Um, I'd say oracles and gunslingers are overpowered because I dislike most of the oracles and gunslingers characters I have seen and they look like they are made by the kind of people who would make op characters.
I don't see why fighters are considered underpowered, though I see it a little with monks and rogues, but I figure the problem is that monks never really had a solid role to play and rogues, while they had a solid role and even necessary role back in the day, the importance and viability of disabling traps and sneaking around has become somewhat understated.
What I'm saying is, people will go 'we need a frontliner(fighter or barbarian)' still, but they never seem to go 'we need a rogue' nearly as often, but maybe that's just in my experience. I think it might partly be because rangers, wizards, and bards can be just as good with skills and they seem to get other benefits beyond what the rogue can bring to the table at higher levels. There is also the fact that the assassin has been nerfed, so that kind of hurts their combat capability for people who wanted to go that route. And poison has become super expensive, which is another problem.
But overalls, it doesn't really matter. The GM should balance the game in the favor of whatever character is coolest is what I say.
|
@Lemmy - They didn't work in that one example because the other person was unwilling to accept any criticism or discussion of the validity of the build, which defeated the entire purpose of the exercise.
And even in spite of that some useful data was gleened from the discussion.
If you and I did the same thing, I believe it actually would be a very helpful, specifically because not only would both of us be open to criticism and suggestion as we went along, but we would welcome it as being the entire point of the exercise.
People are supposed to be trying to tear apart the builds for flaws. That is the whole reason you make them.
For an example of it working, your build thread is very useful, IMHO. It shows how different people approach different rules, and why they might perceive things in different ways. And I had a blast making the impossible viable halfling fighter.
The problem with the other thread was that one of the participants was not interested in critical feedback of any kind, and the only reason you have a build discussion is to get critical feedback.
That was failure of a participant, not of concept.
@Dabbler - I know, I know, not far enough...but it was more than pretty much any other discussion of any other class has ever gotten.
|
|
Maybe it needs a new thread? I think the mods objected to the baiting that went on around the competition more than the competition itself.Why were the posts discussing the AP test stuff deleted? Rynjin was interested, anyone else? Any GM offers?I'd be interested too.
It would.
And there was and is absolutely no baiting in asking if anyone is interested in a challenge such as this.
@ciretose - Dude... It was not even that time. Every time we discussed Fighters or Rogues you suggested we run an official AP to compare the builds. You do it every now and then these days, and it's not a bad solution, but it's not a practical one either.
PbP takes a lot of time. Many people still lack the time and/or patience for that. Myself included.
There's just no practical solution. And again, different players mean different levels of game mastery and, more importantly, different priorities.
In that very thread it was noticeable that you and Ashiel focused on different things.
@ciretose - Dude... It was not even that time. Every time we discussed Fighters or Rogues you suggested we run an official AP to compare the builds. You do it every now and then these days, and it's not a bad solution, but it's not a practical one either.
PbP takes a lot of time. Many people still lack the time and/or patience for that. Myself included.
There's just no practical solution. And again, different players mean different levels of game mastery and, more importantly, different priorities.
In that very thread it was noticeable that you and Ashiel focused on different things.
How do you suggest Fighter and Rogue are compared?
Spreadsheet number crunching for combat?How do you compare trapfinding vs just getting hit by traps?
Social encounters?
Poison Use? (hah)
What are the relevant comparisons to make?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you suggest Fighter and Rogue are compared?
Spreadsheet number crunching for combat?
How do you compare trapfinding vs just getting hit by traps?
Social encounters?
Poison Use? (hah)
What are the relevant comparisons to make?
WHY NOT JUST COMBINE THEM?
I JUST DID LIKE SIXTEEN BACKFLIPS ACROSS A BUNCH OF ROOFTOPS ONLY TO PULL A WHIRLWIND ATTACK SURPRISE-ROUND SNEAK ATTACK WITH A REACH WEAPON ON EVERYTHING IN RANGE
...MY BUDDY AND I HAVE THE LOOKOUT FEAT
P.S. I STOLE YOUR WALLET
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Removed some more baiting. If you want to discuss doing a play-by-post game to test out the relative strength of different builds, please recruit in the appropriate forum.
|
I'll agree that playing through all the APs is an impractical amount of effort necessary to decide if a class is less-optimal than others.
Ultimately, after years of playing, players at our tabletop campaigns don't remember if in a certain battle if Character A did 180 damage while the Character B only did 130 damage.
A spreadsheet can show these kinds of numerical comparisons, but "balanced" to me means more than damage output -- but rather what are the character's chances to create "oh sh--" moments at the table.
I can share a couple of anecdotes of low teens (10-14) level rogue play. I haven't ever seen a rogue past 15 using PFRPG rules so this is the upper end I can share on.
1) There was a tough negotiation that was basically do-or-die for the party. In their mind they just HAD to work their way through several tense negotiations, requiring a handful of very hard Bluff checks. The rogue with the honeyed tongue talent tackled this in epic fashion, sometimes rolling single digits and missing the DC, but the re-roll came up big for him.
2) A nail-biter of a battle where the party was engulfed by multiple adversaries throwing down empowered AoE spells per round (this was a surprise, so no handy resist energy was up). The party wizard would've been burnt to a crisp (no breath of life handy), yet the rogue shared his evasion and saved the wizard's life. This was a "whoa" moment for the rogue and will always be remembered, especially by the wizard who otherwise was looking at taking 150 damage in a round, yet took 0 instead.
3) An epic fight with a pack of high level clerics where their strategy was basically to all channel back-to-back negative energy. The rogue won initiative and hurled some daggers for sneak attack against these guys, had the thing where if he hits he can prevent them from essentially channeling for the entirety of the fight. For kicks, because we wanted to see how deadly this would've been, we rolled the negative energy damage and the saves. It would've dropped 2 of the 4 PCs before they even reached their initiative count, including the wizard who was ready to use teleport so the party could GTFO.
Even though I've played far more hours with say vivisectionist alchemists than rogues in the PF ruleset, I just don't have as many of these stories to share. I only lament than tons of posts on the forums might lead a fresh player away from a rogue because of perception of "imbalance" against an urban ranger, or a vivisectionist alchemist or an archaeologist bard... when that player may actually find that in the right circumstances, in the right campaign, the rogue could drop some jaws.
I never disputed that Fighters are okay at very low levels. Or that Rogues are not that bad by then.To be fair, Fighters are really strong up to 4th~6th level... Then they start to lag behind more and and more.
Rogues and Monk are never very good, but at very low levels they ain't too bad either.Lemmy that is the dang point I have been trying to impress upon threads like this for quite awhile
all I am imploring you guys to do when talking in-depth about the classes is to at the very least quantify your statements in a rough level range
...
I'd like to note that in the 1st-6th level range ALL martials are amazing. Having a d10 stamped on your HD means you are awesome at levels 1-6. Heck, even the NPC warrior class if given max HP at first level looks pretty good at low levels because usually you're going to 1-shot nonheroic enemies with just the might of your sword and the wind in your hair.
In fact, there is a very miniscule difference in play between any of the martials at levels 1-6. Barbarians and Rangers are probably the most awesome at these levels because nobody else has the power they do (everyone's too piss-poor to afford awesome heavy armors so being in chainmail and then breastplates give the best AC for the effort, barbarians have the option to get +2/+3 to hit and damage if needed and rangers have more skills than you can shake a treant at; while Paladins usually have a bit less damage at these levels but catch up in awesomeness around 2nd level).
When I'm discussing balance and good builds I always assume you are starting at 1st level. Seriously, my usual peers have an aversion to starting above 1st level (myself included).
How do you suggest Fighter and Rogue are compared?
Spreadsheet number crunching for combat?
How do you compare trapfinding vs just getting hit by traps?
Social encounters?
Poison Use? (hah)
What are the relevant comparisons to make?
That's the problem, Tarantula... I don't know.
The best way I can come up with is comparing what is useful more often (e.g.: Perception checks are rolled much more often than Heal checks), what brings greater benefit when it is successful (e.g.: Flight will usually help you more than a +2 to Intimidate checks) , and what is more harmful when you fail (e.g.: The consequences for failing a Will/Fort save are usually worse than the ones for failing a Reflex save).
If you check my tier list, you'll see I posted a brief explanation on why each class is in whatever tier I put it.
Up to 4th level, a Rogue might actually be more powerful than a Fighter. The difference in damage output is minimal (A 4th level Rogue can have 4 combat feat) and Rogues bring far more utility with their skills. Not to mention Reflex saves are still very important and will be the difference between life and death more often than not. Fighter do have the AC advantage, though, and that makes a huge difference at those low levels.
However, I still see Fighters as slightly better than Rogues for a few reasons...
1 - Fighters are much harder to make obsolete.
A Alchemist/Bard/Inquisitor/Magus/Ranger/Wizard can easily steal the thunder from Rogues without much effort, but if they want to one-up the Fighter, they'll have to spend resources on that. And even then, at least the Fighter can say he has the highest AC/DPR. Rogues can't say they're the best at skills. (they can't even say they're the best at Sneak Attacking anymore).
2 - Fighters fill a more critical role.
If your party doesn't have a Fighter, it'll need another martial class or at least a medium-BAB character who devotes most of its resources to combat, such as self-buffing Druid/Cleric or a combat-focused Inquisitor or Magus.
OTOH, most characters will have at least 2~3 skill points, and most likely use them to max 2~3 different skills. In a 4-men party, having 8~12 maxed skills (or 6~10, assuming there is some redundancy) is usually enough to cover all bases and even have some extra options. The Rogues extra 4~6 skill points are very useful, but not as critical as combat. And the consequences of being defeated in combat are usually harsher than the ones for failing skill checks.
3 - Full BAB is more of an advantage in relative class power than extra skill points.
What I mean by this is that a class with full BAB has more advantages over the ones with medium/poor BAB than a class with 8 skill points has over one with 2~6 skill points.
The main advantage of full BAB is not the bonus to hit, IMO, as it's usually not that much of a difference before high level. The advantage is the a full BAB character gets iterative attacks and qualifies for combat feats much faster.
OTOH, the difference between 6 skill points and 8 skill points is not that signigicant*, and unlike BAB, the disparity doesn't grow as the levels go by.
*Although the difference between 2 and 4 skill points is much more crucial. Even if the numerical difference is the same.
Of course how much each of these factors weight will vary from campaign to campaign, you can always make a non-stop Hack-and-Slash adventure where Fighters will excel, or a political intrigue campaign, where Rogues will have a huge advantage over Fighters.
Each campaign will favor a certain skill set and probably favor one class or another. So I judge each class variety/versatility based on how well they would fare in a campaign where all those elements are reasonably balanced.
Combat will usually take at least 50% of the time, but other than that... There's no way to predict every possible game scenario.
|
|
@ciretose - Dude... It was not even that time. Every time we discussed Fighters or Rogues you suggested we run an official AP to compare the builds. You do it every now and then these days, and it's not a bad solution, but it's not a practical one either.
PbP takes a lot of time. Many people still lack the time and/or patience for that. Myself included.
There's just no practical solution. And again, different players mean different levels of game mastery and, more importantly, different priorities.
In that very thread it was noticeable that you and Ashiel focused on different things.
Since the reply was deleted (for absolutely no reason) I will reply again.
The whole point is that the builds are different. People look at the two builds and they discuss the pros and cons of the builds. They are supposed to be critical of the builds, they are supposed to challenge what you post
That is why you post the build.
It isn't about the two (or more people) who post the builds. It is about the discussion about what is available at each level, and what choices you have to make at each level, due to the restriction and strengths of the class.
People are supposed to be "attacking" your build. It is the whole point of the exercise. You are stress testing to see where the weaknesses are, and also to see what causes the weaknesses.
I saw your first post, ciretose. I just didn't have time to reply.
I'm in a bit of a hurry right now, so I can't give you a decent answer right now. (My last post took most of the little time I had).
I'll be back later, though. We can continue our discussion then.
Well if we are looking into a pbp to look over builds I'm down.
I know, I know, not far enough...but it was more than pretty much any other discussion of any other class has ever gotten.
Absolutely, and I have high hopes that they will tweak the monk further in the direction that it needs to go in.
How do you suggest Fighter and Rogue are compared?
Why do we need to compare them to each other?
Compare the fighter to the other classes that do the fighter's job as well: Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger.
Each of these can fight as hard as the fighter (in certain situations harder, in others less hard). The barbarian also has more skills, and some more powers the fighter cannot get; he has better movement but slightly worse AC. The paladin has amazing saves, magic, a companion, and healing powers. The ranger is a jack-of-all-trades: magic, skills, animal companion - but he is weaker AC-wise, perhaps the least-strong up-front fighter of the Big Four.
Compare the rogue to the other classes that do the rogue's job as well: Bard, Ranger. Both have almost as many skills, with magic thrown in, and are easily as good at combat.
So if we can compare a fighter to a ranger, and a rogue to a ranger, why can't we compare a fighter to a rogue?
So if we can compare a fighter to a ranger, and a rogue to a ranger, why can't we compare a fighter to a rogue?
Simply put: A Fighter and a Ranger can fill the same roles (combat beast).
A Ranger and a Rogue can fill the same roles (skill monkey/stealth guy).
A Fighter and a Rogue do not share the same roles. They're pretty incompatible with each other really. Their problems are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Fighter is good in combat and bad out of it, whereas Rogues are vice versa.
The Fighter is still in a better boat (I consider him the best of the "bad classes") since combat is a huge part of the game, however.
|
|
I know, I know, not far enough...but it was more than pretty much any other discussion of any other class has ever gotten.Absolutely, and I have high hopes that they will tweak the monk further in the direction that it needs to go in.
How do you suggest Fighter and Rogue are compared?Why do we need to compare them to each other?
Compare the fighter to the other classes that do the fighter's job as well: Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger.
Each of these can fight as hard as the fighter (in certain situations harder, in others less hard). The barbarian also has more skills, and some more powers the fighter cannot get; he has better movement but slightly worse AC. The paladin has amazing saves, magic, a companion, and healing powers. The ranger is a jack-of-all-trades: magic, skills, animal companion - but he is weaker AC-wise, perhaps the least-strong up-front fighter of the Big Four.
Compare the rogue to the other classes that do the rogue's job as well: Bard, Ranger. Both have almost as many skills, with magic thrown in, and are easily as good at combat.
I agree. The rogue could use a comparison for general value, but they aren't going be a like to like comparison of role with frontline type classes with regards to having the same "goal"
I do think it is valid to look at them level by level so see what they can bring to a party at a given level.
|
|
So if we can compare a fighter to a ranger, and a rogue to a ranger, why can't we compare a fighter to a rogue?
It depends on the context. I think a better question is what is the rogue doing in a party facing the challenges one would expect at that level, relative to other classes.
A first level rogue, for example, is often cited as having a problem hitting at all in melee if built with Dex primary, as taking weapon finesse at first level means you don't take it as a rogue talent. At the same time, at first level flanking is a relatively huge bonus to overall ability to hit.
And is it ok thematically, as how much of a conceptual change it is to go from ranged optimal to melee optimal from 1st to 2nd level? Is the fact that a 2nd level rogue both excels as a ranged sniper and melee combatant with relatively high AC a consideration. Is sniping viable at that level when you consider the problems of the stealth rules.
These are questions that you look at a level at a time to see where the tweaks are. A 2nd level rogue is actually pretty good for a 2nd level character, if you start with high Dex. But then you are going to have problems hitting anything at all at 1st level. And how do you correct that without making the rogue any more of a dip class than it already is.
And of course, are any of the presumptions I just listed actually true, or are there ways to do it I haven't considered that others will show me that address such concerns?
This is why I think you need to approach the issue from methodically, level by level, rather than with broad proclamations.
That is how you diagnose and treat problems. Assuming they actually exist and there aren't ways of dealing with them we haven't considered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if we can compare a fighter to a ranger, and a rogue to a ranger, why can't we compare a fighter to a rogue?
As Rynjin says, they are different roles. The rogue is a scout, face, and general "skills monkey", while the fighter is all about dishing out (and taking) hurt.
A fighter compares to a ranger because both are combat classes, both can fulfil the role of "hit the enemy" although the fighter does it better on the whole, the ranger can do other stuff and the fighter cannot. A rogue and a ranger compare because both are skills classes, both can fulfil the "scout" role, although the rogue has a few more skills than the ranger, the ranger can do other stuff the rogue cannot.
See the pattern here? It sums up the same for the barbarian & fighter, paladin & fighter, bard & rogue. The barbarian, paladin, and bard all do things that their more mundane counterparts cannot. What is more some of them do the main role of the mundane counterpart just as well as the fighter or rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If one class has abilities that others do not or can interact with a particular aspect of the game in a way that others cannot, or if it has numbers that others do not, than by definition they are not balanced. Balance does not exist until and unless you have a criteria by which you are balancing them against. In other words you can't judge balance until you create a balancing point. That means no amount of comparing classes to one another will lead you anywhere but in circles. It's a fools game. What you need to be comparing classes to is not each other, but to expected challenges at a given level.
Personally, any class that leaves players sitting around out of combat, may not be imbalanced, but is a failure for me and my group none-the-less because we value our time and want to be engaged.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole point is that the builds are different. People look at the two builds and they discuss the pros and cons of the builds. They are supposed to be critical of the builds, they are supposed to challenge what you post
That is why you post the build.
Different builds is okay, but if each player has a different objective in mind, their builds start to reflect player choice much more than class effectiveness.
It isn't about the two (or more people) who post the builds. It is about the discussion about what is available at each level, and what choices you have to make at each level, due to the restriction and strengths of the class.
It isn't supposed to be about the players, but that's what the builds reflect most of the time. They can show off a few pros and cons of each class, but it ends up being much more about each player's system mastery and gaming style than the classes itself.
People are supposed to be "attacking" your build. It is the whole point of the exercise. You are stress testing to see where the weaknesses are, and also to see what causes the weaknesses.
I don't have any problem with this. I just don't think it's very accurate...
|
|
The whole point is that the builds are different. People look at the two builds and they discuss the pros and cons of the builds. They are supposed to be critical of the builds, they are supposed to challenge what you post
That is why you post the build.
Different builds is okay, but if each player has a different objective in mind, their builds start to reflect player choice much more than class effectiveness.
It isn't about the two (or more people) who post the builds. It is about the discussion about what is available at each level, and what choices you have to make at each level, due to the restriction and strengths of the class.It isn't supposed to be about the players, but that's what the builds reflect most of the time. They can show off a few pros and cons of each class, but it ends up being much more about each player's system mastery and gaming style than the classes itself.
People are supposed to be "attacking" your build. It is the whole point of the exercise. You are stress testing to see where the weaknesses are, and also to see what causes the weaknesses.I don't have any problem with this. I just don't think it's very accurate...
Relative to what? Arguing corner cases and making unchecked conclusions?
It doesn't matter what each person who is buildings goal is. The determination of the quality of the build isn't judged by the person making the build, it's judged by the people who are discussing the build.
Obviously the people who made the build think it is a good build working toward a good goal. They made it. What they feel about it is beside the point.
In fact, it borders on irrelevant, as half of the discussion of the build is about what they could have/should of done, and what would be and could be possible.
The difference being, you actually have am entire measurable baseline to start from at each level, and a comparison of like to like, at each level.
You aren't just having people make pronouncements about things out of context. If I say my X level class can do X, you can look at the build and verify it can actually do X, and more importantly, see what had to be sacrificed in the overall build to accomplish doing X.
Which is much, much, more useful than statements and numbers tossed around out of context.
The "problem" with the build in that thread was actually not a problem at all. Which is why I wanted to go on. The builds each spoke for themselves.
This is why I was trying to point out that it isn't an "e-peen" contest, but in fact the opposite of one. Who builds better doesn't particularly matter as everyone on all sides will be tearing apart each build the whole discussion. The builders aren't supposed trying to "win" or beat each other, they are supposed to be showing other people what they think can be done and seeing if people call BS on how they do it.
So people calling BS isn't a "problem" or a "failure" in the discussion. It is the entire point of the discussion.
In the monk threads, what became clear was that the "monk is fine" group was unable to create effective builds at certain levels because of the problems with AoMF (at minimum).
That wasn't because a single person couldn't do it. It was because a group of people proposing any option they could come up with were unable to do it.
Because it isn't about the specific people who are creating specific builds. It is about discussing all of the possibilities that the people in the discussion can come up with, in the specific framework of that level, that point buy, vs what can be expected at that level.
It wouldn't matter who the two people building on either side were, as long as they were making the best effort they each could to produce something that defended the argument they were trying to make.
If people don't agree with that argument, but they feel the class could be viable with adjustments to the produced build, they can post that. And they did in that thread and do in other threads.
The problem is the people involved in the build have to be willing to accept criticism and either continue on or concede the points being made by the other side of the discussion.
And this is true of all of these discussions. Because otherwise you aren't discussing, you are just lecturing.
|
|
If one class has abilities that others do not or can interact with a particular aspect of the game in a way that others cannot, or if it has numbers that others do not, than by definition they are not balanced. Balance does not exist until and unless you have a criteria by which you are balancing them against. In other words you can't judge balance until you create a balancing point. That means no amount of comparing classes to one another will lead you anywhere but in circles. It's a fools game. What you need to be comparing classes to is not each other, but to expected challenges at a given level.
Personally, any class that leaves players sitting around out of combat, may not be imbalanced, but is a failure for me and my group none-the-less because we value our time and want to be engaged.
Equal level comparison relative to expectations of that given level is the criteria you balance against.
It isn't a PvP scenario. It is asking what each can contribute and what limitations each has given equal starting points.
Otherwise the discussion tends toward what each can do in a best case scenario omitting all of the weakness that come with said "optimization" as well as the assumptions of all parties going unchallenged, because they are unknown.
When you have to actually produce the build, your assumptions are laid bare to be judged valid or not.
a lot of words
Builds can prove specific points. They can prove that something specific can be done with a class.
They are not very good at comparing the classes themselves, though, and very often, unnecessary.
out of curiosity, I always wonder the percentage of total posts on the forums that belong to ciretose lemmy and toz on any given day (averaging with a standard deviation)
Huh... I wonder...
According to Time And Date.com, I first posted in this forum 437 days ago. I now have a total of 1675 posts in here (including this one). Some may have been deleted, let's say 20 (probably less, actually, but let's play it safe), raising the count to 1695.
That means I have an average of 3.88 posts per day.
Unfortunately, I don't know the average number of posts per day around here, so I can't tell you what percentage I represent.
I have 4528 posts and joined 206 days ago. An average of 21.98 posts per day.
But that's because I have no life.
I have 4528 posts and joined 206 days ago. An average of 21.98 posts per day.
But that's because I have no life.
That's impressive... Or sad... Or impressisad???
If it makes you feel better, my average is probably higher nowadays... I didn't post very often at first.
EDIT: Let me be clear, my average these days must be higher than 3.88, not 21.98.
If we lived in the universe of Resident Evil (the games, not the movies), Rynjin, I would say " You are the Master of Posting".
Why does this thread keep derailing into the "correct" way to compare builds?
It derailed so far from the original subject, it doesn't even matter anymore... But if I had to guess, it's probably because ciretose and I are more stubborn than we should.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does this thread keep derailing into the "correct" way to compare builds?
For a variety of reasons. Firstly, what we want to compare are classes; however classes have options, and the options effect how the class plays. So instead of comparing options, if you want to crunch the numbers you need to know which are taken. If you do this, you need to also knwo which options are not taken, then what equipment is used...so essentially, you need to build a complete character. But of course the many builds are therefore different...
You see the issue?
|
|
Why does this thread keep derailing into the "correct" way to compare builds?For a variety of reasons. Firstly, what we want to compare are classes; however classes have options, and the options effect how the class plays. So instead of comparing options, if you want to crunch the numbers you need to know which are taken. If you do this, you need to also knwo which options are not taken, then what equipment is used...so essentially, you need to build a complete character. But of course the many builds are therefore different...
You see the issue?
Exactly. And you need the comparison to be like in left, wealth, build, etc...
Too often it devolves into "I can do this thing you can't so you suck and I rule"
You need to look at weaknesses as well as strengths, and you have to put your personal beliefs into a category where they aren't faith based but data driven.
You need to look at weaknesses as well as strengths, and you have to put your personal beliefs into a category where they aren't faith based but data driven.
Yes, and the build comparisons can show this up because whatever you make you cannot have it all. For example, in the old monk thread we found that you have to really work the system to make a decent monk, that it's not impossible, but that you end up needing lots of odd gear and still had glaring weaknesses, and that in any event a well-built barbarian brought more to the party. It actually showed the monk's issues up very well.
|
|
You need to look at weaknesses as well as strengths, and you have to put your personal beliefs into a category where they aren't faith based but data driven.Yes, and the build comparisons can show this up because whatever you make you cannot have it all. For example, in the old monk thread we found that you have to really work the system to make a decent monk, that it's not impossible, but that you end up needing lots of odd gear and still had glaring weaknesses, and that in any event a well-built barbarian brought more to the party. It actually showed the monk's issues up very well.
Exactly, which is how you get change.
Just saying something is true has no value if you don't test the premise and prove it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing about the Monk: It didn't take builds to see where it's weaknesses are. People have been saying the same things about the class, for literally thousands of posts, over many years of forum-going even before people started jumping up and down about how you "need to post a build" to prove anything.
And after aaaaall that, they change the price of one item (which is not a Monk-only item btw) and give a single quality-of-life change to the class, without touching any of it's other various problems.
Expect several more years and hundreds more posts to get another minor change. :(
Here's the thing about the Monk: It didn't take builds to see where it's weaknesses are. People have been saying the same things about the class, for literally thousands of posts, over many years of forum-going even before people started jumping up and down about how you "need to post a build" to prove anything.
And after aaaaall that, they change the price of one item (which is not a Monk-only item btw) and give a single quality-of-life change to the class, without touching any of it's other various problems.
Expect several more years and hundreds more posts to get another minor change. :(
The developers stated that they did not want to make sweeping changes, and they would consider more changes if those that they made were not sufficient. The ball is rolling, don't expect it to take so much effort to get to the next change now.
|
|
The developers stated that they did not want to make sweeping changes, and they would consider more changes if those that they made were not sufficient. The ball is rolling, don't expect it to take so much effort to get to the next change now.Here's the thing about the Monk: It didn't take builds to see where it's weaknesses are. People have been saying the same things about the class, for literally thousands of posts, over many years of forum-going even before people started jumping up and down about how you "need to post a build" to prove anything.
And after aaaaall that, they change the price of one item (which is not a Monk-only item btw) and give a single quality-of-life change to the class, without touching any of it's other various problems.
Expect several more years and hundreds more posts to get another minor change. :(
Exactly. When the discussion shifted from whining to actually taking the time to show where the problems were (And frankly, where they weren't) the devs paid attention.
When it is just people shouting past each other without bothering to put in the effort to test, they aren't going to waste the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of them.
Every single class is overpowered according to the forums.
Except for when they are under powered.
Because I have half a day off today, to test this claim I made lists from all the posts in this thread so far. I've done my best not to double count people but I probably made a few mistakes. Similarly I make no promises that if anyone has been secretly posting a dozen times on this thread under half a dozen aliases that I caught it. This is just a hand count, and tbh since I had to go to work between starting and finishing, and I've drunk a few beers now by the point of posting, probably a relatively bad one. Anyway...
So, here is a list of all classes and how many people here have felt they were overpowered or underpowered.
Overpowered:
Summoner 11
Wizard 5
Magus 3
Barbarian 2
Oracle 2
Paladin 2
Druid 2
Alchemist 1
Cleric 1
Witch 1
Sorcerer 1Underpowered
Rogue 25
Monk 21
Fighter 18
Cavalier 4
Samurai 2
Inquisitor 1
Oracle 1
Ninja 1Poor design/either OP or UP with no middle ground/internally unbalanced/don't like flavor/just plain bad/other complaint:
(I counted these with much less care than the fairly negligent standard I offered the other two, so, sue me)
Oracle 3
Gunslinger 2
Barbarian 2
Magus 1
Summoner 1
Witch 1
Paladin 1
Cavalier 1
Samurai 1In closing I would like to say two things.
The first is that I curse the name of Ciretose. Dang it, like half the thread is some pointless discussion of a year old wand ruling. Why you gotta bring that up? The presence of that sprawling discussion throughout three quarters of the thread immeasurably added to the drudgery of counting.
The second is that there seems to be a surprisingly strong consensus of opinion on display in this thread so far. I was not expecting to discover nearly such strong overall agreement. Both in the numbers in each field, and also in the observation that the leaders in each category all have zero votes in the other category.
In...
Thankyou.
This establishes a baseline (namely that Monk, Rogue and Fighter are underpowered and Summoner is Overpowered).
The next stage is to establish exactly why and where they are UP/OP.
Then we can discuss what should be done about it.
It seems to me that ther are too many threads suggesting solutions when we have not yet established precisely what where and why the problem is.
Because opinions are much more valuable that testable facts...
Aren't most people's opinions on the subject based on observations made in actual play?
I don't see why we need to crunch numbers on a dozen builds for every class and compare notes when we have literally thousands of play reports on the forums to draw from that are examples of how people actually play the game and aren't just mathematical exercises.