Inspired by the many conversations about the [perceived] weaknesses of Fighters, Monks, and Paladins, I was curious to see how two three-man teams of those classes would fare against each other. I know, 'class vs. class proves nothing,' and I agree, but I've noticed that all of the class "competitions" have been one-on-one duels instead of team fights (which is really what D&D is all about, right?) so I thought it would be interesting to pit the "weak" classes against the "good" classes.
Anyone interested in this as a good-spirited, bickering-free experiment? I was thinking 12th-level builds with standard WBL/magic item guidelines. I suspect the f/m/r team might surprise a lot of people if they're given the chance to work as a team.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that it isn't an interesting idea for an experiment, but I think this will be difficult to accomplish. The issue you will run into, as most of these sorts of threads do, is that it is very easy to "build to the challenge." When that challenge is another character (or party) that can also change you end up with the two sides simply circling each other, specifically building themselves to counter whatever the other side is currently doing. They maximize stealth so you maximize perception so they switch to stunning so you make yourself immune and so on and so forth. With the breadth of material out there you will never reach a conclusion, simply because each group can always bring in another trump or counter-trump to win.
If you want to compare the classes, it might be better to create a series of set benchmarks. For example, fighting a few different types of encounters, overcoming environmental challenges, and dealing with some common "skill based" situations. Obviously, these can be gamed to favor one side or the other, degrees of success won't necessarily be interpreted the same way by everyone, and magic items can offer an easy out to many situations, but it is at least slightly more likely to reach some sort of conclusion than direct PvP.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that "strong vs weak class" arguments miss the entire point of pen and paper role playing. We aren't participating in a min/max MMO here and we shouldn't treat our characters in the same way. You play a character because of the character ( who they are ) not the race/class combo ( what they are ).
That said, even if you could get two groups built out with gear, win and loss would also depend heavily on the environment they are placed in ( empty arena? See ya later rogue ) and the types of creative action the DM running the combat might allow or disallow ( can I, for instance, attempt to throw a portable hole over a barbarian's head like a frisbee? ).
One of the major things we forget in this era of computer gaming and obsession with stats is that role playing games are about playing a character role, not about having the best build. Let's drop all these contests and instead concentrate on the important stuff.
Inspired by the many conversations about the [perceived] weaknesses of Fighters, Monks, and Paladins, I was curious to see how two three-man teams of those classes would fare against each other. I know, 'class vs. class proves nothing,' and I agree, but I've noticed that all of the class "competitions" have been one-on-one duels instead of team fights (which is really what D&D is all about, right?) so I thought it would be interesting to pit the "weak" classes against the "good" classes.
Anyone interested in this as a good-spirited, bickering-free experiment? I was thinking 12th-level builds with standard WBL/magic item guidelines. I suspect the f/m/r team might surprise a lot of people if they're given the chance to work as a team.
The team with the best players will most likely win, not matter which classes they choose.
The fighter is not weak in combat. The knocks on the class are that it is lacking in utility. You do not want to engage a fighter in combat.
Monks can be played well. Don't be fooled, despite all my naysaying on various threads. The issue is that not just anyone can do so.
Paladins are pretty sweet as long as your GM is not trying to use the paladin code to set you up to fail. They are not best for an arena contest, but for an adventure they are not bad to have around
In short, 3 on 3 pvp wins would not surprise many of us at all.
I'll post a CR 13 encounter in 2 hours to challenge any posted lvl 12 3 man bands.
"Around the corner, 60' down the corridor, you spot a large monster. The slippery, writhing mass of tentacles and stalked mouths has one huge hideous eye and a fanged maw for a belly. It obviously has reach, BTW."
It's a dark cave complex, so unless the party moves without light and beats a +18 perception, the creature knows they're coming and opens up with a Confusion spell. Tactics for first round: Retreat into the cave behind it and cover the entrance with a darkness spell. If it's locked down in melee, it tries to cover it's retreat with a quickened darkness.
What is the creature?
Inside the cave:
The team with the best players will most likely win, not matter which classes they choose.
Pretty much.
The fighter is not weak in combat. The knocks on the class are that it is lacking in utility. You do not want to engage a fighter in combat.
Yep, fighter will hit hardest and most often than any of the fighting classes against the average opponent.
Monks can be played well. Don't be fooled, despite all my naysaying on various threads. The issue is that not just anyone can do so.
Also, this scenario against medium-sized two-legged humanoid opponents who rely on weapons plays the monk's strength. Only the fighter can match or beat the monk's CMB/CMD so whoever the monk goes after with maneuvers is going to have a tough time of it.
Paladins are pretty sweet as long as your GM is not trying to use the paladin code to set you up to fail. They are not best for an arena contest, but for an adventure they are not bad to have around
Actually the paladin could be the weakest contender if his target isn't evil, as that takes out his most powerful offensive ability, smite evil. On the flip side he still has a good spell selection to buff with and he can rely on lay-on-hands to heal up.
"Around the corner, 60' down the corridor, you spot a large monster. The slippery, writhing mass of tentacles and stalked mouths has one huge hideous eye and a fanged maw for a belly. It obviously has reach, BTW."
It's a dark cave complex, so unless the party moves without light and beats a +18 perception, the creature knows they're coming and opens up with a Confusion spell. Tactics for first round: Retreat into the cave behind it and cover the entrance with a darkness spell. If it's locked down in melee, it tries to cover it's retreat with a quickened darkness.
What is the creature? ** spoiler omitted **
Inside the cave: ** spoiler omitted **
The first encounter is not that hard if the melees are optimized. Well maybe if you create a choke point so only one of them can enter into melee with it at a time. The forces the other ones to use ranged weapons which they may or may not have feats or class abilities to use to make them better.
As for the blob, I think I just found a new monster to use. If the party is smart though they will use ranged attacks. If they have a dedicated archer the blob goes down pretty quickly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm of the opinion that "strong vs weak class" arguments miss the entire point of pen and paper role playing. We aren't participating in a min/max MMO here and we shouldn't treat our characters in the same way. You play a character because of the character ( who they are ) not the race/class combo ( what they are ).
This sort of thing has been going on way before Everquest and Ultima Online existed. The MMO thing gets old.
That said, even if you could get two groups built out with gear, win and loss would also depend heavily on the environment they are placed in ( empty arena? See ya later rogue )
My money would be on the Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, but even I know that the Rogue could carve faces in an empty room. All the Rogue needs to effectively vanish is concealment. If he drops a smokestick he gets to play Ninja-vanish. A cloak of lesser displacement turns the Rogue in to the Predator.
and the types of creative action the DM running the combat might allow or disallow ( can I, for instance, attempt to throw a portable hole over a barbarian's head like a frisbee? ).
Probably not, seeing as the portable hole requires you to smear it out on a surface. All you'd end up doing would be hitting the barbarian with a very expensive piece of cloth.
One of the major things we forget in this era of computer gaming and obsession with stats is that role playing games are about playing a character role, not about having the best build. Let's drop all these contests and instead concentrate on the important stuff.
Again, the condescending junk about computer gaming really just needs to stop. Our fathers and probably a few grandfathers out there were power gaming the hell out of their characters way back in 1E.
The Barb, Pal, and Ranger would win. Unless the other side was played by much better optimizers/tacticians than them. It would likely be a pretty crushingly one-sided affair. Barbarian w/ Come and Get Me is just pure melee death; Paladin will not die or fail a save; Ranger doesn't care what race they are, he can just pick all the medium sized core races and be pretty set, and use Instant Enemy for anyone he didn't guess right.
This sort of thing has been going on way before Everquest and Ultima Online existed. The MMO thing gets old.
Sure it gets old ... but just because it's old doesn't mean it's not still a problem. You know what else gets old? Lots of MMO kids thinking they can play PnP the same way and bringing down groups as a result because they think everything is about stats and loot.
Probably not, seeing as the portable hole requires you to smear it out on a surface. All you'd end up doing would be hitting the barbarian with a very expensive piece of cloth.
Fine ... throw it at his feet then. The point wasn't about the specific instance in question but a "picked out of the ether" random example of an attempted creative act.
Again, the condescending junk about computer gaming really just needs to stop. Our fathers and probably a few grandfathers out there were power gaming the hell out of their characters way back in 1E.
Yep, they were ... but that doesn't make it right to power game today either and the fact is that MMOs have greatly increased the percentage of persons looking to power game.
I am a computer gamer ... from Ultima Online to Asheron's Call to Shadowbane ... even hacking through Diablo III right now when I don't Error 37. That doesn't mean I can or should bring my computer gaming mentality to a pen and paper table. It doesn't belong. And until MMOers learn this, I'm going to continue pointing it out no matter how old or condescending you feel it is.
This sort of thing has been going on way before Everquest and Ultima Online existed. The MMO thing gets old.Sure it gets old ... but just because it's old doesn't mean it's not still a problem. You know what else gets old? Lots of MMO kids thinking they can play PnP the same way and bringing down groups as a result because they think everything is about stats and loot.
Yeah. Because it's not like the first RPG back in 1970-something didn't actually grant bonus experience points for stats or increase character advancement for getting the most loot. Oh...wait.
Probably not, seeing as the portable hole requires you to smear it out on a surface. All you'd end up doing would be hitting the barbarian with a very expensive piece of cloth.Fine ... throw it at his feet then. The point wasn't about the specific instance in question but a "picked out of the ether" random example of an attempted creative act.
You have to spread it out. I doubt throwing a handkerchief-like cloth at someone's feet is going to do much. It's amusing that you condemn people as you do for trying to get tactical advantages mechanically, when you engage in munchkinery yourself.
You might be able to use it as a trap if you dropped a smokestick in front of you, took a 5ft. step back, then spread the hole out in front of you. Actually getting them to fall in it without an illusion of some sort would be difficult, since once they got within 5 ft. of it they can see the hole. But it's not usually so easy to just 1-shot somebody by stuffing them in a bag.
Again, the condescending junk about computer gaming really just needs to stop. Our fathers and probably a few grandfathers out there were power gaming the hell out of their characters way back in 1E.Yep, they were ... but that doesn't make it right to power game today either and the fact is that MMOs have greatly increased the percentage of persons looking to power game.
Might just be that they have a voice on the internet. I mean, I've never seen so many condescending people who love to blame everyone else for not playing their one true way offline; but I've met quite a few online. With posts like these, I imagine I'll meet quite a few more.
I am a computer gamer ... from Ultima Online to Asheron's Call to Shadowbane ... even hacking through Diablo III right now when I don't Error 37. That doesn't mean I can or should bring my computer gaming mentality to a pen and paper table. It doesn't belong. And until MMOers learn this, I'm going to continue pointing it out no matter how old or condescending you feel it is.
Well that's awesome. I've been gaming since I was 2 years old. On the Nintendo. Gotta love DK/DKjr, aye? First time I seriously got into PC gaming was with Baldur's Gate. Such a rich story, wonderful scenery, and it set the stage for what was to be the exemplar of a great D&D game for years to come. Rich. Open. Full of intense drama and a dash of humor. Open worlds. Excitement. Danger. Lots of danger. God knows those clerics and their potions and the backstabbing rogues that forced me to reload over and over. It was fun. :3
And much of it does belong. Most of those games you mentioned lifted pretty much every element of the "Game" portion from the RPG. Even the original Final Fantasy I is a D&D clone. Digital media has nothing to do with it; and your only blinding yourself to reality while insulting people who have done nothing wrong.
You call folks "MMO kids", but you sound like the one who needs to do a bit of growing up.
P/Ra/B probably have more HP than the other team.
The monk flury of blow kinda makes up for the monk and rogue lower BaB.
Optimized for this "fight" is different than optimized for normal play.
Hit point: Average, Maximized or Rolled?
P/Ra/B probably have more HP than the other team.
The monk flury of blow kinda makes up for the monk and rogue lower BaB.
Optimized for this "fight" is different than optimized for normal play.
Hit point: Average, Maximized or Rolled?
I think max 1st then average all else is the standard method, and would provide the fairest results. That way nobody could complain that someone rolled to many 1s, nor could anyone complain that having maximum HP was giving the tricksters more of an edge over the guys who primarily exist around dealing damage (more HP means having to carve through more HP before you win, and if you've got access to some nice healing, you might end up bemoaning that you have to chisel through (12 + Con) * HD hit points before you make any headway. :P