I don't just make random enemies appear, but I do have them reorganize, if it makes sense within the story. The last campaign I completed had enemies that also did not like each other. Otherwise the party, which was around level 3 would have died a horrible death.This is something I never really understood. I guess I'm just a mean GM but whenever the party leaves a dungeon to rest, they come back to a greater number of enemies that have laid traps. The encounters in the dungeon basically reset and go up a CR. So this never really works in my campaigns.If the reply involve "retreating to a fast deimiplane and returning after 12 hours" or "after sleeping", no, he can't.Why do you disqualify those? What are the enemies really going to do that can't be overcome by a series of short forays? If it requires just as much magic as the wizard you're countering all it proves is that the real game is magic versus magic and the martials don't really matter.
It's not like the barbarian and paladin and cavalier and samurai and monk and ninja aren't all just as eager to keep the day short as the casters. Monks and ninja are probably more eager as shallow as their ki pools are.
The enemy should act logically. That is your job as the GM, to run the "not PC's" logically.
If you flee, I generally know the following.
1. That you all know where I am.
2. Who you are.Element of surprise is awesome the first time, not so much the 2nd. If it is in my best interests to leave, I will. If I can't, I will fortify and prepare for the party using whatever I know.
The game is very different if you play your enemies as dumb and inflexible. Even in an adventure path or module, the information is generally "This is starting position and base information"
Pretty much. I'm just not in favor of the enemy doing nothing while they get raided every 8 hours. depending on who they are and what they're doing they would set traps, leave, call buddies, summon something, rub dookie everywhere, something.
|
@Wraithstrike - More replying to the general theme than any one combat.
Here is my experience. You have a party. The party is for all intents and purposes the available resources of the player to beat/find/etc...said MacGuffin.
If your party plays well, you find a way to use what each of you bring to the table to reach the goal.
If the GM (or the AP/Module writer) then you are dealing with something that will challenge the group, and that won't be stupid.
In the example you gave, the limited communication was to avoid a TPK while still having volume enemies. In other circumstances the players being...well...dumb or lazy has consequences in many games.
It is only logical.
Now if your game doesn't, and your happy, great. But when you are fighting the evil dumb, and you win...well yeah. It was the evil dumb.
The limited communication was not to avoid a TPK. The avoided TPK was a side affect of the limited communication. I dont think the authors did it on purpose since I have played in games where the GM did not make changes, even though all of the bad guys knew each other.
Reading what I wrote, I do see how it seemed I went out of my way to save them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is all highly irrelevant because people have been dealing with limited resources forever. Including martials. I've been playing through Reign of Winter on Fridays and I've never once ran out of resources on my psion (but then I'm also picking my shots and supporting the party with stuff like grease).
Of course, neither has our bard.
Or our barbarian.
Or our alchemist-thingy-guy.
Or our soul knife.
What has slowed us down or kept us from progressing further? Hit points are a thing. The martials tend to take a lot of HP damage. Fortunately we have some healers in the party and my psion helps to take some of the pain off the martials by sharing their damage, but at the end of the day it's usually the resource known as HP.
But then the resource thing has always been irrelevant. Our party's soul knife isn't going to turn to the bard, the psion, and the barbarian and go, "Oh well you guys are fatiguing out. I'm not, so you guys sit right here while I go take on the monsters by myself".
**** no. He's going to be like, "Gee, I really do like having backup, spellcasting support, and bardic music buffs, or at the very least some other bodies to draw attacks for me".
The issue is not about resources. It's about options. It's the classes that are not well rounded and who have few meaningful options that get left in the dust.
|
Oh boy this can of worms again :-p
Spells have always been the source of any casters true versatility. The right spell selection can prep you and your party for most any situation you know of in advance. Which is why sometimes a little misinformation is the difference between rolfstomping everything and a fair fight. Heck may be the enemy has seen the party and how they fight and prepped for them this time.
That however is just a part of it, some of it is resources. If as a GM your story allows for short spurts of adventuring then yes casters are going to be more troublesome. It is a good idea to get the right length of things in, it sometimes means you need to find a reason why they don't want to leave when low on resources.
Why you could leave now to regain your spells, but then the villagers you wanted to resque probably won't survive the night. In fact that BBEG is probably going to kill them and relocate after seeing this slaughter out in front of his castle.
Still I do understand the wanting to do more as a fighter sometimes. Kinda why I think building a less focused more versatile character, caster or not, is more fun. I would rather be a rogue than a fighter since I can get some interesting skill usage, which can actually defeat spells sometimes. I mean see invis still cant see stealth. The jump spell is no match for always jumping that way.
When you boil everything down though I think a lot of it comes to just how the casters are the more flashy ones or at least seem it in one's imagination. In any situation most pathfinder characters have a way to handle it if built reasonably with decent gear value. Results vary, I mean a trapfinding rogue is a bit more elegant at disarming a trap than smashing it with a hammer alerting people rooms away but both get by.
In the end as a GM I do think situations should sometimes be crafted to let everyone shine some. If you have a spellcaster who goes through one fight using everything he has and expects to sleep after that, then that needs to be rectified a bit with story reasons. (and an out of character talking to if they continue to expect it to work and everyone to go with it.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well first things first: My cars are very street legal, they might go to fast for you to pilot, but they are very street legal.Am I supposed to be impressed that you can take advantage of the most powerful options of a system with literally thousands of pages in print and...
Well first things first: My cars are very street legal, they might go to fast for you to pilot, but they are very street legal.First things first: Your simulacrum arguments are illegal on their face, since they assume you are the one to build your simulacrums, and that they are not affected by their rebuilding from the base creature at half hit dice despite general language in the spell and overt developer responses clarifying the intention of such language. The standard level 20 wizard you offered your support of was illegal on its face.
Beyond that, most of your other tricks are legal in the sense that they mechanically work, but would never be permitted outside of highly specialized testing grounds / theory crafting. I’m not saying they do not work within the rules as written (metaphorically the laws of physics). I’m saying they’d never see play in any conventional game (e.g. on the streets). You can hold them up as examples of how the system can be broken dangerously, but ultimately they don't mean very much because their theoretical potential remains just that.
Finally, don’t confuse disinclination with disability. That I do not enjoy something does not mean that I am incapable of doing so.
Second: If you think Blood Money Simulacrums are my only tactic you are sorely mistaken and in fact neither of my level 20 casters relies on them. There's just no reason not have them outside my character carrying a planet sized idiot ball. Rest assured both casters even without Simulacrums (I'm not giving up my Blood Money Bloody Skeletons though, but I am willing to not utilize Bloody Skeletons being controlled via the Command Undead spell) can still absolutely faceroll anything remotely CR appropriate outside of another caster (which would still have to be played with atleast much casting system mastery.)Am I supposed to be impressed that you can take advantage of the most powerful options of a system with literally thousands of pages in print and...
... Well this a whole lot of disingenuous things to respond to.
Part I.
First things first: No I don't assume that I'm building my own Simulacrums, I assume the GM is adjusting them according to the rules for increasing/decreasing the monster HD. So... thats one disingenuous comment addressed. Also, other than a misunderstanding on how Timeless plane trait worked, Cwheezy's wizard was RAW viable. If you disagree your going to have to present some evidence to back such a claim seeing as you failed to do so in that thread.
Lets move on to the second point: You admit my tactics are legal, but then go on to say they would be disallowed. I'm not sure you understand how incredibly unhelpful this comment is in discussing balance, but suffice to say its the equivalent of saying "If I ignore the problem there is no problem." *You* feel my tactics are unlikely be allowed to a table, but that is completely subjective and a terrible measure for discussing balance.
An analogy: The people I play Super Smash Bros. Melee with don't use wave-dashing and punch if you did, therefore wave-dashing is not a problem in Super Smash Bros. Melee.
Do you understand now how *overwhelmingly* unhelpful applying your own nonsense standard to a balance discussion is? (I'm asking a serious question here.)
Finally, if your disinclined to practice wave-dashing, I don't think its wrong for me to assume I'm better at it then you, since I you know... do practice it (also you have yet to demonstrate such mastery, I'm still sad that I was the only one in the thread with ways to improve Cwheezy's Wizard, but I guess you were just "disinclined" eh?). OR are you just so awesome at it you need no practice? (Again serious question.)
Part II.
Moving on to rounds, if your party is taking an hour to clear a dungeon you are not following the rules, or going abnormally slow. Even if you want to take 20 on say a Perception check that will take only 10 rounds (since its only a move action). And if you just take 10 like my group does when their buffs are running (you can come back and take 20 *AFTER* you kill Rygiji, the Bandit Lord and his 55 Thieves) you only use a whole move action. What exactly are you looting that take more then 1 minute? Opening a chest and draining its contents is a 2 round endeavor, 5 rounds tops, with a dragon hoard taking maybe a full 2 minutes between a group of 4 Murderhobos. Seriously, name a single AP/PFS scenario where a single area without rest in between would take more then 200 rounds to clear. That's a pretty neutral baseline, since its neither your style nor mine, but I'm positive that any exceptions to 200 rounds to clear will be rare but hey surprise me.
Part III.
This can be summed up very easily... did you know you can have multiple castings of the *same* spell on you at once? Oh sure they won't stack, but you know what they say about redundancy. Also I have quite a few countermeasures for different odds and ends including a readied action teleport that won't change my initiative.
But hey, maybe that CR 24 non-caster can see about getting around them. I'm pretty sure I've thought of most things, but at least finding out I haven't is just a chance to make my defenses even more impervious.
Part IV.
So you agree with me that fighters are already breaking the rules of reality and should be allowed to do so in more ways to give them utility? Really not sure what else to get out of this other than, other than having limits = reality, even when the hard limits allow something to fundamentally alter reality when used. Not sure I follow the logic there, could you explain your position here better?
Part V.
My example has nothing to do with casters being overpowered actually and doesn't involve Spellbane at all being 3.5 (though Azarathigaz *was* immune to his own Antimagic field). The point was that eventually a move and attack melee fighter is really pretty useless against high level threats and is simply ignored by intelligent enemies. The other point was that the gap between casters and non-casters can be hard to see and took the monk until very high level to realize it (though it had been true all along).
Part VI.
As above, I'm only comparing with what I see you post, none of which have included any indication of optimization experience. In fact when given a chance to help improve Cwheezy's wizard you failed to do so, while I other hand made several improvements. I'm glad you have a perspective that helps you but, as I addressed in Part I, your perspective is not only irrelevent when discussing balance, but actively detrimental to such balance observations.
You are allowing your own personal bias of what you deem to be "to strong" which is far from uniform. One man's Limited Wish duplicating Geas is another man's Power Attack + Rage and thus when discussing balance it best such perspectives be disregarded. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you have some better even more neutral non-biased standard from which to judge balance if so please by all means share.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First things first: No I don't assume that I'm building my own Simulacrums, I assume the GM is adjusting them according to the rules for increasing/decreasing the monster HD. So... thats one disingenuous comment addressed. Also, other than a misunderstanding on how Timeless plane trait worked, Cwheezy's wizard was RAW viable. If you disagree your going to have to present some evidence to back such a claim seeing as you failed to do so in that thread.
I’m glad you’ve come around on Simulacrum. They are built by a GM and lose abilities (including Ex, Su, and Sp) as appropriate for a creature with half the hit dice. Appropriate as decided by the GM, but RAW and per designer clarifications.
Cwheezy on the other hand assumed (and still seems to) that his simulacrums are perfect copies of monsters with lower hit dice. He assumes that a simulacrum of a creature possesses all of the same spell-like abilities and all of the same unique powers that can be damaging to play in the hands of a PC. That is not what the spell says, and a number of designers have explicitly responded to claims otherwise. I’m not really sure what more you’d like in terms of evidence. I can quote RAW (which is slightly ambiguous) and then support my interpretation with that of the guys who wrote the rules.
Lets move on to the second point: You admit my tactics are legal, but then go on to say they would be disallowed. I'm not sure you understand how incredibly unhelpful this comment is in discussing balance, but suffice to say its the equivalent of saying "If I ignore the problem there is no problem." *You* feel my tactics are unlikely be allowed to a table, but that is completely subjective and a terrible measure for discussing balance.
You’re right, I did acknowledge the RAW legality of many of your tactics, but I do absolutely fail to see any problem with them because built into the very system we use is an arbitrator who is explicitly given the authority to change or alter rules and make judgment calls when appropriate to keep the game going.
If you want to talk about theoretical optimization I’m absolutely willing to leave you to it and freely acknowledge that my opinion here doesn’t matter at all. The thing is, the overwhelming majority of discussions here rely on the premise that a given option (often spellcasters) is damaging to play at a given table where theory meets reality. My argument is, was, and continues to be that in reality these types of problems don’t come up when there is a GM at the table who can shoot them down outright.
You want to see options removed completely because in theory they cause problems. I want to avoid that because in practice they do not.
An analogy: The people I play Super Smash Bros. Melee with don't use wave-dashing and punch if you did, therefore wave-dashing is not a problem in Super Smash Bros. Melee.
I think this shows some of the fundamental disconnect we have here. You look at the rules as absolute in the same way that the rules of a video game are absolute. I don’t, because unlike in Super Smash Bros Melee there is someone built into the game itself that can say “yeah, no more wave-dashing” and make it so.
Do you understand now how *overwhelmingly* unhelpful applying your own nonsense standard to a balance discussion is? (I'm asking a serious question here.)
I absolutely agree and understand that as long as you keep your discussions to the purely theoretical my position has absolutely no application. I will continue to insist that the moment you suggest that a given option is game breaking, damaging to game balance, or anything of the sort in terms of practical optimization my opinion holds at least as much weight as yours.
-Free extorted wishes via planar binding with no real consequences? Absolutely theoretically possible
-Access to very spell on the wizard / sorcerer list as a wizard? Absolutely theoretically possible.
-Blood Money wishes? Absolutely theoretically possible.
-Spamming Miracle as a high level cleric? Absolutely theoretically possible.
-Attempting to scry a given target as often as required to force a natural one, then frying him? Absolutely theoretically possible.
-False Priest Sorcerer with access to almost very spell on the Cleric list spontaneously? Absolutely theoretically possible.
-Limited Wish duplication of Geas? Absolutely theoretically possible.
The thing is, none of these things are likely to come up in play, and if they do come up they are unlikely to cause problems because a GM can shut most of them down extremely easily. Pathfinder is not a competitive video game in which the winner takes all. It’s a cooperative role playing game in which players and a GM come together to play characters, have fun as a group, and tell a story together.
Finally, if your disinclined to practice wave-dashing, I don't think its wrong for me to assume I'm better at it then you, since I you know... do practice it (also you have yet to demonstrate such mastery, I'm still sad that I was the only one in the thread with ways to improve Cwheezy's Wizard, but I guess you were just "disinclined" eh?). OR are you just so awesome at it you need no practice? (Again serious question.)
The thing is, optimization is not game micro. The fact that I’m not of practice does not mean that that I’m somehow incapable. Optimization is a practice in patience and critical thinking – the patience to dig through each new book and the mental agility to see how they can fit together.
While you no doubt are more up to speed with the current direction optimization has gone, I don’t think your understanding of theoretical gaming is likely to be significantly more advanced than mine.
Moving on to rounds, if your party is taking an hour to clear a dungeon you are not following the rules, or going abnormally slow. Even if you want to take 20 on say a Perception check that will take only 10 rounds (since its only a move action). And if you just take 10 like my group does when their buffs are running (you can come back and take 20 *AFTER* you kill Rygiji, the Bandit Lord and his 55 Thieves) you only use a whole move action. What exactly are you looting that take more then 1 minute? Opening a chest and draining its contents is a 2 round endeavor, 5 rounds tops, with a dragon hoard taking maybe a full 2 minutes between a group of 4 Murderhobos. Seriously, name a single AP/PFS scenario where a single area without rest in between would take more then 200 rounds to clear. That's a pretty neutral baseline, since its neither your style nor mine, but I'm positive that any exceptions to 200 rounds to clear will be rare but hey surprise me.
This can be summed up very easily... did you know you can have multiple castings of the *same* spell on you at once? Oh sure they won't stack, but you know what they say about redundancy. Also I have quite a few countermeasures for different odds and ends including a readied action teleport that won't change my initiative.
I’ll be honest, I’m not really interested in playing this game.
So you agree with me that fighters are already breaking the rules of reality and should be allowed to do so in more ways to give them utility? Really not sure what else to get out of this other than, other than having limits = reality, even when the hard limits allow something to fundamentally alter reality when used. Not sure I follow the logic there, could you explain your position here better?
Two parts.
1. Basically my experience has been that when people say that casters bend reality over they are grossly exaggerating the power of various spells and effects. They suggest that free wishes are a thing, divination magic quickly and easily reveals every answer to every question, the caster is functionally invincible because a spell they will always have active for every circumstance, and that teleport & co. have no limits. I don’t agree with that position for reasons I’ve elaborated on at length here and elsewhere.
2. I’ve found that consistently arguments that martial characters are purely mundane are false on their face, as I pointed out. A 20th level fighter (the least mystical class) is capable of doing things are far beyond the keen of even the most skilled and powerful individuals in history. They are simply by virtue of level (before anything else) fantastical.
As above, I'm only comparing with what I see you post, none of which have included any indication of optimization experience. In fact when given a chance to help improve Cwheezy's wizard you failed to do so, while I other hand made several improvements. I'm glad you have a perspective that helps you but, as I addressed in Part I, your perspective is not only irrelevent when discussing balance, but actively detrimental to such balance observations.
Let’s get this out of the way.
I’ve played games of every level between 1 and 50 going back to the days of 3.0. I’ve built seventy hit dice greater deities and hundred hit die cosmic entities. I run in the same circles as Jaerom Darkwind (who built and maintained the 3.0/3.5 Epic Materials library), Mercucio (who built what is the most recognized alternative epic spell system), and Kain Darkwind (who built literally an entire epic level cosmology complete with thousands of unique beings by hand).
On the optimization front I was there for the birth of the Twice Betrayer of Shar, the King of Smack, The Wish, The Word, Pun-Pun, and just about every other dirty trick that came out of 3.5 optimization. I witnessed the turning point in practical optimization that saw the shift from generalists to specialists and later focused specialists.
I cut my teeth on optimization with the likes of Bluemage55, Belial666, and Ro3. I’ve gone the route of divine metamagic persistence, action economy psionics abuse, personal mythals, supernatural dweomerkeeper wishes, initiate of mystra shadow weave caster antimagic / dead magic immunity, chaos shuffle, and circle magic. I know more than a bit about optimization.
I offered no commentary on Cwheezy's wizard because not only am I not particularly interested in theoretical optimization, but because even within the realm of theoretical optimization I have little interest or respect for such optimization that goes directly against the interpretations of the designers. It’s RAW at its absolute worst. I’m also not particularly interested in aiding people whose intention seems to be only stirring up trouble and contributing to a flawed view of the game on a large scale.
As for game balance, the problem is in how we each define it. It takes the form of an almost irreconcilable difference. You define balance within the context of theoretical combat power in the absence of a Gm. You look at it from the same perspective as you would look at a computer game (especially PVP) that seems to examine what players at the highest level of competency. You compare things at the highest level.
I don’t. I define game balance within the context of creating a gaming system that is fun for players and GMs. I look at the options in the middle rather than the top. I’m not interested in viewing the game within the context of competition. I look at things within the context of cooperation. I look at CR appropriate monsters as the baseline for the game, rather than as something to be delighted in overcoming. The balance problems I see are those that arise casual decisions (e.g. should I take this feat), rather than from intentional attempts to break the game.
You are allowing your own personal bias of what you deem to be "to strong" which is far from uniform. One man's Limited Wish duplicating Geas is another man's Power Attack + Rage and thus when discussing balance it best such perspectives be disregarded. Wouldn't you agree? Or do you have some better even more neutral non-biased standard from which to judge balance if so please by all means share.
No, not really. My judgment of balance has little to do with mechanical strength and theoretical capabilities.
Dicefreaks Rule!
First things first: No I don't assume that I'm building my own Simulacrums, I assume the GM is adjusting them according to the rules for increasing/decreasing the monster HD. So... thats one disingenuous comment addressed. Also, other than a misunderstanding on how Timeless plane trait worked, Cwheezy's wizard was RAW viable. If you disagree your going to have to present some evidence to back such a claim seeing as you failed to do so in that thread.You’re right, I did acknowledge the RAW legality of many of your tactics, but I do absolutely fail to see any problem with them because built into the very system we use is an arbitrator who is explicitly given the authority to change or alter rules...
See what frustrates me here is that is obvious you can analyze things and make assessments, but nonetheless are missing the overall point. Language is a poor means of communication though so my explanations are partially blame and thus I will endeavor to make this as clear as possible in the hopes we can get on the same page.
1. Discussing balance from what you believe "would be allowed" in practical play contributes nothing to the discussion, because what is allowed in practical play will vary wildly from one group to the next. Some examples:
For example at Steve's game a Barbarian with Spell Sunder is overpowered and would not be for "practical play", while Joe's group would never allow Zen Archer Monks since they are in Joe's words "Clearly overpowered".
Bob has yet to disallow anything in his games, even the Vital Strike Strongjaw Druid that can "chomp" pretty much any enemy in one hit.
Please tell me you can now see why relying on what *you* consider to be disallowed in "practical play" is unhelpful to a balance discussion. What is practical to play at Steve's table and Joe's table differs, while so far anything at all is practical at Bob's table.
I address the power level of things that are in the game, because trying to figure out what would be "practical" for such a diverse group is a waste of time. You on the other hand appear to assume that your perception of what is "practical" is the universal one, which is very frustrating from my perspective. From my perspective here I am trying to account for the whole, while you are only trying to account for what you believe to be practical and then assuming your view is the baseline.
Can we at least if nothing else agree that what you consider to be "practical" is by no means uniform across all tables and is not any more "common" then anyone elses?
2. While we disagree on what "reality altering" is, we seem to agree that Martials are already violating reality. Would you agree then that such characters would be benefited by receiving utility abilities that go along with their Charles Atlas Superpowers?
3. Let me assure I am well aware of the rules for decreasing a monsters HD that by following them a 5 HD Efreeti will have access to all its SLAs. We discussed this in Cwheezy's thread and so I will not get back into it here, but rest assured I am relying on RAW for that.
I'm just curious why people think martials should be balanced with spellcasters.
That's like saying a knight with a sword should be equal to marine with a 240B. There is no military or similar group that would ever turn down any advantage, including magic. The way I see it, the classes without magic are there for those games that don't have magic or for games where magic is limited such that only a few people are even capable (or allowed) to learn magic.
Thus I think such classes simply add flexibility to the system and shouldn't be looked at as though every class needs to be perfectly balanced all the way up.
If you have a world where only INT is needed to learn magic, you can bet that every soldier in every military would study both magic and swordplay.
Thus I think the biggest issue is player expectations rather than system problems.
Unless someone can give me a good reason to think otherwise.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just curious why people think martials should be balanced with spellcasters.
Well, I can't speak for other people, but I'd like it because these two guys are expected to play side by side at equal levels and are measured equally according to things like CR and WBL.
Also there's a thing about narrative power, and spell casting has quiet a bit baked into the class and some of it is pretty darn powerful. The wizard can teleport across planes and great distances, create his own home, summon in angels and demons, and fly! Most martials don't get that, most martials just hit stuff and some don't even get the pleasure of having skill points.
I think you missed the point. Why should there be a martial and a spellcaster fighting side by side? Why should it be expected that individuals would stay as a single class?
As I pointed out above having non casting classes gives the system greater flexibility for portraying various settings, but that doesn't mean there are actually going to be straight fighters as soldiers in a world with magic that can be learned with a bit of study.
So that's my question, why does everyone seem to think that a straight fighter should be viable? They are not viable in a modern setting where technology and guns will defeat a swordsman in armor, and magic has a similar effect to technology, so why would it be different?
---------
Spells have a greater impact on narration then spellcasting, and technically the GM has say on whether any particular spell is actually available. There is no reason to say that every spell written can be easily obtained, or even found.
Well, I can't speak for other people, but I'd like it because these two guys are expected to play side by side at equal levels and are measured equally according to things like CR and WBL.Also there's a thing about narrative power, and spell casting has quiet a bit baked into the class and some of it is pretty darn powerful. The wizard can teleport across planes and great distances, create his own home, summon in angels and demons, and fly! Most martials don't get that, most martials just hit stuff and some don't even get the pleasure of having skill points.
I think many of the narrative power arguments are a bit on the bogus side. For example, the spellcaster may have the power to change certain methods of adventuring by teleporting, shifting planes, enabling water breathing, and so on. But because most of those abilities are either going to be used for the benefit of the whole party or not at all during adventure time, they're really not a significant factor in differentiating between the spellcaster and fighter in a practical sense. The spellcaster's presence may enable that mode of adventuring but because it applies to the whole group (otherwise, they're not really adventuring together, are they?) it might just as well be a plot device.
I think you missed the point. Why should there be a martial and a spellcaster fighting side by side? Why should it be expected that individuals would stay as a single class?
I'd say it has something to do with the book never saying that the figher for instance is an expendable NPC class or anything and putting everyone at the same value in CR as any other class of the same level. Supposedly a group of monks or rogues is just as valuable as one of druids or wizards or fighters or anyone else out there.
If at some point the book spelled out that they were of different value and how to adjust I might think differently.
I think many of the narrative power arguments are a bit on the bogus side. For example, the spellcaster may have the power to change certain methods of adventuring by teleporting, shifting planes, enabling water breathing, and so on. But because most of those abilities are either going to be used for the benefit of the whole party or not at all during adventure time, they're really not a significant factor in differentiating between the spellcaster and fighter in a practical sense. The spellcaster's presence may enable that mode of adventuring but because it applies to the whole group (otherwise, they're not really adventuring together, are they?) it might just as well be a plot device.
That doesn't really make it bogus. Its certainly not the fighter who contributed by casting see invisibility or summoning the outsider agent or charmed the npc. They benefit from it yes, but they have no way to do these things with their own given class features. If you have a team of wizards they can do all those things still, if you have a team of fighters no so much. A team of fighters might even have trouble commiting themselves to certain skills. They don't have the same contribution, nor potential or capability
A plot device is more GM fiat than anything. Its not a set of mechanics by which you measure somethings value. Its also very much a variable, while mechanics are very static and easy to measure. As is roleplaying and ingenuity, which happen to benefit someone with more options and who is comptetant and capable mechanically most.
So was there a new printing of the game that said ohh lol we really didn't mean for you to take Fighter as a class from 1-20, you really need to respec to a different class at 6th level?
I'm sorry but if I want to play Ars Magica with godwizards and muggle companions I'd play that game instead.
I think it's a legitimate concern to expect the fighter (or rogue) to contribute to the game in a meaningful way from 1-20 and even though PF made some nerfs to the casters it's still relatively easy to negate the narrative power of both the fighter and the rogue in actual play.
As the fighter progresses in level they tend to fall farther and farther behind their fellow adventurers in terms of non-combat utility because they don't have the skillpoints to contribute outside of a narrow scope of activities and many of their class skills are largely rendered irrelevant once stuff like flying becomes more common. Why have a big investment in Climb or Swim if they have very limited narrative applicability after level 6 or so. Plus their primary area of expertise which is front-line combat (assuming this isn't an archer build) tends to force them into a very tactically uninteresting 5' step and then full attack to work well.
In contrast the wizard and cleric start somewhat weaker although let's be honest these are the 80-lbs weaklings and healbots of AD&D. Once they get higher levels of spells they can transform the battlefield and provide utility that the fighter can't.
In theory the fighter and rogue could try to negate some of those advantages with gear but unfortunately the fighter and rogue are even more gear dependent than the SAD casters because they need to spend more money buffing their basic big 6 gear slots because otherwise they'll get trucked by CR equivalent monsters.
Yes you can say that the utility of the caster is meant for the benefit of the whole party but it's still a nice thing to be the person unlocking the puzzle rather than waiting on the sidelines for someone to do it for you. The martials have significant problems in that they are dependent on the casters for replenishment of their resources (HP healing) and for help bypassing various non-combat obstacles.
The point being to have a system that works for non magic games as well as magic games and games where characters must be born with the ability to use magic. If the system gave different values to different classes those values would only apply to one setting.
The base rules are supposed to be usable with a broad variety of settings. Thus full classes designed with very different basic assumptions. That's also why multiclassing is included, so that in magic settings the non caster classes can mix with the caster classes, and yet you won't need to rewrite all the classes if you play without magic.
Thus I don't see the point in a different printing, for if you do that you might as well just make different printings for each style of setting (nonmagic, limited magic, unlimited magic) and that would be pointless.
So was there a new printing of the game that said ohh lol we really didn't mean for you to take Fighter as a class from 1-20, you really need to respec to a different class at 6th level?
This implies a specific style of setting is intended, rather than being flexible enough for different styles of settings.
I'm sorry but if I want to play Ars Magica with godwizards and muggle companions I'd play that game instead.
So a guy with a sword is equal to a guy with guns? No, I guess reality has godwizards and muggles.
---------
And also, I have yet to see any instance in which an equal CR encounter was difficult. The difficulty of an encounter is only 25% from the rules and stats, 75% comes from how the characters, PCs and NPCs, are played. Dumb monsters are easy, smart monsters are hard, smart and creative players have it easy even without optimization, and less creative more straightforward players almost have to optimize just to keep up.
The point being to have a system that works for non magic games as well as magic games and games where characters must be born with the ability to use magic. If the system gave different values to different classes those values would only apply to one setting.
The base rules are supposed to be usable with a broad variety of settings. Thus full classes designed with very different basic assumptions. That's also why multiclassing is included, so that in magic settings the non caster classes can mix with the caster classes, and yet you won't need to rewrite all the classes if you play without magic.
I'm not sure if that's exactly how this game is built. You wouldn't happen to have a statement from a developer supporting this claim would you? That would be closer to what the topic was I'd think.
And also, I have yet to see any instance in which an equal CR encounter was difficult. The difficulty of an encounter is only 25% from the rules and stats, 75% comes from how the characters, PCs and NPCs, are played. Dumb monsters are easy, smart monsters are hard, smart and creative players have it easy even without optimization, and less creative more straightforward players almost have to optimize just to keep up.
Erm... Pretty sure CR is calculated based on rules and so is what is appropriate. The challenge itself might not match, but people aren't exactly something you can apply numbers to.
Erm... Pretty sure CR is calculated based on rules and so is what is appropriate. The challenge itself might not match, but people aren't exactly something you can apply numbers to.
Exactly, but the people have a significantly larger effect then rules.
Erm... Pretty sure CR is calculated based on rules and so is what is appropriate. The challenge itself might not match, but people aren't exactly something you can apply numbers to.Exactly, but the people have a significantly larger effect then rules.
Right, but the rules value them all equally. A monk isn't worth half a druid or half a ranger, he's worth just as much as everyone else on the enemy side or on yours, and for WBL everyone has just as much cash to blow on enhancing themselves to keep up with the treadmill. There isn't something saying one class is subpar or supposed to be underperforming compared to the others.
Ok, can I change my original post to...
How many beans make five?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So just because swordsmen existing in reality means that they need to be bound by the restrictions that encumber you or I? Or would it better to just assume that fighters and thieves of D&D are actually legendary and can do legendary things just by the blessing of being a PC?
I mean people are okay with Wizards basically wholesale shaping reality on a grandscale and they can't get past the idea than maybe the high level fighter and rogue should be able to do completely unbelievable things?
I understand wanting to have more mundane games but that's why variants like E6 are fun because nobody gets earth shaking power, it simply isn't a particularly great design to have the 13 year old that looks at the cover of PF and really being inspired by Valeros automatically being inferior to the player that looks at Seoni and is inspired to play a sorcerer.
I think you want to reward every player for being interested in the types of characters depicted in the supporting art but unfortunately in many ways the actual game undermines some of that epic feel.
So just because swordsmen existing in reality means that they need to be bound by the restrictions that encumber you or I? Or would it better to just assume that fighters and thieves of D&D are actually legendary and can do legendary things just by the blessing of being a PC?
That makes me think maybe there's more of a case for having alternative classes for each - then everyone is happy.
One class - the mundane fighter, the soldier, the normal human who is just intensively trained in conventional combat techniques.
The other class - the legendary hero, the wrestler of mammoths, the one that can fire six arrows in one draw of the bowstring and have them burst into flame by just willing it.
(Or, if you prefer, Batman vs Superman)
We don't know what settings players are using. Some settings just don't work with the latter, so it'd be a bad assumption to make that everyone in the game is somehow elevated above normal members of their race somehow.
If an individual setting has legendary fighters and thieves, that seems more of a case to me for that setting's book to cover alternate rules for such.
Although... we already have the Mythic rules for that kind of thing, IMO.
If there is an imbalance (and I'm not saying there is, or that there isn't, it's just a non-issue for my groups), I think it would be that casters are too strong rather than non-casters too weak.
So just because swordsmen existing in reality means that they need to be bound by the restrictions that encumber you or I? Or would it better to just assume that fighters and thieves of D&D are actually legendary and can do legendary things just by the blessing of being a PC?
I mean people are okay with Wizards basically wholesale shaping reality on a grandscale and they can't get past the idea than maybe the high level fighter and rogue should be able to do completely unbelievable things?
I understand wanting to have more mundane games but that's why variants like E6 are fun because nobody gets earth shaking power, it simply isn't a particularly great design to have the 13 year old that looks at the cover of PF and really being inspired by Valeros automatically being inferior to the player that looks at Seoni and is inspired to play a sorcerer.
I think you want to reward every player for being interested in the types of characters depicted in the supporting art but unfortunately in many ways the actual game undermines some of that epic feel.
Because the people arguing for these crazy anime inspired powers don't enjoy playing fighters and the players who enjoy playing fighters by and large don't want abilities that mimic spells.
They want to swing swords and deal lots of damage so if Fighter had these abilities they would not enjoy playing the game at all.
Because the people arguing for these crazy anime inspired powers don't enjoy playing fighters and the players who enjoy playing fighters by and large don't want abilities that mimic spells.
They want to swing swords and deal lots of damage so if Fighter had these abilities they would not enjoy playing the game at all.
Who is arguing for(or about) those things? That isn't even what this thread is about is it?
Who is arguing for(or about) those things? That isn't even what this thread is about is it?Because the people arguing for these crazy anime inspired powers don't enjoy playing fighters and the players who enjoy playing fighters by and large don't want abilities that mimic spells.
They want to swing swords and deal lots of damage so if Fighter had these abilities they would not enjoy playing the game at all.
Sorry, I can't keep track of whether you are saying Fighters need to have spell like crazy powers or whether you are currently saying that Wizards need to not be able to do anything . . . same two drums you are always beating.
The problem about that LazarX is that some people do want to play in the high level game and even though it's common knowledge that issue with caster imbalance really don't show up until mid-levels and above (I don't really subscribe to the idea that Wizards are roxxor at 1st level even though the are much much stronger than they were in AD&D).
It also doesn't help that we've had roughly 15 years worth of encounter design logic that also accentuates the strength of the caster vs the martial types. This is largely because 4 PCs vs 1-2 monsters is relatively easy for a module designer to write up but 1-2 monsters really tends to accentuate SoL tactical thinking and CR equivalent foes tend to do a relatively high amount of damage to melee combatants because their success rate against the average PC AC and saves is pretty high.
The result is that 1-2 monsters vs 4-5 PCs tend to eat up a large amount of the martial players limiting resources (HP) while it often doesn't drain a huge percentage of the caster's resources unless a lot of buffing is required. It also has the unfortunate effect of making Evokers which are some of the most iconic casters pretty much junk in comparison to control and batman wizards.
So while I do think that a game played in the low to mid -levels (consensus on where the game shifts dramatically range from level 6 to level 10) with a skilled DM can limit if not completely negate the caster imbalance it's still frustrating that we continue argue the same topic over and over again especially when it's pretty clear that the fighter and the rogue struggle in aspects of the game (especially high level) because they are largely designed around the conceit that fighters shouldn't be particularly useful in non-combat in order for rogues to be skillmonkeys and vice versa.
If the game was instead designed around the belief that all of the classes should be fairly effective in all phases of the game without having to make significant sacrifices in combat utility to impact the non-combat social and exploration phase then you could have a fighter that wasn't inept in terms of skills and a rogue that was more universally deadly in combat and I think people would be a lot happier.
Who is arguing for(or about) those things? That isn't even what this thread is about is it?Because the people arguing for these crazy anime inspired powers don't enjoy playing fighters and the players who enjoy playing fighters by and large don't want abilities that mimic spells.
They want to swing swords and deal lots of damage so if Fighter had these abilities they would not enjoy playing the game at all.
Actually... I at the very least have argued for that in this thread.
The problem is not however that those of us who "want crazy anime inspired powers don't enjoy playing fighters" the problem is that we enjoy playing fighters but hate being useless, especially at high levels were even having respectable damage numbers and some useful social skills won't help us.
And believe me that is the case the high levels, unless the enemies are intentionally making poor uses of their own spells or other supernatural levels. When an enemy caster manages to quicken Maze and hit two members of the party in one round, the casters shrug, accept that they lost a standard or swift action this round and plane shift out of it. The non-casters however get completely shunted out of the fight likely for the whole duration.
What about advancing the plot? What does Jim's Rogue and Joe's Fighter do to advance the plot when the casters can advance it by literally playing 20 questions with the universe? Considering this is even a recommended tactic in many Pathfinder APs, are Jim and Joe supposed to just go out and buy some scrolls and UMD them so they can hang out with the casters while they solve the plot?
What kinds of Contingencies can a Fighter prepare? What kinds of defenses can they get outside of AC and Saves? As I talked about earlier in the thread, a casters buffs expands with their character level. A caster is eventually doing everything in layered defenses, that require (Suprise!) magic to address properly. There is no mundane solution to Fickle Winds unless you count "wait it out" or "buy a magical tool in this case this comes up" to be "solutions".
All I'm saying (and I expect others that share the Charles Atlas Superpowers mundanes viewpoint) is that a level 20 Fighter should not be differed from a level 1 Fighter merely by the fact that they have more +hit and get more attacks (but only if they don't move more then a 5ft. step, if they do a level 1 and 20 fighter have the same number of attacks...)
Mundanes need utility to compete in a high level play environment where your party having to make 4 saves or die before the next round is common. Casters have Contingencies, the ability to raise dead party members, cloned bodies, summoned/called/created minions, defensive buffs that can negate them having to make some saves, the ability to remove the very nasty conditions in high level play (whats the Fighter's solution to a petrified party member?).
We would just like the mundanes to be able to stand as a viable choice and so would much like to see them improved.
So just because swordsmen existing in reality means that they need to be bound by the restrictions that encumber you or I? Or would it better to just assume that fighters and thieves of D&D are actually legendary and can do legendary things just by the blessing of being a PC?
That makes me think maybe there's more of a case for having alternative classes for each - then everyone is happy.
One class - the mundane fighter, the soldier, the normal human who is just intensively trained in conventional combat techniques.
The other class - the legendary hero, the wrestler of mammoths, the one that can fire six arrows in one draw of the bowstring and have them burst into flame by just willing it.
(Or, if you prefer, Batman vs Superman)
We don't know what settings players are using. Some settings just don't work with the latter, so it'd be a bad assumption to make that everyone in the game is somehow elevated above normal members of their race somehow.
If an individual setting has legendary fighters and thieves, that seems more of a case to me for that setting's book to cover alternate rules for such.
Although... we already have the Mythic rules for that kind of thing, IMO.
If there is an imbalance (and I'm not saying there is, or that there isn't, it's just a non-issue for my groups), I think it would be that casters are too strong rather than non-casters too weak.
Why go through that when you can design a mundane class and a magic class then alllow multiclassing?
It's faster and easier, and it makes more sense that a supernaturally strong fighter is a just a fighter using bull's strength.
I don't think the game is perfect but I don't think training can, or should, compete with either technology or magic (which I see as very similar) therefore, if you play a supernatural fighter his power should be something other than training.
The world needs to be sensical (which is different from realistic) problems like this arguement about how one class is better then another arise from making contradictory assumptions, in this case the assumtion that training with a sword can ever be equal to slinging lightning bolts in similar speed, and the assumtion that having a mundane class in the book means that any world must therefore have mundanes that can equal anyone and everyone else, and lastly, that the book can only be used for one type or style of game and therfore all options must be equally viable, and that superhuman abilities can be achieved through training without any form of magic. All of which are absolutely false regardless of intent.
Who says that they are false?
Magic being imaginary isn't something that we can objectively measure so it's really up to the artistic license of the developers to say exactly how strong or weak it is in comparison to the feats of brawny men (and women).
I mean it's not even like the 3.x Godwizard was even the norm within the history of D&D. AD&D casters were way way weaker and easy to defeat than 3.x casters ever were and AD&D fighters were significantly more powerful than they currently are. Same with B/X and OD&D.
Granted some changes in 3.x were made to limit caster squishiness and give them more low level narrative power but a lot of the buffing of casters was also done by weakening the martial classes (mobility, saves, etc were all weakened for Fighters in 3.x).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is magic? Answer, effecting the world using will or faith rather then brawn.
Magic is versatile and deadly even when it has to be used indirectly. But just look at technology today, magic acheives the same thing just with different methods. The ability to deal damge at a distance and ignoring, or mostly ignoring, armor beats out a sword, regardless of whether the ability comes from a gun or a lightning bolt.
How many people thing using a sword should be equal to using a gun even though a sword does greater damage even in reality? No one that I know of, and yet people want a swordsman who can equal magic which is for the most part reskinned technology. The issue isn't balance, it's players expectations and how they use the tools given them(aka the rulebook) based on those assumtions.
The assumptions of the designers when making classes changing from one class to another doesn't help. The fighter was designed with the assumption that magic is unavailable yet the wizard is designed with the assumtion tha magic is accessable purely through knowledge, and the sorcerer is designed with the assumtion that one is born with magic (though doesn't assume whether magic is available in other ways)
So here players keep trying to make the contradictory assumtions between the fighter design and the wizard design work together and that just leads to a bunch of people sounding stupid and bull headed. The truth is you need to know what is available in the game world and then from that figure out how the character would do what they do.
So if magic is usable purely with knowledge, tgen soldiers would know some magic, in particular magic that would make them better at defeating the enemy. This may be things like bulls strength that enhance their physical prowess, or it may things like fireball that is just damaging magic.
Whatever the case, you have to develop your "assumtions" based on the design of the campaign setting rather then tha design of the classes which may or may not be suitable for a game and those assumtions have to be sensical and without contradiction or you just end up with arguements and debates.
the Charles Atlas Superpower Fighter whom can accomplish mythic feats is a good thing in my opinion past a certain level. though not all at once.
let the fighter be mundane for the first 3-4 levels, but towards levels 5 and up. give those fighters superhuman benefits from their training.
Swim for 3 weeks straight in full plate? yes please
slice the air so hard you create a vaccuum of air pressure that deals damage equivalent to swinging your blade? yes please
fire a storm of Arrows big enough to rain on a football field in one turn? yes please
create difficult terrain by swinging at the ground or structures? yes please
successfully sunder a castle wall with your feet past level 11? yes please
kill 10 Sea Serpents in a single arced slash? Yes
bypass a wizard's supernatural protections past 11th level? yes please
gain complete immunity to harmful mind effects due to sheer resolve past 7th level? yes please
move, draw, and full attack in the same turn Iaijutsu Syle? yes please
I continue to argue that with spells used within their limitations and the game run coherently I've never seen this spellcaster imbalance.
Well, I have, but not until 9th level spells are trotted out by which time almost every AP and even home game is over.
It’s true that warriors rule levels 1-4 but thereafter Spellcasters start a rise in power faster than martials. And, sure, around lvl 12, some care has to be taken to build a great martial, whilst just picking some decent spells and having a high casting stat can make a good Spellcaster.
But it’s really not that much of a problem.
I did suggest making 9th level spells a ‘capstone’ and maybe that’s a small fix.
EDIT: Sorry I forgot to note that it is also the fault of bad gms, that is a pretty important note
Of course, balance is the GMs problem, and the system is absolved of guilt and sin, despite allowing it and giving no instruction on how to balance.
I continue to argue that with spells used within their limitations and the game run coherently I've never seen this spellcaster imbalance.Well, I have, but not until 9th level spells are trotted out by which time almost every AP and even home game is over.
It’s true that warriors rule levels 1-4 but thereafter Spellcasters start a rise in power faster than martials. And, sure, around lvl 12, some care has to be taken to build a great martial, whilst just picking some decent spells and having a high casting stat can make a good Spellcaster.
But it’s really not that much of a problem.
I did suggest making 9th level spells a ‘capstone’ and maybe that’s a small fix.
Most new players I've introduced the game have noticed how wide the gap is by 7th level spells personally. And remember thats just when the gap is incredibly obvious. The gap exists prior to that and is still a fairly severe divide, its just somewhat harder to notice. I should note that casters are not actually behind at low levels, its just the gap is incredibly easy to overlook when both enemies and players can die so easily. (Low levels are incredibly swingy.)
Most new players I've introduced the game have noticed how wide the gap is by 7th level spells personally. And remember thats just when the gap is incredibly obvious. The gap exists prior to that and is still a fairly severe divide, its just somewhat harder to notice. I should note that casters are not actually behind at low levels, its just the gap is incredibly easy to overlook when both enemies and players can die so easily. (Low levels are incredibly swingy.)I continue to argue that with spells used within their limitations and the game run coherently I've never seen this spellcaster imbalance.Well, I have, but not until 9th level spells are trotted out by which time almost every AP and even home game is over.
It’s true that warriors rule levels 1-4 but thereafter Spellcasters start a rise in power faster than martials. And, sure, around lvl 12, some care has to be taken to build a great martial, whilst just picking some decent spells and having a high casting stat can make a good Spellcaster.
But it’s really not that much of a problem.
I did suggest making 9th level spells a ‘capstone’ and maybe that’s a small fix.
You're right. . .until 5th level spells the gap is so gigantic that Wizards are barely worth playing if you aren't starting at at least 12th level. Martials are ridiculously more powerful up till that point, that its really never worth playing a caster since the second a Wizard will ever get to do any cool thing the game will be over, especially if its an adventure path. . .
Oh wait, you actually maintain that at LOW levels casters are more powerful? hahhahahahahahahahahaahahah
Ok, can I change my original post to...
How many beans make five?
Like you did know this was going to happen
Oh wait, you actually maintain that at LOW levels casters are more powerful? hahhahahahahahahahahaahahah
Someone got hit by a Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Could probably be more polite though.
Yes, they are pretty powerful, even at low levels. The gap only becomes more apparent as time goes on.
Oh wait, you actually maintain that at LOW levels casters are more powerful? hahhahahahahahahahahaahahahSomeone got hit by a Tasha's Hideous Laughter. Could probably be more polite though.
Yes, they are pretty powerful, even at low levels. The gap only becomes more apparent as time goes on.
You're wrong. They start to be able to be only slightly less powerful than Martials at about level 9.
Anything before level 9 there is no comparison-- martials are just strictly better in a very real way. About 12th level things are pretty much equal, or slightly in the favor of casters.
The fact that you are even suggesting that the 4th level Wizard who can cast a handful of magic missiles compares to the fighter of equal level is ludicrous.
You're wrong. They start to be able to be only slightly less powerful than Martials at about level 9.
Anything before level 9 there is no comparison-- martials are just strictly better in a very real way. About 12th level things are pretty much equal, or slightly in the favor of casters.
Your supposed to be on the ground laughing for at least another round you know.
9? Is that where you cut it? Lots of things happen before 9. Casters can fly all day, turn invisible, take the form of a creature with pounce, elementals, slow/haste, slowfall, baleful polymorph just came up, mirror images has been around and is a life saver and can give more effective defense than AC, Charm Person has been around forever and a few other enchantments came up, detect magic is a level 0 spell that your going to need sometime, lots of magical healing, summoned creatures can now be some nifty outsiders with spells of their own, and my gosh that list goes on for a while! I'm sticking to core too, list only gets bigger outside of that.
The fact that you are even suggesting that the 4th level Wizard who can cast a handful of magic missiles compares to the fighter of equal level is ludicrous.
Cut down on the name calling, its unnecessary. Instead of just calling it ludicrous, explain why you think what you do. That helps.
You're wrong. They start to be able to be only slightly less powerful than Martials at about level 9.
Anything before level 9 there is no comparison-- martials are just strictly better in a very real way. About 12th level things are pretty much equal, or slightly in the favor of casters.
Your supposed to be on the ground laughing for at least another round you know.
9? Is that where you cut it? Lots of things happen before 9. Casters can fly all day, turn invisible, take the form of a creature with pounce, elementals, slow/haste, slowfall, baleful polymorph just came up, mirror images has been around and is a life saver and can give more effective defense than AC, Charm Person has been around forever and a few other enchantments came up, detect magic is a level 0 spell that your going to need sometime, lots of magical healing, summoned creatures can now be some nifty outsiders with spells of their own, and my gosh that list goes on for a while! I'm sticking to core too, list only gets bigger outside of that.
The fact that you are even suggesting that the 4th level Wizard who can cast a handful of magic missiles compares to the fighter of equal level is ludicrous.Cut down on the name calling, its unnecessary. Instead of just calling it ludicrous, explain why you think what you do. That helps.
Because a fighter can 1 shot you with a single sword swing or arrow that he can do infinite times per day? Does this really need to be explained?
Fighter does your HP in damage twice a round every single round. . .
You. . . have 10ish total spells all of which will last 8 minutes or less, will none of them one shot the fighter except one that they have to fail their BEST save to lose to. . .
Because a fighter can 1 shot you with a single sword swing or arrow that he can do infinite times per day? Does this really need to be explained?
Fighter does your HP in damage twice a round every single round. . .
Not really. Its actually very possible for a caster of any type to bolster their hp/defenses pretty well. Even get out of harms way or get a companion of some sorts to deal with you. Not every caster is in a robe either, some have a number of defenses without spells or investment such as the Oracle, Druid, or Magus. Those guys can do pretty well in combat and do a lot outside of it too.
You. . . have 10ish total spells all of which will last 8 minutes or less, will none of them one shot the fighter except one that they have to fail their BEST save to lose to. . .
That's a gross underestimation(or overestimation). Really depends on your level/class and your spell selection. Quiet a few can put them down without hitting their fortitude save too, like Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Sleep, Grease, or Color Spray.
Because a fighter can 1 shot you with a single sword swing or arrow that he can do infinite times per day? Does this really need to be explained?
Fighter does your HP in damage twice a round every single round. . .
Not really. Its actually very possible for a caster of any type to bolster their hp/defenses pretty well. Even get out of harms way or get a companion of some sorts to deal with you. Not every caster is in a robe either, some have a number of defenses without spells or investment such as the Oracle, Druid, or Magus. Those guys can do pretty well in combat and do a lot outside of it too.
You. . . have 10ish total spells all of which will last 8 minutes or less, will none of them one shot the fighter except one that they have to fail their BEST save to lose to. . .That's a gross underestimation(or overestimation). Really depends on your level/class and your spell selection. Quiet a few can put them down without hitting their fortitude save too, like Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Sleep, Grease, or Color Spray.
Well, if we go with 8 you have spells that last for 8 rounds and 8 minutes to "bolster your defense" Sleep no longer has any effect on the 8th level Fighter or Barbarian, Grease they have to make a DC 10 check to walk across and has no effect on their arrows, Glitterdust they get a new save every round (ditto hold person, ditto Hideous Laughter)-- not to mention those spells have low saves because they are low level. . .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what I think is interesting the argument that all a Fighter gets as he levels is more HP and more DPR thus the fighter is a bad class or underpowered or something.
In a way they are right, a Fighter is the plain vanilla of classes. It has little flexibility and few options other than different ways to deal DPR or take DPR. The Fighter has few skill points, and altho it has lots of feats so can can certainly do out of combat stuff, in order to be best at DPR and Tanking, most Fighter players spend their feats making their PC better and better at doing those. And, altho you can build another class that does better at tanking oR DPR, it's very hard to beat a fighter at both. But that's about all it can do- and do well, anyway.
And, some people think this is a crushing argument of why the Fighter is underpowered. It's not- in fact it's the opposite.
Choices. You want a martial class with lots of Skills? Ranger or even monk or rogue. With healing & smiting? Paladin or Inquisitor. With arcane spells? Magus. Then there's the barbarian. There are NINE martial classes (More if you count Samurai, Antipaladin, etc). Each gains something over the fighter- or even several somethings: Saves, mobility, spells, flexibility, skills, and more. And by doing so each gives up something.
Yes, indeed the Fighter is the plain vanilla martial class. But it's there because some people LIKE vanilla. And, why not? Why can't they have vanilla? Sure, I prefer chocolate, and someone may prefer strawberry and another triple fudge/rum/pistachio ripple. But every 31 flavors still have vanilla.
Why do the fighter haters insist upon taking that Choice away from other who PREFER vanilla? Sure, it may be a sub-optimal choice/flavor to YOU, but to them, it's what they want. Are you calling "badwrongfun" on whoever wants to run one?
So, there are 8 other flavors of warriors/martials. EIGHT. You don't want vanilla? The devs have provided you with 8 other flavors, and with PrC's and such, you can even get triple fudge/rum/pistachio ripple. And in the upcoming class guide, there's even more flavors/choices.
I personally don't care for the fighter, I find the class bland. I play Rangers or Inquisitors or Paladins. But the Fighter in our 12th level group is far and away the most dangerous PC we have, even more so than my Sorc.
But when I go to 31 Flavors I don't complain Vanilla is there in the case. To each their own.
"To me the fighter is underpowered/bland/boring/wahtever." OK, then don't play it. Play another of the couple dozen choices. Others love the fighter and enjoy playing it. Can't they have their vanilla? Why try to take their choice away?
Well, if we go with 8 you have spells that last for 8 rounds and 8 minutes to "bolster your defense" Sleep no longer has any effect on the 8th level Fighter or Barbarian, Grease they have to make a DC 10 check to walk across and has no effect on their arrows, Glitterdust they get a new save every round (ditto hold person, ditto Hideous Laughter)-- not to mention those spells have low saves because they are low level. . .
If you go with level 8 you have more than 8 spells and they can last hours or a single round. Lots of durations and cast times and targets. If we're talking wizard, you have 12 spells, +4 for specialization if your not generalist, +bonus spells from intellect(at least 4).
You don't have to use grease on the ground, you can use it on their weapon too. Prepared action too, so use it right when they attack and slip! Maybe someone steals it too, but that would be mean. DC 10 acrobatics can be pretty rough with ACP and too little skill points. As a bonus, you can use it to assist with escape artist checks and CMB! Grease is nifty.
Might help if you compared it all to spells of a higher level. At 8 level you have 3 more spell levels to play with. Slow/Haste and fly and invisibility are pretty nice for instance. The various pit spells have opened up, reflex 18 or be dumped into a horrible acid pit? ouch! Hope you have climb to get out if you did. OH! and black tentacles and dimensional door. Just one school too.