If you choose to play with a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard, and they all take their classic roles, then 3.x and Pathfinder are absolutely (IMO) able to recreate the feel of AD&D. Just because you can break the system and make casters supreme doesn't mean you should.
Agreed, to an extent (rogues are still extraneous because traps no longer wipe out the whole party). But wouldn't it be great if the rules supported the playstyle, instead of contradicting it?
If you choose to play with a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard, and they all take their classic roles, then 3.x and Pathfinder are absolutely (IMO) able to recreate the feel of AD&D. Just because you can break the system and make casters supreme doesn't mean you should.
Isn't that placing the blame on the players instead of the system though? Not everyone is out to break a caster. To be honest most of 'breaking' a caster is spell selection if your just trying to mimic martials.
If you choose to play with a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard, and they all take their classic roles, then 3.x and Pathfinder are absolutely (IMO) able to recreate the feel of AD&D. Just because you can break the system and make casters supreme doesn't mean you should.
Why on earth would you constrain yourself to these four classes in a game with so many options. And why would you limit yourself to playing those classes to "classic"*.
*Your definition of the classic roles of these classes may not hold true for 1e, 2e, or for any of the 2e supplements. Definition only valid in some states. Some Restrictions may apply.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, lay off the rogue, it is getting too-
oh wait, sorry
that is the other terrible thread, I am in the wrong one
Batman has no powers and he hangs right up their with Superman.Because he is powerful. Batman is how fighters *should be*, not how fighters *are*.
And yes, Green Arrow and Green Lantern are both JLA. Just like Druids and fighters are both pathfinder adventurers. I know a guy whose favourite character in DC universe is Green arrow. That doesn't has anything to do with the characters being equally powerful.
And if I were the President of USA or the UN, and some alien invasion were to destroy the earth, I'd rather have Superman, Green Lantern, Batman and Martian Manhunter than Green Arrow, Congorilla, Huntress and Zatana on my side. Even if all of them are, technically, "same CR adventurers", like monks and Synthesist summoners are.
So you don't want Zatana (a Spellcaster)?
Magic beats Superman so Zatana defeats him easily.Now Green Lantern can run out of energy.
Batman is Overpowered so I'll give you that.
Martian Manhunter has weaknesses as well.
Congrilla might be useful if we are in a jungle adventure as will Huntress (are we referring to Helena Wayne? Batman's daughter Or the other Huntress?)
If you choose to play with a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard, and they all take their classic roles, then 3.x and Pathfinder are absolutely (IMO) able to recreate the feel of AD&D. Just because you can break the system and make casters supreme doesn't mean you should.Agreed, to an extent (rogues are still extraneous because traps no longer wipe out the whole party). But wouldn't it be great if the rules supported the playstyle, instead of contradicting it?
The rules do support the play style, that's what I'm saying. They just don't necessarily encourage it.
Isn't that placing the blame on the players instead of the system though? Not everyone is out to break a caster. To be honest most of 'breaking' a caster is spell selection if your just trying to mimic martials.
I'm not "blaming" the players, the players are just deciding to abandon the original feel of the game in the quest for optimization. This is not wrong or bad, it is just a choice.
]Why on earth would you constrain yourself to these four classes in a game with so many options. And why would you limit yourself to playing those classes to "classic"*.
*Your definition of the classic roles of these classes may not hold true for 1e, 2e, or for any of the 2e supplements. Definition only valid in some states. Some Restrictions may apply.
You don't have to limit yourself to just those four. Original D&D had rangers and paladins and monks. I just chose the "classic four" as an example.
Pathfinder and it's predecessors allow you to simulate a fantasy world. The type of world you simulate is your decision. If you choose to simulate a world where fighters are the kings of combat you can do that by simply disallowing certain options or just agreeing not to use them. Or you can simulate a different world where they are overshadowed by their magic using brethren.
I play other games where certain options are clearly marked as capable of breaking the game (Champions/Hero System). They are included so that certain powers can be simulated. It is up to the GM and players to not destroy the game balance.
|
PF also brought back the Cavalier, which was also Unearthed Arcana.Aside from name, which TSR could NOT copyright, it really doesn't share anything with that class at all.
It is a whole different class from UA, I agree. I do like the fact that they brought back the Cavalier, knocked the dust off and brought it up to PF specs. Whether anyone feels it's a worthy successor, well...that's up to the individual.
Pathfinder showed that 3e did not fail because a 4e existed.
1e failed because 2e was better.
Does that mean that Hackmaster proves that 2e didn't fail?
Impresive.
I build this in a hurry but I think is somewhat optimized.
** spoiler omitted **
It's a very cool archer. However, I find that archers should be compared to archers (say, an Inquisitor archer) and melees with melees. Otherwise, we will be comparing apples and oranges, IMHO
Could you make a non-archer fighter?
We were also at level 12 where the druids wildshape has already peaked in effectiveness. That gap in effectiveness only spread from there.
For a saurian shaman druid, it peaks at level 6.
Also that was the most martial opt druid possible.No way it's the most optimized druid possible. He's not even wearing a spiked bard to get full attack with his BAB and then all the extra natural attacks as secondary attacks :P
Most people playing a druid are not going to optimize that much just to hit things harder, they would rather cast spells at that point.
Well, that's just a way to do it. And that's the reason you defended, in the other thread, that casters can't do the fighter's job... because you were thinking about casters built to fill the caster job, and then trying to do the martial job. That's not how you should do it. Of course that a str 10 oracle with wis 20 will do a poor job as a frontliner. But a STR 18 oracle with cha 14, is a totally different thing. The sentence I bolded, however, make me giggle.
So, the point is... why would a druid do 100% of the fighter's job (which he can do), if he can cast spells, which is much better? Good question.
The player who enjoys hitting things really hard is probably not the same kind of player that wants to mess with druid paperwork. Likewise the guy who wants to play the druid, probably wants to be casting spells.
The kind of player who enjoys hitting things really hard wants to hit things really hard. If a druid can hit things harder (thanks to pounce, among other things), why not play one? Specially if it brings everything a fighter do, and then like 20 extra things?
The only real reason is what you have suggested: less paperwork. The druid class require more work. Fighter is an easier class. A "dumbed down" class. That's it's merit, it's easier to play one, and it makes a good class to give to people new to the game, because it has less options, and thus give less "decision paralisys" to the new players.
You see, all of this debate is why I multiclass my martial characters. :)
Its a lot harder to say that my 4th Level Fighter's only job is thwacking things and taking damage when he is also a 2nd Level Rogue with tons of skill points in the persuasion skills as well as a 2nd level Samurai who can use those skills to demoralize and otherwise debuff all of the things.
Wizards love my character when I play with them because he makes it child's play for them to land even their lowest-save spells. Wanna make that monster with an absurdly high Will save fall asleep? No problem, I can throw shaken and sickened on it for a –4 penalty. And then in return the wizard saves their big guns for the things I can't hit or debuff. Like incorporeal creatures.
It's all give and take with Pathfinder. Being a team player. Sure, the wizard can unload all of their damage / save-or-suck spells at a target that a fighter could also hit and annihilate the opponent, but then the wizard is going to feel really stupid when a monster the fighter CAN'T hurt pops up and the wizard has already blown their magic on an encounter that the fighter could have handled. The problem with this "Debate" is that it is never argued from the perspective of a campaign's worth of encounters, but always from the perspective of a single encounter. That's not how the game is played, and even a wizard doesn't have enough magic to solo an entire dungeon on their own.
So I do not see how a inquistor will compare agaisnt him, to my knowldege there is no way for an inquistor to be a dedicated archer and a tank at the same time.
Probably not. At least not in the same ways. But it'll be able to destroy things with an absurd DPR, while having spells and very high utility out of combat, with big bonuses to several skills too. I'm not saying your char is worse than an inquisitor, just pointing out that, while he is nicely close to the druid in attack and damage, he is an archer. Archery have several feats that make it probably too powerful (like rapid shot and many shot) compared to melee. There is not an equivalent of manyshot in melee. A fighter archer should be compared with other archers like inquisitors and bards (and win or lose that comparison, whatever the result is), while a melee fighter should be compared to other melee characters (like the druid mentioned above)
So you don't want Zatana (a Spellcaster)?
Magic beats Superman so Zatana defeats him easily.
Let's assume for a moment that superman does not fry her from orbit with his eye beams, or charge her with superspeed from 10000 miles away in half a split second.
So what? It's not PvP. That zatana *could* defeat Superman is meaningless. It's an alien invasion trying to destroy earth (ie: an adventure path). Would you, as the UN president, have Zatana or Superman in the JLA?Now Green Lantern can run out of energy.
Yeah. On the other hand, Huntress can't run out of energy in her omnipowerful ring. Because she doesn't have one.
You know, just like nobody can steal a Rolex from me, unlike from Bill Gates. Poor Bill Gates.
Martian Manhunter has weaknesses as well.
This reminds me an old joke in our group.
Werewolves are weak, because they die if repeatidely shot with a silver bullets. Unlike humans, who can survive to be repeatidely shot with silv.. oh, wait...I mean... Martian manhunter could die to a flamethrower. You know what? Huntress would die to a flametrhower too. On the bright side, Martian Manhunter can fly out of the flamethrower range, throw a bus at the flamethrower thug, or just rape his mind. Huntress... well, she has a crossbow.
Congrilla might be useful if we are in a jungle adventure
An impaired character would be useful in a Special Olympics adventure.
