I would argue that 4th Edition didn't fail (as if the #1 RPG in the world for 4 years straight is a failure). D&D keeps evolving. New ideas are tried and tested. The game get stronger every time.
It wasn't #1 for four years. Pathfinder would slide into #1 at times. Also, the D&D name carried it along and there were no other systems out there that was like it. If it was so great then why is it the shortest edition to date?
I don't know about you but I play D&D/Pathfinder as a role playing game and not a wargame. We always have an equal mixture of combat and non-combat.
Ok, three years then. Pathfinder didn't hit a top spot until the last two quarters (with one previous quarter where they tied) and that was partially due to a very sparse release schedule those quarters. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy Pathfinder is doing well. But "D&D is the only game like it in town" hasn't been true since sometime back in the 80s. Every other RPG company in the world would love to "fail" as badly as 4th edition did.
I also like a game that is a good mix of combat and non-combat. But I've seen all sorts of different groups over the years. Different groups have different playstyles. And those groups play the same playstyle no matter what the rules are. D&D is awesome in that it is flexible enough for both.
4E has skills like bluff and diplomacy, which is about the same amount of support that 3E has for social interactions. I'm still not seeing what makes one an RPG and one not. If you look at my subscriber tags, you can see that I'm a big fan of Pathfinder. I'm also a big fan of Dark Sun 4E and Gamma World. My friends and I play and enjoy both. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but the non-combat portions feel about the same to me.
I find it interesting how early in the thread people talk about how grounded in reality and absolutely incapable of doing any supernatural feats partial characters are.
I will honestly say I never saw a real person took a plunge in a pool of lava and came out the other side shrugging off a few burns.
I also wasn't aware that there are people who could theoretically get stomped on by a godzilla-sized monster and just get right back up afterwards. What about those people who drop from a thirty feet high wall right onto solid ground, get up, brush-off the scratch on their shoulder and start chopping their way through an entire army without taking so much as a small cut from the enemies' weapons? Why haven't I ever heard of those people?
So, I uh, think martial characters are overpowered as all heck.
In my recent 1st level to 20th level Pathfinder campaign, our fighter was pretty vicious at the end. He went the two scimitars/staggering critical/stunning critical route. He soloed a titan 4 or 5 CR above his level with one good opening round. Of course, he wasn't that good against things immune to crit/stun.
Our "caster" turned a lot of people to stone. Not as often as you'd think though, lots of monsters have high fort saves. But frequently enough. Of course, the rogue with his vorpal short sword ended a number of fights very quickly.
So in my experience, things even out in actual play. On paper the wizard looks a lot stronger, but in the dungeon things seem to even out. Of course, I was probably a bit more generous with magic items than standard.
I find it interesting how early in the thread people talk about how grounded in reality and absolutely incapable of doing any supernatural feats partial characters are.
Realism has always been a rather poor excuse. Luckily, the game has been slowly giving martial character more toys as it evolves.
I find it interesting how early in the thread people talk about how grounded in reality and absolutely incapable of doing any supernatural feats partial characters are.
I will honestly say I never saw a real person took a plunge in a pool of lava and came out the other side shrugging off a few burns.
I also wasn't aware that there are people who could theoretically get stomped on by a godzilla-sized monster and just get right back up afterwards. What about those people who drop from a thirty feet high wall right onto solid ground, get up, brush-off the scratch on their shoulder and start chopping their way through an entire army without taking so much as a small cut from the enemies' weapons? Why haven't I ever heard of those people?
Lol, I love how your explanation is "they have HP". Dude that's not an effect of being a martial character, that's an effect of having levels. Not saying martial characters can't be on par with the casties, but they require magical items and the rules don't exactly encourage cinematic martials. Though with a creative player and a GM who doesn't have a stick up his rear, they can be just as spectacular as any caster.
|
So, I uh, think martial characters are overpowered as all heck.In my recent 1st level to 20th level Pathfinder campaign, our fighter was pretty vicious at the end. He went the two scimitars/staggering critical/stunning critical route. He soloed a titan 4 or 5 CR above his level with one good opening round. Of course, he wasn't that good against things immune to crit/stun.
Our "caster" turned a lot of people to stone. Not as often as you'd think though, lots of monsters have high fort saves. But frequently enough. Of course, the rogue with his vorpal short sword ended a number of fights very quickly.
So in my experience, things even out in actual play. On paper the wizard looks a lot stronger, but in the dungeon things seem to even out. Of course, I was probably a bit more generous with magic items than standard.
I completely agree, but I was more joking about getting off 4E and back on toic as wes requested about 50 posts back. :)
My copy of the 4E core rules, Player's Handbook, specifically. It's all detailed on page 208 of the 4E PHB. All the multiclassing feats are specific to certain classes. Once you take one, you cannot take another associated with a different class (so no fighter/rogue/wizards for you class elf lovers).Look, you just got finished claiming that a single feat was the total extent of multiclassing in core 4e.
That's false.
Demonstrably false.
Not only do you have a basic array of multiclass feats, unique to each class, but you also have a series of progressively more advanced feats that further invest you in your second class. You can also pick rules options normally available only to that specific class. And, finally, you have the option to paragon multiclass (which is not the same as choosing a paragon path from your second class!) in order to pick up even more powers from the second class.
I'm not going to guess at why you decided to present multiclassing in 4e the way you did. But the fact remains that you presented it in a way that made it seem far more limited and token than it actually is.
This will by my last post on the matter to avoid further derailment. There is only one feat for multiclassing into something (the appropriate class feat). There are then three generic feats which allow you to trade powers between classes.
It's silly limiting. I tried multiclassing in 4E many times, and there was not a single character I multiclassed with that it ever felt like it being like a fighter/mage (spellknight?) or thief/mage (eliminster?) or fighter/cleric (warpriest?) or a thief/cleric (agent of mask perhaps?). Ended up with nothing but weaker options than if I had just went with strait class X and dumped all my feats into actually being good at something, since the flavor definitely didn't weigh out the mechanical inferiority because it was essentially non-existent.
Some of the strongest character concepts in the game are predicated on the ability to multiclass in order to qualify for certain feats, powers, or paragon paths. You haven't played the game enough to make statements like "despite there being virtually no reason to ever...
There is no hybriding in 4E core. There are few particularly good multiclassing combinations in 4E core, especially due to the way that enemy statistics scale in comparison to your own, which causes you statistical woes if you are not synergizing your key ability score (such as going Strength fighter + Strength Paladin). Most of the Paragon paths are underwhelming as multiclass options.
There are some exceptions, such as an orb wizard who burns a feat for paladin to grab hospitaler for their 12th level utility ability, which basically turns you into the bestest healer ever for one battle per day. However, during that battle you are pretty much the godchild of healing, seeing as you can attack multiple foes from a range using your wizard abilities and anytime your attack lands you heal a target within 10 spaces of 1d6 x wisdom modifier, which is actual honest to god healing and not healing surges; and since Orb Wizards in core (before nerfed to hell and back) pump Wisdom like they might need rehab to realize there are other ability scores out there, well you pretty much ensure victory in that fight (before you pretty much ensure victory in the next fight by putting Orcus in an un-breakable coma).
Overall however, I was disgusted with it. It didn't capture much in the way of flavor, it was definitely more limiting than even ancient-D&D's multiclassing system (the kind where you have Fighter/Thief or Fighter/Druid or Thief/Mage). It reminded me more of 3E where you have certain feats that give you special abilities (like Bayushi's Technique from the Rokugan Campaign Setting which was launched for Oriental Adventures, which gives you sneak attack +1d6 and can take it again every few levels).
Also, I apologize that I said sneak attack +1d6 when it was +2d6. That was obviously such a dire and unfair lapse in memory. That +3.5 damage once per encounter is definitely super awesome. Heck, and to think that for 1 feat you could get a +2 to that damage. Not that it really means much since enemies in 4E have so much HP that 1/encounter may have little to no effect on the outcome of that battle, especially since there are drastically better damage dealing methods that don't require sinking feats. In fact, it means you can actually sink feats into something that gives you something in addition to your class features.
Finally, it is the only "RPG" I've seen for tabletop that has no dual-wielding. A 30th level epic fighter cannot dual wield. Ever. Period. Only rangers. You can't even multiclass to dual wield. Either you are a ranger or you don't dual-wield. No dual wielding fighters, rogues, or anything. While I'm aware they eventually released dual-wielding options for Fighters in later splatbooks; it was enough to see I had made a horrible mistake. I had literally gained nothing and lost so much more, which is why my 4E books have remained on my shelf and off the table. I still use them in the chance that I might be invited to a 4E game (but everyone I know plays 3.x/Pathfinder), or be asked to GM a 4E game.
Lol, I love how your explanation is "they have HP". Dude that's not an effect of being a martial character, that's an effect of having levels. Not saying martial characters can't be on par with the casties, but they require magical items and the rules don't exactly encourage cinematic martials. Though with a creative player and a GM who doesn't have a stick up his rear, they can be just as spectacular as any caster.I find it interesting how early in the thread people talk about how grounded in reality and absolutely incapable of doing any supernatural feats partial characters are.
I will honestly say I never saw a real person took a plunge in a pool of lava and came out the other side shrugging off a few burns.
I also wasn't aware that there are people who could theoretically get stomped on by a godzilla-sized monster and just get right back up afterwards. What about those people who drop from a thirty feet high wall right onto solid ground, get up, brush-off the scratch on their shoulder and start chopping their way through an entire army without taking so much as a small cut from the enemies' weapons? Why haven't I ever heard of those people?
Yeah but a caster can only take about half as much. Also the part after dropping from the wall is not only HP.
A high level martial character has a bab so ridiculously high he should be able to perform brain surgery by throwing knives at someones head.
Lol, I love how your explanation is "they have HP". Dude that's not an effect of being a martial character, that's an effect of having levels. Not saying martial characters can't be on par with the casties, but they require magical items and the rules don't exactly encourage cinematic martials. Though with a creative player and a GM who doesn't have a stick up his rear, they can be just as spectacular as any caster.I find it interesting how early in the thread people talk about how grounded in reality and absolutely incapable of doing any supernatural feats partial characters are.
I will honestly say I never saw a real person took a plunge in a pool of lava and came out the other side shrugging off a few burns.
I also wasn't aware that there are people who could theoretically get stomped on by a godzilla-sized monster and just get right back up afterwards. What about those people who drop from a thirty feet high wall right onto solid ground, get up, brush-off the scratch on their shoulder and start chopping their way through an entire army without taking so much as a small cut from the enemies' weapons? Why haven't I ever heard of those people?Yeah but a caster can only take about half as much. Also the part after dropping from the wall is not only HP.
A high level martial character has a bab so ridiculously high he should be able to perform brain surgery by throwing knives at someones head.
Except they can't do anything other than hit stuff with BAB with the rules as they are written, in fact that's what skills are set out to do. Also, high level martial characters rely greatly on their +5 weapons to hit the AC of their enemies so that they can actually do damage and their BAB reduces with each hit so it's more likely they are going to miss without those magical weapons which is very bad because they need to hit more often to actually shave off the increasing amounts of HP from the enemies.
Not saying martials suck, just saying that your argument is weak sauce that doesn't really describe anything unique to martial characters; any high level character can emulate those things with enough hp (which isn't too difficult in PF between the higher HD for wizards, rogues, and bards and the favored class bonus).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had problems balancing casters in my games as well. The path I took was simply banning Sorcerers and Wizards, and replacing them with the Beholder Mage.
Lol, I love how your explanation is "they have HP". Dude that's not an effect of being a martial character, that's an effect of having levels. Not saying martial characters can't be on par with the casties, but they require magical items and the rules don't exactly encourage cinematic martials. Though with a creative player and a GM who doesn't have a stick up his rear, they can be just as spectacular as any caster.I find it interesting how early in the thread people talk about how grounded in reality and absolutely incapable of doing any supernatural feats partial characters are.
I will honestly say I never saw a real person took a plunge in a pool of lava and came out the other side shrugging off a few burns.
I also wasn't aware that there are people who could theoretically get stomped on by a godzilla-sized monster and just get right back up afterwards. What about those people who drop from a thirty feet high wall right onto solid ground, get up, brush-off the scratch on their shoulder and start chopping their way through an entire army without taking so much as a small cut from the enemies' weapons? Why haven't I ever heard of those people?Yeah but a caster can only take about half as much. Also the part after dropping from the wall is not only HP.
A high level martial character has a bab so ridiculously high he should be able to perform brain surgery by throwing knives at someones head.
Hahah, yeah, it's true. Sword & Fist back in 3E set the DC to pull the robin hood arrow-in-arrow trick as an AC 20 attack roll. In essence, by hitting AC 20 you could drive an arrow into another arrow in a stationary target.
That means a 20th level Fighter could shoot a crapton of arrows (multishot, rapid shot, 4 attacks, and a speed bow or haste) and drive every arrow into one another, in the same spot, from a thousand feet away. :P
Except they can't do anything other than hit stuff with BAB with the rules as they are written, in fact that's what skills are set out to do. Also, high level martial characters rely greatly on their +5 weapons to hit the AC of their enemies so that they can actually do damage and their BAB reduces with each hit so it's more likely they are going to miss without those magical weapons which is very bad because they need to hit more often to actually shave off the increasing amounts of HP from the enemies....Lol, I love how your explanation is "they have HP". Dude that's not an effect of being a martial character, that's an effect of having levels. Not saying martial characters can't be on par with the casties, but they require magical items and the rules don't exactly encourage cinematic martials. Though with a creative player and a GM who doesn't have a stick up his rear, they can be just as spectacular as any caster.I find it interesting how early in the thread people talk about how grounded in reality and absolutely incapable of doing any supernatural feats partial characters are.
I will honestly say I never saw a real person took a plunge in a pool of lava and came out the other side shrugging off a few burns.
I also wasn't aware that there are people who could theoretically get stomped on by a godzilla-sized monster and just get right back up afterwards. What about those people who drop from a thirty feet high wall right onto solid ground, get up, brush-off the scratch on their shoulder and start chopping their way through an entire army without taking so much as a small cut from the enemies' weapons? Why haven't I ever heard of those people?Yeah but a caster can only take about half as much. Also the part after dropping from the wall is not only HP.
A high level martial character has a bab so ridiculously high he should be able to perform brain surgery by throwing knives at someones head.
Truthfully the difference between a 20th level wizard's HP and a 20th level Fighter's HP is about 40. Everything else is Con modifier. Humorously, wizards are better at soaking damage if they desire to, or outright avoiding it, which means that the wizard's effective Hp may actually be much higher (a wizard popping stoneskin for example will shave 10 points off of any natural attack made against them, so if you would be hit 5 times, the wizard negates up to 50 points of damage).
Ok besides HP, damage and combat manouvers what are the options of a fighter?
To-hit and AC :p
Ok besides HP, damage and combat manouvers what are the options of a fighter?
1) Ignore damage reduction by being awesome
2) Use two different critical feats at the same time3) Make it even harder for casters that get too close
4) Make an attack of opportunity against anyone making a 5-foot step
5) Have Damage Reduction that stacks with adamantine armor
6) Can shrug off critical hits 50% of the time without spending money, feats, or having his armor become broken
7) Can become completely immune to critical hits and sneak attacks as an extraordinary ability and his armor cannot be sundered
8) Alter the type of damage and threat range of improvised weapons
9) Use some combat maneuvers against two opponents as a single action
10) Automatically confirm critical hits
11) Turn a lance into a double weapon and be able to use both ends without having to magically enhance them separately thereby saving money
12) As a standard action, attack a mount and rider without having to sacrifice AC as if using Cleave
13) Can leap from his mount, as a charge, and maintain all his mounted feats even though he is technically no longer mounted
14) Can use Aid Another with multiple allies at the same time
15) Maintains Dex, AC, and attack rolls while grappling and can still make attacks of opportunity while grappled or if a creature is attempting a grapple, regardless of the opponent's feats
16) Can use some combat maneuvers to trigger other combat maneuvers and possibly gain even more attacks (at a bonus) because of it
17) Can become immune to nonlethal damage and the exhausted, fatigued, and staggered conditions allowing him to force march forever and sleep in heavy armor if he chooses
18) Only 15 minutes of rest or to be subject to a healing spell or effect to recover from the fatigued condition
19) Can have an ability to never be exhausted, only fatigued
20) Can gain complete immunity to mind-affecting effects as an extraordinary ability
21) Can use combat maneuvers at range
22) Attack all creatures in a 15-radius burst with a bow, very similar to a whirlwind attack with a melee weapon (which he could also have the feats to take if he chose)
23) Can catch and fire an arrow shot at him
24) Add some Dexterity to damage with crossbows
25) Fire a crossbow bolt through one target and hit the target behind it and can continue this so long as he critically hits each target
26) Can combine a full attack with a regular move, possibly attacking multiple creatures that are more than 5 feet apart
27) Can Take 20 on an Acrobatics check
28) Can full attack as a standard action or even whirlwind attack as a standard action
29) Can use polearms and spears as one-handed weapons
30) Can use a tower shield to grant an ally up to a +8 cover bonus to AC
31) Can provide improved evasion to an ally or simply evasion to all allies. This is an extraordinary ability
32) Flank from any square adjacent to him, even if that square is occupied by something, including a wall
33) Can use his shield bonus on Reflex saves
34) Can make a single attack that is an automatic threat
35) Can use a standard action to make a single attack with two weapons, allowing him to use a move action still
36) Can use two weapons on an attack of opportunity
37) Can automatically confirm critical hits
38) Can change out feats that no longer are useful
39) Can never be disarmed
40) Can increase the damage multiplier on his favorite weapon
I agree that autoconfirming critical hits is nice, but nice enough to list it twice? O.o
Omg... it's serious, but it is useful for the topic. There are no non combat related abilities.
Edit: in other words, no abilities other that doing more damage, do better manouvers or keep his HP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Compare that list to:
1) Summons gods.
2) Stops time.
(etc.)
|
Omg... it's serious, but it is useful for the topic. There are no non combat related abilities.
Edit: in other words, no abilities other that doing more damage, do better manouvers or keep his HP.
If you want a combat oriented character who has "more" out of combat material that has already been shown that the fighter can have then play another class in all seriousness. Fighters are combat oriented characters with touches of out of combat abilities, the rest is up to you as a player. Can't complain about the class when it does what it's supposed to do.
|
|
Compare that list to:
1) Summons gods.
2) Stops time.
(etc.)
Well a fighter that is high enough in level could actually beat down a god so where is the problem again? How much magic actually effects gods and those like them to be honest? In all the high level games I've played in it was down to the melee guys just beating the god or whatever down.
|
|
It's all fine and well if this matches the player's expectations. Any time somebody wants to play a Fighter I tell them "Listen, you'll be good at one and only one thing, which is hitting things hard. Not much else, really. A small amount of skill points and that's about it."
If the player is happy, fine. If he/she isn't, we take a closer look at other martial classes.
I agree that autoconfirming critical hits is nice, but nice enough to list it twice? O.o
Oops. So we have 39 things. I'm cool with that.
Omg... it's serious, but it is useful for the topic. There are no non combat related abilities.
Edit: in other words, no abilities other that doing more damage, do better manouvers or keep his HP.
14) Can use Aid Another with multiple allies at the same time
17) Can become immune to nonlethal damage and the exhausted, fatigued, and staggered conditions allowing him to force march forever and sleep in heavy armor if he chooses27) Can Take 20 on an Acrobatics check
Some of the abilities are also useful against traps
The fighter, depending on the build, can have plenty of use for skills out of combat.
What do you want from the fighter? Honestly? It is meant to fight and fight well. The role in the CRB doesn't seem to suggest otherwise.
Compare that list to:
1) Summons gods.
2) Stops time.
(etc.)
So we're going to compare the fighter class to the level 17 casters? Seems like a very unreasonable comparison.
I think it should be pretty clear. Just imagine what fighters did and do.
Ok, a low level ignorant fighter swing a sword (or fire with a gun). For a lot of times he marchs and clean toilet :)
Fighters learn how to use the weapon that tech (or magic) could offer. They got survival skills, law knowledge, geography, first aid, they know explosives, poisons, they can improvise craft, set traps. Veicles, stealth, sniping, and so on. A soldier that made 5 years of academy can do more or less what all martials can do (obviously i'm not talking about incredible fantasy stuffs).
With game in this way fighters got just skills to try to do this stuffs (and very few feats that are useless, like those for siege weapons).
So a wizard can put the same skills and do in the same way.
I can accept that a class is more combat oriented than other, but not that all abilities are just for combat.
I'm doing some changes on skill system to help non caster classes, but i'm far from finish that so i will talk about it when it will be finished.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we're going to compare the fighter class to the level 17 casters? Seems like a very unreasonable comparison.Compare that list to:
1) Summons gods.
2) Stops time.
(etc.)
Isn't that always the point of all these threads? That it IS an unreasonable comparison to compare a fighter to a full caster a high levels? D&D was founded and created by the nerds, for the nerds. Tell me, which class best represents the nerd, the fighter who can run a 4.4 40, or the wizard who wheezes from all the dust mites in his study? We play on the backs of great men who couldn't climb a rope or complete a pullup in gym class, and their legacy is the triumph of the nerd over the jock. D&D was a prefiguring of Bill Gates, a prophecy of the dorks who created facebook so that girls would notice them in college. The wizard is the guy who eats his lunch alone in high school and grows up to rule the airwaves as Elvis Costello in adulthood.
Can you create an edition of D&D where fighters aren't marginalized by casters? Sure, it's been done. There are people who even like that sort of thing. That's because there are people playing the game now who have never had to use an inhaler. The word 'nerd' itself no longer carries the stigma it once did. But we still exist. Where ever someone with asperger's creates an awkward post that is ridiculed by the public at large, we are there. Where ever there are guys who bought a ticket they're never going to be able to use at Prom, we are there. And we will rise again and again to claim our birthright. You can take the legal rights to the name 'Dungeons and Dragons', but you can never take our inability to socialize through any other medium but RPG's and social networks.
No, please, that's not necessary. No, I don't want to take my medication now. I'm fine, I just need to lie down. A cool towel would be very nice, thank you.
The provided ruleset does shape the tendency of any given system to be used for RP. The multiclass rules in various systems demonstrate this remarkably well. The biggest issue for many people seems to be that while you can say your character is a fighter/mage type in any system, if the mechanics don't back it up somehow, it's not going to go very far without the group simply ignoring a large swath of the rules. It's virtually nonexistent in 4E core, making it very hard to rp any kind of hybrid character without ignoring the base mechanics (which is fine for some people, but my personal view is that if you are going to do that, don't bother buying the book in the first place). 3.x/PF provides enough options that multiclassing is an option, but comes at a semi-reasonable cost, and PF added the concept of archetypes to help increase the range of rp options that can be mechanically supported. RP and mechanics are still tied together, but because the mechanics support a wider range of options, it's less of an issue. A system like SAGA gives even more options to the point where in character description and the actual underlying mechanics can be miles apart without straining anyone's immersion.
Perceived versatility is also a function of the rules, and more importantly, the presentation of the rules. Again, a comparison of different systems helps highlight this. 3.x/PF provides hard numbers, and a lot of examples, for a wide variety of scenarios, while 4E provides minimal numbers with few examples, especially to the player. Other systems try to find a middle ground. Now both approaches can be good, but will appeal to different players at different times.
Also, the presentation is key in establishing the mindset of how people approach the game. 4E core books read like an encyclopedia, and do little to encourage imagination and creativity in and of themselves. 3.5 books, while not the greatest, still do much better in setting the mindset that what is presented is as much guide lines as it is rules. PF, with it's artwork, and abundant descriptions beyond the raw mechanics, as well as with it's active support of a world, something that 4E sorely lacks (though they seem to be learning this slowly), does even better in encouraging the mindset of creativity and imagination. Other systems go even farther, and focus more on the RP aspect than the mechanics in their books. None of this means that you can't RP in 4E, or similar systems, but it does mean that in order to do so, one has to have inspiration from somewhere else to drive it, because neither the books or the ruleset provide that key element.
Tying this all into the original topic, rulesets, and their presentations, matter. With 4E, every class is given roughly the same amount of space, and are deliberately balanced against each other. With 3.x/PF, classes have different level of complexity, and take up a different amount of space based on the options, and tend to be balanced against classes of a similar type, but not every other single class. This can lead to the perception that 4E is inherently more balanced than PF, where that is not necessarily the case; each is reasonably balanced within their own design parameters, but it is easier to see the balance in 4E. This also effects perceptions on versatility. Because the fighter is explicitly given more space in 4E books than 3.x books, it is often perceived as being more versatile. Combat vs Noncombat options also come into play. 4E, aside from the basic skill descriptions and the basic concept of skill challenges, leaves it all up to the DM, whereas 3.x is more detailed in such options. This matters because while the 4E ruleset doesn't preclude these interactions, it also does little to facilitate them, leaving the DM and the players to look elsewhere to find examples and inspiration, something that 3.x provides within the ruleset to a certain degree. On the flip side, 4E is seen as being wide open, and 3.x is seen as being self limiting.
The whole martial/caster disparity, or perception of such, usually comes down to perception of versatility, and this is where things get tricky. Sometimes having a minimalist ruleset that allows quick immersion and a wide open imagination is the preferred choice, but this comes at a cost of making deeper immersion difficult without further external sources to help maintain the internal balance of the campaign. Disparity between characters is low, but this uniformity can also breed boredom and disinterest, so unless an effort is made to individualize the rules, the game will break down into a tactical war game very quickly. On the other hand, having a ruleset like 3.x where things are much more detailed, it's much easier to mechanically differentiate characters, but care must be taken to make sure that the differences in power don't overwhelm the group, and that a wider variety of challenges be presented so that all characters have a chance to have their moment of glory. 3.x is much less likely to break down into a enjoyable, but not widely thrilling, tactical war game than 4E, but is more likely to simply break down and disintegrate.
In the end, there is as much disparity between different classes as the players and DM create, and it is possible to have none or a lot in any system. It just comes down to how much work, and of what type, the people are willing to put into the experience.
Ok besides HP, damage and combat manouvers what are the options of a fighter?1)...
39)
Exactly the problem. Fighters and fighter types are walking gods of destruction! What we really need is to see Pathfinder go to is a 1/2 BAB or 3/4 BAB system, with no full BAB for player characters. I mean, these humans and demi humans are supposed to have the same BAB as Dragons? As Demons?! WTH! You're telling me that martial characters can develop the same amount of skill with weapons as these immortal beings? If Paizo really wanted martial characters to be grounded in reality, they really screwed the pooch. And don't even get me started on that 1d10 hit die being similarly so high.
Also, Fighter types get too many skills. I could see the Barbarian, Monk, ect getting 2 a level, but Fighters really should only have about 1.
Ok besides HP, damage and combat manouvers what are the options of a fighter?1)...
39)Exactly the problem. Fighters and fighter types are walking gods of destruction! What we really need is to see Pathfinder go to is a 1/2 BAB or 3/4 BAB system, with no full BAB for player characters. I mean, these humans and demi humans are supposed to have the same BAB as Dragons? As Demons?! WTH! You're telling me that martial characters can develop the same amount of skill with weapons as these immortal beings? If Paizo really wanted martial characters to be grounded in reality, they really screwed the pooch. And don't even get me started on that 1d10 hit die being similarly so high.
Also, Fighter types get too many skills. I could see the Barbarian, Monk, ect getting 2 a level, but Fighters really should only have about 1.
I was really amused that "HP, damage and combat manouvers" sums up most of Bob's list.
Ok besides HP, damage and combat manouvers what are the options of a fighter?1)...
39)Exactly the problem. Fighters and fighter types are walking gods of destruction! What we really need is to see Pathfinder go to is a 1/2 BAB or 3/4 BAB system, with no full BAB for player characters. I mean, these humans and demi humans are supposed to have the same BAB as Dragons? As Demons?! WTH! You're telling me that martial characters can develop the same amount of skill with weapons as these immortal beings? If Paizo really wanted martial characters to be grounded in reality, they really screwed the pooch. And don't even get me started on that 1d10 hit die being similarly so high.
Also, Fighter types get too many skills. I could see the Barbarian, Monk, ect getting 2 a level, but Fighters really should only have about 1.
I totally disagree with your statement about skill points.
Regarding the rest, I don't know. I've seen a lot of martial arts match, i made some in the 16 years i practice, but i have never fought a dragon, and i don't know someone that did it :)| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand what people are complaining about this the fighter. If the class doesn't provide what you want, then don't play it. However, this thread is about martials compared to casters. That means barbarians, rogues, ninjas, cavaliers, gunslingers, samurai, rogues, and specific archetypes for rangers and paladins compared to everything else.
As I mentioned before, the biggest thing that would close the gap is forcing the casters to follow the rules as much as the noncasters. It won't eliminate the problem but it will redcuce it to something the GM can reasonably deal with. When the casters are allowed to ignore the rules and the noncasters are forced to obey the letter of the rules, the problem is more of a GM issue than anything else.
Ok besides HP, damage and combat manouvers what are the options of a fighter?1)...
39)Exactly the problem. Fighters and fighter types are walking gods of destruction! What we really need is to see Pathfinder go to is a 1/2 BAB or 3/4 BAB system, with no full BAB for player characters. I mean, these humans and demi humans are supposed to have the same BAB as Dragons? As Demons?! WTH! You're telling me that martial characters can develop the same amount of skill with weapons as these immortal beings? If Paizo really wanted martial characters to be grounded in reality, they really screwed the pooch. And don't even get me started on that 1d10 hit die being similarly so high.
Also, Fighter types get too many skills. I could see the Barbarian, Monk, ect getting 2 a level, but Fighters really should only have about 1.
Um, what?
I mean about those skill points.
If anything, fighters should have more skill points than other martial classes. Not to knock all their weaponly prowess, but training muscle memory seems less-demanding of time and effort than developing niffy ki powers, or studying the weak points of your favored enemies, etc., or recovering from your ubiquitous morning hangover (barbarians).
And you wanna take away half their existing skill points?
You should be very careful walking past the local armorer's joint. Just sayin'.
I agree with you Alitan. A fighter should have 4 skill/ level if not 6. A fighter need to know a lot of things to do his job.
I don't understand what people are complaining about this the fighter. If the class doesn't provide what you want, then don't play it. However, this thread is about martials compared to casters. That means barbarians, rogues, ninjas, cavaliers, gunslingers, samurai, rogues, and specific archetypes for rangers and paladins compared to everything else.
As I mentioned before, the biggest thing that would close the gap is forcing the casters to follow the rules as much as the noncasters. It won't eliminate the problem but it will redcuce it to something the GM can reasonably deal with. When the casters are allowed to ignore the rules and the noncasters are forced to obey the letter of the rules, the problem is more of a GM issue than anything else.
In fact, the problem is not only the fighter. It's only the class with the poorest options out of combat, but even other classes got problems. Since there are new spells in any book casters got always new option, and often this options cover something that should be done with skill points. This is boring and make the game less balanced. If you think it's ok good for you, but with your way of thinking we should be still playing 3E and not PF. It's from players' feedback that the game can be improved. A lot of people complain about fighter? The answer is not "so don't play the fighter", because this means that a class is wasted.I read a lot of threads about that, then i tested the class and now i have to agree with those people. Fighter is awesome in combat, but this is not a strategy board game.
A rouge also got reasons to complain. 8 skills / level and at middle level a caster can do the same thing or better with one spell. :(| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A rouge also got reasons to complain. 8 skills / level and at middle level a caster can do the same thing or better with one spell. :(
Heh, a lot of people forget that martials have to constantly invest into something to actually get better at it while casters get better at everything automatically through caster levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter needs 4 skill points. There is/was a recent thread about improving the fighter class though.
As for the rogue there is a thread on that also. There is also an older thread on the issue.
I'm trying to write an houserule for skills, since some classes rely heavily on it should be improved. Skill focus shouldn't give just a skill bonus but some special options, and maybe start a feats tree. I'm working in that way.
At the rogue of my party i gave (as a temporary solution) a +1 on ST against mind affecting (except fear) and poisons at 4th level, and +1 every 4 level (8,12,16,20).
Continuing the thought on Caster Levels, you might as well have Martial Level. Really this is pretty much what BAB is but have combat feats scale with it, in other words don't make the fighter or any other martial have to take another feat to get improved version of what they already have; wizards don't have to learn another spell just to increase the DC. Even if they did it's not so bad for them because they can learn more spells with money and time. Which brings up another point, how come fighters can not learn combat tricks? Why is it only when they level up? Why can't they take some time and money and find a mentor to teach them combat abilities?
Fighters do lack some versatility. You have Two Handed Fighters, your pole fighters, and Archer Fighters, but rarely do you come across a weapon master who's good with a weapon. Heck even a fighter who's amazing with a two handed weapon can end up lacking when it comes to handling a one-handed sword.
It's hard to not make this about the fighter because there are only like 4 non-caster classes in the game and one of them has a wild assortment of supernatural abilities.
I give this option. A feat that work on a single weapon works for the weapon group. I was wondering about feats (not only for martials but in general) to improve by BAB or CL instead of having a "improved something". I have not decided yet, should test, but you tell something that makes me think about.
A fighter can be good with more than one style of fighting if built correctly. Even his second weapon will outdamage most other classes until they turn on rage or smite.
Yes i think that the problem for fighting style it's not of the fighter, but for all classes. Some feats tree are very expensive.
A fighter can be good with more than one style of fighting if built correctly. Even his second weapon will outdamage most other classes until they turn on rage or smite.
I've seen some good fighters in action, but I've never actually seen this in play. Also being good means more than just damage, it's actually getting to the enemy, hitting the enemy, and stopping the enemy, while not getting yourself killed. Otherwise Evocation would be the best kind of casting...
Are we moving goalpost? If you the issue is not damage then the 2nd weapon is not an issue.
PS:Hitting the enemy is a part of damage since you can't damage someone you can't hit so I was including hitting as a part of that. I don't know what you mean by stopping though.
I don't understand what people are complaining about this the fighter. If the class doesn't provide what you want, then don't play it. However, this thread is about martials compared to casters. That means barbarians, rogues, ninjas, cavaliers, gunslingers, samurai, rogues, and specific archetypes for rangers and paladins compared to everything else.
As I mentioned before, the biggest thing that would close the gap is forcing the casters to follow the rules as much as the noncasters. It won't eliminate the problem but it will redcuce it to something the GM can reasonably deal with. When the casters are allowed to ignore the rules and the noncasters are forced to obey the letter of the rules, the problem is more of a GM issue than anything else.
In fact, the problem is not only the fighter. It's only the class with the poorest options out of combat, but even other classes got problems. Since there are new spells in any book casters got always new option, and often this options cover something that should be done with skill points. This is boring and make the game less balanced. If you think it's ok good for you, but with your way of thinking we should be still playing 3E and not PF. It's from players' feedback that the game can be improved. A lot of people complain about fighter? The answer is not "so don't play the fighter", because this means that a class is wasted.I read a lot of threads about that, then i tested the class and now i have to agree with those people. Fighter is awesome in combat, but this is not a strategy board game.
A rouge also got reasons to complain. 8 skills / level and at middle level a caster can do the same thing or better with one spell. :(
This isn't really true though. The barbarian's abilities are mostly for combat and if he is using his non-combat rage abilities, he is diminishing his number of rages for the day.
The cavalier and samurai are both as combat oriented as the fighter. There are 3 orders for the cavalier that provide some out of combat class abilities, but they are both just for adding bonuses to some checks either for themselves or another except the Order of the Tome. They may get 4 skill points per level but remember that they need to max out Ride and will most likely be putting ranks for a while into Handle Animal, which now brings them back down to the fighter's 2 points per level that he can use anywhere.
The gunslinger's utility shot is the only ability the base class has that has out of combat utility. It does get 4 skill points per level though which is very nice. It comes at the cost of some armor though. The archetypes are all combat oriented.
The rogue and ninja have more out of combat utility than their full base attack brothers, but at the cost of being weaker in combat.
The fighter is singled out, but the reality is that it is in no different shape than other combat oriented classes overall. Having extra skill points is nice but when they must be spent a certain way you really don't have extra points. Since all classes can use all skills, then we can't really say that the skills are a function of the class. It is easy to make almost any skill a class skill.
As for the new books bringing in new spells, that applies mostly to clerics and druids. Wizards can really only add 2 spells from the new books per level, all other spells are at the GM's discretion since he is the one that determines what it available either by town size or simply not giving the wizard the chance to learn new spells (time is easy to control). The spontaneous casters have limited spell selections that are essentially set so they don't really benefit like the cleric and druid. Those two classes actually see a huge boost in options with each new book that brings in spells.
Honestly, the proper answer to anyone who thinks a class doesn't meet their needs (or more accurately, that another class meets their needs better) is to tell them to play the class that suits their style and concept.
You are very wrong about my way of thinking. I am not arguing from a standpoint of "Class X needs no improvement." I am simply arguing that "Class X can do what it is meant to do." That's it. Can every class be improved, absolutely. I don't believe that any class that Paizo has put out is non-functional nor do I believe that they are the end-all-be-all of what the class should be.
This is why I was very careful to not single out a specific class when discussing improvements, but rather features that were common to all. All martial classes rely heavily on feats to keep up with casters, but the feat system does not scale well compared to spells. The range of levels any feat is particularly effective is much narrower, and unlike spells, better feats do not come automatically, even with bonus feats to help. Add into this that feat trees can get out of control very quickly, and it can be hard enough for a martial class to be good at one trick, let alone several. This isn't to say they are weak, but rather that they tend to lack the versatility that casters can have without even thinking about it.
The only other area that really needs improvement is skill points in general. Skills after a certain level tend to become devalued for all classes because the DCs get high enough that only a dedicated expert even has a chance of making them. More skill points all around would give all classes more reason to use more skill for more levels, rather than relying mostly on magic or combat to solve their problems.
Non-caster progression is linear.
Caster progression is exponential.
Graph it and the problem is obvious. Best way I could think to make them even is make caster progression linear as well. Go with a Spell points system and have casters gain the same number of points every level. Only question would be how many points to give them to make it balanced.
PS. Alternately you could make non-caster progression exponential by increasing the frequency at which they gain feats every level.