False. What was overpowered about the wizard in 3.x was their spells.
Agreed.
Spells have been hit incredibly hard. There aren't even a fraction of the abuses throughout 3.x. All shapeshifting was nerfed into the ground by comparison
Wrong. EVERY SINGLE shapeshifting spells except Alter self and Shapechange have been boosted. Yes, I know, you can't have 25 STR while polymorphed into a bear, but you will still benefit from your equipment (you didn't in 3.5, good bye headband of INT and all your stuff, including amulet of CON !), you even GAIN HP while polymorphed (for certain spells), you gain powers as your spells go up (only with Shapechange in 3.5 : for example, you didn't gain regeneration before 17th level in 3.5, but you gain it at 13th level in 3.5), ...
Just to make an example :
In 3.5 : you shapechange into a dragon : you had 70 HP, and the dragon breath, NA, STR, CON, DEX, size, senses. You used that form to breath fire and fly (and the reach too with 6 attacks).
In pathfinder : you shapechange into a dragon : you have +80 HP (+your modified CON +favored class +normal for more than 230 HP), you keep your magic items (even the one for AC or saves), you have the breath attack and senses and size. You get bonuses to STR, CON, NA.
The difference ? You're a better fighter with the Pathfinder version, you are more durable, and can use the form to do better things. Hell, you could even use the 8th level Form of the dragon to do the same (not in 3.5).
And I won't even go with summon monster, that even if you can't direct them anymore (for animals in the first levels of SM), have been boosted beyond imagination.
you save or dies were nerfed hard,
True indeed : most save or die spells became blast spells.
many of the save or suck spells were nerfed hard
Not as much as you think.
Many of the no-save-just-lose spells were nerfed hard
Not as much as you think.
Wish was hit with the nerf factory
No.
Shapechange was hit with Nerf's Comet
But everysingle polymorph spells skyrockets higher.
Disjunction sings the hymn of the nerf from dawn until dusk.
3.5 disjonction wasn't even usable. Pathfinder boosted Disjonction by nerfing it, making it useful (when you got it, and used it in 3.5, everysingle spell and Magic items were permanently dispelled).
Anyone who thinks that the Pathfinder wizards aren't weaker than the 3.5 wizards really have no idea what a real 3.5 wizard was like. Try asking on the Giant in the Playground forums or something. They can probably steer you in the right direction.
I played wizards (and with wizards) for some time. I used to read the GitP forums for some times, and even know most wizard guides.
Wizards in PF were given class features and +20 Hp over 20 levels. They were steamrolled with the nerfbat from 3.5 to Pathfinder and are still strong. Wizards have had their bottom raised and their top lowered.
They have +40 HP (the favored bonus is likely to go in HP, as INT is retroactive now). And they got class features in addition to their spells and their bond. And they got the change for specialized wizard. And subschools (even that worth gold).
Wizards lost... prestige classes ? Yeah, I agree with that. You can't go Archmage, Initiate of Seven veils or any prestige class like this. They don't even need to take alternate options (except for subschools) : everything is built in the class now.
Even better. :PDo you realize that out of the core classes in Pathfinder, only 3 of them are problematic? Fighter, Rogue, Monk. That leaves Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard as being really good classes. 8/11 core classes well balanced. That is HUGE as an improvement.And including the other official rulebooks (APG, UM, UC, ...), you have 4 classes that are problematic for a total of 21 classes.
I agree with you ^^
The fourth one being the summoner, not because of power problems (not too bad, not too good), but because he doesn't fit in Pathfinder rules.
Stuff about pacing, and other fighter problemsFirst off thank you for getting specific.
Fighters and their inability to fix damage of any sort.
- I have no problem with this. The non-magic guy requiring either magical healing or lots of time to get better, that feels right to me.Barbarian does it without being a liability though.
Pacing.
- Interesting, the idea that fighters "have one speed" is a certainly true and I can see why people might want to "fix" it. But again to some people that's part of the appeal I think.This essentially means other classes can meaningfully support their parties when the poopoo hits the spinning air blades.
Needs a cleric or wizard
- To some extent sure. A thoughtful fighter will take care of many of his own short comings through the purchase of potions and magic items and what not but sure a spell caster makes him better. But a spell caster makes everyone better. Barbarians, Paladins and Rangers included.Potions are downright unholy expensive. Spellcasters make everyone better. But most of the martials help to take the load off the casters so they CAN make everyone better. Every buff spell the healer didn't have to turn into a cure spell is a victory for the party.
- I don't see the fighter as a liability I'm sorry
- High end consistent damage is meaningful support
- Which is why you only use them when you absolutely need them. Shy of flight sometimes I can think of very few buffs that I would say a fighter honest to god needs to do his job.
Yes they need healing so what? Everyone who gets into combat regularly does.
- Torger
|
Full casters in general have a tendency to kick anyone without some form of casting in the teeth while they're down at higher levels.
But that's an issue with the system as a whole. Which won't be changing soon (read: ever). Because "caster/martial disparity is a myth propagated by people with agendas". Pff.
I have to say that in every 3.5/pathfinder campaign I have played in the most kickas../dominating character has always been an optimized fighter type usually with some levels of rogue or on the arcane archer path. Wizards are awesome but it is always a "fighter type" done 150 points of damage a round that makes things difficult on the GM especially on BBG's in my experience.
|
Wrong. EVERY SINGLE shapeshifting spells except Alter self and Shapechange have been boosted..
I'm not sure I see how Pathfinder has boosted shapechanging.
In 3.5, a 7th level wizard could prepare one spell (Polymorph) and change into an aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin of any HD equal to or below his level.
It's not just about the ability scores, it's about the fact there's an insane amount of options from that one spell. And it's about the fact there were some pretty broken monsters for their HD (the one troll/giant that everyone abused escapes me at the moment).
In Pathfinder, a 7th level wizard instead has Beast Shape II, Elemental Body I or Vermin Shape I. Three different spells for a fraction of the capability.
I'm not sure I see how Pathfinder has boosted shapechanging.
In 3.5, a 7th level wizard could prepare one spell (Polymorph) and change into an aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin of any HD equal to or below his level.
It's not just about the ability scores, it's about the fact there's an insane amount of options from that one spell. And it's about the fact there were some pretty broken monsters for their HD (the one troll/giant that everyone abused escapes me at the moment).
In Pathfinder, a 7th level wizard instead has Beast Shape II, Elemental Body I or Vermin Shape I. Three different spells for a fraction of the capability.
But better abilities for each spells... and above all they're ALLOWED to keep their magic items WHATEVER THE FORM THEY TAKE.
and that's why Pathfinder didn't truly nerfed polymorph. Yeah, there are less form available (and you need several spells to do so). But powers are coming sooner (only at 17th level in 3.5).
For example, in Pathfinder, you can use Elemental body I to morph into an earth elemental and move through the earth like nothing. In 3.5, you had to wait the 17th level to do that (or a 8th level spell that do ONLY that, for rounds per level).
And I could go all day about those things.
Good Stuff
Most of what I'm getting out of your post is that you feel there should be high level fighter feats that really ramp things up. Ok, I can see that. By the time your up to the higher levels you've ususaly cherry picked all the feats you really want and are now grabbing "why not" feats.
As far as passive vs. active feats I for one love passive feats. I love knowing that every single fight I'm getting benefit from the ability I've chosen. The more situational a feat is the less I want it.
There's overlap obviously. As you mentioned Step Up is a fantastic active feat. Either way though I would be down for some higher level feats.
Spike Damage is great but I feel like consistency is underrated.
Fighters to me should be bad at solving problems when the answer isn't sword. I don't see that as a bad thing.
- Torger
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always find it weird to discuss class balancing in pen and paper RPG.
Those are not video games, and there is no real "pvp", the DM has a huge role into what is balanced or not, as he is the one putting the obstacles in front of the group.
And since it is all about cooperation instead of competition, it is completely fine if some class are in some way more "powerful" than other,
What matters though is that everyone has something to bring to the table.
Something unique that makes him part of the group and that once in a while at least people say "Wow nice we have a "insert class name" in the group, that would have been a pain otherwise"
But that's basically it about balancing in PnP RPG, trying to balance things too much will actually hinder the fun of the games and makes it feel too "mechanical" and fake.
So what class do people feel has nothing to bring in a group? I really don't see any myself, if you play it properly and make it flavorful, you will always bring something at some point, and in every case, the most important is that you have fun playing your characters and that in general everyone around the table also has fun.
For example one of the group I play in we have: Rogue, Ranger, Fighter, Cleric, Sorcerer.
Sometimes we are really glad we have the cleric for some heal or lesser restoration for example
Sometimes we are really glad we have the sorcerer for his powerful AoE spells
Sometimes we are really glad we have the rogue for ability to open lock and disarm traps
Sometimes we are really glad we have that fighter with a s@&#load of AC, because he can hold almost anything or trigger attack of opportunity for us
And sometimes we are very glad we have the ranger who can snipe anything from afar and lay waste in the enemy ranks without spending any "resources"
Now would the rogue get his ass kicked by the fighter? Probably, he has way too much AC and HP, but who cares?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But better abilities for each spells... and above all they're ALLOWED to keep their magic items WHATEVER THE FORM THEY TAKE...
For example, in Pathfinder, you can use Elemental body I to morph into an earth elemental and move through the earth like nothing. In 3.5, you had to wait the 17th level to do that (or a 8th level spell that do ONLY that, for rounds per level). And I could go all day about those things.
Let me know if I've missed obvious sarcasm.
In 3.5, I'm not certain why a 7th level wizard couldn't also polymorph into an earth elemental for burrow speed?
Pathfinder doesn't let a 7th level wizard polymorph into a hydra and get seven bites at +10 to hit and 1d10+4 damage each. That's pretty big, isn't it?
Ah yes here's what I've forgotten (it must've hurt me emotionally) - the bladerager troll - that's just broken polymorphing for a 7th level wizard.
@Lauraliane : that's true when you're talking about different classes (for example wizard vs fighter vs rogue vs cleric => each have different abilities, and so comparing them have few purposes).
But when you're comparing two similar classes, and can see that one class can be copied ENTIRELY with one part of another class, and that another class can do more while doing that is neat.
For example : the rogue. It's pretty good in his job (skills), and average in combat. It doesn't have anything else.
The bard : he is better than the rogue for skills, better than him in combat, + have bard music and bard spells. The bard is the rogue plus more abilities.
Another example : the monk. He is waaaaaay behind any other martial classes for combat, and his signature move (flurry) does not synergize with his other signature ability (super movement). He is great for saves.
The paladin is better at saves, better at AC, better at attacks, better at damage, and have spells. There is a problem, isn't it ? The only thing the monk can do over a paladin is move fast (copied with potions) and maybe 2 skills points per level.
|
Kirth proposed rather than having feats stack, have more of them simply improve with level or synergy, like Skill Focus and Power attack do.
I agree this is a good path to take, but I think it would have to come with version change.
Where Evil Lincoln and I disagree is that I think the chassis still has room for tweeting, while EL seems to think the overhaul needs to be greater.
I fear two things.
First, a 4e type outcome where the new product is so disparate as to no longer "feel" like what we all know and love.
Second, the back catalog, including the old WoTC 3.5 material which still works with minimal tweeking.
And this is why I really do want to run these playtest experiments to see where the holes and gaps really are in actual play, rather than listening to all the "look at me!" theorycraft crap.
@avh : I see your point, but even then, I have a lot of fun playing a rogue and I don't feel useless or weak, I also played a bard later on, and didn't had the feeling that the rogue was underpowered in comparison.
It is just different really, the rogue can shine in combat in situation where he can sneak attack, and is very awesome at disabling device, the bard does not come even close as the rogue gets trapfinding, unless you take an archetype for the bard, but then you sacrifice some pretty good stuff for it.
As for the monk, on that one, I can agree, it is right now, a pretty terrible class, the last books have made him a bit better, but overall it is just a subpar fighter that doesn't bring much to the table sadly.
Still though, in a game I am DMing (way of the wicked for those who know it), one of the player is a Monk and he has a lot of fun with it, and even managed to save the group in a very difficult fight by getting a lucky stunning fist on.
So even he managed to shine, and as a DM I consider it is also my role to ensure that everyone in the group can shine once in a while.
That being said, I agree that the way feats works especially is a bit weird for melee class, there are too few "high level" feats, which means that you will get the best ones first of course, and then once level 10+ will mostly take the average one that you didn't take before, thus actually feeling like you are not getting really better.
Contrary to the spellcasting class who get more and more powerful spell.
Sorcerer: Yay I am getting Wish and Time Stop!
Cleric: Nice, True Resurrection and Implosion!
Fighter: yay...I guess...I am getting Improved Bull Rush, because hey, why not?
We need some very high level and powerful non spell casting feats.
But better abilities for each spells... and above all they're ALLOWED to keep their magic items WHATEVER THE FORM THEY TAKE...
For example, in Pathfinder, you can use Elemental body I to morph into an earth elemental and move through the earth like nothing. In 3.5, you had to wait the 17th level to do that (or a 8th level spell that do ONLY that, for rounds per level). And I could go all day about those things.
Let me know if I've missed obvious sarcasm.
In 3.5, I'm not certain why a 7th level wizard couldn't also polymorph into an earth elemental for burrow speed?
Pathfinder doesn't let a 7th level wizard polymorph into a hydra and get seven bites at +10 to hit and 1d10+4 damage each. That's pretty big, isn't it?
Ah yes here's what I've forgotten (it must've hurt me emotionally) - the bladerager troll - that's just broken polymorphing for a 7th level wizard.
Except Earth elemental doesn't have burrow speed, they have a special ability to move through earth. That's not the same, not even close.
You could polymorph into hydra, but you will have 17 AC and maybe 20 HP and in close range from martial characters. And you don't have access to its regeneration. And your attacks won't be at +10 but at +6 (your BBA, not the one of the monster). And you don't have the special ability the hydra have to make 7 opportunity attacks either.
Same thing for the troll you have great strength and can pounce and rend, but have 20 HP and 17 AC. You don't have its immunities or regeneration either. neither do you have its feats or its armor or anything. I mean, you CAN use that form, but its no good for a wizard (at least, not better than the hydra, which is not very good either).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth proposed rather than having feats stack, have more of them simply improve with level or synergy, like Skill Focus and Power attack do.
I agree this is a good path to take, but I think it would have to come with version change.
Where Evil Lincoln and I disagree is that I think the chassis still has room for tweeting, while EL seems to think the overhaul needs to be greater.
I fear two things.
First, a 4e type outcome where the new product is so disparate as to no longer "feel" like what we all know and love.
Second, the back catalog, including the old WoTC 3.5 material which still works with minimal tweeking.
And this is why I really do want to run these playtest experiments to see where the holes and gaps really are in actual play, rather than listening to all the "look at me!" theorycraft crap.
Actually, I'm not really an extremist when it comes to a new version. I really wouldn't change all that much.
Skill mechanics are fair game because they don't generally invalidate statblocks. You could boil the ride skill down to a handful of useful, well-defined checks (instead of the spaghetti mess that skill actually is) and it wouldn't change much about characters who did or did not invest in ride. That's a far cry from changing how skill ranks and DCs work, right?
I have a lot of faith in the strength of the core rules. I have a smaller list of house rules than many GMs I've seen here. For me, a new edition should streamline a number of things without actually changing gameplay fundamentally. Ride and Stealth are two very good examples of where rolls could be removed and rules clarified without a huge WotC-style "overhaul" edition.
The downside is, patches like that tend to get overlooked by established players. Que sera.
In the end, I think the classes are fairly well-balanced, depending on what your vision for class balance is. I have room in my vision for a fighter who is a one-trick pony for players who like playing one-trick ponies. Ashiel doesn't. That's okay with me.
But if we're having a conversation about which classes may mechanically appeal to the fewest potential players, then yes, the rogue gets singled out, followed by the monk and maybe the fighter. We could just as well be talking about which classes are needlessly burdened with annoying paperwork and exemption clauses, and the bard would be right out in front. There are a ton of ways to measure the various classes.
@Lauraliane: You're right that this is a cooperative game, not a competitive one, at least by design and intent. There is, however, plenty of room for there to exist "imbalance" between the two extremes of "everyone brings something to the table" and "some classes bring nothing to the table".
I know many groups (both of mine in fact) run with more than four players but the canonical group, if there is one, is a group of four, which explains references to some classes being "good fifth members". The monk is a typical example of this. The thing is no one wants to be a fifth wheel. They want to be a reasonable option for one of the four primary wheels of that group.
Does a monk bring "nothing" to a group? Does a rogue or a fighter? No. But that's not the point folks are making. The point folks are making boils down to how such classes answer the following question:
- What does the class bring to the table that others do not bring to similar or greater amounts and what, in return do they lack?
In the case of a rogue, as was mentioned elsewhere, they do not bring spellcasting or powerful melee to the table, but they do have the potential to learn a lot of skills. The problem is there is already another class which can bring a lot of skills, more even, to the table. Plus they offer better spellcasting and melee prowess. This includes the ability to open locks and disarm traps. Even the Trapfinding class feature is watered down, being available to a number of archetypes of other classes and being one of the main things given up by a number of rogue archetypes.
Will bringing a rogue limit a group so severely that they will be incapable of completing an adventure? Unlikely. Any class, reasonably well played by a competent individual will be able to contribute in one way or another. And in the end, yes, it is up to the GM to adapt the adventure to the limits and capabilities of the group. Theoretically the GM should be able to adapt Rappan Athuk to a group of experts. Though... heheh... heeee... yeah... well... anyway, technically it is possible.
But folks who want to be able to play a rogue would also like to feel they are bringing a special combination of features which other classes can neither duplicate nor emulate, not entirely. In effect, except in exceedingly small numbers of circumstances a bard is a rogue with benefits. You can play a rogue but in the end you know that aside from flavor, you are not helping the group as much as you would as if you had simply played a bard from the get go.
That at least is what I take 'imbalance' to mean in this context.
Lemmy was on board with the build Bandwagon and he loves building stuff (he even has a very nice thread for martial builds), but even he has acknowledged that posting builds is a fairly futile waste of time.Lemmy also said your partially filled wands to get around WBL were fine.
The Ghost of Threads Past attacks again...
Ashiel is correct here. I usually post builds because I really enjoy building characters, and Fighters are fun to build (even if I don't find them very fun to play), but unless you can find a bunch of different players with the exactly same level of game mastery and the exactly same priorities for character creation, builds don't prove much...
I mean, they can prove things like "class X can do this", but they don't say much about how effective a class is.
ciretose is correct too. I did allow the buying of partially charged wands. RAW says it's possible, so for a RAW class discussion, it made sense to me that it should be possible. It's not even that big of a deal.
I'm just not sure about how that is relevant... Maybe this was supposed to be a joke, I do jokingly mention that discussion every now and then... Was that the purpose here? I don't know... I'll just take it as a friendly jab. No reason to bring back yet another heated discussion... Not when we have ciretose x Ashiel debates to give us new heated discussions.
Heh... That Fighter thread with the half-charged wands debate was like my second day on this freaking forum! Probably the very first thread where I posted more than once. And I was chosen to be the judge for a Ashiel x ciretose Fighter discussion... If only I knew... I'd have put a lot more effort in escaping the responsibilities! lol
Ashiel: casters were nerfed!
Beckett/DA: no, only clerics were nerfed!
AvH: no, only druids were nerfed!
Shallowsoul: casters were always worse than martials anyway!
Anbody from The Den: PATHFAILURE = CASTER EDITION!
Ciretose: Since it's all Schroedinger, we will never know if those are nerfs or buffs.
3.5 Gitarist: Casters are fine, as long as you require the player to learn spells/pray/meditate 8h per day in real time, like we do. Honestly, does anybody even play this game in some other way?
TOZ: LOLWUT?
Kirth Gersen: My 235 pg PDF fixes everything.
Piccolo: Casters are fine, after all they need to rest 8h after casting each spell. What, that's not how it works? Really? Oh, must have been some obscure errata I missed.
Kthulhu: If you only reverted to 0E, all your problems would be gone. But no, you persist, mindless slaves of Monte Cook...
Gorbacz: American fascists! Errr ... wrong thread!
LOL. Gorbacz rocks!
Now I have to put more effort in class discussions so I'll be featured in the next Gorbacz post! I SHALL HAVE MY MOMENT OF GLORY!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what Paizo staff members think when they read threads like this.
if only I could wake up with the gin already in me
On a positive note, it's not as bad as MMO/FPS forums :)
Then I thank the old gods for never being a big fan of FPS and having grown tired of MMOs years ago...
Those forums must be war zones!
The funny thing about monks.
Everybody claims they are weak, right up until the DM tries to kill one at mid to high level. Suddenly complaints start cropping up about monks being overpowered.
In my experience, the monk is not that defensively strong. They are good, but not unbeatable - and in fact paladins are generally acknowledged to be better. Good saves, but MAD hampers them. Some immunities, and spell resistance, but the former are not common to be used at high level, while the latter is more effective at stopping buffs than hostile spells.
AC is generally not better than that attained by most fighters and paladins. Hit points are usually worse than those classes.
A well built, defensively-designed monk can be a nightmare to hurt, true, but they focus on defence because it's all they got. Very often even then they will be toast if you get the drop on them.
Rogues are the one class I've never heard any complaints about being overpowered.
Rogues could use some love.
I agree, they could do with some better talents for a start.
|
Lets see. Here are my "I haven't read pages 1-4" 2 coppers:
**Full BAB Classes**
Paladin is a bit overwhelming in the right campaign. Past that the Barbarian and Ranger seem to feel weaker, but it's mostly illusion. Cavalier severely suffers from being saddled with a mount with no way to replace that class feature w/o 3rd party or house rules.
**9 Level Casters**
I feel the witch is an obvious weaker feel. Spell list isn't as flashy, and it could probably be better suited as a 6 level class, with its spells retweaked to fit the focus on hexes instead of full casting. They may not actually be weaker, but as 9 level casters, they don't seem to fit with the others.
Cleric is still top dog, but the constant need to give up being good to have to heal folks keeps it from running away. Class features give the Wizard a significant bump above the Sorc, and the delayed casting the Sorc and Oracle have drops them below the other 4 prepared classes.
**6 Level Casters**
Summoner stands hand and fist above the others, having the sole ownership over level 9 spells, and having more 7 and 8's than the some of the other 6 level guys combined, oh and a questionably balanced pet. Magus has the weakest spell list, and would fall fully behind the others as the worst of the lot, if not for all their fancy class features.
**Medium BAB Martial Classes**
Why play a Monk when you can be an Inquisitor, Magus, Bard, or Rogue? These guys all get either spell and fun features, or insane damage from sneak attack? Really, the ability poorest of these other classes, Rogue, is still light years more appealing and has more potential to group contribution than the "I'm fast and get 1 more attack than you (but at crap dice)" Monk.
|
|
The issue Lemmy is that it demonstrates what is and is not allowed in some games and how that skews perceptions of how classes interact.
Which would be fine if some people weren't shouting "This class is underpowered because if you use partially filled wands and +1 ability items this other class makes them suck"
If you do something borderline that is causing one class to be overpowered relative to other classes, it should be fairly obvious what the problem is and what the solution is.
Without builds, we are just speaking past each other with anecdotes that can't be checked and verified.
We learned a lot of good things from that discussion. I thought it was productive, specifically because of the wands. It showed where the difference was.
If you are constantly looking for ways to exploit the rules to your benefit, while hand-waving limitations, of course you will have a different play experience than others who do not.
That is what we learned from that build discussion, and IMHO why some people won't engage in them any longer. It exposes the difference between what they say and what they do.
|
|
It is intentionally backhanded.
I think a lot of people forget that for some, the appeal of the fighter is its non-wizardness. Not just avoidance of magic, but avoidance of bookish planning and daily variables.
But if I were to "fix" the fighter in the ways so often requested, I can say with 100% certainty that I would frustrate and disappoint one of my players who just loves fighters.
I agree in fact I think part of the edition war for some old schoolers like myself was some new editions attempts to make all classes feel kind of like people with superpowers. If a fighter has magic powers, heck if everyone has magic-like powers, it feels less like D&D. At least for me.
|
|
... you could polymorph into hydra, but you will have 17 AC and maybe 20 HP ..
Same thing for the troll you have great strength and can pounce and rend, but have 20 HP and 17 AC.
"Hydra form" would be a gain of +28HP for the typical wizard, no? (Con 12 -> Con 20 is +4 HP/HD * 7 HD).
Same thing with the troll, with Con 28, the hypothetical wizard with Con 12 gains a whopping 7HP per HD, or +49HP. At level 7! On top of his 28 average, he now has 77HP! The poor 7th level fighter with a Con 16 and average HP is only sitting at 63HP.
I'm still fairly convinced 3.5 polymorph was flat broken. One spell, limitless possibilities. I remember a wizard who would polymorph into a wisp and do all the party's scouting. With the same spell that he could use to go "troll form" and out-perform the fighter.
In Pathfinder, this simply isn't possible with Beast Shape or Elemental Body.
Right, but what do builds bring to the larger class balance discussion? They're not the whole picture.
@Lauraliane: You're right that this is a cooperative game, not a competitive one, at least by design and intent. There is, however, plenty of room for there to exist "imbalance" between the two extremes of "everyone brings something to the table" and "some classes bring nothing to the table".
I know many groups (both of mine in fact) run with more than four players but the canonical group, if there is one, is a group of four, which explains references to some classes being "good fifth members". The monk is a typical example of this. The thing is no one wants to be a fifth wheel. They want to be a reasonable option for one of the four primary wheels of that group.
Does a monk bring "nothing" to a group? Does a rogue or a fighter? No. But that's not the point folks are making. The point folks are making boils down to how such classes answer the following question:
- What does the class bring to the table that others do not bring to similar or greater amounts and what, in return do they lack?
This is pretty much it.
Fighters and rogues can both do their role, but other classes can do that role too, and other stuff behind. The monk doesn't even get to do that much.
... you could polymorph into hydra, but you will have 17 AC and maybe 20 HP ..
Same thing for the troll you have great strength and can pounce and rend, but have 20 HP and 17 AC.
"Hydra form" would be a gain of +28HP for the typical wizard, no? (Con 12 -> Con 20 is +4 HP/HD * 7 HD).
Same thing with the troll, with Con 28, the hypothetical wizard with Con 12 gains a whopping 7HP per HD, or +49HP. At level 7! On top of his 28 average, he now has 77HP! The poor 7th level fighter with a Con 16 and average HP is only sitting at 63HP.
I'm still fairly convinced 3.5 polymorph was flat broken. One spell, limitless possibilities. I remember a wizard who would polymorph into a wisp and do all the party's scouting. With the same spell that he could use to go "troll form" and out-perform the fighter.
In Pathfinder, this simply isn't possible with Beast Shape or Elemental Body.
Not in 3.5 : CON modifications from polymorphing did not modify your HP. In fact, by losing your amulet of constitution, you lost HP when shapeshifting. That's one of the reason pathfinder shapeshifting is better.
|
|
Right, but what do builds bring to the larger class balance discussion? They're not the whole picture.
They establish like vs like at the same level and counteract schrodinger, which is just as applicable to people on the "Defend fighters" side.
What a build discussion demonstrates is what can be accomplished with equal starting points at equal levels, in a format that can be checked for what it doesn't include.
Half of the discussion is what choices you have to make in order to do certain things. A fighter can have a number of feats, but what feats didn't they choose to have those feats. What can that build do relative to appropriate expectations at that level.
The abstract discussion without having a build discusses the possible without exposing the limitations and weaknesses.
I honestly think a lot of people post on here for attention and praise, rather than to actually have a discussion where they might be shown to be *gasp* wrong.
Builds add testable baselines to work with. Not as good as an actual playtest of course, but a hell of a lot better than "One time at bandcamp..." stories which may or may not be true, but certainly are being framed in the best possible light.
How many "I am having problem" threads have been solved quickly and easily when the poster posted the builds of the other players at the table and the cause was made crystal clear.
The same sunlight should exist in these discussions, IMHO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well speaking as someone who HAS posted example builds, I would like to say it has resolved some issues - provided you remember that these are examples.
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.
Off the top of my head :
Cavalier - Mount limitations tend to not work well in dungeons
Inquisitor - melee teamwork feats for a ranged class with limited access to martial melee weapons
Oracle - Curses are xtremely unbalanced, haunted is the best, hands down, AND it gives you free spells with practically no drawback (how often do people drop stuff in combat? and how often does a spellcaster do it?)
Summoner - Too much focus on maxing out natural attacks on the Eidolon with large size, most other Eidolon paths are sub optimal
Then you have the alternate stuff like the Samurai...which just looks a gimped fighter to me.
Why would you consider the Inquisitor a ranged class? It gets a few ranged weapons as proficiencies. That's nice and all but I tend to find the Inquisitor is better as a melee class. You get all simple weapon and you deities favored weapon. Usually you focus of the favored weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue Lemmy is that it demonstrates what is and is not allowed in some games and how that skews perceptions of how classes interact.
Which would be fine if some people weren't shouting "This class is underpowered because if you use partially filled wands and +1 ability items this other class makes them suck"
If you do something borderline that is causing one class to be overpowered relative to other classes, it should be fairly obvious what the problem is and what the solution is.
Without builds, we are just speaking past each other with anecdotes that can't be checked and verified.
We learned a lot of good things from that discussion. I thought it was productive, specifically because of the wands. It showed where the difference was.
If you are constantly looking for ways to exploit the rules to your benefit, while hand-waving limitations, of course you will have a different play experience than others who do not.
That is what we learned from that build discussion, and IMHO why some people won't engage in them any longer. It exposes the difference between what they say and what they do.
Sorry, ciretose, but that doesn't make much sense to me...
First, no one said anything like "This class is underpowered because if you use partially filled wands and +1 ability items this other class makes them suck", at most what was said is "class X is better than Y, because X has more options than Y, and one of these options is using wands."
2nd: As I've been saying ever since you guys pointed me as the judge, I'd follow RAW as closely as possible for class discussions on the internet.
Why is that? Because RAW is all we have in common. We all ban/allow/change different things in our gaming tables. We all play with different people, have different gaming styles and different party compositions.
RAW, however, is the same for all of us. So if by RAW, one can buy partially charged wands (and I honestly don't see the problem with that), then in a internet discussion, it should be allowed.
Another example... I rule out ACP in my games. IMO, you shouldn't be punished for using something you're all but forced to use. So I ignore ACP. That makes Fighters a bit weaker in comparison to other classes, but Fighters also get more skill points, a 2nd good save and a better list of class skills, plus a few other benefits.
These are all house rules, though. So they don't mean anything in a internet discussion about how effective a class is when following RAW. Same goes for buying those half charged wands. And honestly, it wasn't even that much of a difference! A few gold coins a little more healing at low levels... Had you let it go, that build comparison could have continued and maybe given you the evidence you claim build can give us. However, that was not what happened.
Also...
Do you remember how that thread ended? Do I have to explain why I didn't bother to throw builds at the last "let's use builds to compare classes" thread? Do you really think it's because I'm afraid to be proven wrong?
Here is the thing...
Builds are fun and all, but different players have different gaming styles and different priorities. So they show you more of the player's game mastery, gaming style and character creation priorities than the class themselves.
How do you compare a build of a optimizer who focus on survivability and general utility to the build of a noob who focus only on DPR? You can compare player skill and build effectiveness here, but class effectiveness is not illustrated any better.
Even if we assume we all have similar levels of game mastery, we still focus on different things when creating/playing our characters.