Buffs, combat, PFS
Tiers are not based on a pure combat campaign or PFS. They are based on varied campaign with varied challenges. Spells allow great versatility in dealing with those varied challenges.
Look at that dimension door you disparaged. It isn't just for running away from a fight. You could use it to escape a collapsing building, get to the other side of a door and unlock it, or cross a chasm. In a fight you could use it to move yourself or a fallen comrade out of a dangerous situation, move a melee fighter to an otherwise inaccessible enemy, or launch a surprise attack from an unexpected angle. He doesn't need to know which of these he will have to do today, but it is almost certain he will find something useful to do with it.
Meanwhile, our given example Fighter still just has his one spell, "hit with weapon." He can be creative with it and bypass challenges without using his mechanical abilities, but he has less options than a caster with spells like dimension door. That is what this is about, options. Not just power, and certainly not just combat power. That spells are used up after overcoming challenges still means that person with them is far better off than the person that didn't have any resources to expend in the first place.
ahh and I take it you and everyone commenting on how powerful they are--DO play a wizard?
see they brought up cleric--and I DO play a cleric--and i can tell you they are wrong about our versatility. It is good---but not THAT great. You saw my spell list--that is what I work with for four encounters---a lot of buffing others---then I plug away with a lite crossbow or my 1d6+3 acid arrow. Support class---not a class to be the hero in "usually"
PFS_-no scribe scroll--no craft x. so if we are talking about buying magic items?----well the fighter could buy fly items, endure--etc
are we bringing in expendables? which come closer to giving the fighter caster powers than giving the caster fighter powers.
you are right on one point however---clerics and wizards greatest contribution to the party is 'buffing' the others. with no one to buff we are not so powerful. a hasted cleric is not as scary as a hasted barbarian or rogue or archer.
so D-door memmed---you take the oh crap teleport and the rest of your party dies. that was one spell of another type you could not have to help your party. it was not a freebie. and do that many times, people dont like to adventure with you. Galaxius the great, sole survivor of twenty adventuring parties.
once again---I do concede---having 100% knowledge of what you will be facing and exactly what spells you need make casters "tremendously" powerful. Too bad that rarely happens. actually good thing it rarely happens---or your point would be much more valid.
Sorry you are playing PFS, sucks to be your wizard. Not everyone plays PFS all the time though. I myself am familiar with PFS, but that doesn't suddenly make wizards mediocre.
Expendables: Wizards can spend vast sums of money on expendables, and MOST wizards (not PFS ones, which you know, isn't the only type of game?) can craft said expendables for half cost.
Fighter still pay full rice, AND pay for their +x sword, shield, armor, and other items that give minor numerical bonuses.
The wizard doesn't need any of that, and can spend money on spell replicating (game breaking) expendables and wondrous items.
as for the wizard escaping... um... you do that while the party is alive still? I usually wait until the TPK looks inevitable, and then I use my ONE spell I reserve for my survival. its not like I am centering my whole build on ditching my team mates when they need me most. At least then I can do my duty as a party member, and try to revive their corpses. Four deaths instead of three serves no purpose in that situation. At the very least, the GM can introduce 3 new characters that my wizard hires to complete the mission... and instead of shutting the book and giving up, we can keep going where we left off. Its better than nothing, i.e. TPK.
If you don't have the right spells for a situation (which you say rarely, if ever happens, etc.) then go learn a few divination spells. I suggest starting with Scry, and go from there. With that you can learn where, how many, what kinds, and when is a good time to overcome your enemies.
And just to mention it ONE more time: if you DON'T have the right spell today, come back tomorrow when you do. If your party isn't suicidal, they will see the wisdom of your plan, barring GM fiat.
Hakken, can you please make an effort to make your point in one post, rather than three or four consecutive ones? Slogging through nitpicky tripleposts is a pain.
Anyway, consolidated counternitpick go.
adult dragons have SR 25---say a 10th level wizard.I don't recall mentioning any wizard in my example, but obviously you're going to buff other party members and use SR-proof spells before you use anything that's subject to SR against a dragon big bad.
roll yourself up an archer--use cluster shotWizard please. I've done the math.
man in black--you keep mentioning clerics---you do realize they have the exact same 2 + int bonus to skills that a fighter does right? unlike an oracle who can just raise cha, a cleric has to raise cha and wis. so to dump?--con? dex? str? int?
wizard---2+int modifier--same thing
Clerics have a better skill list and high wisdom, and wizards have high int. Both classes are (marginally) better at handling tasks with skills than a fighter is.
in your example--the 2nd level cleric or wizard is using their spells to get past guards and crowd.What part of "fight against a secret vampire in a mixed crowd where not being able to cast Fireball is a significant limitation" made you think that this was a second-level encounter? Besides, Charm Person lasts for hours and is low level. This is another situation where limitations lead to perverse effects: the sorcerer and bard are much more likely to be able to toss off multiple Charm Persons because it is a powerful spell and they are spontaneous casters, while the cleric can toss them off the same way, but is less likely to commit to so many casts of one spell.
ok I have dealt with the freezing mountain range. Guess what---clerics in general suffer worse than fighters. Yes we can endure elements---but we can get the whole party with it-to protect...
your post I believe
Fallon's Deadly Aim/Rapidshot routine is:
+3 longbow +19(x2)/+19/+14, d8+16 dmg (19-20/x3)Her average damage per round is ~71.34. An additional +1 to-hit is worth ~4.31 DPR, an additional +1 damage is worth 3.48 DPR, and an additional full-BAB attack is worth ~20.30 DPR. Her single-attack damage is ~22.35 DPR, but she'll tend to have a lot more opportunities for full attacks than a typical melee character.
Archery is still amazing. Point Blank Master makes it even more amazing. Since PBM duplicates the only interesting ability from Archer Fighter, Archer Fighter gets kicked to the curb. You could probably get a little more damage out of her by squeezing her defensive magic items and dex belt to take Greater Bracers of Archery, but I wasn't happy with the defensive sacrifices involved.
wisdom vs str/dex
neither handle the cha/int for knowledge or diplomacy
I get wis/cha and +3 on diplomacy, sense motive and heal
you get str/dex and +3 to climb, swim and ride
neither class is going to be a "skill" monkey
as for the last--yep I can help the whole party---but if we are talking solo---my protection from the elements--vs your greater con for saves on alt--means we are both going to arrive in same shape. if we are together---I save you probably--but can't save myself. Support class vs superstar. Scottie pippin vs micheal jordan. a cleric definitly has synergy with a party---we make each party member stronger, but we need that party as much as they benefit from us.
I can cast on your fighter or rogue to make you better in combat---casting those same spells on myself doesn't do near as much. My spells are often contingent on YOU.
If your party isn't suicidal, they will see the wisdom of your plan, barring GM fiat.
that too often in AND out of PFS--(I am running a couple of APs and some PbPs) is what it is. the spell list you start with is what you have for most PbPs. and in APs, of course divinations and scrys dont work. I dare you--join a jade regent AP and try to scry. most you get with augurys are vague yes no or ummm. GMs in general don't want you trivializing their encounters.
If I were a high level demon terrorizing a town and set up under the town---you can bet I will leave no corpses for speak with dead and will have anti-scrying spells set up. Otherwise the town watch with access to wizards would have caught me long ago. It sounds to me like your GMs just allow the casters too much leeway. Do you realy think the modules and adventures were set up to be trivialized? those vampires, demons and dragons have dealt with wizards and clerics before. You would not be scrying on a dragon--and if you did--would probably see what he wanted you to see. He would have spies out and probably catch you on the crawl up to his lair (with some allies).
I agree--a fully prepared caster would be too powerful---that is why unless they are VERY good, they should not be fully prepared. The APs I have played in--when you come back the next week---things have changed--extra guards, new creatures etc. Those high level monsters did not get powerful by being stupid.
hmm we are kind of getting around to the same thing--slowly.
Just seems we play with different styles of GMS
in the APs, PbPs, two home campaigns, and PFS I have played in, the GM would not let us use scrying type magic to totally prepare. They used GM fiat to keep the encounters tough. Most you could get was a general idea--but you never had the perfect spell set up. If we retreated from a base of operations--they harrased us at night and kidnapped people and brought in reinforcements-(all according to the AP also)
you two seem to play with GMs who let you hit the mobs---scout them out---then come back later when prepared, without changing the monsters tactics or use scrying divination magic a lot more than our DMs do.
I will admit, with your DMs I would be bored. Hell a mage could scry--find the dragons lair--study it--and teleport the group right in--definity catch the dragon by surprise. But wouldn't the dragon do "something" to prevent that very thing from happening? I don't know but to me all the scrying and being "perfectly" prepared takes the fun out of it. It's kind of like having the opponents playbook on exactly what play he will run in a sports competition.
I found that with Pathfinder it has never been easier to even out all occuring class imbalances by a choice few houserules.
And, no, it is no use to post these here because these change not only from group to group but even within groups from campaign to campaign depending not only on the used classes but also on the mood of the players.
It is close to impossible to get that right for everyone and still have a game that resembles D&D.
hmm we are kind of getting around to the same thing--slowly.
Just seems we play with different styles of GMS
in the APs, PbPs, two home campaigns, and PFS I have played in, the GM would not let us use scrying type magic to totally prepare. They used GM fiat to keep the encounters tough. Most you could get was a general idea--but you never had the perfect spell set up. If we retreated from a base of operations--they harrased us at night and kidnapped people and brought in reinforcements-(all according to the AP also)
you two seem to play with GMs who let you hit the mobs---scout them out---then come back later when prepared, without changing the monsters tactics or use scrying divination magic a lot more than our DMs do.
I will admit, with your DMs I would be bored. Hell a mage could scry--find the dragons lair--study it--and teleport the group right in--definity catch the dragon by surprise. But wouldn't the dragon do "something" to prevent that very thing from happening? I don't know but to me all the scrying and being "perfectly" prepared takes the fun out of it.
Scrying is one example, there are plenty of ways to prep without using divination: trying and escaping an encounter is one, leaving a couple spell slots open is another (probably the most underrated, overlooked thing for a wizard ever), have scrolls and wands strapped all over you is another. There are more, don't worry.
Being prepared is part of the game, as is scouting and gathering of intelligence. Thats what a smart adventurer does, when their life or death is based on what knowledge you can gather. Only a moron charges in, without having first at least TRIED to get the lay of the land. You want to kick in the door? You're gonna get kicked in the head.
I think your GMs are too easy on you if you AREN'T getting killed for not scouting, scrying, and otherwise gathering information. In my games, (ones that I play, ones that I run) you would be dead by the first BBEG.
your argument for why scrying doesn't work basically amounts to "why bother, the GM is going to make it useless". Regardless of what information you gather, whether its what the enemy wants you to see or not, is SOMETHING. its better than nothing. Prepared for half of what you see in an intelligence gathering operation is better than be prepared for none of it.
Personally, i find wizards boring because its a fair amount of book keeping, and I hate to be that guy: "oh, there's a situation? I got the answer to it right... here!" I prefer being a martial type: less book keeping, more play time, and i have to think creatively, instead of knowing that there is a spell in my spellbook that will get me out of/through the situation.
Speaking of Fighter skills can someone please explain how commoners can get perception as a class skill yet the guys most likely to be protecting the town from attack and who should be watching out for crime AKA Fighters/Warriors don't?
Speaking of Fighter skills can someone please explain how commoners can get perception as a class skill yet the guys most likely to be protecting the town from attack and who should be watching out for crime AKA Fighters/Warriors don't?
Because fighters can fight, Commoners just run away? :)
it bothers me too, kinda hard to make an ex-city guard who has that a bit rough around the edges, but perceptive and shrewd thing going.
perception seems to me that every adventurer should have it---than just whatever points they put into it makes the difference. The most used skill in the game and one every adventurer needs. They use it constantly so how is it not a class skill? what class doesn't use or need it?`
Nobody is saying this. If in fact someone is saying this, they are wrong.
A wizard can defeat a fighter in single combat more often than not.
Ergo, Wizard is more powerful/versatile than the fighter.
IF the wizard is more powerful/versatile than a fighter... which you say no one is arguing...
How is that balanced?
So yes, they are saying it.
This is true for all classes, though, except that the wizard has a limited ability to adjust their skillset on the fly (by leaving spell slots open to solve problems that don't have to be solved the second they come up) and a huge ability to come back tomorrow with a new skillset for those problems that can wait a day. Contrast this with the fighter, who has one main ability and a handful of skills he can never change except over many levels.
A fighter can re-adjust his bonus feats.
The wizard can solve a variety of problems right now, many problems in 10 minutes, many more problems in a day, and basically any problem with a bit of money, access to a large city, and a day or two.
As can the Rogue, that must mean the Rogue is tier 1 too right?
The fighter cannot solve a problem unless he can kill it or solve it with his three or so skills.
Or solve it by not dying, or solve it by lifting it, or solve it by keeping others alive to solve it, etc...
There are many problems with this.
First, wizards are not the only high-tier class. Clerics and druids are nearly as versatile, and have no need of bodyguards.
Second, wizards are possibly the best class in the game (arguably druids are on par) at putting up literal or figurative walls...
Then please by all means, post your build, and we'll run through some published encounters.
Alchemist: no discovery/feat that allows you to mix two discoveries that can't normally be mixed, like Acid and Poison; how does a "potion" of Identify work anyway ?
Barbarian: lack of different rages, like one that alters Dexterity instead of Strength and such.
Bard: lack of offensive and damaging sonic spells, I have to use 3rd-party books for that, and it really allows me that Pathfinder doesn't create more sonic spells that deal raw damage.
Cavalier: didn't check it in detail, so can't say... but if a Small character can select a board or a dog at 4th level, why can't a Medium character select something else at 4th level ?
Cleric: the domain powers should be at-will, as in unlimited, via a feat or otherwise.
Druid: not all animals can be used as companions... a shame.
Fighter: no archetype that would give the fighter an option to go unarmed, like you trade your weapon proficiencies for an unarmed strike damage that scales according to your level.
Gunslinger: it's an allowed-or-not class, they should have made a crossbow archetype to use if guns aren't allowed in a game.
Inquisitor: Judgement should have been 3 times + 1 time per your Wis modifier + 1 time per 5 levels, and the class is heavily team-based. Go alone and you're screwed. I'm aware that you're in a team, but sometimes, you'll end up on your own.
Magus: lack of hi-level spells, like Polar Ray. What they should have done is either make the Magus get a spell progression of 9 levels or remake the spell list to fit into a 6-level progression, like they did with the Bard. There's a few good ray spells at 7, 8 and 9th level, but the magus can't access them.
Monk: an archetype that would favor manufactured weapons over unarmed strikes: the Weapon Adept should have gotten an ability like the Zen Archer's Ki Arrows and the Monk of the Empty Hand's Ki Weapons. Furthermore, Flurry of Blows is kinda broken: you make a full attack as if you had the TWF feats and with a higher BAB. I mean, why WOULDN'T you flurry ? I would have put a recharge time like 1d4 rounds to simulate how a monk has to catch his breath.
Ninja: it's just a rogue archetype, and it has nothing for it exclusively. How about archetypes based on those legends about ninjas and mystical powers ?
Oracle: like the cleric, some mysteries should be at-will/unlimited. Also, I just don't get the curses, flavor-wise. Oracles are usually cursed ? Where did that happened ?
Paladin: the mount, why can't I just empower a standard heavy horse with the power of a Divine Bond, like I can with a weapon ? Also, I would have rework the spell list so it would include 5th and 6th-level spells as 4th-level Paladin spells.
Ranger: the missing companions, as per the druid, and "missing" 5th and 6th-level spells as 4th-level Ranger spells. I'd like also that Favored Terrain (Planes) would stack with other types of terrains.
Rogue: I'd like to get "talent packages" to quickly build characters.
Samurai: like the ninja, it's just a cavalier archetype, with no exclusive resource.
Sorcerer: The 1st-level bloodline powers should be at-will/unlimited... and where's my official battle sorcerer archetype with 1 less spell per day and known with medium BAB ? Yeah, we have one, but it's a conversion; I'm talking about an official revised archetype here.
Summoner: Can't summon creatures if eidolon is out/can't summon eidolon if creatures are out... wha... ? That doesn't make sense at all. That makes the summon eidolon spell almost broken. I summon my eidolon with the spells and can still summon creatures normally, yeah, genius...
Wizard: The 1st-level specialization powers should be at-will/unlimited. Spellbook management is a pain. How about one single spellbook that has an infinite number of pages ? Also, I'll gladly take a feat or ability that would allow a wizard to cast a spell from his spellbook just like he would with a scroll (the spell would be erased from the spellbook, but could be rewritten afterward.)
Witch: The hexes are underpowered, because they have a one-time use on each person. I'd like to get something that would allow the witch to target the same person multiple times with the same hex, like a Grand Hex that allows her to use any normal hex (not major hexes) multiple times on the same person, like using your Int modifier.
So yes, they are saying it.
You have completely removed context with your choice of quote editing. A Man in Black was responding to you saying:
I don't know how else to say it. You seem to feel that if A can beat B in a single 1vs1 fight then A must be the ROXXXOR. If campaigns were 1 class fighting another class in 1 vs 1 fights, you might have a point.
To which he said nobody was arguing that. You are attempting to prove it by providing a quote by Kal Tenser, of which you ommited half.
A wizard can fulfill more roles than a fighter in a real campaign.
A wizard can defeat a fighter in single combat more often than not.
Ergo, Wizard is more powerful/versatile than the fighter.
That is to say, because BOTH of these are true, the first part explaining versatility and the second part explaining power, then the Wizard is more versatile and powerful. This is not the same as what you are saying, which is that people are arguing that the Wizard is more powerful and versatile because they do better in one-on-one PvP.
A fighter can re-adjust his bonus feats.
Read the quote more closely.
Contrast this with the fighter, who has one main ability and a handful of skills he can never change except over many levels.
Retraining a combat feat every four levels is part of the main ability that he can't change, "except over many levels."
As can the Rogue, that must mean the Rogue is tier 1 too right?
Not nearly to the same extent. A Wizard goes to the city, scribes the spell into his book, and can from then on prepare and use it as he pleases. He has permanently increased his individual versatility thanks to the purchase. A Rogue relying on UMD would need to locate a scroll for a single use, and purchase new scrolls every time he wished to do it after (using gold and substantial time). A Cleric or Druid has them both beat in this regard, simply resting 8 hours and having their entire lists to choose from. Having UMD factors into the Rogue's Tier, but is not nearly as good as proper casting (and is not nearly as differentiating of a factor nowadays, given how easy UMD is to get up to snuff in PF).
Then please by all means, post your build, and we'll run through some published encounters.First, wizards are not the only high-tier class. Clerics and druids are nearly as versatile, and have no need of bodyguards.
Second, wizards are possibly the best class in the game (arguably druids are on par) at putting up literal or figurative walls...
What do builds have to do with it? You said that Wizards relied on Fighters to block enemies, to which the response was that the are able to put up "literal or figurative walls." One doesn't really need a build to solve that. Be a caster. Be above level 7-9. Cast a Wall spell to stop the enemy from getting to you. Done.
Okay, I need help understanding what the issue is with certain classes compared to others. For example, I know a lot of people say that wizards, clerics, and druids are on the higher levels of power, while other classes like barbarian and fighter kinda get left in the dust.
Monk
Monks add their CMD twice from Wisdom as RAW:
"When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds his Wisdom bonus (if any) to his AC and his CMD. "Now anything but armor/NA that adds to AC will add to CMD according to CMD rules. Yet they add to CMD a second time as well according to the Monk.
Few people probably play by RAW with Monks, but the rules speak for themselves.
Now anything but armor/NA that adds to AC will add to CMD according to CMD rules.
That is not how CMD is defined.
A creature can also add any circumstance, deflection, dodge, insight, luck, morale, profane, and sacred bonuses to AC to its CMD. Any penalties to a creature's AC also apply to its CMD. A flat-footed creature does not add its Dexterity bonus to its CMD.
Nothing besides the listed modifiers gets added. The Monk Wisdom bonus to AC is an exception, one of many in relation to AC/CMD.
Not that this isn't an issue that comes up (Cautious Fighter/Uncanny Defense, for example), but it isn't an issue there.
EDIT: Did you get this idea where I think you got it? If so, I would recommend not taking what people say there without a grain of salt. They may be smart, but their knowledge of the intricacies of PF can be spotty at best.
Sounds like a great idea and not at all a waste of my time.
You know I had a response, but this line really says it all. You think I'm wrong and say that I'm using tired arguments, so I tell you I can back up my arguments and prove it, and your response is it's a waste of your time. That's a great way to "win" the argument I suppose, if you don't let them prove their case you'll never be proven wrong.
|
JiCi "Samurai: like the ninja, it's just a cavalier archetype, with no exclusive resource"
You forgot resolve, which is amazing, especially at 9th level.
on the rest of the anti melee(not targeting jici)
In any case melee can be built to do great in any situation. Falling building: they can survive the damage or make the save because one stat isn't everything for them. Locked door, who needs a door? Break down the door/wall/pull out lock picks. They don't need fly because they have a bow, or potions, or just go inside for a while. Wizards don't have a monopoly on being smart. Seriously the amount of resources spent to be like a d10 is amazing.
Wizards are great fun, but it's tough alot of the time. Creatures are immune(non humanoid/undead/swarm/special traits) to many spells. Or you don't memorize/have enough slots left for the whole party, the GM shuts down making up effects (ie grease fires or shocking grasp aoe in water). Good divination spells are high level, many require saves to even notice people, SR, protection items, smart fortresses. If they notice scrying they could change everything/ get back up/ leave.
did you not realize heros are usually on a countdown timer, If you told my character to wait a day while people could be dying just so you could memorize a better spell....(I can see some good reasons but it would have to make up the time wasted).
Walls: lol take the damage or knock them down with your adamantine two hander. Force walls are a prob for non barbarians, but the walls of the room can be knocked down.
Get from a to b fast, horses do that well. Survive bad weather high con/ skills do that well.
Not saying d10's do it better, but that they are not useless just because they don't need to do anything special to handle the situation.
JiCi "Samurai: like the ninja, it's just a cavalier archetype, with no exclusive resource"
You forgot resolve, which is amazing, especially at 9th level.
Well, here's what I meant: when Ulmimate Magic came out, we've got the Magus, and we also got a bunch of things for the Magus as well, like spells and archetypes.
When Ultimate Combat came out, we've got the Ninja and the Samurai... and it stopped there. No archetype specifically made for these classes, no exclusive feat, nothing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because a wizard can buy more spells and add them to his spellbook. This can be done as easily as adding any equipment to your gear list. Sorcerers do not have the same luxury.Why does everybody assume a wizard can cast all spells available?
A wizard gets 3 + int mod level 1 spells at the beginning, With every new level he gets 2 additional spells.
This will end up in 41 + int mod spells.
A sorcerer gets 48 spells + bloodline spells
(without level 0)So what if the GM don't let you copy any spell?
It's GMs choice how powerful a wizard will be.
In worst case he could end with less spells than a poor sorcerer :)
You are making an assumption, which may not be true, that a wizard can just go and buy scrolls to add to their spellbook. Having played a wizard in World's Largest Dungeon I have to second the point it is the GM's choice how powerful the wizard is.
Right, and powerful classes are capable in more circumstances. Particularly non-combat circumstances.character strength depends on the circmumstance
It doesn't help that some folks do bandy tier about as though it works that way.
We had a long and helpful chat one time about this AMiB, I still remember it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, this sounds like fun...
Combat classes usually have it easier in the beginning. Spellcasters have to be stingy with their magic, and what little they have doesn't translate to anything game breaking. Barbarians and Fighters are kings until 5th level, and sometimes higher.
But then things begin to shift just a teensie bit. After a certain level, spellcasters get their act together. They start becoming capable of doing monstrous things. A summoner's eidolon can deal upwards to 50-80 damage a round. Sorcerers can obliterate an entire group of enemies, or put them out of commision with stinking cloud or the like, and they can do this enough times a day now that they don't have to cling to every spell like its their last. Besides, by this point, they ca afford to purchase wands and staves, or better yet, make them themselves.
Some folk will tell you that as the spellcasters become tougher and tougher, the combat classes fall behind. Well, there's truth and there's untruth to this. Being able to dish out and take hits becomes less important, and while you're crazy magicky friends are wizzing about, flying and teleporting and breathing fire, you're stuck on the ground pounding down one enemy at a time with you're boring old longsword, or what have you. However, what combat classes lose in effectiveness, they gain in reliability. No matter what, you can't really take away a fighter's powers (essentially represented as permanent combat bonuses in the form of feats) under any circumstance. Wizards will run out of spells. Druids will run out of wild shape. Inquisitors will lose inquisitions, and when the alchemist tosses his last bomb, the boring old fighter will still be whacking away at his one enemy like a boss. While that seems boring, and a lot of people can and will scoff, a fighter will very rarely have to scream a cry of lamentation that all of their precious abilities have been rendered moot, like clerics who fell would, or sorcerers who have been plopped into an antimagic field would. They just keep on truckin'....on an on and on all day every day. Boring, but efficient. Strengths and weaknesses change.
All in all though, most problems can be circumvented (and advantages ignored) depending on how intelligently you play the character. I've seen rogues torn apart into so many little chunks because they never bothered to try and create circumstances where they could sneak attack, other than in the surprise round, and I've also seen clever wizards that have used their magic to escape almost all forms of damage and outlast the party. In the end, therefore, a class is just a tool. Like all tools, they all have their uses, they all have their limitations, and they all have their potentials. However, more than 80% of the equation is determined by the person wielding it. The most broken class can be rendered less effective than a blind legless hobo if the player using him is an idiot, and the most underestimated, laughed at class can be turned into a devastating nightmarish combination in the right hands.
In other words, ask not what the classes can and cannot do, but rather ask what the players can or cannot do, in the end.
However, what combat classes lose in effectiveness, they gain in reliability.
This argument is made often, to which the answer is "Hit Points." They are a resource like any other. When you run low on them, it isn't a good idea to continue adventuring. Likewise, status effects, spells, ability damage, and spells can all slowly chip away at a combat class's ability to continue. You need to use consumables or spells to continue, just like anyone else. When they run out, you need to stop and rest or risk death. That it isn't your inherent class features that run low doesn't mean you can keep going forever.
The most broken class can be rendered less effective than a blind legless hobo if the player using him is an idiot, and the most underestimated, laughed at class can be turned into a devastating nightmarish combination in the right hands.
While this is true in general, I think discussions of balance necessarily rest on the assumption of vaguely equal skill level. It is like arguing which of two cars is better; that an idiot could drive either one off the road doesn't make them equal. While the position "balance doesn't matter" (or at least "the classes are close enough as-is") is a perfectly valid one to hold, it doesn't mean that stronger or weaker (or if you prefer, those with more and less potential) don't exist. It also doesn't necessarily require that such imbalances be ignored, for the sake of those who DO care about them.
|
|
JiCi "Samurai: like the ninja, it's just a cavalier archetype, with no exclusive resource"
You forgot resolve, which is amazing, especially at 9th level.
Well, here's what I meant: when Ulmimate Magic came out, we've got the Magus, and we also got a bunch of things for the Magus as well, like spells and archetypes.
When Ultimate Combat came out, we've got the Ninja and the Samurai... and it stopped there. No archetype specifically made for these classes, no exclusive feat, nothing.
Thanks JiCi, sorry for the confusion. Some love for them would have been nice. as a super archatype they still have lots of choices and archatypes in their "base" class to choose from. so I kinda see why they did that. I still Wish they had used an earlier supliment to try them out and used UC as the ultimate source for them.
Samurai actually has one: Sword Saint.
|
|
What do wizards do that fighters can't? (Or any non magic character)
Casters do it faster and easier but what are they needed for? We have feats for item creation by non casters, we have boats/carts and animals (land air and sea) for transportation. We can communicate important information long distances with watch towers and signals. Non casters can even create undead through brutal acts.
When I play a caster, I prefer to play a sorcerer because if I play a wizard, everything seems too easy.
When I do play a wizard, I usually feel like I'm holding back for the sake of the other players, and tend toward spells that make them feel good (haste, telekinetic charge, buffs, etc.).
Last time I played a 'self-centred' wizard, the rest of the party seemed to feel like cohorts next to me.
I didn't feel great about it, and neither did the others.
What do wizards do that fighters can't? (Or any non magic character)
Casters do it faster and easier but what are they needed for? We have feats for item creation by non casters, we have boats/carts and animals (land air and sea) for transportation. We can communicate important information long distances with watch towers and signals. Non casters can even create undead through brutal acts.
Aren't the non-caster feats limited to weapon/armor/wonderous? No golems, potions, rings, rods, scrolls?
Plus: One additional problem with the Master Craftsman feat that probably needs errata is that it lacks this line in it's description:
[Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new Craft skill.]
So you have to choose carefully.
You are making an assumption, which may not be true, that a wizard can just go and buy scrolls to add to their spellbook. Having played a wizard in World's Largest Dungeon I have to second the point it is the GM's choice how powerful the wizard is.Because a wizard can buy more spells and add them to his spellbook. This can be done as easily as adding any equipment to your gear list. Sorcerers do not have the same luxury.Why does everybody assume a wizard can cast all spells available?
A wizard gets 3 + int mod level 1 spells at the beginning, With every new level he gets 2 additional spells.
This will end up in 41 + int mod spells.
A sorcerer gets 48 spells + bloodline spells
(without level 0)So what if the GM don't let you copy any spell?
It's GMs choice how powerful a wizard will be.
In worst case he could end with less spells than a poor sorcerer :)
Having played the Worlds Largest Dungeon... The wizard still had 2+INT times level of options per situation. Martial classes still have one option: stab it. Thus, casters are still more versatile, regardless of whenther the wizard has unlimited access to spells or not.
You proposed a challenge that doesn't address any of my arguments. SGTs are useful for understanding class balance but they're not the be-all and end-all. For one, they don't usefully measure abilities that make allies better or rely on allies to function,
Wait, so you're saying a Wizard can't do it all? That other party members are needed too? Hmm interesting...
Or to say it in a less snarky way: If a Wizard casts Enlarge Person on a Barbarian, who's more useful in this situation, the person who owns the tool, or the person using the tool?
and they're extremely vulnerable to bias in what tests are chosen.
Which is why I proposed doing it in full view of everyone. Any bias could be pointed out discussed, and figure out how to remove that bias.
What's more, I offered you a whole list of how different classes respond to different challenges, from actual experience in play, and you brushed it off.
I have a problem with this because it's based on personal experience and I have no way to verify that. For example, there is a person up thread who claimed that a "Selfish" wizard made everyone else feel useless. Unless the wizard was around 5 level above everyone, I'm throwing the BS flag.
If your point is "fighters can do their job in combat!" then you don't need to run any tests to prove this. Again, it's much in dispute. (I am curious to see your fighter that can block off territory meaningfully AND has above-average defenses AND can do meaningful damage to most enemies, though).
First, I'm also curious to see your wizard do all things at all times. Second, what I said was a fighter could stop the wizard from getting attacked, how that translated to a fighter being able to block vast tracks of land I'm not real sure, considering most Wizards are medium creatures taking up one 5' square.
Martial classes still have one option: stab it.
And it all becomes clear.
Design Manager
|
I think the point is, there aren't classes that are "unbalanced". There are classes with much wider ranges of versatility in the roles they can fill though. Your Wizards and Clerics can cover pretty much any role they choose, at least for a limited number of times per day. Obviously, a Cleric or Wizard won't be able to Knock as many locks or Detect as many Traps as a rogue built to do that, but the wizard and cleric can wake up tomorrow and instead of being skill/challenge monkeys, decide that they feel like being melee warriors, or primary damage dealers, or what have you. When that rogue wakes up in the morning, he's still a skill monkey, even if a somewhat better skill monkey than the wizard or cleric would have been.
That's really what the tier system was addressing anyways, not necessarily the comparative combat prowess of a specific class over another, but rather, a class' ability to deal with a given situation. The wizard or cleric classes, with a night's rest, can wake up in the morning and fill any role in the party, making them Tier 1. A druid can cover most roles, not all, making them tier 2. And your Fighters and rogues and fill maybe 1 or 2 roles, making them Tier 3. It has nothing to do with which class is "better" just which classes have the most versatility in what they can contribute to a group over the course of a campaign.
**EDIT** I know a lot of people would say druids are Tier 1, I respectfully disagree. I've never seen a druid who effectively filled the skill monkey role, except in some very limited circumstances and environments. Their MADness also makes it unlikely that any given druid fills more than one or two roles once it's been built.
Martial classes still have one option: stab it.And it all becomes clear.
...and you make it murky.
I don't understand your response. Fighters hit things with weapons. They can do some nifty things with weapons, but what boils down to is stabbing their opponents. IF you are denying that, or somehow implying they do something other than hit things with weapons (a very one dimensional ability, compared to spellcasting), then lets hear it.
With the page of spell knowledge people are talking about from UE the sorcerer and oracle are probably on the same tier as the wizard.I'm not familiar with that.
Adds a class spell to your known spell list while you hold it. Same price per level as pearl of power.
We need a adventure/scenario with a variety of challenges meant for a single character that can be played through without a GM (so it'd basically be a big flowchart of encounters) that's designed with some means of scoring the outcome (besides just win/survive/die). Then we could run all these theory-crafted characters through it and see if any of them really work.
In your wizard/barbarian example, that spell doesn't make the barbarian actually good, because Enlarge Person would also be very effective cast on, say, a cleric or druid.
And we're back to theory-crafting again. A cleric and a druid don't have full BAB, and don't have the amount of hit points to negate the hit to AC.
Instead, the claim is that high-tier classes can do many more things than low-tier classes. It's the difference between being able to do anything and being able to do everything. Stop arguing against the idea that high-tier spellcasters can do everything, because nobody at all is claiming it.
You seem to be talking about versatility, I'm talking about balance. A fighter is awesome in combat. Much better than a Wizard, and I would dare say a Wizard couldn't survive in combat without the fighter, but the fighter could easily survive most fights without the Wizard. There has to be a down side to the fighter's combat ability. There has to be something to balance that. That balance comes from a fighter, not being as useful out of combat.