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.
So my question is, what are the things that make each class strong/weak?
Because I am doing my own personal revisions to each class, I feel like this issue is something I need to ask about, especially since I personally haven't played every single class all the way to level 20 (some games we only get to about level 14 or so). Therefore, if anyone could give me a good description about what makes certain classes bad or good, I'd greatly appreciate it. Also, please feel free to provide suggestions about improving or balancing certain classes as well. Thanks again.
The Classes
Alchemist
Barbarian
Bard
Fighter
Rogue
Ranger
Oracle
Magus
Wizard
Inquisitor
Paladin
Sorcerer
Ninja
Samurai
Cavalier
Druid
Summoner
Witch
Monk
Gunslinger
Cleric
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no point in attempting to correct perceived imbalances unless you already recognize them yourself. They are all matters of opinion and circumstance; the most you could accomplish is create variants that you, personally, feel are balanced, because it is impossible to appease everyone's complaints. All those complaints are different, and as such asking the general community for things that should be addressed is futile.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe in 3.5, but Paizo did a FANTASTIC job of balancing the classes in Pathfinder. I think you'll find that no 1 class is superbly stronger than another. There is still much variation and each class feels different than the others, but by themselves the classes are pretty even as far as potential power goes.
Also keep in mind that "archetypes" are basically class variants in Pathfinder. They're basically ways to change certain things about 1 class to make it something else. Combined with unrestricted multiclassing, no 2 characters in Pathfinder will ever be the same.
Think of the classes as being themes for characters - not just toolboxes of power that vary from one to the next. In my opinion, none of the classes are "bad" and none of them are the "best". You can honestly play what you want and MAKE whatever it is good. Again, Paizo did a great job of doing that in class design. I never thought I'd see the day where there was a balanced 3.5 system until I was introduced to Pathfinder.
If you want to know the specifics of the classes, take a look here:
www.d20pfsrd.com
Taking a look at their abilities will give you a much better idea about their powers than I could in trying to explain each one. Bottom line: all of them are different, and every one is good in its own unique way.
I think it's just a matter of the player and how they play them, for one, and the GM for the other. I have a group of varied players, and the two that shine the most are the barbarian and the fighter, but then that's probably because as a GM, I love combat over magic.
But, from my experience, the Witch has been rather weak, but then the player didn't really know what to do with her, wasn't very creative and hung back. I'm sure in the right hands, it could be an outstanding character.
I thought the Alchemist would be weak, but the player for that has been having a lot of fun, been very creative, especially with the class alternate archetypes.
Sorceror has worked well. Nobody has used the Summoner yet. They seem to avoid it with all the Eidolon build rules, but I sure wish someone would try.
We had a gunslinger, but it just seem to not work in the campaign that well, but that's more of a preference choice or a campaign specifically geared towards a gunslinger (which I may do in the future).
Anyway, probably not that helpful, but thought I'd add.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I think what you're asking for is the "conventional wisdom" about certain classes.
Note that these are not my opinions, but just a basic expression of what common complaints get raised about certain classes:
"WEAK" CLASSES
Rogue: Often considered underpowered. Rogue Talents are generally considered weak compared to the options other classes get. Ninja seems to be just plain better than rogues in most ways.
Monk: Too much dependency on multiple ability scores. Not as good at dealing damage as martial classes. Crappy equipment that is excessively expensive. A conflict between moving around a lot, and having to stand still to use flurry of blows.
Cavalier: Only good in campaigns where he can ride his mount all the time.
"STRONG" CLASSES
Summoner: Way too many options for the eidolon. Having a ton of summoned monsters bogs down combat. The Synthesist archetype is like having two PCs for the price of one. Master Summoner is an unstoppable combat machine. Can do any other class's job better than that class can.
Druid: Full casting + wild shape abilities = better than both other casters and martial classes.
Cleric: Too well-rounded, able to fight better than most martial classes and cast better than anyone except a wizard. Plus healing on top of that.
Alchemist: Too much damage. Vivisectionist archetype is just like a Rogue except way better.
Wizard: Spellcasting gets much more powerful at high levels, meaning that wizards are far better than other classes at the upper levels.
There's more than that, but that's off the top of my head.
|
|
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.
So my question is, what are the things that make each class strong/weak?
Because I am doing my own personal revisions to each class, I feel like this issue is something I need to ask about, especially since I personally haven't played every single class all the way to level 20 (some games we only get to about level 14 or so). Therefore, if anyone could give me a good description about what makes certain classes bad or good, I'd greatly appreciate it. Also, please feel free to provide suggestions about improving or balancing certain classes as well. Thanks again.
The Classes
Alchemist-All around character...have to focus on one aspect not all that are available
Barbarian-Martial Character that loses capability at range
Bard-Great support class but really shines more when more players are present.
Fighter-For the most part see Barbarian. There are ranged options but they usually don't get chosen often.
Rogue-Great skill monkey, but heavily reliant combat-wise on a flanking buddy.
Ranger-Shine in outdoor communities and when fighting ing favored terrain or against favored enemy. If you choose those poorly you are a poorly multiclassed fighter druid.
Oracle-You have to choose a weakness right off the bat, but that weakness gets you cool things later down the road.
Magus-Will never be a full martial characer or have the power of a wizard/sorc
Wizard-Less spells per day than a sorc but knows more and has to prepare them prior to using them. If you build them as a blaster the damage won't really stack up as well as a martial character.
Inquisitor-
Paladin-Have to be lawful good? =b
Sorcerer-See wizard except the spell side they are opposite. Less spells known but more spells per day and they don't have to prepare.
Ninja-Its a rogue variant that uses ki. Will have MAD issues.
Samurai-Its a cavalier...
Cavalier-Medium sized characters or larger will have trouble bringing their mounts with them everywhere.
Druid-Have to use wood or leater armor so the AC is typically lower early on for this class. They also will have the Alchemist issue where they need to choose a route and stick with it...
Summoner-I hate this class...
Witch-REALLY strong when it comes to the slumber hex, but its spells are lacking in the offensive department. They are more buff/debuff.
Monk-Lack of equipment to make your unarmed strikes better...you have a great AC (especially touch) but its magic item dependent since you can't (shouldn't) wear armor.
Gunslinger-You are the only class that has a critical failure...and are a walking time bomb that can LITERALLY explode. You shoot at touch AC in the first range increment though.
Cleric-You are a good buff/debuff class and make an excellent spll caster. You will be sorely disappointed if you try and make a melee class or try and out heal damage as it comes in.
I really do appreciate the opinions thus far. Currently, in the homebrew section, I've tackled making improvements to the Barbarian and Rogue classes, and I think I'm doing a pretty good job (you guys should really go take a look at them...they're under the threads "Barbarian Revised*" and "Rogue Revised*".
I won't deny that I'm not an expert on ALL classes, but I do have a good understanding of what some classes lack over others. Rogues, Gunslingers, Fighter's, and Barbarians are typically considered low tier classes, and probably for good reason.
I'm currently kinda stuck on the revisions for the Fighter and Ranger (again, making a lot of changes), but mainly made this thread to help get a better understanding on what kind if issues certain classes have.
I've heard it said that fighters truly do get outclassed in late game, due to their inability to deal with many monsters, or compare to other classes that can essentially do their job better (and I've also heard it said that Barbarian's suffer from the same problem). Monks still suffer from made, while a rogue basically can be outdone by a ninja or a bard. Again, these are all the issues I'm trying to tackle, so I figured it might be best to ask those who are probably more experienced on the subject material than I am.
Alchemist - Potions, potions, potions. Bombs, crazy mutagens, extracts, and heavens know what else.
Barbarian - They can be pretty versatile. I can't say much because I don't know all the rage powers.
Bard - I can't stress enough how much I enjoy support Bards. Not only are they great at support (+1 CL being a favorite of mine), but they have great spells, and are capable in combat as well.
Fighter - They get 20 feats, lots of boosts to consistent damage. Someone explain why they suck? (Also, yes, bad Will save, but there's a feat for that.)
Rogue - I don't see what everyone's complaining about. You should have others to flank with in your party (or your party is probably doing something wrong.) Also, I have no more problems hitting enemies with my Rogue than I do with my Ranger. Also, yes, not a lot of rogue talents, but you still have a lot of skill points, and sneak attack HURTS! Try convincing my Charging Skulking Slayer Scout Rogue with 1d12+1d6+6 damage at level 1 otherwise. (Eventually, it will be 1d12+Xd8+9+Power Attack)
Ranger - Just as good as a fighter (if not better.)
Oracle - Not just for Magic, but yeah: Magic is OP
Magus - I don't really see anything wrong here. They are still pretty strong even if you don't focus on shocking grasp.
Wizard - Magic is OP.
Inquisitor - Not enough experience.
Paladin - They may not do a lot of damage constantly, but when they do, it HURTS! Also, WAY better at surviving than the Fighter or Barbarian IMO.
Sorcerer - With a lot of their bloodline powers requiring to hit rolls, I'm surprised they aren't a 3/4 BAB class. Also, Magic is OP.
Ninja - I don't hear complaints.
Samurai - I've never seen any
Cavalier - great for those teamwork feats
Druid - Magic is OP.
Summoner - Only OP Eidolons are usually the incorrectly built ones. I have mine built correctly, it's no better than my summoner, who I built for combat.
Witch - Nothing Wrong with them. Also, Magic is OP
Monk - So flurry of blows is TWF at full BAB? That's not something to overreact to, TWF usually beats THF anyways.
Gunslinger - Probably the reason people think they are OP is because they are played wrong. I've played a gunslinger, and I always am having to end up close in combat to target touch.
Cleric - Magic is OP
As for those Magic is OP lines, Magic is reality-shifting. You just can't argue it. Of course, you can only do so for so long. Also, maybe why we have wizard's duels... or not, frankly, my post probably doesn't even make sense
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you need to keep in mind is that some classes are more gear-dependent than others. This is usually the source of major power level discrepancies. If a character belonging to one of these classes is under geared, or inappropriately geared, they will under perform. This generates the cries that they are weak compared to other classes, or that other classes are over-powered.
If a member of one of these classes is properly geared, or tailors their equipment to the task at hand, they can outperform everyone else. This generates claims that the classes in question are fine, or over=powered themselves. Similarly, it generates perceptions that other classes are under powered.
The classes you mention as commonly under performing, Duskblade, are those gear-dependent classes. The problem is that the issue is not a matter of the class, but of the equipment the characters obtain. Or the equipment the characters don't obtain, as is usually the case when these classes are perceived to be weak choices.
You're attempting to address the wrong aspect of the class paradigm: it's not the classes themselves that are imbalanced, it's the nature of a gear-dependent game system that is open to creative interpretation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that most people who claim a class is either massively over powered or underpowered tend to cherry pick the level they use as an example because they want to make their point. This is because they have an axe to grind before beggining the conversation and want to embelish their case. Over the course of an entire adventuring career every class seems to have specific points in time where they really shine, and on a whole if a game runs for enough levels everybody should get their chance to be on top. Sure there are some classes that need multiple good stats..if you go low point buy those classes get weak, there classes that need gear, if you go low magic those classes get weak...but if you stick to a system that is reasonably close to what the Devs intended nothing is so unplayable as to need complete overhaul..much less needing to overhaul every single class in an attempt to hit what is to me a constantly moving goal post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hahahahahaha!Oh, wait... you're being serious?
Absolutely. I'm DMing a group right now with 1 fighter, a witch, an oracle, and a bard. Guess who's lagging behind in damage/kills/usefulness?
...Nobody.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no balance.
There doesn't need to be balance.
All that is needed, is that every round every player has something fun to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in 3.5 days, a poster named JaronK wrote a seminal post (here) describing the issues with character versatility, codifying it into a tier system. The first few posts of that thread explain why the tier system was conceived, ranks classes (albeit 3.5 classes, which have almost universally been changed/deleted/replaced in PF), and provides a Q&A explaining how best to use the system.
Very good reading for anyone interested in game design, especially the "how to kill a dragon" section (hidden with spoiler tags in the Q&A section).
Note, of course, that it's not an indication that your game needs to change. Everything is subject to how individual games are organized by players and GMs in question. Merely, this was an attempt to codify objectively the options for bypassing given objectives available to a wide variety of very disparate class designs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As with all tier systems: Personal Experience Means Nothing
There are a number of reasons your situation can exist (Different optimization levels, adventure design, GM favoritism/loot disparity come to mind) most of which do not include "the game is balanced"
The same factors are equally applicable to the other side of the argument, though: perceived imbalance can result from the very same reasons you describe.
To be honest, personal experience in a tabletop RPG means everything; theory-crafting is just a mental exercise that often fails to reflect actual game play situations, and the argument of a balanced versus imbalanced class system are worthless in practical application. The game does not need to be balanced, nor should that be the objective of its designers. It is not a competitive scenario.
To update the tier system Morbios linked:
Wizard/Cleric/Druid remain in Tier 1.
Oracles and Witches join Sorcerers in Tier 2.
Tier 3 consists of all the 6-level casters, although Summoners are pushing Tier 2. Call them Tier 2.5
Everyone else is in Tier 4.
Tier 5 includes only poorly built characters, but Cavaliers, Monks and Rogues are probably at the highest risk of falling from 4 to 5.
Also, because of changes in the spells available, the gaps between tiers are smaller, small enough that Tier 1 and 4 classes can get along happily.
Wizard/Cleric/Druid remain in Tier 1.
Oracles and Witches join Sorcerers in Tier 2.
Tier 3 consists of all the 6-level casters, although Summoners are pushing Tier 2. Call them Tier 2.5
Everyone else is in Tier 4.
Tier 5 includes only poorly built characters, but Cavaliers, Monks and Rogues are probably at the highest risk of falling from 4 to 5.
For the most part, I agree. However, it might help to point out to new players that the archetyping boom in Pathfinder has made it very difficult to conclusively tier each class as a whole (and each person's ranking was always somewhat subjective to begin with by the system's nature, at least for tiers 2-4). The quinggong monk, for example, is pretty much a straight buff to the core class (not to imply that that is a bad thing, or that it was implemented poorly - it's not/wasn't).
I'm not convinced that tier 1 actually exists anymore, though - at least to the degree it did in 3.5. As more splatbooks are published, I can easily see it emerging again.
Duskblade,
many "issues" raised in these forums can also be generally attributed to people issues, with perceived class discrepancies used as a smokescreen:
- Sneaky rules lawyers who do dubious rule interpretations and get away with with. This is not optimizing. It's just annoying.
- Unassertive DMs
- Jerk players who want to be the star and not play cooperatively.
- Unimaginative DMs who have problems thinking outside the orc/goblin dungeon crawls.
- Optimized characters/experienced players in groups of mostly unoptimized characters/inexperienced players... and who don't share their knowledge/experience.
- DMs thinking they are running one style of game while the players are expecting another style (ie: GM expecting heroic adventurers while the nicest PC is the CN barbarian)
- Players or DMs thinking something doesn't make sense real world terms, while forgetting that they are playing in a fantastical world(It's unrealistic that the monk can jump so far... wait, what about the DRAGON? Dieties granting spells? Vampires?)
I think this is REALLY what gets me about how people decry one class as being underpowered for some reason or another, the Monk being a Grade A example of it.
I've got a DM that LOVES Monks and frequently makes insanely lethal Monks to put up against our PCs. Not one-shot potential, but it's no longer a surprise to me when a Monk enemy shreds half my HP in a single turn. It makes me look at what people are saying, and what I'm seeing in practice, and wonder just what kind of games people are being stuck with.
|
I think this is REALLY what gets me about how people decry one class as being underpowered for some reason or another, the Monk being a Grade A example of it.
I've got a DM that LOVES Monks and frequently makes insanely lethal Monks to put up against our PCs. Not one-shot potential, but it's no longer a surprise to me when a Monk enemy shreds half my HP in a single turn. It makes me look at what people are saying, and what I'm seeing in practice, and wonder just what kind of games people are being stuck with.
I'd wager the disconnect here is comparing monk NPCs that are likely highly specialized to be thrown at PCs and are good at what they do to more well-rounded monks that most players would actually want to play.
It's one thing to make an optimized-to-hell-and-back monk work really well. It's another to make a non-dumpstatted core monk that actually feels like the monk the player actually wants to play work. It's not about raw power, it's about getting the monk to live up to its flavor.
I think this is REALLY what gets me about how people decry one class as being underpowered for some reason or another, the Monk being a Grade A example of it.I've got a DM that LOVES Monks and frequently makes insanely lethal Monks to put up against our PCs. Not one-shot potential, but it's no longer a surprise to me when a Monk enemy shreds half my HP in a single turn. It makes me look at what people are saying, and what I'm seeing in practice, and wonder just what kind of games people are being stuck with.
A prime example of my point - thank you. The problem is not in the classes and the rules, but with those who utilize them. Just because you watch your friend play a witch and not offer much to the party doesn't mean that witches are bad. Likewise, just because you witness a Summoner do ridiculous things in your particular game doesn't mean that Summoners are overpowered. I would challenge anyone to find a tabletop game with classes more equal in potential than Pathfinder (though 4e did a good job with this too).
And yes, balance is important. This is a cooperative game, and no one wants to feel inferior in a group to someone else. If this happens, it should be because of the players' build choices, NOT because of a flawed class design.
I played at a table with a 5th level human fighter archer and a 7th level human fighter archer. The 5th level owned the 7th level--and not just due to luck. Was just a much more optimized build.
Alchemist
CL 20 potions at really low levels seems like over kill. Mostly a GM fiat problem.
Fighter
Other classes beat it at what it does best, fighting. Has no real purpose outside of combat.
Rogue/Ninja
Pathetic Damage, trap finding doesn't have much of a purpose, the rogue lacks ways to survive in melee.
Magus
Focuses too much around burst damage.
Inquisitor
A little MAD and lacks knowledge local.
Paladin
Alignment and Code is a little silly.
Sorcerer
Nothing is wrong if you're playing a human sorcerer. Otherwise it's just a weak wizard.
Cavalier/Samurai
Next to no one plays them because they're inferior to every other class.
Druid
The class falls off later levels.
Summoner
Confusing game mechanics for new players.
Witch
They're one of the least versatile full casters out there.
Monk
Rocket Tag Metagame doesn't properly support monks and the class is a little MAD.
Gunslinger
Simple grapples lock them down and they're sort of a one trick pony.
Cleric/Oracle
Lacks offensive spells.
Martial Classes:
Most games don't challenge full casters by making them use all of their spells/abilities for the day. At least they don't seem to do it enough. Therefore the full casters versatility typically trumps the martial classes ability to keep on going.
Combat Metagame:
The current game consists of killing monsters before killing you. Of course their is a balance between the two but it highly favors offense over defense.
Stats:
A lot of classes fall behind a little because the system is convinced that everyone has to deal damage with strength when it comes to weapons.
Allow classes to use their primary stat for attack and damage and adjust the game accordingly so certain classes can keep up.
Classes:
The system itself has interesting and fun classes and races. However it seems as if you stripped away roleplay, codes, and alignment from classes you would allow players more freedom to develop concepts they want to play.
Hitpoints: The game currently doesn't scale hitpoints properly because of how extra attacks scale.
Skillpoints: There is no room for perform and profession skills. Some classes lack skills in general.
Character/Monster Creation: There isn't a program developed by Paizo that allows to easily create and customize characters and monsters. I'm hoping for something like what 4e did in the near future.
I think this is REALLY what gets me about how people decry one class as being underpowered for some reason or another, the Monk being a Grade A example of it.
There are a lot of reasons this thread is pretty useless. The main one being that the majority of the people on this board do what I call Theory-Crafting. They say, for example, that a fighter is better than a monk because a fighter could take feat X, Y and Z. So you bring up another point, and then they'll say a fighter has a lot of feats so they could have feats A, B, and C and still have X, Y, Z. What some of us learned in an exercise that pitted a Monk vs a Fighter, is that when the Theory-Crafters were forced to actually build the Fighter, there were gaping holes. A fighter couldn't have A-Z like they theorized. The monk actually won in all but one case (the fighter went pure defense). Even then you learn that the fighter would be all but unusable in any case except against a monk, while the monk was still a very viable character using less than half his feats to defeat most fighter builds. Even after all this, it didn't really convince anyone of anything. Those that thought the monk was under powered still believe that, and those that feel the fighter owns all, still believe that.
The other problem is experience. I laugh hysterically whenever I see someone put a Wizard in Tier 1 but a Sorcerer is only Tier 2. I'm not really going to go into the argument again, but even coming from a Wizard lover like me, a Sorcerer pretty much owns a Wizard in everything. So much so, that any where you go, Sorcerers will VASTLY out number Wizards, and the only real compelling reason to be a Wizard over a Sorcerer is to get higher level spells 1 level before the Sorcerer.
|
I've got a DM that LOVES Monks and frequently makes insanely lethal Monks to put up against our PCs. Not one-shot potential, but it's no longer a surprise to me when a Monk enemy shreds half my HP in a single turn. It makes me look at what people are saying, and what I'm seeing in practice, and wonder just what kind of games people are being stuck with.
Monks though are kinda designed to kick the butt out of a humaniod, many monsterous things not so much....
I think I know your DM too... iiieeeeeee.... more monks to fight.
Jodokai, since the Tier system is primarily based on flexibility, I'm not really sure how Wizards ever end up lower than Sorcerers (with the exception of Paragon Surge.)
3.5 had a lot of spells that were really, really, perfect for only a few situations and that's what put the prepared casters on top.
I put witches at tier 2 because of a relatively narrow spell list, but I think I agree that tier 1 doesn't really exist in PF these days. A cleric can't often pull out a tool so perfect it leaves a wisely-built oracle in the dust, because those tools don't exist.
Jodokai, since the Tier system is primarily based on flexibility, I'm not really sure how Wizards ever end up lower than Sorcerers (with the exception of Paragon Surge.)
3.5 had a lot of spells that were really, really, perfect for only a few situations and that's what put the prepared casters on top.
I put witches at tier 2 because of a relatively narrow spell list, but I think I agree that tier 1 doesn't really exist in PF these days. A cleric can't often pull out a tool so perfect it leaves a wisely-built oracle in the dust, because those tools don't exist.
A wizard's versatility is often overstated by Theory-Crafters. Could the Wizard have the perfect spell ready? Sure, he could, but as it turns out odds are he didn't memorize it today and so doesn't have it, just like the sorcerer doesn't have it.
The other thing is that Sorcerers can add Metamagic to any spell they cast. Sure they lost a move action, and some call that a "serious limitation", but I find that it is also laughable (a Sorcerer isn't known for having to be mobile). A Wizard and sorcerer get silenced, if a Wizard was psychic enough they can cast 1 maybe 2 spells? A sorcerer can cast any spell they know. Who's more versatile?
Ah but there are pearls of power you say. Well consider this, for every 1st level pearl of power a Wizard buys, is 20 scrolls a sorcerer can buy, who's more versatile? If you want to talk about 2nd level, well that's 26 scrolls to one pearl.
While it appears that, in theory, a wizard is more versatile, the reality is quite different.
No class is bad. Some are stronger than others, but who says that's a bad thing?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's no point in attempting to correct perceived imbalances unless you already recognize them yourself. They are all matters of opinion and circumstance; the most you could accomplish is create variants that you, personally, feel are balanced, because it is impossible to appease everyone's complaints. All those complaints are different, and as such asking the general community for things that should be addressed is futile.
First poster nailed it. Lists of perceived imbalances belong on the WOW boards.
A wizard just has to leave some slots open and he can have whatever spell he needs after a bit of study. Sure, it doesn't work in combat, but "combat" is only one problem and we're talking about all the other problems that might come up. Of course, they can also customize for combat if they happen to know what they're facing or where they're going.
I'm generally not a fan of metamagic, myself. A silenced wizard can use his move action to get out of the silence =p
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jodokai, since the Tier system is primarily based on flexibility, ...
To extend this thought, my impression is that the game is balanced as follows:
The more situational an ability the more powerful it can be.
For example, arcane spells can be highly situational and with the right advance warning a wizard can have the spells memorized to defeat many challenges by himself. A martial class can be built narrowly (say focusing on only one weapon system and combat type) or broadly (mastering different weapons and styles of fighting). The narrow (dare I say optimized) fighter will far outshine the broad fighter when fighting in his chosen context and will be lackluster in other situations.
Class imbalance is part of the game, and personally at this point I don't mind it. Spell casters are more powerful/versatile, fine.
People saying otherwise have missed the myriad of "fighter vs. wizard" threads (theory craft or otherwise) in which the fighter gets thrashed at most levels. Over at giants in the playground website, I've seen people actually test this, not just theory craft. Feel free to try it yourself.
Pathfinder closed some of the class gaps, but it is foolish to think that they don't exist at all.
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that it really comes down to system mastery. If I have 5 people equally skilled in building characters, I will have 5 characters who contribute equally to the group. Balance has nothing to do with which character can beat which character; that's not the point of the game. Pathfinder is a cooperative game. Characters should all be able to contribute to the party effectively in their role. There's never a point in the game where a barbarian doesn't have the capacity to tear a wizard limb from limb if he can get his hands on him, just like there's almost no situation in the game that a well-prepared wizard who's done some research won't have a trick to deal with, one way or another.
Some classes have a wider array of roles they can fill in the party (you probably won't see too many barbarian skill monkeys out there) but every class has the ability to excel in the roles they do have access to.
I've played many games, and the barbarian, the wizard, the druid, the bard, and even the rogue have all had turns being "way OP". It wasn't the class, it was the person building them being better at building and playing their character.
If you want my opinion, the real OP classes are the bard, the druid, and the inquisitor, because of their ability to fill almost every single role in the game depending on build.
Class imbalance is part of the game, and personally at this point I don't mind it. Spell casters are more powerful/versatile, fine.
People saying otherwise have missed the myriad of "fighter vs. wizard" threads (theory craft or otherwise) in which the fighter gets thrashed at most levels. Over at giants in the playground website, I've seen people actually test this, not just theory craft. Feel free to try it yourself.
Pathfinder closed some of the class gaps, but it is foolish to think that they don't exist at all.
I gotta say, this made me giggle. How exactly did you see them test it? You watched them play in a long campaign and counted the number of times the Wizard was more useful than the fighter? That's the only real way to "test" this.
Every time I read these boards I wonder more and more how many people actually have groups and play the game, and how many don't have groups so they sit around talking about it.
Class imbalance is part of the game, and personally at this point I don't mind it. Spell casters are more powerful/versatile, fine.
People saying otherwise have missed the myriad of "fighter vs. wizard" threads (theory craft or otherwise) in which the fighter gets thrashed at most levels. Over at giants in the playground website, I've seen people actually test this, not just theory craft. Feel free to try it yourself.
Pathfinder closed some of the class gaps, but it is foolish to think that they don't exist at all.
I gotta say, this made me giggle. How exactly did you see them test it? You watched them play in a long campaign and counted the number of times the Wizard was more useful than the fighter? That's the only real way to "test" this.
Every time I read these boards I wonder more and more how many people actually have groups and play the game, and how many don't have groups so they sit around talking about it.
okay. In a campaign, fighters (in my experience, which you imply is gathered solely from reading online forums) do one thing: They deal damage. Wizards can do that to. They can also scout, they can infiltrate, they can provide battlefield control. Maybe they can't do it RIGHT NOW, but give them 8 hours of prep time, they can do just about anything.
What I was referencing (which you derided without fully understanding) is that in a one on one combat situation with two builds, both built independently by different people, the wizard will win nine times out of ten. This I have seen over and over again, but only in character optimization forums: my group has no need to run PvP scenarios to settle optimization debates/arguments.
This, combined with ANY experience with an actually optimized wizard in a real campaign, should disprove any theories that the game is balanced.
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.
And hey: Thanks for not being a jerk.
Because he can buy scrolls and write these into his spellbook between levels.
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 :)
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.
In my personal experience, the fighter is typically the one who provides the most 'consistent damage' in the sense that it does rely on rage or sneak attack, or spells per day to dish out his damage. The GM's I've played with do a great job at making a day pass by VERY slowly, which causes most of our casters to really run dry on spells. Heck, it's not even uncommon for us to go through 8 to 10 encounters in day (over a couple sessions of course). By that point, the fighter is pretty much one of the few classes that can be relied upon, while most of our casters are down to 0 level spells.
I've found that this 'grinding slow pace' really adds to the difficulty level of encounters, especially when the party is burning through potions, spells, and ammunition all throughout the day. By the time the day is over, most of us are LITERALLY relieved (until nightfall of course, as dem ambush attacks really dampen our day).
The point of this thread was to ask other plays who have more experience than me in regards to how certain classes function (sorry, I hate wizards and druids...far to complicated for my taste), and to see where their strengths and weaknesses lie. For example, I know rogue's are kinda underpowered because a bard can basically outclass them in skills, and stealth has been pretty nerfed in pathfinder as well.
Oh, and for the record, there is nothing wrong with asking a community for help or opinions, so lets stop being so short-sighted, shall we?
The Synthesist archetype is like having two PCs for the price of one.Why do people think Synthesist is the broken one? Normal Summoner has an advantage in actions, Synthesist can... uh... DD anywhere once a day, qualifying for the Dimensional Dervish line, early? Outside of that (which by the time they get something useful out of it, Magus can do it without dumping a bunch of feats by taking advantage of Spell Combat being a single action) and some feats that require mental stats, there is next to no advantage to a Synthesist over a normal Summoner.
And how is "having too many options" a bad thing? Options being "traps" or options being overpowered are separate things, options in building a character (and unlike a Wizard, can't change the options out with a bit of prep time) is something that should be encouraged.
- Combined magical items, a drawback for the normal summoner works in the advantage of the synthesist.
- the ability to dump physical stats gaining awesome physical scores and quite easily can gain very high mental ability scores.
- no need to buff you and your eidolon separately.
- Your eidolon gains class features, feats and racial abilities.
Something 2E did right, and no edition did afterwards was to accept that all classes are NOT equal, and put different requirements in terms of both stats and XP. A thief WAS weaker than most, so he needed only 1250xp to get to level 2. While a wizard WAS more powerful than most, and needed 2500 to get to level 2.
I remember higher level games in 2E started players with a set number of XP. Say 100,000. That landed some classes, like the druid, as high as 9, while others like the paladin had barely cleared 7.
From my experiences, the rogue is not equal to the paladin, lest the GM actively ensures that the game includes a good amount of rogue-oriented gameplay. Which most will agree is a total snooze-fest for the rest of the gaming group, as they usually are able to contribute absolutely nothing, so the GM needs to be careful not to overdo it either.
It would be a fun experiment to make it so that the "low tier" classes follow "fast" progression, to make them more appealing by letting them stay one level ahead. Will require staying singleclass tho.