Correct, Malwing.
I have to agree that system mastery in conjunction with even a little bit of power gaming makes a huge difference in regards to whether or not casters can be broken. This past weekend throughout two games I've seen examples that show how different it is. At tables with moderately powered characters spells aren't that broken. In the hands of someone that knows what they're doing spells are really really good.
Most of the time there's an unspoken agreement to not murk up a game with overpowered munchkinning so its not that big of a deal but the fact you can gives the system a bad rap and also allows 'that guy' to show up in your games every once and a while.
Ingenuity will always win the day. A wasteful person will do with abundance what a crafty person will do with minimal supply.
I mean, all the Min/Maxers here state loudly that the reason for their dumping is not the extra 4 or whatever points, but for RP reasons, but....
For what it's worth, I have only seen that claimed rarely.
Arent the main OP spells the summoning, and polymorph spells? Or does PF fix those, compared to 3.5?Polymorph spells got nerfed pretty hard, but summoning can still be ridiculously powerful.
at least they fixed polymorph. its a shame they didnt sort out summoning too, that would have been a great improvement.
at least they fixed polymorph. its a shame they didnt sort out summoning too, that would have been a great improvement.Arent the main OP spells the summoning, and polymorph spells? Or does PF fix those, compared to 3.5?Polymorph spells got nerfed pretty hard, but summoning can still be ridiculously powerful.
Its the spells that are lose lose situations. Icy Prison is a Save and debilitate or Lose.
Debilitating Portent offers no save except when it applies, each time it applies.
If you notice. The only class without spells or things like spells that is not considered under-powered is the barbarian. Who IMHO is not very balanced.
If you notice. The only class without spells or things like spells that is not considered under-powered is the barbarian. Who IMHO is not very balanced.
Okay... if you say so.
Keep in mind the higher level barbarian abilities are considered SU, and one or two even spell-like, I believe?
So guess what? Fury is innately magical. No wonder stuff that uses it is so better then other feats.
And, yeah, the barbarian can run out of rage. Leaving him only with DR 17/-, +13 to all saves against magic, an increased movement rate, good armor, Power Attack, and tons of hit points with 4 skill points per level and a good skill list.
He's totally hosed without his rage, he is.
==Aelryinth
If you notice. The only class without spells or things like spells that is not considered under-powered is the barbarian. Who IMHO is not very balanced.Okay... if you say so.
It seems like every other strong class is strong for having a variety of options and being adaptable to the situation.
Barbars basically get a +6 to everything and pounce. They don't adapt to situations or have lots of versatility, they just overpower encounters.
Basically the Hulk in the avengers who hangs out with underpowered characters like Captain America (fighter), Black Widow (rogue), and Hawk Eye (Archer Fighter). With more balanced characters like Thor (Paladin) and Iron Man (Alchemist).
I see Marthkus' point, Rage is basically an excuse to give a martial Charles Atlus powers. In the case ofthe Avengers analogy the less super powered heroes have plot and character weight which Pathfinder does not represent often.
Who IMHO is not very balanced.
Compared to what?
Who IMHO is not very balanced.Compared to what?
Itself and everyone.
Barbars basically get a +6 to everything and pounce. They don't adapt to situations or have lots of versatility, they just overpower encounters.
If you notice. The only class without spells or things like spells that is not considered under-powered is the barbarian. Who IMHO is not very balanced.
Well, there's what 4 of them? And considered by who, and at what level? Sure, if we're talking 20th level, spellcasters rule. But @ 1st level, warriors rule.
And, for all intents & purposes, Paladins & Rangers aren't spellcasters to any real degree.
Cavalier isn't considered underpowered, just limited. If you can charge on your mount, you're great.
Gunslinger can't cast spells at all, and can win DPR olympics. They certainly aren't considered underpowered, if anything OP.
Adaptability is very nice, but it doesn't measure actual power. The Bard is extremely adaptable, but is only low-mid range, and the Inquisitor is just about as adaptable as they come, and is pretty much the exact middle.
The thing is- the Fighter can have Fly cast on him. In fact, my Sorc often does that exact thing, if needed- since the fighter can put out several times more damage than even my 13th level sorc can. Easily. You can't measure any one classes "power" or "adaptability" as to how well it does in a solo arena battle vs a known opponent. D&D is a TEAM game.
Who IMHO is not very balanced.Compared to what?Itself and everyone.
** spoiler omitted **
Oh, ok. You're right, the Barbarian doesn't adapt to circumstances. He's very similar to the Fighter: Build versatility, but zero tactical choices.
The thing is- the Fighter can have Fly cast on him. In fact, my Sorc often does that exact thing, if needed- since the fighter can put out several times more damage than even my 13th level sorc can. Easily. You can't measure any one classes "power" or "adaptability" as to how well it does in a solo arena battle vs a known opponent. D&D is a TEAM game.
Just so you know, you chose to do less damage than the Fighter. A Caster can obliterate martials in the raw damage department. You chose to validate the Fighter's existence. This isn't a bad thing by any means, but it glosses over the fact that the Fighters role in bringing damage(pretty much his only use) is ultimately pointless. Instead of killing the enemy, you used your action to let him do it as his action.
1st level, Casters can still determine who wins or loses a solid number of times a day. Color Spray the most egregious offender can hit a DC of 15-16 at first level fairly easily with an 18 casting stat and Spell Focus. A Sorcerer can get 5 color sprays a day with the Arcane Bloodline. A Gnome can get a DC of 17 at first level. 18 Charisma with racial already added in, Spell Focus(Illusion), +1 Gnome bonus, 1st level spell. 50/50 failure rate for a CR 4 monster with a Good Will Save.
The Bard is an amazing class in that it is a combat multiplier. If you've already got your bases covered, its always better to have a Bard than another party member whose role is already covered. Like a Wizard, Cleric, Ranger and Bard party will function more effectively than a Wizard, Cleric, Ranger and Fighter.
Adaptability is something you can measure. If 9/10 situations you function perfectly then you are of greater value than someone who functions 5/10 situations.
Not every one's GM is a Jerk. And writing lol in such a comment doesn't look very grown up.
But when I build a dwarf/duerga with a class that doesn't need cha I sometimes think: So I could play this guy with a cha of 6 or I could go all the way and give him cha 3. Doesn't matter much anyways.That's when your DM declares your foe is actually a psychic and he Ego Whips your dwarf to 0 CHA, lol.
That's the only thing I can remember that does CHA damage though.
I put lol at the end because it was half joking.
Joking half: 'Killer antagonist DM' screws over playerSerious half: Ability damage IS a real drawback from having dangerously low stats...
...but it's a solution space that's not often used. Rarely do you hear about that time a dragon is killed because it's DEX10 is reduced to 0.
Oh, ok. You're right, the Barbarian doesn't adapt to circumstances. He's very similar to the Fighter: Build versatility, but zero tactical choices.Who IMHO is not very balanced.Compared to what?Itself and everyone.
** spoiler omitted **
Not entirely. Several rage powers offer quite a bit of versatility compared to more narrowly specialized combat feats.
What versatility means isn't only that you can change your focus day to day as a wizard can, though that is, of course, a good example of a versatile thing. However, you can have unchanging powers that are still versatile powers, because even if you don't pick again each morning, they may still be useful in a wide array of situations.
Example: Strength Surge vs Improved (whatever). Strength surge works on any maneuver, has no prerequisites, and scales with level. You are going to be able to get some use out of the rage power in most any circumstance involving combat maneuvers, without needing to know what you're going to want to do several levels ahead of time. Combat maneuver feats, on the other hand, are specialized. Improved Disarm will never be useful when you need to bull rush someone (and you have to specialize even further, with more feats, if you want your mastery of disarming to scale up).
You'll find similar things to be true of, say, attack bonus. Reckless Abandon works with any weapon and scales automatically, Weapon Focus does not and scales by charging you more feats.
Spell Sunder has a lot to offer in versatility for the same reason that Dispel Magic is a versatile spell; even though it only does one thing, that one thing is a very versatile thing.
Rage itself is a good example, since you're never going to regret not picking the right weapon training group.
Etc...
Not to say there aren't some narrowly specialized stinkers on the list (I'm looking at you, No Escape). But if you want a versatile barbarian who can do more than just hit things, you've got great tools right there in the rage powers, and you'll likely be able to achieve much more versatility within combat-focused fields (attacking, maneuvers, overcoming battlefield control and defenses) than a fighter who tries for the same.
...but it's a solution space that's not often used. Rarely do you hear about that time a dragon is killed because it's DEX10 is reduced to 0.
That's because you rarely have monsters with ability damage/drain as players. While spells and poison can deal ability damage/drain they are not the that effective vs dragons. More so as penalties to abilities and ability drain don't stack for reducing the stat to zero.
|
If you notice. The only class without spells or things like spells that is not considered under-powered is the barbarian. Who IMHO is not very balanced.Well, there's what 4 of them? And considered by who, and at what level? Sure, if we're talking 20th level, spellcasters rule. But @ 1st level, warriors rule.
And, for all intents & purposes, Paladins & Rangers aren't spellcasters to any real degree.
Cavalier isn't considered underpowered, just limited. If you can charge on your mount, you're great.
Gunslinger can't cast spells at all, and can win DPR olympics. They certainly aren't considered underpowered, if anything OP.
Adaptability is very nice, but it doesn't measure actual power. The Bard is extremely adaptable, but is only low-mid range, and the Inquisitor is just about as adaptable as they come, and is pretty much the exact middle.
The thing is- the Fighter can have Fly cast on him. In fact, my Sorc often does that exact thing, if needed- since the fighter can put out several times more damage than even my 13th level sorc can. Easily. You can't measure any one classes "power" or "adaptability" as to how well it does in a solo arena battle vs a known opponent. D&D is a TEAM game.
Okay, I keep seeing the DPS Olympics thrown around for the Gunslinger, and I'm wondering if they're all old statistics, before some of the errata (such as weapon cords) that toned them down. I can only assume they were mostly tipping the scales at TWF Dual Pistols (possibly with Named Bullets), since I myself know the great joy of that build.
And the Fighter ISN'T adaptable, he's static. That's his thing, and he's only meh at it. You want a static character who CAN perform, you get a Barbarian. The Fighter lacks in saves/adaptability/skills/etc. All he does is good damage. Anything you're talking about can be done with a Barbarian and better too. Cast the Fly spell on a Barb and he's an engine of destruction (And before you say "Superstition says no", cast it before battle since it's minutes a level and you have no reason not to, or the Barb doesn't Rage for a round and accepts the spell, or just delays until the Sorc goes)
Well, there's what 4 of them? And considered by who, and at what level? Sure, if we're talking 20th level, spellcasters rule. But @ 1st level, warriors rule.
Playing a witch through Way of the Wicked as we write.
Yet to experience even a tiny bit of the rumored low level spellcaster blues. Spells and hexes have both been devastatingly effective.
Which matches my experience with other spellcasters as well. By the time you get high enough level that at-will Daze can't pull any weight anymore, you have a good sized assortment of spells and scrolls such that you don't really run low much faster than anyone else.
Of the other classes you mention, I haven't seen a dedicated gunslinger in a game yet so I can't say much about that. I do have to say that if you think bards are weak, I can't agree with that based on what I've seen.
(Though, I think it may perhaps be partly a level thing informing our disagreement here. I think bards really start to come into their power at 7th level and after, and I don't know if you play bards there? I vaguely seem to recall you mentioning at other times that you rarely venture into the higher levels).
It's sooooo common. Like the crafting feats; everyone says they're OP, and if you're going by the CRB alone, sure. But they made an EXCELLENT little section in ultimate campaign that gave great guidelines on how to limit it/make it balanced (a crafting feat= about 25% WBL boost, any "savings" come out of crafter's WBL). There was even a discussion I got into about high level playability where SKR chimed in about how he saw that several stereotipically "broken" high level tactics simply didnt work (like scry & fry) because people interepret very "openly", pass over sentences, or forget the general rules.
The game is FAR from perfect, but there has been significant efforts to balance.
Can you provide a link to that discussion? I'm really interested in what SKR has to say about that.
Damaging spells can get big numbers but reducing or completely avoiding that damage especially at higher levels is incredibly easy. It's the various debilitating effects that make spells powerful, that and having a swiss army knife kit of solutions.
Damaging spells can get big numbers but reducing or completely avoiding that damage especially at higher levels is incredibly easy. It's the various debilitating effects that make spells powerful, that and having a swiss army knife kit of solutions.
Reflex saves suck at higher levels,,,
HOw?
And, yeah, the barbarian can run out of rage. Leaving him only with DR 17/-, +13 to all saves against magic, an increased movement rate, good armor, Power Attack, and tons of hit points with 4 skill points per level and a good skill list.He's totally hosed without his rage, he is.
==Aelryinth
Mm?
IMproved Stalwart stacking with class DR, invulnerable rager, and human superstitious bonus stacking with Superstitious.
And the other stuff.
But, hey, instead of blanket saves against magic, the fighter as an alternate favored class ability can get +1 against two combat manuvers! He even gets to pick the manuvers if he's a human!
=+Aelryinth
|
|
The argument that one thing is overpowered while another thing is underpowered is silly really. As far as I know and from the table top RPG systems I have seen or played this argument can be made for near all of them.
Go to any published RPG systems website and visit their forums and type in over powered/OP/UP/under powered/nerfed/balance/unbalanced/insert other keywords here and you will find arguments that something is ill designed or balanced within the confines of the rule system. This is universal.
The argument made earlier in the thread that this is because some things like magic exist as a rules derived mechanic and not as a narrative derived mechanic. Honestly, that is the first time I have ever thought of it that way and I can see the legitimacy to that argument. The problem is that I think you have the same problem regardless. The example of bending light to become invisible but it makes it harder for the caster to see was used (that's actually amazing and well thought out which has me considering looking at the novels they are referencing). There are tons of narrative magical systems out there that completely favor the casters over everyone else (I’m thinking of books and not games here). Actually I'm having a hard time considering one that doesn't. I think that appropriate. How does one go about making "magic" that is balanced with a guy and his trusty knife while still having it feel like magic and keep players interested in it being a viable and desired choice for play?
The argument keeps coming up "a caster CAN DO this and this and this and this, blah blah blah blah" What a caster CAN DO and what a caster HAS DONE are two very different things. Can a caster Scry? Yes but it takes spells to do so which gives them less offensive spells to use later.
The game...any game comes down to balancing party ability to daily encounter challenge. Casters are useless without spells and reasonably most casters are going to prepare or have on their spell list some things that are not directly offensive in nature. If your party is clearing 6 encounters a "day" without difficulty because the caster can spell the encounters to “sure wins”, then the GM can 2 more encounters to the day. Even if they are mook encounters hardly worth rolling initiative for, they act as resource taxing. Or the GM can add other challenges that fireballs and lightning bolts don't really help against.
The argument will come "some people just want a casual experience and don't have a lot of time to devote to learning the rules as well or thinking about encounters that much or understand tactics that much, blah blah blah and from that perspective these things are broken and overpowered" This is true and is a valid argument, however, just because it is a valid argument for casual players does not mean it is true of more serious and veteran players who are playing with the idea of a challenge in mind.
Not only can one come up against things that are immune to magic or have spell resistance, or energy resistance/immunity, anti-magic zones, or amazing saves, or a number of other things but an NPC caster is more likely to have some of these spells that are situational active and in use. A player must design his character to handle as many situations as possible. The GM can design an NPC to be a direct challenge to the players and their abilities with little to no explanation needed or given.
There isn't a jack of all trades character and while casters come close they still have a hard time handling certain things just as any charaacter class has its pros and cons.
You are incorrect. Superstition works all the time. The drawback is 'while raging' he can't willingly receive any friendly spells.
Which means, if he's not raging, he can accept buffs!
And yes, he'd take a massive penalty. However, if he's out of rage, the only explanation for that is he's probably been fighting all day, likely against mooks with a boss here and there, and at that level it isn't going to matter...he'll still hit them.
I'd also like to point out that Fueled by Vengeance can completely mitigate rage loss, especially if you are being a Stalwart. You let stuff hit you, you hit them back, and you can recover rage as fast or faster then you spend it! If you're in a campaign where super-extended combats are going to happen, you'd be foolish not to grab the rage power.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rage powers are so good that you could gestalt fighter and rogue together and the barbarian is still better at DPR and combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there are any roflstomp spells in Pathfinder.
Sure there are! Right Here!
I see the rofl but not the stomp. :P
The argument that one thing is overpowered while another thing is underpowered is silly really. As far as I know and from the table top RPG systems I have seen or played this argument can be made for near all of them.
Go to any published RPG systems website and visit their forums and type in over powered/OP/UP/under powered/nerfed/balance/unbalanced/insert other keywords here and you will find arguments that something is ill designed or balanced within the confines of the rule system. This is universal.
The argument made earlier in the thread that this is because some things like magic exist as a rules derived mechanic and not as a narrative derived mechanic. Honestly, that is the first time I have ever thought of it that way and I can see the legitimacy to that argument. The problem is that I think you have the same problem regardless. The example of bending light to become invisible but it makes it harder for the caster to see was used (that's actually amazing and well thought out which has me considering looking at the novels they are referencing). There are tons of narrative magical systems out there that completely favor the casters over everyone else (I’m thinking of books and not games here). Actually I'm having a hard time considering one that doesn't. I think that appropriate. How does one go about making "magic" that is balanced with a guy and his trusty knife while still having it feel like magic and keep players interested in it being a viable and desired choice for play?
The argument keeps coming up "a caster CAN DO this and this and this and this, blah blah blah blah" What a caster CAN DO and what a caster HAS DONE are two very different things. Can a caster Scry? Yes but it takes spells to do so which gives them less offensive spells to use later.
The game...any game comes down to balancing party ability to daily encounter challenge. Casters are useless without spells and reasonably most casters are going to prepare or have on their spell list some things that are not...
Ok... really people, immunity to magic is a non-issue for casters as is SR. There are such a thing as SR: No spells in the case of magic immune targets and regular SR does not scale well enough to be considered an actual defense. You are also severely underestimating just how many spells a caster has past 5th level. So very often a caster can in fact do X, Y, Z, Q, and P.
You are incorrect. Superstition works all the time. The drawback is 'while raging' he can't willingly receive any friendly spells.
Which means, if he's not raging, he can accept buffs!
" A barbarian gains the benefits of rage powers only while raging,"
whoops, I flubbed on that. Thought it fell under a different category!
==Aelryinth
Actually, SR scales well enough to be a considerable nuisance. It forces you to spend feats on spell penetration just to get to a fairly reliable 70% chance of landing a spell...which means 1/3 of the time, you fail. Yeah, you can get that to 90% with Spell Perfection and your favorite spell, but now you've got at least 3 feats or more devoted just to punching SR.
The favorite way to beat SR is to throw Haste on the fighter and launch him at the enemy. SR doesn't deal with that well.
==Aelryinth
Actually, SR scales well enough to be a considerable nuisance. It forces you to spend feats on spell penetration just to get to a fairly reliable 70% chance of landing a spell...which means 1/3 of the time, you fail. Yeah, you can get that to 90% with Spell Perfection and your favorite spell, but now you've got at least 3 feats or more devoted just to punching SR.
The favorite way to beat SR is to throw Haste on the fighter and launch him at the enemy. SR doesn't deal with that well.
==Aelryinth
Or use spells that don't allow SR...
Reverse Gravity for the win lol
Glitterdust is almost always a good option. So's cloudkill. The create spells are nice. So are wall spells. Or acid fog. Or summon monster.
Sure, there's not any one SR: No spell that will solve all your problems. But there are several generally useful ones and you can have scrolls for the rest. Coming up with a scenario where one SR: No spell isn't useful doesn't prove that they are useless.