|
Builds comparison should never include magic gear as far as im concerned especially consumables, only basic gear.
If you need extremely specific gear to make your build viable, you already proven it failed.
Magic gear is fine, provided it is something that is literally in the book as for sale.
Hell Ashiel said in the thread he was planning on complaining if I tried to buy a +3 weapon, as they would not be able to be found without taking crafting feats.
Which is a large part of why I tend to be so aggressive toward the hypocrisy in the discussion when someone strictly interprets and loosely interprets based on the argument they are trying to make.
Which is why it is so helpful to get the builds written down so everyone can look at them and judge if each thing is reasonable in each persons opinion of how the rule works.
If you are going to get worked up because someone doesn't agree with you, internet message-boards are probably not the best place to hang out.
ashiel are you in like a wormhole or is this just the day where you reference things from long ago like old posts or zubaz pants
Well I didn't start it. :P
and no
the point is that with a fighter, you can conjure up feat-intensive builds and feat progressions faster than any other class
And with an adept you can have a familiar at 2nd level as a divine spellcaster. Does that make them anywhere near on par with core classes? No. Is it something unique they can do? Sure it is.
And most feat intensive build progressions aren't really that impressive from what I've seen. Most of the best feats can be taken by most anyone with the correct BAB. People often lament the feat situation in Pathfinder and with good reason.
There's a reason that barbarians often spend more feats on "Extra Rage Power" rather than trying to go for feat chains. It's because one is better than the other.
when you are building at level 10, 15 or 20 with eleventy hojillion gold and 16.239% of a wand this might not matter, but it does to a lot of players who have their first 9 PFS sessions under their belt and get to try a feat progression set they've never seen before in a build they might not otherwise be able to execute in any reasonable length of time
If they feel like they want to there is nothing to stop them. Again, and I say again, and again, I'm not telling you that you cannot play a Fighter. But I sure as hell will warn people what they are getting into and tell them what sort of pitfalls they may expect, and note different paths that may be more suitable for their overall concept.
yes maybe you get to a certain point and you realize hey, I can do this thing I am doing better with x then with the y I currently have
this is good thing and signals growth as a player
but that is meaningless if the player is scared out of learning for themselves by the innundation of repetitive generalizations that have mostly been garnered from going way down the theorycrafting rabbit hole, either min/max-wise or character-level-wise
I'm not really a fan of "ivory tower game design". I don't want players to get to level 11 and realize they made a mistake. Knowledge is power and I aim to provide as much of it as I can to others. In fact the newer they are to the game the more readily I will share. Letting them know their options and realize there is more to this game than "I hit it again" is a good thing.
Also, for the record, I don't regularly make high level builds for the poops and giggles of it. I'm virtually always talking about builds from 1+. It's one of the reasons I don't have much respect for stuff like the "good monk builds" that don't begin looking decent until like 15+ but look like suicide notes at 1st-5th.
I don't believe in making a player have to fight their way through the hurdles of mechanical mazes on a quest to become competent at the system. It is my belief - my philosophy - to lift others up whenever I can. If I can give one player a boost, every post is worth it.
So anyway, what classes do you guys feel are imbalanced again?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So anyway, what classes do you guys feel are imbalanced again?
Let's see...
Tier 1 - Too good (even if it often takes a great amount of game mastery to show all they are capable of): Wizard, Druid, Cleric and Witch
Tier 2 - Not as good, but still too much: Sorcerer, Oracle and Master Summoner
Tier 2.5 - Still too good, just slightly less so than the last guys I listed: Every other Summoner archetype. Including vanilla and Synthesist. Most Blaster Sorcerer builds... Depending on how one-dimensional the build is, they might even fall further in the tier scale.
Tier 3 - Very Well balanced: Awesome at their main job, but still able to contribute in many different situations without breaking the game or stepping on anyone's toes: Barbarian, Bard, Inquisitor and Paladin... Probably Magus as well, although some Magus builds can be a bit too cheesy... Anti-Paladins could be here or in the next tier...
Tier 3.5 - Almost there, but could use a small buff, IMO: Rangers, Zen Archer Monk... And Gunslingers, if those firearms rules weren't so obnoxious (targeting touch AC makes no sense whatsoever, and goes against a base assumption of the game).
Tier 4 - Underpowered, but can still shine at their main job: Fighter, Cavalier, Ninja* and Samurai.
Tier 5 - Underpowered and easily one-upped by other classes with similar roles: Rogue and Monk**. Adept is probably the one NPC class to be above tier 6.
Tier 6 - Why are you playing this?: Commoner, Warrior, Expert and Aristocrat.
*Some Ninja Ki tricks just barely push the class up to tier 4.
**With style feats and the recent errata, Monks might be able to go up one category.
Observations: Archetypes might move a class up or down a bit, but probably no more than 2 tiers.
Also, I may have forgotten a class or two.
Oddly enough, if every class was inside the range of tier 2 to 3.5, I'd be satisfied with game balance. A few adjustments would still be desirable, (most likely spell balance) but overall, it'd be a really well balanced game system, even if not perfect.
Okay, now you can call it Ashiel vs Ciretose v43.06 ultra [insert catchy showdown title here] or whatever.
Personally I tend to like the fact classes are imbalanced. It gives you more diversity when it comes Roleplay. I do disagree with some rules such as guns hitting touch (since full plate WAS the first dedicated anti-bullet armor) and the guns =/= medieval times since guns predate the fall of rome by a few centuries (sure they sucked, but doesn't mean they didn't exist). Other things include Stealth rules vs auto-detection powers (it needs to cease to exist to make rogues viable again), inherently evil undead (don't get me started), any class with less than 4+Int skillpoints per level, and [removed for playerbase sanity] ect ect end threadjack.
Of course the fighter can't beat a wizard in a fair fight at 17th level. The wizard friggin bends reality to make it impossible. likewise a rogue can't beat a fighter in a fair fight either. Traditional thieves focused on avoiding combat IIRC, just as traditional warriors weren't idiots. Rogues could be fixed and reclaim their special niche in two easy steps: give them 10+int skills per level, and let them ignore skillpoint caps. No way a bard will beat the rogue who put all 10 of his skillpoints in stealth at first level. Make the rogue's skill cap at levelx3 or levelx4 can go a long way for the poor guy. End second threadjack.
The point is I like a lot in Pathfinder as it is. Some things can be improve but save it for Pathfinder 1.5 or something. Or hell, why not have the entire Pathfinder playerbase get together and agree on a set of houserules to fix these issues. Call it Pathfinder Revisioned or something. **** end threeadjack. I seem to be jacking a lot of threads lately : /
Concerning the topic of the fighter's weapon problem. Gat from Ki gave a marvelous explanation about the situation.
Want to know what's RAW? Want to know exactly what I plan for when I gain levels? A +2 weapon. That's all.+3 or more random weapon (because the chance of rolling a +3 or more weapon isn't negligible, and at some point you will find some of those weapons; the chance it is a falchion is very small - each time you find a medium or major item, the chance it is a +3 or more falchion is less than 1 over 1000 - , and the chance it is a falchion with the special property you want is abysmall); or +2 specific weapon with some weak special properties (eg flaming).
----
The loot/purchase system gives an advantage to other classes than fighter, because other classes don't care if they find a +4 vorpal falchion, a +4 vorpal axe or a +4 vorpal sickle. When I play in game without magicmart, I never take the weap focus feat, because I know that a +2 flaming axe/falchion/whatever will be better than a +1 greatsword and weap focus; the fighter is the only class who must use the +1 greatsword instead of the +2 flaming whatever, because his class abilities are tied to the greatsword.If we choose to ignore this hidden advantage of other classes over the fighter, then we have to compensate with other magicmart-advantages like partial wands for rangers or paladins.
----
No wonder you GMs give you whatever you want...Once and for all: stop making false assertions, because it doesn't make your post look clever. It only makes you look ridiculous. Eg: it is ridiculous to assume that my DM give me whatever I want because my fighter don't find the +3 falchion.
I also suggested people pick a certain type of +3 or better weapon (such as a +1 holy longsword) and then go roll items randomly until you get the item you want. I had a cool generator that would do it with but a click but it seems to be down now. You could easily hit the button like 100 times in a metropolis before getting an item like you want.
So set up a voting system, with only 1 vote per account (yes, account, not username forums). Bam, promoting Paizo and solving our problems in one swift stroke. Topics to vote on include but not restricted to:
Martial vs Caster Disparity
Classic vs uh, less classic
Rollplay vs Roleplay
How skills should work
Class Balance
Class Revision
Class Purpose
Class Individuality
with the topics more of how important to the game these concepts are, and less about what exactly these topics can cover. After we decide how important/unimportant to the game these things are we can begin discussing on how to build Pathfinder Revisited or whatever name you want to give this unofficial "official" version of Pathfinder.
Simple homebrew on a case by case basis is a bandaid
A general fix by the entire Pathfinder community working cooperatively is something much much better than just a mere bandaid. : )
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here, I found a generator that can help do the experiment more quickly.
Community Item Generator. Just select "metropolis" and click away.
Now we have a 75% chance of finding a +2 weapon of our choice each time the city restocks by RAW. Anything above that must be rolled randomly or else you may need to GM-fiat a quest for your desired item and thus is outside the point of discussion.
So let's say our Fighter wants a +3 longsword. Specifically a +3 longsword because he wants to bypass some DRs, but he also wants to make use of the fact he's burnt 4 feats (focus, specialization, greater focus, greater specialization) into longswords and doesn't want to use anything else.
Meanwhile any other class doesn't really care. A +3 weapon is a +3 weapon yo.
After 10 tries I found the following weapons.
+3 Dagger, Dragon Bane
+3 Shortspear (Silver)
+4 Morning Star (Glowing)
+3 Greataxe
+3 Gnome Hooked Hammer
+4 Blowgun Darts (10)
+3 Composite Shortbow, Anarchic
+2 Dart, Frost
+4 Morning Star
+3 Shortspear (Glowing)
+4 Battleaxe
+3 Kukri
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A class that gets bonuses to a range of weapons that are not available is actually worse off than the class that doesn't get those bonuses. Because in both cases neither class is getting the bonus, but the first class has actually spent a class feature on those bonuses he isn't getting.
A class that gets bonuses to a range of weapons that are not available is actually worse off than the class that doesn't get those bonuses. Because in both cases neither class is getting the bonus, but the first class has actually spent a class feature on those bonuses he isn't getting.
Precisely! :D
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will this conversation change dramatically in a week or so?
... when Ultimate Campaign comes out and provides standardized rules for Mr. Fighter to switch all his feats from the greatsword to the sickle that he just found with mostly minimal cost?
I've allowed characters in tabletop campaigns I've run for a long time to change their weapon of choice while leveling. I'd honestly be surprised if the majority of GMs deny an earnest player who's 3 feats into longsword at level 10 from "re-speccing" to maces should a tasty one drop in the campaign. Or, who doesn't simply morph the mace into a longsword for his player before the player even sees it.
I'm not sure how many GMs are really generating supplies for their campaign's metropolis by metropolis. I suspect most are running APs, ad-hoc modules or PFS scenarios.
This is honestly why all the unbalanced class discussion is silly. Mileage varies in every campaign and group. A single GM's interpretation of a specific rule can dramatically how this question is answered.
I remember a Slavers campaign where the party is captured and disarmed of all weapons more than once. If that's the only campaign you played for 2 years, you'd be thinking "those darned monks are so overpowered - they need nerfing! Tricky bastards and their ability to shine without weapons or significant loot.".
"Man this gladiator base class sure sucks when we're not in a gladiator-themed campaign..."
Will this conversation change dramatically in a week or so?
... when Ultimate Campaign comes out and provides standardized rules for Mr. Fighter to switch all his feats from the greatsword to the sickle that he just found with mostly minimal cost?
I've allowed characters in tabletop campaigns I've run for a long time to change their weapon of choice while leveling. I'd honestly be surprised if the majority of GMs deny an earnest player who's 3 feats into longsword at level 10 from "re-speccing" to maces should a tasty one drop in the campaign. Or, who doesn't simply morph the mace into a longsword for his player before the player even sees it.
I'm not sure how many GMs are really generating supplies for their campaign's metropolis by metropolis. I suspect most are running APs, ad-hoc modules or PFS scenarios.
This is honestly why all the unbalanced class discussion is silly. Mileage varies in every campaign and group. A single GM's interpretation of a specific rule can dramatically how this question is answered.
I remember a Slavers campaign where the party is captured and disarmed of all weapons more than once. If that's the only campaign you played for 2 years, you'd be thinking "those darned monks are so overpowered - they need nerfing! Tricky bastards and their ability to shine without weapons or significant loot.".
"Man this gladiator base class sure sucks when we're not in a gladiator-themed campaign..."
Rule 0 does not mean there is not a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imbalanced? Agree with Fighter/Monk/Rogue. Fighter because feats suck compared to class abilities, and they're stuck with feats as their main "class ability."
Monk because they don't, in any way, live up to their description.
Rogues because even though I like the way PF changed Skills overall, those changes made the class obsolete when compared with other "skilled" classes. Also, stealth doesn't work if you don't have darkvision (wtf amirite?)
Anyway, I gotta get two things off my chest:
1 - "Post a build" is a disingenuous request. It's NOWHERE near enough information to actually determine a class's value. Here's the MINIMUM for doing so (assuming 'Fighter vs X' is in question:
One single person creates a Fighter and whatever they're comparing the Fighter to (let's say Ranger). So ONE person builds a Fighter and a Ranger, and applies equal "optimization" to each (as only a single person can do equally).
That person then builds "the rest of the party."
That party, including only the Fighter, is then given to a group to run through an entire career, let's say levels 1-13. Then, after the group is done, the same group (playing the same characters) plays through the exact same career, except the Fighter is swapped out for the Ranger.
At the end of the career, the Fighter/Ranger player explains which class was more beneficial to the party as a whole.
And like I already said, this way is a MINIMUM, because there are tons of ways to build these characters that aren't even taken into account yet.
2 - Buying partial-filled wands is absolutely allowed. HOWEVER, charging partial prices for them is 100% GM fiat, and is absolutely not RAW at all. A wand with 10 charges costs the same as a wand with 50 charges, and anything else is homebrew.
(Wands with special materials aren't priced as, "Special cost x number of charges;" They're priced as, "special cost x 50." Ditto staves.)
(And while yes, you can sell partially used wands, good luck finding a buyer outside of GM fiat. There is no way to determine how many charges are left unless you crafted it and no one else has had an opportunity to use it, so who is going to trust you when you say, "Yeah, there's totally 30 charges left. I wouldn't lie to you, friend.")
Quite a few folks mentioning that they believe fighters and rogues need some loving and some tweaks - but no mention of how that would be achieved. I have nothing to offer myself, but I'd like to see what others would suggest for those two classes, if they believe they need fixing.Quick and dirty fix?
Combine the two. Rename it Tactician or something. Perhaps give a choice at first level between Weapon Training or Sneak Attack and a level by level option between a Rogue Talent and a Feat.
The Fighter's main issue is being useful out of combat. Gaining access to the Rogue's skills per level (or hell, even 4-6+Int) fixes that somewhat, allowing for a Fighter to be a credible "Glorious Leader", "Tactician", etc. people always claim they're supposed to be, and have the skills to back it up to go with their combat prowess.
The Rogue's main issue is that A.) He sucks IN combat and B.) His out of combat niche can be filled credibly by classes that fight a lot better. No longer. With the Fighter's access to full BaB, higher hit dice, and better weapons his increasingly marginalized out of combat niche is made less of a factor, since he can still hold his own in combat. While his niche is still largely unnecessary, he can still fill it and it's no longer his ONLY purpose for existing, since he can now hold his own in battle and doesn't just muddle through and hope he survives to the next locked door. Which will probably just be opened by the Sorcerer, Ranger, Alchemist, etc. anyway.
Minor balance issue might come up between the Ranger and Fighter but they could be easily smoothed over with some more in-depth tweaking.
Net result: There's one less class on the list to choose from, but the one that's replaced it/them is better all around.
The mantra of the Fighter:
"If it moves, hit it.
If it doesn't move, hit it and see if it moves."
The mantra of the Rogue:
"If it moves, examine it and see what resouces you got that can affect it.
If it doesn't move, examine it and see what resouces you got that can affect it."
As you can see, the mindset of each class is different...ergo they are different classes. Combining them would be a disaster. What is needed is a way of making them better at what they do, not making some hybrid. Both classes are good candidates for multiclassing, so if you want a Rogue who can fight or a fighter who has skills, just multiclass.
But if they were combined, they would no longer be different classes. It would also have a different mindset (assuming I agree with you that an inanimate bundle of mechanics has a "mindset").
More along the lines of "If it moves, analyze the options and choose the most efficient one. If It doesn't move, do the same. It's a tactician. A front lines general or a special ops squad leader. Both intelligent and masterful in combat.
Multiclassing the two is terrible. You either end up as a Fighter with extra skills who sucks at fighting or a Rogue that's a little better at fighting (but still sucks) and has fewer skills.
|
|
Just out of curiosity for those whom deem the fighter, rogue & monk under-powered.
What changes to the classes in question, do you consider to be necessary to bring them inline with the other more powerful classes?
Is there an easy fix, or would it require a whole class/rules rewrite?
Is there a way to keep these classes simpler/more straight forward then the wizards/druids/summoners of the world and still serve a useful and apparent purpose?
Fighter and Rogue could be fixed fairly easily.
Monk is a whole 'nother bag of worms. Its problems are basically its whole design. It's the "Everything but the kitchen sink" class and it suffers for it.
|
|
Fighter and Rogue could be fixed fairly easily.
Monk is a whole 'nother bag of worms. Its problems are basically its whole design. It's the "Everything but the kitchen sink" class and it suffers for it.
Thanks for the reply, since the fighter and rogue could be fixed easily could you give an example? When you have time of course.
Crap, I have to get ready for work, so I guess I'll hold off until later.
Well if you look at the post two above yours they quoted a possible fix I threw out a few pages ago.
Other than that, giving the Rogue access to more than a handful of Talents that don't suck and changing Sneak Attack to a static accuracy/damage bonus instead of mo' dice would go a long way to fixing its issues.
Fighter just needs more skills and the incentive to use him. My skill of choice for him would be Sense Motive. Bonuses to it and in-combat uses for it. Perhaps being able to use it to gain an insight bonus to AC against a single target a limited number of times per day as a Swift, things of that nature.
|
|
A class that gets bonuses to a range of weapons that are not available is actually worse off than the class that doesn't get those bonuses. Because in both cases neither class is getting the bonus, but the first class has actually spent a class feature on those bonuses he isn't getting.
Because other classes don't focus on specific weapons with similar feat allocations, and those classes do have the ability to retrain feats every 4 levels...
Again, we have now moved to a scenario where partially filled wands in the exact quantity desired are more available than a sword.
Is this is the case in the game you are playing, or in any game you have ever played? Is this the case in any module or adventure path you have ever read?
All weapon classes have to focus on specific weapons. Fighters are the only ones with the options to retrain those feats, an additionally having the ability apply to a range of weapons.
Improved critical for not your weapons? Sorry about your luck for every class except fighter, who can retrain it. Same for every select a weapon feat.
This is exactly why I say start at 1st level for build discussions.
Again, pick an AP and let's do this.
|
|
Well if you look at the post two above yours they quoted a possible fix I threw out a few pages ago.
Other than that, giving the Rogue access to more than a handful of Talents that don't suck and changing Sneak Attack to a static accuracy/damage bonus instead of mo' dice would go a long way to fixing its issues.
Fighter just needs more skills and the incentive to use him. My skill of choice for him would be Sense Motive. Bonuses to it and in-combat uses for it. Perhaps being able to use it to gain an insight bonus to AC against a single target a limited number of times per day as a Swift, things of that nature.
Ok, so for rogues/ninjas, every time you would have gained another sneak attack die, you instead gain +1 to hit and +2 damage and the extra damage is multiplied on a critical hit.
I like that. The only problem I see with it is now you can build a rogue/ninja that does more damage than a fighter and they have more utility.
Not really, as they will still be 3/4 BaB. The trade off of the rogue is they have more skills, but they hit less often and can take less damage. A sneak attacking rogue doing comparable damage to a fighter on an attack in melee isn't a problem when you remember that same rogue has less hit points and armor.
If a fix is needed (I think it is, but I haven't seen a good test done yet so I could be wrong) I would go more the route of giving rogues specialized stealth abilities that allow them to sneak attack more effectively. But I don't think the flat bonuses are a bad idea either.
Well if you look at the post two above yours they quoted a possible fix I threw out a few pages ago.
Other than that, giving the Rogue access to more than a handful of Talents that don't suck and changing Sneak Attack to a static accuracy/damage bonus instead of mo' dice would go a long way to fixing its issues.
Fighter just needs more skills and the incentive to use him. My skill of choice for him would be Sense Motive. Bonuses to it and in-combat uses for it. Perhaps being able to use it to gain an insight bonus to AC against a single target a limited number of times per day as a Swift, things of that nature.
Ok, so for rogues/ninjas, every time you would have gained another sneak attack die, you instead gain +1 to hit and +2 damage and the extra damage is multiplied on a critical hit.
I like that. The only problem I see with it is now you can build a rogue/ninja that does more damage than a fighter and they have more utility.
Unless something has drastically changed recently, Fighters outdamage rogues and have for a long time. There's been a lot of threads present that have demonstrated this through mathematics and even give the rogue the benefit of the doubt and assume he will be flanking for sneak attack for his calculations on DPR.
Can you explain how a rogue outdamages a fighter? I'm legitimately curious. Fighters get far better hit modifiers (these are important) and far more static damage (also important).
So people seem to be dumping on the fighter, rogue and monk pretty hard.
Rogue I get why.
Monk I get why.
Fighters though... They fight, they do it well.
So my question to the people listing fighter as less than stellar is what specificly do they want out of the class that they aren't getting?
Genuinely confused here, not trying to throw fuel on the fire.
- Torger
Here is what I think about it:
- The fighter is ok at fighting. Sometimes he does it better than the other martials, sometimes he's worse.- The fighter is less versatile about which weapon he can use because of weapon training and weapon specialization. He can ignore those but then he's worse than the other martials.
- No other class totally lacks out of combat capabilities. He can use feats to get them but so can everyone else. So if a fighter wants to be able to do something out of combat, he has to permanently sacrifice ressources he needs to stay on par with the other martials which already perform well out of combat in addition to their in combat power.
Why I think the fighter is worse than the rogue:
- the rogue is good (not the best but above ok) out of combat AND he can more or less contribute during combat.
- The fighter is just good (not the best but above ok)in combat BUT can't really contribute out of combat.
If you apply points for usefulness from 1-10 seperately for both the fighter (no special build but the class overall) and the rogue I think the rogue comes out ahead.
The fighter only wins in games where combat is more important than the rest or in games where the numbers on your sheet are irrelevant out of combat (roleplaying > stats) the fighter could come out better.
Rogue: Out of combat 7; in combat 5
Fighter: Out of combat 2; in combat 7
Well if you look at the post two above yours they quoted a possible fix I threw out a few pages ago.
Other than that, giving the Rogue access to more than a handful of Talents that don't suck and changing Sneak Attack to a static accuracy/damage bonus instead of mo' dice would go a long way to fixing its issues.
Fighter just needs more skills and the incentive to use him. My skill of choice for him would be Sense Motive. Bonuses to it and in-combat uses for it. Perhaps being able to use it to gain an insight bonus to AC against a single target a limited number of times per day as a Swift, things of that nature.
Ok, so for rogues/ninjas, every time you would have gained another sneak attack die, you instead gain +1 to hit and +2 damage and the extra damage is multiplied on a critical hit.
I like that. The only problem I see with it is now you can build a rogue/ninja that does more damage than a fighter and they have more utility.
1) The rogue's would still be under a specific tactical condition.
2) The rogue still build like a caster while having no casting (so it has 3/4 BAB).3) The fighter is a full BAB class, gets bonuses under a specific equipment condition (have this weapon), and doesn't (usually) have to set up the ball to deal damage.
But worrying about balancing a class with Fighter is kinda meh. You would likely be better off to forget the fighter and monk when trying to repair a class and instead compare it to the following classes: Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Wizard.
My issues with the Fighter stem from the following.
1) They are anchored to a specific weapon type which requires them to be either extraordinarily lucky or have a GM who coddles them."
2) They are only good at killing things (ie - attack rolls) but are poor at the other 90% of fantasy combat, so they're not even good at fighting.
3) Closely related to their being only good at killing things, they have very little that contributes to their success outside of killing things but not necessarily in combat (none of their class features give them options outside of combat that help in general adventuring except armor training which reduces check penalties which is very marginal). Summarily it combines some of the lowest skill points in the game with virtually no class features that improves their ability to do anything non-combat related (literally every other class in the game has both combat and noncombat abilities while also being more well-rounded at actually participating in combat).
So people seem to be dumping on the fighter, rogue and monk pretty hard.
Rogue I get why.
Monk I get why.
Fighters though... They fight, they do it well.
So my question to the people listing fighter as less than stellar is what specificly do they want out of the class that they aren't getting?
Genuinely confused here, not trying to throw fuel on the fire.
- Torger
Here is what I think about it:
- The fighter is ok at fighting. Sometimes he does it better than the other martials, sometimes he's worse.
- The fighter is less versatile about which weapon he can use because of weapon training and weapon specialization. He can ignore those but then he's worse than the other martials.
- No other class totally lacks out of combat capabilities. He can use feats to get them but so can everyone else. So if a fighter wants to be able to do something out of combat, he has to permanently sacrifice ressources he needs to stay on par with the other martials which already perform well out of combat in addition to their in combat power.Why I think the fighter is worse than the rogue:
- the rogue is good (not the best but above ok) out of combat AND he can more or less contribute during combat.
- The fighter is just good (not the best but above ok)in combat BUT can't really contribute out of combat.If you apply points for usefulness from 1-10 seperately for both the fighter (no special build but the class overall) and the rogue I think the rogue comes out ahead.
The fighter only wins in games where combat is more important than the rest or in games where the numbers on your sheet are irrelevant out of combat (roleplaying > stats) the fighter could come out better.** spoiler omitted **
Great points Umbranus. I have to admit that given the choice I'd probably take a Rogue in the party because they are at least well-rounded. They also are better at fighting where to-hit and to-damage is not concerned. They have for example abilities such as Slippery Mind (which is a big deal later on), uncanny dodge and improved uncanny dodge (both of which are useful in both combat and out of combat), evasion and improved evasion (which is a defense against a common weapon in the fantasy arsenal), and dispelling strike which provide meaningful benefits in combat (dispelling strike for example can be exceptionally useful in quickly dismantling buffs on an enemy since it applies to every sneak attack).
Some of the APG talents can make the rogue a little more attractive as well. For exampe, Offensive Defense grants the rogue between a +1 and +10 dodge bonus during any round the rogue sneak attacked someone (solving one of the rogue's primary issues of needing to be in melee attacking while traditionally in light armors).
I actually have more beef with the fighter for not living up to its ideal. My beef with the rogue is it's just underwhelming and you can usually do what you want with it better or as well with another class that offers more.
|
|
They aren't anchored to a specific weapon type. This is a myth.
1. They get the maximum bonus to one type, but they get bonuses to multiple types. If you take the first bonus on melee and the second on ranged, they are actually more versatile, as they get bonuses to up to 4 different types of weapons.
2. Unlike other classes, they can retrain combat feats if they change weapons later.
I now await the post on how this doesn't work, because of a limited reading of the rules against martial classes from someone who has exceptionally liberal reading of the rules with regards to caster classes.
Let's see if I am psychic!
Rangers are d8That's actually incorrect. Barbarians are the only ones to break the HD/BAB combo.
And obviously, I feel the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue are imbalanced.
Ach, dangit, channelling 3.5 again. Thx for the correction, won't miss it again.
Dang, this thread got in motion!
Monks still shouldn't be front liners...and I don't believe Rangers, being as skill heavy and magic heavy combined, should be d10's, either, but that's another point.
Monks have a whole slew of semi-mystical mental class skills, along with a high movement rate, innate AC bonuses, and extraordinary saves.
What they are missing is the higher stats to make all their abilities work.
Giving monks +2 or +3 Stat points, one of choice, and +1 to lowest mental and physical stat, would do a lot for equalizing things, as they'd have the stats to make everything work at that point.
But the one biggest thing for the monk is the Tyranny of the Full attack. If they were effective skirmishers, I don't think anyone would complain about the monk at all. Monks aren't really portrayed anywhere in fiction or fact as tank characters. They move around, they exchange a set of blows, move back, dash and dart and leap.
The main problem is when they fight like that, like any martial, they suck.
========
I have to weigh in against partial wands with perfect charges, especially in builds. While I agree you should be able to buy a partial wand, the charges left in it should be completely random, not tailor made to your gp expenses, and should then replace any fully charged wand that might also be available. Using them in builds akin to using potions and oils instead of permanent magic items so you can claim higher level effects. It's a form of free buff and simply shouldn't be counted on nor taken as rote.
If you use partial wands, then finding a fully charged wand should be nigh impossible unless you can commission one. Every wand should be randomly rolled.
And yes, there's partially charged wands in AP's. However, that doesn't mean they are cash-balanced to fit exactly into WBL, either. I tend to be fairly strict on builds and requirements, and that was a bit too edgy for me. I don't like seeing people rely on consumables for build comparisons.
As for alchemy items, that's like complaining about arrows.
BTW, where did Bob Loblaw go? I haven't seen him post in forever, and I always appreciated his mild tone.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They aren't anchored to a specific weapon type. This is a myth.
1. They get the maximum bonus to one type, but they get bonuses to multiple types. If you take the first bonus on melee and the second on ranged, they are actually more versatile, as they get bonuses to up to 4 different types of weapons.
Weapon Training is a nice feature but it scales very, very slowly and doesn't keep up with the perks that other martials get. It caps at +4/+3/+2/+1 to hit and damage at 17th level which is very mild at that level (divine favor provides up to a +3 to hit and damage and is a 1st level spell. Divine Bond provides similar benefits. Rage is granting similar bonuses and allowing rage-cycling for huge benefits many times per day. Rangers have something like +8/+2/+2/+2 for favored enemies and can opt to make you their best favored enemy, hide in plain sight, quarry, etc).
The only way to make Fighters excel at the raw numbers people boast about is to take the Weapon Specialization feats. It costs 4 feats to get a +2 to hit and +4 to damage. 4 out of 11 bonus feats. And the weapon specialization line is single-weapon only (barring an obscure and specific racial option). So weapon specialization can make them appear to dominate in terms of to-hit and damage or at least make it look worthwhile.
But then you're anchored to a specific weapon and you absolutely need that weapon or else your damage falls back to merely being average and you've lost the benefit of 4/11 of your feats (4/9 at the time weapon training caps at +4). So if you're specced in longswords and find a battleaxe you get no cookies unless the GM wants to take pity on your poor fighter-ness and alter the treasure so you feel better.
2. Unlike other classes, they can retrain combat feats if they change weapons later.
Except for one really big problem. Feat chains. See, Pathfinder has this gross love of feat chains. Hell, they turned several feats from 3.5 into entirely new feat chains (by splitting most of the maneuver feats into 2 feats). Feat chains are the fighter's bane.
Check this out, strait from the dragon's mouth.
Upon reaching 4th level, and every four levels thereafter (8th, 12th, and so on), a fighter can choose to learn a new bonus feat in place of a bonus feat he has already learned. In effect, the fighter loses the bonus feat in exchange for the new one. The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat, prestige class, or other ability. A fighter can only change one feat at any given level and must choose whether or not to swap the feat at the time he gains a new bonus feat for the level.
1) You must wait until 4th level, and can only retrain 1 feat every 4 levels thereafter (so the most you can ever retrain is 5 feats).
2) And the feat cannot be a feat that is currently a prerequisite for another feat (which means you cannot swap weapon focus {longsword} for weapon focus {battleaxe} if you have weapon specialization {longsword}).3) More restrictions occur if you have a prestige class as well.
Now let's think about how we're going to use this.
"Unlike other classes, they can retrain combat feats if they change weapons later."
Now how are they going to do this exactly? If you have Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and Greater Weapon Focus {Longsword} (requiring you to be about 12th level) and you find a kickass Battleaxe...
You must wait until you're level 16 to remove Greater Focus Longsword and replace it with Weapon Focus {Battleaxe}. Then you must hit 20th level to replace Weapon Specialization {Longsword} with Weapon Specialization {Battleaxe}, leaving you with Weapon Focus {Longsword}.
If we try it earlier, similar result. You pickup weapon specialization at 4th level at the earliest you can. You will need to wait until 12th level to swap that weapon specialization over to another weapon you found later (a total of 8 levels to go from having weapon focus/weapon spec to weapon focus/weapon focus and then weapon focus/weapon spec).
This mess gets even worse when we try to deal with other feat chains.
They aren't anchored to a specific weapon type. This is a myth.
1. They get the maximum bonus to one type, but they get bonuses to multiple types. If you take the first bonus on melee and the second on ranged, they are actually more versatile, as they get bonuses to up to 4 different types of weapons.
2. Unlike other classes, they can retrain combat feats if they change weapons later.
I now await the post on how this doesn't work, because of a limited reading of the rules against martial classes from someone who has exceptionally liberal reading of the rules with regards to caster classes.
The fighter is about as versatile with his weapons as the ranger is with his enemies (without the ranger using a spell. With the spell the ranger wins.)
Everyone saying the ranger can't deal top damage to enemies who are not favored enemies should accept that the fighter can't deal top damage with weapons that are not his favored (trained/focused/specialized) weapons.And while the fighter can exchange his weapon specialization for another he can't do the same for weapon focus (if he already has weapon specialization) without a houserule.
The old feat cannot be one that was used as a prerequisite for another feat,
So for using weapon specialization with a new kind of weapon you first have to learn weapon focus a second time. You can, after 4 more levels, change the first weapon focus because it is not a prerequesite anymore.
EDIT: Ninjad
I have to weigh in against partial wands with perfect charges, especially in builds. While I agree you should be able to buy a partial wand, the charges left in it should be completely random, not tailor made to your gp expenses, and should then replace any fully charged wand that might also be available. Using them in builds akin to using potions and oils instead of permanent magic items so you can claim higher level effects. It's a form of free buff and simply shouldn't be counted on nor taken as rote.
If you use partial wands, then finding a fully charged wand should be nigh impossible unless you can commission one. Every wand should be randomly rolled.
And yes, there's partially charged wands in AP's. However, that doesn't mean they are cash-balanced to fit exactly into WBL, either. I tend to be fairly strict on builds and requirements, and that was a bit too edgy for me. I don't like seeing people rely on consumables for build comparisons.
As for alchemy items, that's like complaining about arrows.
And I'm just going to have to apologize that you don't like the RAW. Yes, there actually ARE far fewer fully charged wands available in standard pathfinder than fully charged. The likelihood of getting a fully charged wand is actually very low unless you craft it yourself. You have a 75% chance of finding a magic item of X value in Y settlement, which means that finding a wand with a few charges remaining in a settlement is relatively easy. Buying a fully charged wand is not so easy because you are generally going to need a metropolis to do so.
But then again that makes sense. You sell items at cost to create them. Magicians who craft wands can use them and then pawn them off to recoup what they didn't need. Some wizard crafts a wand of fireball before heading off through a troll-infested area knowing good and well the charges he doesn't use aren't going to be wasted and he pawns it in the next village he comes across and recoups his money.
In a village (500 gp limit) you're never going to find a fully charged wand (unless the wand is a cantrip wand). Instead you're going to find lots of partially charged wands. You might find 1st level wands with around 32-33 charges in them, or a 2nd level wand with 4-5 charges in them, or a 3rd level wand with 1-2 charges, or maybe if you're lucky a 4th level wand with 1 charge.
Dem's da rules. In the builds I posted I bought items you could legally buy and most places by the rules. Just like buying alchemist fire or tanglefoot bags. Anything else is a house rule and not subject to these discussions. Most of them I got were for medicinal purposes and utility, in much the same way parties pickup wands of cure light wounds.
|
|
The bonus stacks with everything and applies to a range of weapons.
You don't even qualify for weapon specialization until 4th level, which is when you would swap your weapon focus if you found a new weapon...which is kind of the point...
But here we are drifting into pointless theorycraft again...
The offer is on the table. I'll run a monk and a fighter, you run a wizard and a class of your choice. You can pick the AP and we can easily agree on a GM.