but if you show up with an 18 Con, a 20 Int, a 14 Dex, and a 7-8 in Str, Wis, and Cha you will be laughed away from our table. Moderation and balance in all things results in a far better RPG experience than Thog angry; Thog SMASH. Nonsense like ragepounchlance gets a snort and a liberal red pen taken to the character sheet.

And maybe I am being naive, but tell me, has the game changed so radically that the fighter who prefers a bastard sword or the rouge with twin short swords or the ranger with a great sword somehow prohibited from carrying a secondary weapon? I remember several great characters I had the honor of playing with--and a few that I played--who might not have been the best at archery, but we all carried bows just in case. Heck, I once had a half-orc fighter who carried twenty-six different weapons, including a maul and an orcish shot put! As in that iron ball used in the Olympics. Only a few were magic, but I certainly had something for every conceivable circumstance.

Yes, there is a tendacy in the game for players to want to be the best at what they do: which is why we have optimization guides and arguments over DPR olympics. And they want to win. NPCs want to win as well. But the DM should never become invested in that sort of mutal assured destruction of winning at all costs. It is suppossed to be a game, it is suppossed to be fun. And, yes, if my party of 7th level characters decides--against my stern warnings and advice--to climb the mountain and confront an adult red dragon in its lair, they will die. If they decide to do that. But I don't ever deliberately design a game scenario where I am assured of a total party kill.

Perhaps I am spoiled by the quality of my players, but my group uses research to find out about their opponents and then they decide if they can take them. And I don't try to confuse the issue and obfuscate things to deliberately make them get in over the their heads. Now, when they meet their opponents, I don't pull punches. Characters do die, but there is a difference between a DM who believes that only one side (DM or party) can win and acts accordingly, and a DM who realizes that he wins when the party wins. And he wins when the party loses. A big difference in attitude and atmosphere at the gaming table.

Master Arminas


About a year ago we had a party in 3 player game with a 2 Wizards and a Sorcerer. I was interesting, I had to really coddle the group at lower levels. We started at level 3 as level 1 was just too hard, so I just had them level up to 3 after the first encounter went so poorly.

this game went to about level 9 when we stopped. The interesting thing was the toughest fights tended to really low CR creatures in mass. The type of creature you'd never put on mass against a balanced party because it would be trivial. I found I could use a CR -3 encounter and it could eat up 20% of the party's resources.

I've also done a party of fighters mostly with the same 3 groups. 2 fighters, one ranged and one sword and board and a rogue. I found this group was very tough. I found they dealt with low CR encounters with hardly a scratch and could take on some CR +4 encounters. A few encounters caused problems though.

I suspect a party of divine caster would be very strong though as would any of the 3/4 casters.


I remember one guy on the board playing "caster edition." He had 2 wizards, a cleric and a druid as his ultimate party. They'd just cast spells and then the divine casters would mop up whatever didn't die immediately.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's see, 4 Summoners (Half-elf regular as "buffer / controller", Gnome Master as "Flooder", and the front line (2 Synthasists, Dwarves)

Dwarven Synthasist Summoner (mounted)*2... Happy and Slappy

Spoiler:

Str: 7
Int: 7 (20 level bump)
Wis: 16
Dex: 7
Con: 18 (level bumps go here)
Chr: 16
All bumps to skill points. Traits make perception a class skill and make Acrobatics a class skill

Skills are Perception and Acrobatics (3), then Fly to 8, then Acro again

Feats:
1) Steely Soul
3) Improved Unarmed Strike
5) Dragon Stance
7) Power Attack
9) Iron Will
Eidilon has a feat for toughness (cheesy I know), and skills for hiding. Evolves Str
Evolution chain
1) Claws, Limbs (arms)
2) Pounce
3) Improved Natural Armor
4) Slam
5) Shock on one, acid on other
6) Improved Natural Armor
7) lose 2nd improved natural armor, add strength
8) loses shock and bonus strength, adds Large
9) Improved natural armor, improved claws,trades slam for claws
10) Improved Natural Armor

Spells (in order you get them)
1) Mage Armor, Magic fang, enlarge person, lesser rejuvenate Eidilon, ant's haul
2) Lesser Evolution Surge, Alter Self, Wind Wall, Resit Energy
3) Evolution Surge, Greater Magic Fang, Heroism
4) Greater Evolution Surge, Overland flight

Items @ 10 (64K)
Belt of Physical Perfection +2 (16K)
Amulet of Holy (20K)
Ring of Protection +2 (8K)
Headband of Charisma +2 (4K)
2 Rod of Lesser Extend (6K)
Cloak or Resistance +3 (9K)
Ioun Stone +1 init (1K)

Straight-up tanks, evolving out to monsters. While dwarf seems an off choice, the save bonuses from steely soul make up for their needing to spend so much on Charisma.

Example @ Level 10 of how they look (with Eidilon on, drop Str and dex to 9 without obv)

Str: 30 (14 +2 Level +8 Size +2 enhancement +4 level-add)
Int: 7
Wis: 16
Dex: 18 (14 +4 level +2 enhancement -2 size)
Con: 19 (13 +4 Size +2 enhancement)... dwarf is @ 20
Chr: 18 (16 +2 enhancement)

Attacks (Power attacking)
+10 Str +2 Extended Greater Magic Fang +8 BAB -2 PA... so +20 under only one buff that is effectively always up (cast once for bite once for claws)

Damage: +18 for d8 + 14. First hit each round gets +5 damage. +2d6 vs evil, and counts as good for overcoming spell resistance. Pounce, can charge through allies.

HP: (8 + 4.5 * 9 + 6*10) = 108 (loses 10 from con loss in Eidilon) + (5.5*8 + 5*8) = 84 temp hp

Saves: Will: +4 SS +5 Base +2 Eidilon +4 Items +3 Wis = +18
Fort: +4 SS +2 Base +2 Eidilon +4 Items +4 Con = +16
Ref: Same as above (+16)

All -4 if SS does not apply (traps, dragon breath, etc)
AC: 12 (start) +4 (extend Mage armor) +8 (levels) +6 (evolution) +2 (size) +4 (dex) +2 (magic item) +2 (Synth bonus) = 40

When in dungeon settings, tends to keep improved overland flight on. Able to evolution surge on blindsense when they need to do so, and rely on teammates to haste (should be able to do so every combat). They get on things and don't let go. They tend to use spells as self-buffs, since combat they are usually attacking. If woken and not Eidilon encased, will go Invis and use Summon Eidilon (which should actually be their first 2 2nd level spells). Otherwise are always in their centaur forms.

Master Ch'xwill, the master summoner

Gnome summoner

Str: 5
Int: 12
Wis: 12
Dex: 14
Con: 16
Chr: 18

Traits make stealth a class skill.

Skills: Stealth, diplomacy, UMD

Spells:
1) Grease, Rejuvinate Eidilon (lesser),, Mage Armor, Feather Fall, Expeditious Retreat
2) Haste, Slow, Glitterdust Windwall, Invisibility
3) Evolution Surge, Black Tentacles, Dimension Door
4) Overland Flight, Teleport

Eidilon "skill snake" (small Serpent) @ 10

Str: 12
Int: 8 (level bumped)
Wis: 10
Dex: 22
Con: 11
Chr: 10

Skills (all class): Disable Device+24, Perception +7, Acrobtics:+16, Stealth +17 Climb:+8
has masterworked thieves tools for +2 DD
Evolutions

1) Arms, +8 DD
2) Improved Armor
3) switch Improved Armor for +Dex
4) Improved Armor
5) Scent, Improved Armor

Skillful snake is brought out when the dwarves detect a trap, or when they need a scout. Otherwise he stays away.

Gnome feats:
1) Iron Will
3) Superior Summons
5) Great Fortitude
7) Toughness
9) Skill focus: Diplomacy

Magic Items @ 10

2 Rods of Lesser Extend (6K)
1 Rod of Lesser Widen (3K)
2 Wands of Lesser Rejuv Eidilon (1500)
2 Wands of Infernal Healing (1500)
Cloak of Resistance +3 (9000)
Ioun Stone +1 resist (4000)
Boots of Striding and Spring (5500)
Belt of +2 Dex, Con (10000)
Headband +4 Chr (16000)
2 rod of lesser silence
AC: 13(can't carry armor)
Saves: Will: +12 Fort: +12 Ref: +9
HP: 8+9*4.5+5*10 = 98

Our notorious coward, he spends his adventuring career hiding in overland flight; ddooring out if he is in trouble. During combat he almost always summons, bringing forth d4+2 lantern archons to hinder enemies. When they first appear he orders them to cast an "Aid" spell on each ally, then commence firing. He usually only summons a 2nd or successive sets if the battle warrants it, preferring to buff after they are around.

His snake skill monkey usually stays on the other world, but is called forth if the party needs traps disarmed (the dwarven brothers usually do the trap searching). It can rarely be used as a scout as well. While he loves the snake dearly, he is aware it will never truly die, so is willing to have it offer up when the need arises
[/spoiler]

Half-elf standard summoner "Buffy the Eidilon holder"

Spoiler:

Str: 7
Int: 12
Wis: 14
Dex: 12
Con: 14
Chr: 18 (all bumps)

All level bonuses go to Eidilon improvement

Traits give +1 Will save and stealth a class skill

Skills are 1/2 bluff 1/2 fly and stealth

Feats: 1) Toughness 3) Improved Fort 5) Iron Will 7, 9, all others) extra evolution

Spells
1) Shield, Enlarge Person, Grease, Mage Armor, Ant Haul
2) Lesser Rejuvinate, Summon Eidilon, Haste, Slow, Wind Wall
3) Evolution Surge, Black Tentacles, Greater Invisibility, Greater Magic Fang
4) Summon Monster V, Overland Flight

Magic Items:
Belt of Physical Perfection +2 (assigned to Eidilon): 16K
Headband Cha +2: 4K
Amulet of Mighty Fist (Acid) (Assigned to Eidilon): 5K
Ioun Stone +1 AC (Eidilon) 5K
Ring of Protect +2: 8K
Cloak of Resist +4: 16K
Rod of Lesser Extend (2): 6K
Rod of Lesser Widen: 3K
Wand of Rejuviate Eidilon: 750

HP: 78 AC: you're kidding
Will: +12 Ref: +7 Fort: +10

Eidilon "Angel" (Biped, @10)
Str: 32 (16, +8 Size, +2 item, +2 level, +4 other level)
Int: 7
Wis: 10
Dex: 20
Con: 19
Chr: 10
Feats: Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Iron Will

Evolutions: Claws (2) Electric Attack, Improved Reach (Bite), Trip (Bite), Improved Reach (Claws), Large, Wings, Improved Dex (2), Skill +8 Perception

Attacks: +8 BAB +2 (GMW extended from dwarves assumed) +11 (Str) -2 (PA) = +19

Damage: d8 or d6 +17, +d6 acid and electric
+22 trip on bite hitting
HP: 8*9.5 = 76
AC: 12 + 8 + 5 + 4 (Mage armor extended assumed) +1 (size adds out) +3 (magic items) = 33

Will: +6 Ref: +7 Fort: +8 (bad)

Buffy and Angel make up the team's buffer and massive damage dealer. Buffy, like her gnome friend, usually stays hidden and flying, while dropping haste and surges on the front line. Angel has a weakness to saves, but if debilitated Buffy will dismiss him and summon in lantern archons, or use Summon Eidilon to get him back. Depending on situations Buffy often opens with a widened Black Tentacles. Angel Usually attacks from the air with his 15 foot reach, staying behind the far more sturdy dwarves and AOOing anyone attempting to get to the back line

Diversity, power, high perception, diplomacy, trap disarming, this team is made for nearly any dungeon. All are built for survival at all levels (1-20), and are very diverse.

Dark Archive

OP checking in, folks.

Thalin, if you want to pick a level and give me stat blocks for the summoners you hammered out, above, I'll be happy to run the experiment on your party.


I don't know much about non-core classes. Don't really care for them. That said, Pathfinder has done a lot to make playing a fighter balance better with the spell casting classes. (Although I do miss 3.5 Cleave.)They do awesome damage, have great AC, etc.

They aren't a match for high-level wizards, that is true. Why should they be? Wizards aren't a match for low-level fighters. Slogging through first level, the wizard pings off their magic missle, and then hangs around trying to figure out how to hit something with their light crossbow. Meanwhile, the fighter will need to bathe for a week to clean the orc guts off of them.

Anyway, who wants to be a wizard anyway? Buncha' Panzies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Daroob wrote:
Why should they be? Wizards aren't a match for low-level fighters.

Color Spray + Coup De Grace. Sorry, fighter.

Daroob wrote:
Slogging through first level, the wizard pings off their magic missle, and then hangs around trying to figure out how to hit something with their light crossbow.

Those wizards deserve to be eaten by badgers or something. The real first level wizard single handedly wins the encounter with a Sleep or Color Spray while everyone else wrestles with the morality of constantly murdering helpless foes.


mplindustries wrote:
Daroob wrote:
Why should they be? Wizards aren't a match for low-level fighters.

Color Spray + Coup De Grace. Sorry, fighter.

Daroob wrote:
Slogging through first level, the wizard pings off their magic missle, and then hangs around trying to figure out how to hit something with their light crossbow.
Those wizards deserve to be eaten by badgers or something. The real first level wizard single handedly wins the encounter with a Sleep or Color Spray while everyone else wrestles with the morality of constantly murdering helpless foes.

Yes because nobody ever make his saves or win initiative or ambush or is an elf or...


Dunno if ppl are too unskilled to play a melee.

Dark Archive

At the end of each spoiler is the stats for the character, at 10th level; along with their built-out eidilons. So level 10, with options on buildup to any level up to that. 6, 8, and 10 are usually my "preferred" level for these; up to around 12 melee and spells can both shine. But this class should be the most powerful all the way up for the single class party (though "most powerful" is relative at high.


If the wizard is depending on magic missile he deserves to die. I don't know many good wizards that have magic missile as their bread and butter though.


No obligatory 4x AM BARBARIANs yet?


Am barbarian rests on the leadership feat, which makes it kind of iffy.


wraithstrike wrote:
If the wizard is depending on magic missile he deserves to die. I don't know many good wizards that have magic missile as their bread and butter though.

Gorion does not appreciate this!


I'm going to make an entry in a few minutes. It is just going to be one guy actually - the perfect guy. Four different equipment packages though.


6th level Human Fighter

STR 14
DEX 17
CON 14
INT 10
WIS 14
CHA 10

HP 52 /
AC 19 Breast Plate, Dex +3

Fort +7 (+9)
Ref +5 (+7)
Will +6 (+8) (+10 vs. Fear, Reroll any once per day)

Base Attack +6 / +1
Melee Attack +8 / +3
Range Attack +9 / +4

Feats

1st Iron Will
1st Improved Iron Will
1st Point Blank Shot
2nd Rapid Shot
3rd Deadly Aim
4th Quick Draw
5th Power Attack
6th Improved Initiative (+7)

Special

Weapon Training Archery
Trait makes Perception a Class Skill
Perception (Total Bonus = +16)

____________________________________________________________________

Equipment Package 1

Two Handed Sword +1
Cloak of Resistance +2
Eyes of the Eagle (Perception Bonus)
Compound Longbow of Fire +1, add 1d6 Fire Damage, add 2 Strength Damage

Equipment Package 2

Two Handed Sword +1
Cloak of Resistance +2
Eyes of the Eagle (Perception Bonus)
Compound Longbow of Frost +1, add 1d6 Frost Damage, add 2 Strength Damage

Equipment Package 3

Two Handed Sword +1
Cloak of Resistance +2
Eyes of the Eagle (Perception Bonus)
Compound Longbow of the Outsiders Bane +1, add 2 Strength Damage

Equipment Package 4

Two Handed Sword +1
Cloak of Resistance +2
Eyes of the Eagle (Perception Bonus)
Compound Longbow of Shock +1, add 1d6 Shock Damage, add 2 Strength Damage


cranewings wrote:
6th level Human Fighter

Ok, can I just say that I think many (not all, but many) of the people claiming there is no disparity are focusing way too much on combat.

Your four switch hitting archery types can shred most fights, no question. But dealing damage isn't the issue and never has been. What if anything at all needs to be done that isn't shooting/chopping stuff or noticing things?

They can spot traps with the best of them. Can any of them actually disarm one? They won't even have the skills to avoid traps they can't disable. What if they need to talk to someone? What if they need to disable their enemies? What if they need to be at least marginally Stealthy? What if a million things that don't involve a dpr race?

If you build a Sorcerer well, or wisely plan your spells for the day as a Wizard, there is literally no situation you could not handle with magic.

These archers can pretty much only handle killing stuff, noticing things, and crying, because they could defeat enemies with a similar level of effort as a spellcaster, but can't even do a tiny fraction of what the spellcaster could do in every other situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
cranewings wrote:
6th level Human Fighter

Ok, can I just say that I think many (not all, but many) of the people claiming there is no disparity are focusing way too much on combat.

Your four switch hitting archery types can shred most fights, no question. But dealing damage isn't the issue and never has been. What if anything at all needs to be done that isn't shooting/chopping stuff or noticing things?

They can spot traps with the best of them. Can any of them actually disarm one? They won't even have the skills to avoid traps they can't disable. What if they need to talk to someone? What if they need to disable their enemies? What if they need to be at least marginally Stealthy? What if a million things that don't involve a dpr race?

If you build a Sorcerer well, or wisely plan your spells for the day as a Wizard, there is literally no situation you could not handle with magic.

These archers can pretty much only handle killing stuff, noticing things, and crying, because they could defeat enemies with a similar level of effort as a spellcaster, but can't even do a tiny fraction of what the spellcaster could do in every other situation.

Fighter can take traps in the face. Sorcerer die with a backstab.


Absolutely they will take the trap to the face. I'm looking at the traps section right now. The worst CR 9 trap is the Hail of Arrows which does 6d6 to the whole party (I mean the one guy checking the corner). 21 Damage, once, from a CR 9?

Besides, you don't have to disarm traps. That's why the monsters that lay them are able to still get around. Step over the wire. Needle trap on a chest or door? Break it with a hammer and crow bar. Arrow trap behind a door? Break it from the side or pop the hinges. Pit trap? Walk around or jump.

One of the problems fighters have is spell casting creatures. These guys will hear the chanting, win initiative, quick draw their bows and pump it full of arrows to prevent the casting and even if a will save spell does hit them, they will just pass the saving throw.

If Diplomacy is the issue, they can talk at least as well as an average guy (10 Charisma) and sense they are heroes, they can ask for a huge circumstance bonus for having saved enough babies to get to level 6.

If it is stealth they need, they will just walk real slow and listen for who is up ahead with their massive perception. When they hear it, they will start blasting it from 4 range increments away.

The only weakness they really have is healing. When they get hurt, they have to take a few days off or hire someone to heal them. Whatever, guess they better get it done with arrows.

Dark Archive

Thalin wrote:
At the end of each spoiler is the stats for the character, at 10th level; along with their built-out eidilons. So level 10, with options on buildup to any level up to that. 6, 8, and 10 are usually my "preferred" level for these; up to around 12 melee and spells can both shine. But this class should be the most powerful all the way up for the single class party (though "most powerful" is relative at high.

Thalin, those aren't stat blocks. Those are some combat statistics, and they're sorta messy. I'm talking about real-and-relevant in-game scenarios. Like you'd encounter through regular play.

Put together full stat blocks for these guys (formatted to some degree), and I'll run them.

Dark Archive

Just to re-state it: the "challenge" here, if you like, is to provide a full stat block for a party of four characters - each a full member of the same character class - in order to prove or demonstrate that the class you choose is the "best" class.

Each party will run through several textbook in-game scenarios, typical of fantasy/D&D tropes and adventures. All you folks have to do is provide the stat blocks.

Let's have at it.


Garden Tool wrote:
CalebTGordan wrote:
So, back to your idea. Are you asking for a party made up of all one class?

Correct - four members of the "best" class, whatever that means to you, making up what would logically, then, be the "best" party.

Use all the archetypes (and all the other content) from the books I mentioned to your heart's content.

That's not very logical at all though. In fact it's a classic fallacy of composition. I like pie, and I like deep fried cod, and I like peanut butter, but a fried cod and peanut butter pie would be HORRID.

So, I reject your premise, that the best party would be of 4 members of the "best" class, on the grounds that it is fallacious.

1 to 50 of 212 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / A Simple Proposition: an Argument Against Martial Inferiority All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.