would it be so bad to put these cure all classes to bed?
gen-u-whine LOL.
still though it's not that these classes are broken, it's that they can emulate any class already out there.
and i get that one may simply house rule this feature in, but what if it was an official ruling?
would it make the other classes shine more knowing that they can't be copied so closely?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe it was 'wood baning wizard' so-- a wizard Archetype that gets Favored Enemy: Plants because they are his bane.
Where's Mordo the Spaz when you need him?
Since you've already been taken to task for your spelling and grammar:
Does disqualifying the person who should win the gold metal in a race make the other contestants better?
The problem you're probably trying to address isn't wizards specifically, it is spell casting classes in general, divine and arcane alike. And even that is only actually a problem if it is a problem for the people at your table. If your fighter / rogue / whatever type players are having fun, and the spell casters are having fun, well that's what it is all about, not the imaginary concept of balance.
I'm just gonna paraphrase Accelerator here:
"Just because I've gotten weaker, doesn't mean you've gotten any stronger."
Since you've already been taken to task for your spelling and grammar:
Does disqualifying the person who should win the gold metal in a race make the other contestants better?
The problem you're probably trying to address isn't wizards specifically, it is spell casting classes in general, divine and arcane alike. And even that is only actually a problem if it is a problem for the people at your table. If your fighter / rogue / whatever type players are having fun, and the spell casters are having fun, well that's what it is all about, not the imaginary concept of balance.
I'm just gonna paraphrase Accelerator here:
"Just because I've gotten weaker, doesn't mean you've gotten any stronger."
Well, there is absolute and there is relative. While this may be true in absolute terms, if the most powerful class is lessened in power, the other classes will gain in relative power anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually came to the thread thinking it was about wizards trying to ban wood... Uhh... So... yeah. I prepared this great comment about cornering the firemaking market and uhh... I hope I wasn't the only one?
Anyways, no it won't make them stronger(though it might make it seem like it), in fact if the guy throwing buffs is gone it might make you weaker! Things work out weirdly like that sometimes. No detect magic might sting too, if you don't have a backup way to nab that. Basic utility that isn't game breaking, but very useful.
I do however suggest they go to bed though, really everyone should. Preferably a comfortable kind. Sleep is good for the soul dontcha' know.
Since you've already been taken to task for your spelling and grammar:
Does disqualifying the person who should win the gold metal in a race make the other contestants better?
The problem you're probably trying to address isn't wizards specifically, it is spell casting classes in general, divine and arcane alike. And even that is only actually a problem if it is a problem for the people at your table. If your fighter / rogue / whatever type players are having fun, and the spell casters are having fun, well that's what it is all about, not the imaginary concept of balance.
The spelling and grammar makes people look that's why i never take anyone to task for it cause i get the strategy and i hope no one forgot the spell checker but either way.
I wasn't necessarily concerned for fun at the table, and yes, more concerned for the imaginary concept of balance. pretty straight forward.
Just a good old pondering of what if you took away fighter, which if you're not finding what you want, is malleable enough to mold into something that is comparable to another class.
Would (arbitrarily speaking) say the samurai and cavalier be used far more often?
Would a fighter archetype exist for each class?
Same with the wizard.
There is no 0-20 level necromancer by name because your supposed to be able to build one out a wizard.
It's not that they are not fun, should be banned, or are broken.
It's that they are so generalized.
The ONLY thing that separates them from other classes are class abilities.
So... would other classes shine more without the fighter or wizard classes?
Would it allow for a wider array of more unique and specialized 0-20 level classes?
How does removing options allow for more options?
Typically, adding options adds options not the other way around.
If you have a class that allows "All Options"
all other options become redundant.
*BOOM*
Mind blown.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually came to the thread thinking it was about wizards trying to ban wood... Uhh... So... yeah. I prepared this great comment about cornering the firemaking market and uhh... I hope I wasn't the only one?
Anyways, no it won't make them stronger(though it might make it seem like it), in fact if the guy throwing buffs is gone it might make you weaker! Things work out weirdly like that sometimes. No detect magic might sting too, if you don't have a backup way to nab that. Basic utility that isn't game breaking, but very useful.
I do however suggest they go to bed though, really everyone should. Preferably a comfortable kind. Sleep is good for the soul dontcha' know.
Well, to be fair, he is part dog."
LOL - I just can't get over that!
If you have a class that allows "All Options"
all other options become redundant.
*BOOM*
Mind blown.
That's not what Fighter and Wizard really do. Wizard gets spells and basically nothing else-- Magus gets spell combat which is its own unique thing and Sorcerer gets spontaneous spells so they are three separate things with reasons why someone might want to play all three.
Those Arcane spell lists are so different from other caster class lists (Cleric, Druid, ect) that they don't fill the same roles at all and there are reasons for people to want to play those classes as well.
Fighter can do things similar to other classes in some ways true-- fighter can be an archer, or a fist punching guy, ect. . .
But he can't get rage to be a barbarian, he can't make a build that gets all the things a ranger gets and he can't get the exact same abilities as the monk so even with the option of fighter (the guy with infinite feats to go in any direction he wants) there are still reasons to play all the other classes.
Since you've already been taken to task for your spelling and grammar:
Does disqualifying the person who should win the gold metal in a race make the other contestants better?
The problem you're probably trying to address isn't wizards specifically, it is spell casting classes in general, divine and arcane alike. And even that is only actually a problem if it is a problem for the people at your table. If your fighter / rogue / whatever type players are having fun, and the spell casters are having fun, well that's what it is all about, not the imaginary concept of balance.
The spelling and grammar makes people look that's why i never take anyone to task for it cause i get the strategy and i hope no one forgot the spell checker but either way.
I wasn't necessarily concerned for fun at the table, and yes, more concerned for the imaginary concept of balance. pretty straight forward.
Just a good old pondering of what if you took away fighter, which if you're not finding what you want, is malleable enough to mold into something that is comparable to another class.
Would (arbitrarily speaking) say the samurai and cavalier be used far more often?
Would a fighter archetype exist for each class?Same with the wizard.
There is no 0-20 level necromancer by name because your supposed to be able to build one out a wizard.It's not that they are not fun, should be banned, or are broken.
It's that they are so generalized.
The ONLY thing that separates them from other classes are class abilities.
So... would other classes shine more without the fighter or wizard classes?
Would it allow for a wider array of more unique and specialized 0-20 level classes?
...uh..why do you NEED a separate necromancer class? If you have a brilliant idea for a 1-20 level necromancer class that is perfectly balanced then play it at your table..or submit it to a 3PP and see if its REALLY balanced. But why bother..when you can use a wizard to BE a necromancer that is already in line with the game, and gets a set of necromancer only powers? Why do you HAVE to have a totally different 1-20 conjurer, diviner, etc etc with an entirely new set of rules /spell lists/powers? That would not bring any balance; if anything it would unbalance things more than anything: diviners would be generally unplayed because a lack of damage, evokers would be op because of TOTAL damage, people would whine about necros being the new summoner..etc etc. Cavaliers are not used as often as fighters because they occupy a special niche: a noble that is mainly mounted combat. The samurai even more so because the Eastern flavor. Ban the fighter..and people that don't want to play a mounted warrior STILL wont play a cavalier..or they will play them badly by trying to make them into...a fighter.
Fighters do not get anywhere near all options. They are almost universally considered one of the bottom three classes, though possibly that's partly because everyone forgets the existence of the Cavalier.
Wizards might be an issue at the top, but they're not alone and you can't fix that by banning classes.
Fighters aren't that bad. There's a lot of things that can be done with a ton of Feats and in PF they get other abilities on top of that, and there are a ton of archetypes.
I think people tend to under-rate them because they are one of the classes with the least built in flavor-- but its great because all those feats lets to take them in may different directions.
Wait.
The spelling and grammar makes people look that's why i never take anyone to task for it cause i get the strategy and i hope no one forgot the spell checker but either way.
So you intentionally brutalized the english language, just to get people to look at your thread?
Doesn't this suggest to you that, had you actually spelled the topic properly, people would have ignored the thread because the idea is rather silly?
Either way, no, banning the wizrd and fiitter would not make all the other classes 'better'. All it would do is cause the internet to find another thing to argue about. And if Paizo actually decided to ban the two classes, the two staples of fantasy games that have essentially been around for decades, they would likely be laughed out of their own building.
Then again, in retrospect, I suppose I have no problem banning the wizrd and fiitter. I've never played those two classes, and I can't think of anyone who has. I'm a big fan of the Wizard, though.
*would banning wizard and fighter....
gods, the internet has made me such a bad person.
There is no 0-20 level necromancer by name because your supposed to be able to build one out a wizard.
Would it allow for a wider array of more unique and specialized 0-20 level classes?
This is the crux of what Lo&Beholder is talking about, that I think may have gone over the head of some folks.
As for my answer to this, I personally don't think it has limited anything. There are two reason we should have those classes:
1. We need a class that can give you a basic warrior or basic caster. While it might sound bland, those are character concepts as well.
2. There should be more than one way to skin a cat. Not everyone wants to play a Summoner class as their concept for their "guy who primarily summons things". Same with the Cavalier for "guy who is a knight". Having these generic classes gives a finer gradient on character building.
Pathfinder has taken a slower approach to adding in base/prestige classes than WotC did, which is the main reason overall that you haven't seen a base class for every concept yet.
It feels like they are more targeting specific areas that are in need of a rules development, such as some multi-class combinations (inquisitor, latest book, etc), or things like spellcasting ideas (alchemist, summoner, etc).
Also, since this game is based on 3.5e, if you are adventurous you can go back to that edition for ideas on class abilities and such to tweak out your own niche concept. If I were running a Necromancer and wanted something a little more unique than just a Wizard, (as DM) I would look to the Dread Necromancer for ideas from the Book of Horror.
It also leaves the door open for 3rd parties to release stuff without the fear that it will be overrun by the main developers shortly. People can release a Psionics book or a Book of the Dead and not fear that their ideas will be trampled within 6 months and left to the side.
Seriously though, don't let the repeated screaming a few people bend your mind and think that you need to make these changes just because Mr. Sin, Anzyr and Ryosin are screaming about how broken wizards are over and over and over. . . most of the people out there find the game fine the way it is.Yes ignore our well-reasoned, logical and consistent arguments! In other news, the Sun revolves around the Earth.
** spoiler omitted **
It gets incredibly tiresome to hear the same drum beat in every single thread. Beat so loudly and adamantly by the same small group of people that people who don't really think there is a problem and have never felt a problem in game play are asking questions about what they need to do when they start a game to avoid a problem that doesn't really exist.
Honestly, this "balance" thing is basically to the same place as edition warring and other useless discussions, and it has grown tiresome in the extreme to hear the same arguments about how broken wizards are repeated ad nauseum.
Then you can choose not to participate in said threads.
Wow - I literally have no idea what this thread is about ...
About 3/4ths of a page.
The spelling and grammar makes people look that's why i never take anyone to task for it cause i get the strategy and i hope no one forgot the spell checker but either way.Maybe it will make people look, but the people who look because you have poor spelling and grammar aren't helping your thread.
That's how dnd, and thus pathfinder, is designed. Generic classes that are designed to allow for customization of a character. Archetypes and prestige classes are meant to allow even greater customization. And I believe that is a strength.It's not that they are not fun, should be banned, or are broken.
It's that they are so generalized.
The ONLY thing that separates them from other classes are class abilities.
So... would other classes shine more without the fighter or wizard classes?
Would it allow for a wider array of more unique and specialized 0-20 level classes?
I concur. A class is nothing more than a collection of mechanical abilities to be used in concert with other mechanical elements to realize a character concept.
D20 modern banned all the existing classes, so I never played it. Living Greyhawk forced me to play in Keoland, where they hated arcane magic, so I stopped playing that when Shining Jewel came out. If you buy Pazio and try to force them to change the game that way, they will all quit and form a new company, change the game world to Gloriosky, and you will be alone. I will now hide the topic as I intended when I read the title.
Banning the wizard and fighter will not make any sense.
Perhaps not to you GM Elton, but possibly to others. I'd be fine without either, but the loss of Fighters would rankle.
Perhaps not to you GM Elton, but possibly to others. I'd be fine without either, but the loss of Fighters would rankle.Banning the wizard and fighter will not make any sense.
I've never seen some people get so upset by hypothetical, right. So much for small talk and good conversation.
It's actually that this thread doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense. It's confusion.
Just a good old pondering of what if you took away fighter.
If you're not finding what you want, a fighter is malleable enough to mold into something that is comparable to another class.Would say the samurai and cavalier be used far more often?
Would a fighter archetype exist for each class?
Same with the wizard.
There is no 0-20 level necromancer by name because your supposed to be able to build one out a wizard.
It's not that they are not fun, should be banned, or are broken.
It's that they are so generalized.
The ONLY thing that separates them from other classes are class abilities.
So... would other classes shine more without the fighter or wizard classes?
Would it allow for a wider array of more unique and specialized 0-20 level classes?
Because without class abilities being the separating factor, the fighter and wizard, make other classes redundant, but not necessarily obsolete.
It seems to me fighter and wizard were created to cut down on the over abundance of 0-20 lvl. classes being born, and maybe that was the case for 3.5, but its hard to find official stamped play tested 0-20 lvl. classes and only now, pause for breath, now are we seeing another set of 0-20 lvls. that are being play tested to accomplish not making the other classes redundant or obsolete.
I hope this lifts some of the confusion for you.
Would say the samurai and cavalier be used far more often?
Yes, but only in the sense that players who want to play "Dude with a sword" wouldn't have any other choice. It doesn't actually improve either class in any way.
Would a fighter archetype exist for each class?
So you'd be taking out Fighter, than putting him back? Then what the hell was the point of taking him out in the first place?
Same with the wizard.
There is no 0-20 level necromancer by name because your supposed to be able to build one out a wizard.
...And?
Again, there's no point to your question. "Necromancer" already exists as a part of Wizardry.
It's not that they are not fun, should be banned, or are broken.
It's that they are so generalized.
This is why the game has these wonderful things called "Archetypes" that specifically specialize base classes in different ways. I suggest you take a look at the Advanced Players' Guide, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, and Advanced Race Guide, for examples.
The ONLY thing that separates them from other classes are class abilities.
So... would other classes shine more without the fighter or wizard classes?
Would it allow for a wider array of more unique and specialized 0-20 level classes?
No. Because Class abilities are the ONLY thing that separates ALL the classes from each other. They are what make the classes the classes. What is a Barbarian without Rage? What is a Sorcerer without Bloodlines (D&D 3.5, but you get the idea)? What is an Alchemist without Bombs and Extracts?
Because without class abilities being the separating factor, the fighter and wizard, make other classes redundant, but not necessarily obsolete.
It seems to me fighter and wizard were created to cut down on the over abundance of 0-20 lvl. classes being born, and maybe that was the case for 3.5, but its hard to find official stamped play tested 0-20 lvl. classes and only now, pause for breath, now are we seeing another set of 0-20 lvls. that are being play tested to accomplish not making the other classes redundant or obsolete.
I hope this lifts some of the confusion for you.
I think you may be suffering from your own confusion, though.
You problem seems to be that you only see Fighter and Wizard as "Guys Who Swings a Sword" and "Guy Who Casts Spells". This is true to a point, but you're making a few mistakes in your warrants.
The first problem is not that the Fighter and Wizard are Generalized, they are Basic classes. These are actually important, especially for those coming into RPGs for the first time. You don't always know if you want to be a hulking Barbarian, or a nimble Rogue, or a noble Cavalier astride his horse/wolf/axebeak. Playing a Fighter allows you to get a handle on how combat and those qualities work. On the other hand, you may decided that you like strength, but a Barbarian goes too far in that direction for your taste. So you have the Two-Handed Fighter which has a focus on strength and power, but doesn't lose quite so much versatility.
Your second problem is the assumption that lots of specialized classes are automatically good. Going back to your example, what do you think you are missing by not having a dedicated Necromancer class rather than a Wizard that specializes in Necromancy and the appropriate feats?
Yeesh.
Okay Samas. Let me first qualify that this thread is not an attempt to besmirch the name of fighter or wizard and that i am not a proponent or opponent of banning wizard or fighter. this is all hypothetical.
Would say the samurai and cavalier be used far more often?Yes, but only in the sense that players who want to play "Dude with a sword" wouldn't have any other choice. It doesn't actually improve either class in any way.
The question to stay on topic is not a matter of improvement but one of utility. Can u make a samurai from fighter, if the answer is yes then why not have a fighter archetype called samurai? But if you eliminate the fighter, which can closely mimic a samurai(especially if given the right archetype), the "Samurai" and all the archetypes assigned to a samurai class become more, i wanna say legitimate or prominent, and less redundant flavor.
Would a fighter archetype exist for each class?So you'd be taking out Fighter, than putting him back? Then what the hell was the point of taking him out in the first place?
Well let's see. If you started in 3.0 or 3.5 like i did, then the addition of weapon/armor training was awesome, but for a long time fighter was only a "feat" prostitute. You could hypothetically chop the fighter into two arch benefits packages, extra feats or weapon/armor training. This would facilitate eliminating the fighter and would result in two new archetypes for the more combat focused classes. No need for fighter dipping.
Same with the wizard.
There is no 0-20 level necromancer by name because your supposed to be able to build one out a wizard....And?
Again, there's no point to your question. "Necromancer" already exists as a part of Wizardry.
Yeesh again. It was a leading observation and segue way into moving on to discussing wizard, but you are right that maybe i should have elaborated more on the wizard instead of assuming that the fighter questions could be translated to wizard.
So I'll elaborate.
3.5 had Heroes of Horror which had a 0-20 lvl. class that slowly transformed one into a lich and the class abilities alone were good, not great for a necromancer, but the class was called Necromancer if memory serves me right. Now if Necromancer were made today would you rejoice, or troll it mercilessly, especially if it carried its own archetypes?
Well let's see. If you started in 3.0 or 3.5 like i did, then the wizard was awesome and for a long time the wizard was the definition of wizardry archtypes over bland sorcerers any day. You can hypothetically chop the wizard into two arch benefits packages, (extra feats and familiars) or schools of magic. This would facilitate eliminating the wizard and would result in two new archetypes for the more magic focused classes. No need for wizard dipping.It's not that they are not fun, should be banned, or are broken.
It's that they are so generalized.This is why the game has these wonderful things called "Archetypes" that specifically specialize base classes in different ways. I suggest you take a look at the Advanced Players' Guide, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic, and Advanced Race Guide, for examples.
That's just condescending.
The ONLY thing that separates them from other classes are class abilities.
So... would other classes shine more without the fighter or wizard classes?
Would it allow for a wider array of more unique and specialized 0-20 level classes?No. Because Class abilities are the ONLY thing that separates ALL the classes from each other. They are what make the classes the classes. What is a Barbarian without Rage? What is a Sorcerer without Bloodlines (D&D 3.5, but you get the idea)? What is an Alchemist without Bombs and Extracts?
First you say no and you should explain why, but then you go on to agree with my statement and don't answer the next question, but I'll take the alchemist as answer to the last question. kudos!
...Because without class abilities being the separating factor, the fighter and wizard, make other classes redundant, but not necessarily obsolete.
It seems to me fighter and wizard were created to cut down on the over abundance of 0-20 lvl. classes being born, and maybe that was the case for 3.5, but its hard to find official stamped play tested 0-20 lvl. classes and only
This reply got cut off here so I'll just submit this and grab the rest.
**edit** Nevermind i'll leave it at that, it seems reply grouped my responses in the same colors as yours.
Yeesh.
Okay Samas. Let me first qualify that this thread is not an attempt to besmirch the name of fighter or wizard and that i am not a proponent or opponent of banning wizard or fighter. this is all hypothetical.
What good is a hypothetical question without answers?
Would say the samurai and cavalier be used far more often?Yes, but only in the sense that players who want to play "Dude with a sword" wouldn't have any other choice. It doesn't actually improve either class in any way.
The question to stay on topic is not a matter of improvement but one of utility. Can u make a samurai from fighter, if the answer is yes then why not have a fighter archetype called samurai? But if you eliminate the fighter, which can closely mimic a samurai(especially if given the right archetype), the "Samurai" and all the archetypes assigned to a samurai class become more, i wanna say legitimate or prominent, and less redundant flavor.
I should be more clear. Trying to improve the status of a class by eliminating the supposedly superior class before it to force players to use it is an inexcusably poor solution that does nothing to actually solve the problem at hand and would please nobody.
Would a fighter archetype exist for each class?So you'd be taking out Fighter, than putting him back? Then what the hell was the point of taking him out in the first place?
Well let's see. If you started in 3.0 or 3.5 like i did, then the addition of weapon/armor training was awesome, but for a long time fighter was only a "feat" prostitute. You could hypothetically chop the fighter into two arch benefits packages, extra feats or weapon/armor training. This would facilitate eliminating the fighter and would result in two new archetypes for the more combat focused classes. No need for fighter dipping.
Maybe I'm just reading you wrong, but wouldn't that just replace Fighyer-dipping with Whatever-You-Make-Into-The-New-Feat-Whore-dipping? That doesn't solve the problem per set as it does change the name.