|
I do not know for rogues, but I would like this to be proven for fighters. And I mean you know with an actual proof (AKA with builds). There have been several threads about fighter but I did not see any build that prove that assertion.
The key problem with the current state of balance is that any time I can think of a character that might be a fighter or rogue, I can think of another class that can accomplish the same role but better due to having more varied options. They may only be 90% as effective in the primary niche, but they are 100% more effective in a plethora of others.
I am currently playing in a party with a two-handed Oracle and an archer fighter. I can assure you that in this game, the in combat effectiveness leans slightly towards the Oracle (but not enough to be a problem), and the out-of-combat effectiveness leans heavily towards the Oracle. Since I built both characters (made the Fighter for a new player who joined), I'm assuming the optimization of both is roughly equal. The Oracle may have even been at a bit of a handicap since they had to be able to tank, deal good melee damage, have a decent number of AoOs, use a high crit-range weapon and be able to find and disable traps in order to fit the missing hole in the party (okay, I didn't HAVE to do that, but I felt that since I could I should).
EDIT: I should note that I can't post builds right now because the sheets are at home and I am not.
Stabbity, I have repeatedly, repeatedly said that balance is impossible because you'll never get everyone to agree it's balanced. Sure I don't always use the long form EVERY TIME I say it, but that's what I mean. Balance is impossible because you can't get anyone to agree it's balanced unless you make every class follow exactly the same mechanics, and even then it's probable that a significant fraction will disagree. Since there is no metric that will PROVE balance, then all you can go on is agreement, so to say that balance is impossible is the same thing as saying that concurrence that balance has been achieved is impossible.
But as long as the mechanics are different, I think a large minority and possibly even a majority will disagree that it's balanced, no matter what you do.
"Resorting to vitriol?" WTH? What are you talking about? Because I bolded a key point you are accusing me of violent and caustic speech? Seriously?
Anyway, go ahead and keep after this windmill dude.
|
|
Stabbity, I have repeatedly, repeatedly said that balance is impossible because you'll never get everyone to agree it's balanced. Sure I don't always use the long form EVERY TIME I say it, but that's what I mean. Balance is impossible because you can't get anyone to agree it's balanced unless you make every class follow exactly the same mechanics, and even then it's probable that a significant fraction will disagree. Since there is no metric that will PROVE balance, then all you can go on is agreement, so to say that balance is impossible is the same thing as saying that concurrence that balance has been achieved is impossible.
But as long as the mechanics are different, I think a large minority and possibly even a majority will disagree that it's balanced, no matter what you do.
"Resorting to vitriol?" WTH? What are you talking about? Because I bolded a key point you are accusing me of violent and caustic speech? Seriously?
Anyway, go ahead and keep after this windmill dude.
I made that comment because all of your comments were unnecessarily dismissive and included a lot of elements like unnecessarily quoting words, which is almost universally an indication of derision or sarcasm. You also use the pattern of asking a rhetorical question then immediately answering it, which is a form of dismissal as it implies that the discussion has a forgone conclusion, which is a very rude way to treat a discussion.
If you did not intend any of these to be rude then I would suggest that you take a serious look at your writing habits in the future.
PS: You must have been, at the very least, inconsistent about whether you mention balance or the perception thereof. The following quote is an example of such:
Balance is not only impossible, it's pointless to pursue in a game where some classes have magic and some don't. The only way to get there is to have every class be a wizard in all but name, and I've played that game and I prefer this one.
There is no mention in this paragraph that you are referring to the perception of balance, just balance itself. While I believe it is possible that you intended to refer to the perception of balance, that is not what you said.
EDIT: I should note that I could not find a single example of you referring to the perception of balance prior to me making the point that pursuit of balance is worthwhile even if perfection is impossible.
Well, the metodology is not the best. Comparing one build of yours against another build of your is not the best way to compare classes. Maybe you are better building oracles, who nows.
Wait, what? Sorry, but that's completely unfair. You're speculating that a person's optimization skills are better for one class than another, when you seriously cannot possibly have a more equivalent level of system mastery than having the same person build them. How would it be more effective to compare builds that two different people made? Then the level of system mastery/optimization would be even more in dispute.
No offense meant, but... it sounds almost like asking for an example, getting one, and then just saying, "Nope, don't believe you, you can't prove it."
At any rate, on the assumption Stabbitty plans to actually post the builds in detail when accessible, you can pick them apart then, I suppose. Just gotta say, if you're gonna ask for examples/proof of class disparity, please do not just discount relevant examples that suggest you're wrong :/ Maybe you're right and you could build a better fighter, but why insinuate it ahead of time?
|
|
I also just remembered that we had to redo some of our feat selection last game because we decided to house rule AoOs away to speed up gameplay. Since I didn't do a complete rebuild of my character and a decent bit of it was related to AoOs in some fashion (including feat selection, spell selection and even weapon selection) it may not be fair to compare what I currently have on the sheet as I had to rewrite a bit of it on the fly without much thought.
The examples I gave in my previous post, however, were all before that change. We literally changed this 2 days ago.
|
This...Stabbity, it's been a while, but I'm going to go back to that fighter.
Frequently the tripping was a poor option because the GM was throwing floating, flying or multi-legged critters at us. So in those cases he used a regular sword which his cohort would enchant with a "magic weapon" wand. He had a pretty solid AC and frequently he would fight defensively in large form and just bottle up the opposition so that the party spellcasters could take care of putting things down. He also had a tower shield and in large form he could block of an entire hallway if he needed to.
But in terms of 'non-fighter' roles, he did quite a bit.
Yeah, he had a pretty sucky skill list, but he still had skills. He didn't have a lot of skill ranks, but he still used his skills. He succeeded more than you might think, especially with skills that benefited from being large. It turns out that there's quite a few things that being large helps you with outside of combat.
He was built as a "combat reflexes" sort of dude, which meant a high dex. There's a lot of dex-based skills, so by putting a single rank he got at least a +4 in the skill. Some were even class skills (yeah, fighters get class skills) so in those he was at +7, plus whatever other ranks he put into it.
I think sometimes people take the position that if you can't optimize an option, you can't do it. That's actually not true. My fighter didn't have a lot of skill points, but by level 9 he had enough to put a single rank into a lot of them. And if he had a single rank, heck, he could at least TRY. His cohort could cast "guidance" and aid him, so that was a +3 on most skill checks right there. Sure, he failed sometimes, but that can be fun too.
I'm just not getting the "fighters can't do anything out of combat" vibe. I think it's true that fighters are not optimal, but optimal is not the only option. You know sometimes you roll that 15 or better and then your crappy little fighter can even seduce that barmaid.
Everyone can hit something and wear armor but nobody does it like a fighter, nor can any other class have multiple feats chains like a fighter can.
I'm sorry but your "everyone can do a fighter's job" argument doesn't really hold up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you did not intend any of these to be rude then I would suggest that you take a serious look at your writing habits in the future.
LOL, blinding irony is blinding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Throwing builds around doesn't really add much to the discussion, IMO. It only shows the difference in compentence, gaming style and priorities of each player.
Man, I regret using Wizards and Fighters as examples, it's too easy to focus on the difference between those classes. Each one is the complete opposite of the other.
Maybe a better name for the thread would be "Options x Numbers: What Makes Magic So Powerful?".
Unfortunatelly I can't edit it anymore.
Well, let me come back to the fighting games analogy for a moment.
You all know Ryu, right? Japanese guy in a white gi with the most basic gameplay ever?
Ryu's always been a very solid character in the Street Fighter series. He has a good fireball, a solid anti-air and even an attack that moves him around and evades projectiles (his hurricane kick).
OTOH, Ryu was also present in every game of another famous franchise: Marvel vs Capcom. He still has his same moves. Although they have been somewhat expanded (e.g.: he can throw fireballs in mid air, and his super became a giant energy beam!)
But here's the thing. In MvC, lots of characters can double-jump, air dash, teleport, fly, shoot lasers, etc.
And Ryu still only has his old move set (although slightly boosted). So he's never seen in MvC the same success that he had in SF. That's because his opponents, who we could also refer to as "challenges" or "encounters", have plenty of options for which Ryu is ill prepared to face.
That's the problem with many martial classes, particullary Fighters. They may have received a boost in overall damage, but were not given enough options to deal with the different challenges the game throws at them.
Sure, they can do their job if every challenge is a DPR race with a some random HP tank. But when the game creates different situatioss, the Full BAB means nothing. What if you do't know who's the enemy?? What if instead you have to find your way out of a maze? How do you convince the King that his supposed ally prepares to strike him? How do you find evidence? And what if you're wounded? How do you heal yourself and your allies? What if you have to find a dragon who has been terrorizing the nearby villages?
There are too many possible situations, and Fighters can only deal with one of them: the obvious enemy who stands in range of a full attack.
When they want to do more than that, they can, but they have to invest much more than anyone else for an equal or smaller return.
Throwing builds around doesn't really add much to the discussion, IMO. It only shows the difference in compentence, gaming style and priorities of each player.
Man, I regret using Wizards and Fighters as examples, it's too easy to focus on the difference between those classes. Each one is the complete opposite of the other.
Sorry if I contributed to that, but I also sort of disagree on this.
Think of it this way: If a large quantity of people can work on two class builds, such as a fighter and a wizard, and despite all the optimization anyone can offer, the fighter consistently falls behind in dealing with varied challenges that the wizard can meet and overcome, I think that actually would add some weight to the argument that options are important, and illustrate the fact that a lack of them can significantly hurt martial characters. (You can mix and match the comparison between other classes as much as you like too.)
Just my thoughts on it though.
Throwing builds around doesn't really add much to the discussion, IMO. It only shows the difference in compentence, gaming style and priorities of each player.
Man, I regret using Wizards and Fighters as examples, it's too easy to focus on the difference between those classes. Each one is the complete opposite of the other.
Sorry if I contributed to that, but I also sort of disagree on this.
Think of it this way: If a large quantity of people can work on two class builds, such as a fighter and a wizard, and despite all the optimization anyone can offer, the fighter consistently falls behind in dealing with varied challenges that the wizard can meet and overcome, I think that actually would add some weight to the argument that options are important, and illustrate the fact that a lack of them can significantly hurt martial characters. (You can mix and match the comparison between other classes as much as you like too.)
Just my thoughts on it though.
Lol... Don't worry man, I wasn't directing my words to anyone in particular. I actually like seeing other people's build. I usually even throw a few just because I enjoy building characters.
I just don't think it proves much. I've seen these comparisson again and again, and every time they show more about each build and player than about the class.
Actually, I think the 1st thread I actually participated with more than 1 post was about comparing Fighters and Paladins, and then, somehow, on my very 1st week in this forum, I was chosen to be the judge in a "build competition" between Ashiel and ciretose!!! (Heh... Talk about "Baptism by Fire... lol).
I think shallowosul and Nicos were there too. And it was also the first time I've seen Bob_Loblaw's awesome Fighter builds. He proved time and time again that it's very possible for Fighters to be more than schmucks with a sword.
ON a good feat save for rogues:
Clerics and Druids get good fort saves, and are certainly not any better physical combatants then rogues are. Actually, they are spellcasters...they are CONSIDERABLY less adept physical specimens, and STILL they get a better save?
I personally think Fighters, being so utterly unmagical, should have ALL good saves, and the Kirthfinder rewrite agreed with me. I can certainly see Rogues with the same saves as Rangers.
Also, I'd like to point out that Wizards aren't so squishy anymore. Since they are a SAD class, they are probably more able to afford a higher Con then most martials, given the even point buy. A martial with low Int and low skills has to make a serious favored class choice tradeoff...for the wizard, it's likely to always be more hit points. Add on a casting of false life, and the wizard can easily have more hit points then a d10 melee class.
Fighters should have d6+4 for hp, not a d10, keeping their HP advantage over the casters. Rangers should have d6+2, stick the casters with d8's and d6's.
==Aelryinth
I'm curious what the thread was locked for?
Maybe it'd be worth opening up a new one for the purpose of comparing Martial and Caster builds, in order to see which ones fare better in various situations and so as not to derail this thread as much :P
Also, I'd like to point out that Wizards aren't so squishy anymore. Since they are a SAD class, they are probably more able to afford a higher Con then most martials, given the even point buy. A martial with low Int and low skills has to make a serious favored class choice tradeoff...for the wizard, it's likely to always be more hit points. Add on a casting of false life, and the wizard can easily have more hit points then a d10 melee class.
Heh... Even my human wizards usually pick the extra skill points. But that's mostly because I'm somewhat addicted to skill points. There is always another Knowledge or social skill to get! ^^
I'm curious what the thread was locked for?
Maybe it'd be worth opening up a new one for the purpose of comparing Martial and Caster builds, in order to see which ones fare better in various situations and so as not to derail this thread as much :P
Some posters were getting increasingly aggressive, so a moderator decided it was best to lock it. I think it was the wisest course of action.
A heated debate involving ciretose and Ashiel? Shocking, huh?Honestly, I barely remember ciretose's and Ashiel's build. What I do remember is a serious discussion about partially charged wands (it haunts me to this day! lol) and many of Bob's buids, because those were awesome!
I still have some of them. My personal favorite was a heavily armored Halfling named Turret.
The 1st PM I ever sent was one asking Bob to send me the rest of that build (the thread had already been locked), because I liked it so much.
Not only because it was such an interesting build, but also because Bob gave a very fun description of Turret's personality. It's unfortunate that Bob hasn't participated much in the forum these days. He's a great guy to talk to, even when we disagree.
Hah! I had forgotten about it! But at the time, most people believe Ashiel was a gal.
Oddly, enough, I thought he always assumed he was male because I know many more guy who play RPG than ladies who do it. But since every one called him "her", I avoided using gender specific words, lol.
Honestly, I barely remember ciretose's and Ashiel's build. What I do remember is a serious discussion about partially charged wands (it haunts me to this day! lol)Ja!,i have beend ninjaded. I think this was the breaking poin in the thread.
Fear my internet jutsus, fellow roleplayer! Heh... ciretose and me still occasionally joke about wands of CLW... lol.
I remember he didn't give me the best of impressions in that thread, but since then, he's proven to be much more reasonable and open to discussion than I gave him credit for.I still enjoy debating with him even we have completely different points of view.
Just don't leave him and Ashiel in the same room for too long... lol.
I walways thought he was a she. I think there was also some internet stalking in that thread about that issue. In brief Is a miracle that rhead lasted for so many posts.Hah! I had forgotten about it! But at the time, most people believe Ashiel was a gal.
Oddly, enough, I thought he always assumed he was male because I know many more guy who play RPG than ladies who do it. But since every one called him "her", I avoided using gender specific words, lol.
And it was the first thread I posted more than 1 or 2 sentences... I guess it's just my luck! lol.
Nicos really had a great idea.
I'd personally like to see characters at 3rd or 4th level as well, because that's where class features really starting doing something useful... lol.
I'm just worried that the thread ends up deviating from "interesting/versatile builds" to yet another "class X is better than class Y".
I really do apologize for not reading all of this, but I cannot get though this as easily as many discussion. Here is my thoughts though.
High Level Casters should be stronger than High Level Fighters. However, getting a caster to that level should be much harder.
1) Most smart enemies will kill a caster as soon as possible in a fight. This makes it a real chore to keep the Wizard alive through the beginning levels.
2) Long Slog constant battle dungeons, or any other way of removing the 15 minute adventure day do make it more balanced. Someone needs to be there to stop the many low level monsters from depleting the casters of their spells.
3) The spellbook (for wizards) should be a serious risk. Familiars, companions, etc should be a liability. It is easy to play a wizard hoping to be super powerful in the long run if nobody ever tries to steal/burn/destroy your spell book. Again, any knowledgeable could try that. I fighter can fight with any weapon, a wizard cannot cast with any book.
4) Some people like not being a caster. They enjoy playing a less optimized role in order to play something different. Some people do not like the responsibly it takes to be a caster (a lot of tracking). People play and approach the game very differently, and the difference classes help with that.
All in all, if you do not expect a guy with a sword to have earth-shaking powers, and you do not expect people to cosset weak casters until they are super powerful, things are not as unbalanced as it appears.
EDIT:
5) Just because spells exist that cover all of the contingencies does not mean that one caster knows them all, has access to them all, has prepared them all, or has enough money to keep buying back-up items of all the types he might need.
Thanks for the link to the thread Nicos. I can't say I read through all 700 posts, but I got the gist of it. I'm actually surprised it ended up locked at the end, because it seemed more civil there than through most of the rest. Unless that was thanks to deleted posts.
I'm just worried that the thread ends up deviating from "interesting/versatile builds" to yet another "class X is better than class Y".
I feel like that would be one of the most informative things that could be gleaned from it though. There's plenty of people who say Martials are too weak and don't have enough options, and there are also a lot of people who say Martials are perfectly fine and Casters are all hyperbole and Schroedinger's Wizards.
Some actual comparisons between multiple levels could go a long way to sorting out some of the myths and seeing how some classes rank against each other, possibly giving a nice view of class balance.
Of course, that's hopefully without people getting defensive or accusatory during it, which... might be a little difficult on occasion?
If we did do something like that, I'd agree it probably ought to run something of a spectrum, though not necessarily every level. Especially since the Martial/Caster difference kind of goes with the whole Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards deal, it'd be worth seeing comparison at both low and high levels.
It looks like Iconic premades hit levels 1, 7 and 12? I'm not all that familiar with them, but so maybe 1, 4, 7, 12, 16, and 20 would work? (Bit of a gap between 7 and 12, but it does account for the Iconics there too.)
|
There's no reason giving the fighters equal (or at least equalish) abilities to Wizard spells can't work fine, as long as they are not structured in the same way spells work.
im reading i want to play a monk with a full bab... not being snarky.
it really seems like people want to have monks take the place of fighters. you want "spell like" things that can compare to mages, monks get those things. although monks fail in comparison to a mage, and are mechanically inferior to almost every other class because of HOW they get their SU and SA abilities,monks are SU fighters.
it just seems to me that people want an option to play a monk at 20th level that has the stats of a fighter( bab, feats weapon proficiencies ect..). i think fighters are fine, they serve a purpose and do that very well.
After that thread got closed, ciretose created another one for us to share interesting builds .
It had some some pretty cool ideas. It did die out when people lost interest... (I never finished sharing my "Batman villains" builds), but it gave us many cool builds.
At the end of the day, not all classes are created equal, and this is a good thing. Not every class should be as good at everything as everyone else is. As was noted earlier in this thread, that's what we have 4th Edition for, otherwise known as "World of Warcraft: The Tabletop RPG".
The moment someone defines 4E as World of Warcraft: The Tabletop RPG is the moment someone shows a gross ignorance of both tabletop RPGs and World of Warcraft, rendering whatever is said afterwords incredibly hard to take seriously.
They also often lack variety in combat. I hate that "I full attack" is almost always the real option fighter have.
I should point out that I am currently creating a thread in General Discussion that is working on creating He Man.
He never ONCE used his sword on anyone else. In fact, in the tv series he mostly threw boulders, broke walls etc with his fists, did super jumps, reflected magic/energy with his sword etc.
And you say Fighters and Barbarians don't have options? This might seem odd, but it sounds more like whoever is playing them doesn't have much imagination.
LOL. This' shallowsoul's argument:
"Fighters don't need those dumb skills because everyone else can do it better."
There is no problem if any class sucks, as long as it has friends who belong to the more powerful classes...
Yeah, that makes sense... LOL
Uhm, Lemmy? Did you happen to look into the back of the Advanced Player's Guide, where they said all PC's get 2 traits? Yeah, there's this trait called Highlander that grants ANYONE Stealth. That includes Fighters.
Other skills are there, too. And more traits in the little racial booklets. You think maybe that could solve your problem with Fighters etc not having good enough skills?
Just thought I'd interject a mite. The solution is right in front of you. Want more skill points? Up your character's Intelligence.
@ Piccolo: Yes, there's some traits you can take for class skills. But that's got nothing to do with the fighter. Anyone can do that. And that Intelligence boost for more skill points... Anyone can do that, too.
Fighter still seems to be behind in this scenario.
I hate ACP. Hate...
Armor Expert trait, mithral Full Plate, Armor Training inherent to Fighters, and a while back I did some math involving Celestial Mail; amounted to 7000gp to get the benefits (which were huge).
The point is, there are work arounds inherent in the Pathfinder system. Just because ANYONE can do it doesn't negate their utility to Fighters or other martial classes.
The point is, there are work arounds inherent in the Pathfinder system. Just because ANYONE can do it doesn't negate their utility to Fighters or other martial classes.
Right, but it doesn't really count towards class balance to use options that aren't related to the class at all.
It's like saying a wizard can do a good job damaging people in melee because they can put points into strength (though that's not to say they actually can't handle melee with proper planning). In the end though, they're still a 1/2 BAB class, and a fighter is still a 2 Skill Rank class (that is, one that doesn't generally focus on Int).
Point is, they are there if you want or need them. Anyone can patch perceived holes in their class via traits or magic items. I think that's what they are there for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Paladin has no bonus feats, so he has to spend his regular feats to increase his combat skills.
A paladin has to do nothing of the sort. He can spend all his feats on non-combat applications and still be highly effective in combat.
I dunno, I don't find straight up Fighters to be useless out of combat. They might not have much skills, but traits seem to help in that regard, and their abundance of feats (one every level) ensures they can pump whatever they like. Of course, the single digit levels tend to see feats thrown at weak spots, like giving Fighters Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will.
The only thing I could wish for would be to have more Fighter specific feats for the upper reaches of power. Otherwise, they seem okay to me. As a class, they are overwhelmingly offensively orientated, just as Wizards seem to be.
Thus, traits and feats tend to be used to patch up weaknesses in the class and stats, but this is not just being done for Fighters, it's done for all classes.
Me, I think Paladins seem to be very defensively orientated for the most part, so I blow feats to up their offense, for example.
|
|
The argument is essentially useless because some people are never going to be happy amd they move the goalposts until their argument becomes valid so it's pointless really. Some people have no problems with fighters and wizards while other do but its all subjective. You are arguing difference of opinion at this point with no facts what so ever.
Play what you want to play or don't. All classes have options and saying they don't is simply lying. If a class doesn't have the right options for you then move on to something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My fighter has NO problem finding ways to make himself useful outside of combat. Among other things, he is a capable scout, scholar, soldier, and survivalist.
LOL. This' shallowsoul's argument:
"Fighters don't need those dumb skills because everyone else can do it better."
There is no problem if any class sucks, as long as it has friends who belong to the more powerful classes...
Yeah, that makes sense... LOL
Uhm, Lemmy? Did you happen to look into the back of the Advanced Player's Guide, where they said all PC's get 2 traits? Yeah, there's this trait called Highlander that grants ANYONE Stealth. That includes Fighters.
Other skills are there, too. And more traits in the little racial booklets. You think maybe that could solve your problem with Fighters etc not having good enough skills?
Just thought I'd interject a mite. The solution is right in front of you. Want more skill points? Up your character's Intelligence.
Exactly: Anyone can use traits. it's no Fighter specific.
I admit they're usually more useful for martials than casters, though.But even so, it doesn't matter how many class skills you have if you still can only put ranks in 1 or 2 of them.
Fighters can boost Int (which is nearly useless to them) and still have less skill points than a Barbarians or Gunslingers! And both classes have the share the single-minded focus on combat.
IIRC, Gunslinsger were even an alternate Fighter class during the Ultimate Combat playtest. That's what I mean when I say Fighter have to invest more for an equal or lesser benefit.
And traits or no traits, that was still a terrible argument.