Actually you stopped posting when people criticized your build, apparently because you were trying to "win" the discussion.
PS. Done the build thing. It gets old. I stopped posting builds after I saw them repeatedly ignored.
Or you post builds and then say a class is OP because of things not in your builds...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's not a competition. That's not my problem.
My problem is that it's boring. And IMHO, unnecessary most of the time.
Creating unusual builds is fun.
Posting standard builds is boring.
|
I know it's not a competition. That's not my problem.
My problem is that it's boring. And IMHO, unnecessary most of the time.
Creating unusual builds is fun.
Posting standard builds is boring.
See I find the repetitive threads with the same untested statements boring.
I liked trying to prove things wrong.
Halfling fighter isn't viable, I see if I can make one.
Challenges are fun.
Have you guys ever considered splitting the group in 2~3 smaller ones? It'd make the GM's work much easier, and reduce the time players spend waiting for their turns.
I'm sure you guys enjoy each other's company, but you can always play side by side, but at different tables, so at lunch break you can still hang out.
That's not a bad idea if possible. Though honestly I've run for some pretty large groups. In a sense it's pretty fun if you're good at moving your actions along (larger groups means I get to include much, much larger and more dynamic encounters and that makes me giddy).
PS. Done the build thing. It gets old. I stopped posting builds after I saw them repeatedly ignored. I've got better things to do with my time, like listen to Lumiere tell me about this bizarre game.
we have single encounter days against what would be an average of APL+8 against what would be a 12 person party. or in this case, APL+16 for a 4 person party, broken into lots of smaller monsters that are still equivalent to party level in CR. and because of our 12+ person group, we can hyperspecialize in things a 4 person group normally cannot. and we can accomodate for the massive martial redundancy.
you really don't need to optimize much when you have a dedicated healer and a dedicated buffer or few, to make up for the gaps in martial power. and stuff dies rather quickly because we can simply nova buff, cluster kill, and rest in a rope trick.
Halflings make great archery based fighters just using core
See I find the repetitive threads with the same untested statements boring.
I liked trying to prove things wrong.
Halfling fighter isn't viable, I see if I can make one.
Challenges are fun.
And you can always post whatever build you create. I'll even comment on it if you want. I just don't want to go level by level of build x build. It makes character creation a boring labor, rather than a fun challenge.
One of my all time favorite builds is a Halfling Fighter in heavy armor that Bob created. I still have that build, and even managed to make it a regular NPC in a short campaign I GMed for my secondary group.
The little guy actually kicked the asses of half the party. Sure, he was 1 level above them, but it was 2x1 (3x1 if you count the small buff the Cleric cast on one of the PCs), so it was pretty fair.
I've never seen a decent gnome Fighter... But as I said before, with enough resources, anything can be awesome at anything. However, more often than not, those resources are rather limited.
I've never seen a decent gnome Fighter... But as I said before, with enough resources, anything can be awesome at anything. However, more often than not, those resources are rather limited.Challenge accepted...
I'll work on it in the build thread.
I'd like to try too. Which one is "the build thread"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Calling for a build is calling someones bluff. When someone says you can do X,Y, and Z with Q class and you say "I don't think you can do that", what's the next logical step? Debate semantics all day? Or does someone post a build attempting to do X, Y, and Z?
<begins rambling about slightly unrelated topic>
I hear a lot of "the summoner can out cast a sorcerer because cheap items" and "the eidolon can out fight a barbarian" or someone more reasonable will say "the summoner can out fight and out cast a druid". Regardless it breaks down into what is more useful; Better buffs or all the other kinds of spells a fullcaster can have, Eidolon or wildshape, animal companion, and summoning.
I do discard the argument that the summoner's SLA is better than the druids SNA. The SLA can't be out with the eidolon. The druid can have his AC, wildshape, and summons out at the same time. You would have to argue that the SLA is better than all those things for the SLA to be relevant in combat. The SLA is good for utility, but the druid gets utility spells.
<ends ramble with unrelated topic>
Calling for a build is calling someones bluff. When someone says you can do X,Y, and Z with Q class and you say "I don't think you can do that", what's the next logical step? Debate semantics all day? Or does someone post a build attempting to do X, Y, and Z?
<begins rambling about slightly unrelated topic>
I hear a lot of "the summoner can out cast a sorcerer because cheap items" and "the eidolon can out fight a barbarian" or someone more reasonable will say "the summoner can out fight and out cast a druid". Regardless it breaks down into what is more useful; Better buffs or all the other kinds of spells a fullcaster can have, Eidolon or wildshape, animal companion, and summoning.I do discard the argument that the summoner's SLA is better than the druids SNA. The SLA can't be out with the eidolon. The druid can have his AC, wildshape, and summons out at the same time. You would have to argue that the SLA is better than all those things for the SLA to be relevant in combat. The SLA is good for utility, but the druid gets utility spells.
<ends ramble with unrelated topic>
the druid can also use healing wands/scrolls on more allies than just the eidolon. a very useful ability when you need to rescue the soon to be downed fighter or barbarian with a scroll of heal
to do that, the summoner needs to beat a DC31 UMD check he has no guarantee of succeeding. he can get a high success rate, but it still isn't guaranteed.
I'd like to try too. Which one is "the build thread"?I've never seen a decent gnome Fighter... But as I said before, with enough resources, anything can be awesome at anything. However, more often than not, those resources are rather limited.Challenge accepted...
I'll work on it in the build thread.
I believe this is the thread he's refering to.
Calling for a build is calling someones bluff. When someone says you can do X,Y, and Z with Q class and you say "I don't think you can do that", what's the next logical step? Debate semantics all day? Or does someone post a build attempting to do X, Y, and Z?
And as I said before, builds are pretty good at proving specific points. Hell in that very thread, the OP is a non-human non-archetyped Fighter that makes a incredible diplomat.
OTOH, builds are not very good for proving general effectiveness. Dr.Fighty McCharming is not proof that Fighters make great diplomats, just that a specific build can be made into a great diplomat, but it costs a lot.
The whole point is it isn't a competition. If there is a problem I want to find out so we can address it.
When we did it with the monk, what we learned was the defensive arguments were all pretty much BS, but damage (and damage reduction specifically) was a problem specifically because no one could address it in any build.
It isn't me vs you. I'm going to make suggestions to make your build better and hopefully you will do the same, as well as anyone else participating.
The whole point is to get away from the whole "e-peen" competition that usually happens and actually work the numbers.
I have to agree...if there are issues, produce a build that demonstrates the issues. It makes them easier to examine through examples. In the monk thread we produced several different monks with different design philosophies, and debunked the idea that against a CR-equivelant foe the monk can use their defensive ability to "wear down" foes - monks do not hit often enough or score enough damage to successfully do this.
Actually you stopped posting when people criticized your build, apparently because you were trying to "win" the discussion.
PS. Done the build thing. It gets old. I stopped posting builds after I saw them repeatedly ignored.
...you know, I sometimes wonder if Ashiel and Ciretose are twins, separated at birth. They are just so much alike.
I think that part of the issue might be term 'viable'. I would say that the Human Paladin is viable because he has a several different builds that work with him, and if you take a less then ideal feat because you misread it you still have an enough power/options to be a valued member of the party. I'd say that a Halfing Rogue isn't, not because there are NO builds that work with him, but because it requires much more care to make one. To me, being viable includes a certain amount of being user friendly.
And while we have several active threads about class balance you necro an old one.
But you are right in that it is easier to build a viable paladin than a viable rogue.
For some reason it showed up as a recent thread when I ordered them by 'newest'.
Dunelord, what have you done!?!?!
How do mythic tiers effect class balance?
I don't think they do, Marthkus. Mythic paths enhance what you already have, although I guess the trickster path may have more to offer the rogue than any other class. I looked through them and on a number of occasions thought: "Hey this is good for the monk..." but then realised that this was good for other classes too. In other words, the adjustment is roughly even, if you were underpowered, you will be underpowered in mythic, and if you were overpowered, you will be overpowered in mythic.
I think that part of the issue might be term 'viable'. I would say that the Human Paladin is viable because he has a several different builds that work with him, and if you take a less then ideal feat because you misread it you still have an enough power/options to be a valued member of the party. I'd say that a Halfing Rogue isn't, not because there are NO builds that work with him, but because it requires much more care to make one. To me, being viable includes a certain amount of being user friendly.
I agree, dunelord3001. What you lose is flexibility to play the character you want and not an optimal build because it's one of the few that function.
I don't think they do, Marthkus. Mythic paths enhance what you already have, although I guess the trickster path may have more to offer the rogue than any other class. I looked through them and on a number of occasions thought: "Hey this is good for the monk..." but then realised that this was good for other classes too. In other words, the adjustment is roughly even, if you were underpowered, you will be underpowered in mythic, and if you were overpowered, you will be overpowered in mythic.
Idk. Tricksters and martials get whole new mechanics while casters only get abilities that optimizers already had through splatbook cheese.
Idk. Tricksters and martials get whole new mechanics while casters only get abilities that optimizers already had through splatbook cheese.I don't think they do, Marthkus. Mythic paths enhance what you already have, although I guess the trickster path may have more to offer the rogue than any other class. I looked through them and on a number of occasions thought: "Hey this is good for the monk..." but then realised that this was good for other classes too. In other words, the adjustment is roughly even, if you were underpowered, you will be underpowered in mythic, and if you were overpowered, you will be overpowered in mythic.
True, but from the monk POV he doesn't get more than other martials against which he is measured, in fact I didn't see a lot that really worked well for the monk. I looked through it thinking: "Hey, that helps the monk with X and Y, with that...he'd be as a good a non-Mythic martial...(sigh)"
|
Yea monks and rogues come to mind when i think of "useless stuff".
But then you look at stuff like the witch and it's just...eh.
take the sleep hex max int. ... done.
the gm has counters but unless they go out of their way to make u useless ull be useful
Except 3 of the last 5 paizo published modules I played in nearly all the monsters were either undead or constructs.
If I were a slumber focused witch, I would have been nearly useless.
The barbarians (yes, more than one) never even blinked.
His GM didn't "do it to him", they were published modules.
But yeah, Slumber still isn't the only trick up your sleeve as a Witch. Not that it makes them OP really. I find them to be one of the more balanced casters a lot of the time.
|
|
If I were a slumber focused witch, I would have been nearly useless.Why, does taking the Slumber Hex remove access to any others or remove your ability to act as a full caster? That seems a bit harsh, you might want a different GM if he is doing that to you.
How does choice of DM have any impact on monsters used in Paizo products?
People like to claim Slumber witches are overpowered. They are very powerful, until you walk into a crypt full of undead.
Maybe those people should have gone Gravewalker Witch with Slumber on the side. Plus being able to bodysurf in your minions eliminates most of the danger of being close to enemies to use hexes.
Dunelord, what have you done!?!?!
That would require a whole new thread.
I generally don't find builds alone to be particularly useful in determining class strengths in a vacuum. However, recently two forum posters in one of my magus threads did a mock combat with a pair of builds that was very enlightening.
The question had to do with the strength of a magus versus a ranger, and so they inserted the ranger into the magus' party (in place of one of the usual melee PCs) and ran an encounter the party had recently gone through. Seeing an actual combat in action was very informative.
Of course one combat isn't the be-all, end-all of such a discussion, but it definitely provides some significant illumination beyond unfounded statements. :)
If Ashiel will remember, her Demon Horde gets taken out in its entirety by one cleric of the appropriate level shouting a Holy Word. Poof, back to the Abyss they go.
It's all in what you have ready to face them with.
And those high DC saves vs dominate are useless against the prot/evil ioun stone any fighter worth a brain sticks in his pathfinder at level 3.
==Aelryinth
Look... I love using the "Word" spells to dish out no save status effects myself (Repeat after me, Bead of Karma OP), but to say that a 40ft. Radius centered on you would defeat a horde of demons is a rather disingenuous. Even if we assumed said Cleric prepped multiple Holy Words, had a means to Quicken Spell one and could hit two different 40ft. spreads in one turn, its still not going to be enough to beat a demon horde. Furthermore, once that happens that Cleric is a going to be fighting off Telekinesis Grapples at the very least.
Also the high DC saves against Dominate are very practical when Nalfeshnee have Greater Dispel Magic at will and Glabrezu have Dispel Magic at will...
Even though he is the character that has gone to 0 HP or less the most in our party, I still think that Monk with X amount of styles is pretty powerful.
The WIzards I can handle, I can force him to teleport away if needed.
For some reason I don´t like summoners, I remember reading about them, and then saying "nope, I won@t allow them in my game".
|
So last night our table consisted of:
me (Fighter/Monk, Manuever Master-type)
A summoner (with a standard eidilon that flew and could dish out 2d8+20 damage)
2 Wizards (doing wizardly stuff)
A cleric (standard heal-buff bot)
An inquistor (large weapon, heavy damage).
And I (the Fighter / Monk) got called "overpowered" at the end of the game. So I think this proves it's all in the eyes of the beholders, and the scenarios; we were fighting lots of things without flight that closed in on the party, which naturally made a trip specialist with 8 attacks look really, really good.
I've also seen several other archtypes that are beaten up pull off power. One of the most powerful characters I've seen in the "blaster" fire oracle 7 / Dual-Blooded Sorcerer 1.... would throw out 100-damage DC 21 fireballs that left most opponents a steaming pile of goo.
I've also seen the double-weapon gunslinger ammassing huge damamge, was around before the banning of Synthasist Summoners, etc etc.
So I don't think there is a good answer here; really most classes can be over-powered or under-powered, depending on who builds them. As to the hardest one to make under-powered? Probably the summoner.
I agree, it's in what you go against. A maneuver master monk is great against things that you can use maneuvers against. The question is in how good you are against things that aren't your speciality that's the measure.
Still the top three unederpowered classes are:
1) Monk - can't do what it's meant to. Core monk is so bad it hurts with self-nerfing class features that utterly fail to work with one another. Some archetypes improve it, but fundamentally the monk is a combat class that struggles to fight effectively without optimisation.
2) rogue - can do its role, but others can do that role and other stuff as well.
3) fighter - can do its role, but has glaring weaknesses and has to sit out many situations where hitting things isn't called for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people misunderstand what the monk is meant to do. They think it is supposed to be comparable to a fighter.
1) Monk - can't do what it's meant to.
Well... In PF, you have 4 categories of classes (most classes can fill 2 categories, rarely 3) :
=> Arcane spellcaster : The monk doesn't have spells. So, he's out.
=> Divine spellcaster : The monk doesn't have spells. So, he's out.
=> Skill monkey : The monk have rarely more than 3 skill points (4 for humans) per level, thanks to INT being one of its dump stats. His class list is average. His class bonuses doesn't enhance skills. So he's out.
=> Warriors : The monk can have 7 attacks per round with the same weapon, have best base saves, have bonus combat feats. On the other way, it have low HP, low to average AC, low damage. Its class abilities are contradictory, and some even weaken the class instead of improving it (SR, I'm lookin' at you).
So yes, the monk is a warrior, but not because he's good at it : it's because he doesn't have abilities to fill the other categories.
(I'm talking about the great 4 categories, not roles in the groupe, like blaster, "tank", healer, face, ...)
I dont find anyone class to be overpowered, but as people have been saying some classes could be better. For me i think monks need it the most, more so than rogues. Why be a monk if you can just be an unarmed fighter? (thats a debate for another time) What im saying is, i dont feel any need or what to play that class when i can just be an unarmed fighter.
|
|
=> Skill monkey : The monk have rarely more than 3 skill points (4 for humans) per level, thanks to INT being one of its dump stats. His class list is average. His class bonuses doesn't enhance skills. So he's out.
You choosing to dump INT is not a problem with the class.
=> Warriors : The monk can have 7 attacks per round with the same weapon, have best base saves, have bonus combat feats. On the other way, it have low HP, low to average AC, low damage. Its class abilities are contradictory, and some even weaken the class instead of improving it (SR, I'm lookin' at you).
You can have better saves, better AC and equal damage to a fighter. It just takes a greater degree of system mastery.
Alternately, you can build for control and lock down opponents.
Either way will win encounters for a party working together.
So yes, the monk is a warrior, but not because he's good at it : it's because he doesn't have abilities to fill the other categories.
(I'm talking about the great 4 categories, not roles in the groupe, like blaster, "tank", healer, face, ...)
You are defining your categories based on how goals are accomplished, and leaving the techniques the monk would use off the list.
Try defining character function by results instead of methods used.
- Battlefield Control
- Damage
- Healing
- Skills
A monk can contribute to both damage and control, while receiving enough skill points to maximize 4 - 7 skills.
|
|
I think that's the key; monks require system mastery... I guess fighters really do too? Fighters are strictly better low levels, monks with their better saves and more relevant skills take over at high. Ultimately I think the best "front lines" are a blend of these (and rangers and barbarians)... Pathfinder did their best, but later books are slowly starting to make "cherry picking" top-heavy classes much more powerful again (dual-blooded sorcerer, manuever master/MoMS monks, fighters, paladins, and barbarians all fall into these classificiations)
|
|
For the record, I'd take Manuever Master Monk for a battlefield controller over LoreWarden any day of the week; though I could rarely see building one of these without at least splashing the other (either 2 levels of Manuever Master for the extra attack, +3 to all saves, and extra feats or 3 levels of Lore Warden for the extra feats and +2 to all combat manuevers). As to which to choose, for a grappler / tripper, I'd probably focus on the Manuever Master. For a strict tripper / disarmer, the Lore Warden is superior. For a dex-based build Manuever Master, for Str-based build Lore Warden.
As to monks, the base book monk DOES suck sadly. But you don't have to play that guy; his abilities don't make sense. There are several archtypes that are fantastic, especially if you combine them; that take the bevvy of unmatched powers and trade them out for things that work together. Then there's Qinnong, an archtype nearly every monk should have... it essentially lets you swap out the powers you want to swap out for some often-really-good spells or 1-ki-point-grab-a-feats.