|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why must every class perform the same tasks at the same level as all others for there to be balance?
I dont think anyone here is saying all classes should be able to do exactly the same things at the same levels. But they should be able to perform roughly equivalent actions. A 15th level fight should not only be able to do anything a 5th level.wizardcould do, albeit not in exactly the.same.way...he.should be capable of things that the wizard cannot hope to replicate, at least at his current level of power. Pathfinder pretty much flips that...the 5th level wizard can pretty much do anything the 15th level fighter can do, as well as a million things he can't do. It gets even worse when you consider that the edition changes from 2e to 3.0, 3.0 to 3.5, and 3.5 to PF all gave pretty decent boosts to spellcasters, while each time removing more and more of their weaknesses and limitations. This, dispute the fact that some already considered spellcasters to be overpowered in the previous editions.
|
I'd like to see a 5th level wizard do more damage, have an AC equivalent, a CMB/CMD equivalent, saving throws, skills, anything that a 15th level fighter can do and better.
Exaggerating arguments do not make good arguments and don't prove any point other than how much the topic has made people sore.
That's how well you do a thing, not what things you can do. A 5th level Wizard can do damage, has an AC, has a CMB and CMD, Saving Throws, and Skills (actually, probably more skills than the Fighter)...and has a vast array of other options to boot.
His raw power is less than the 15th level Fighter, sure, but he has astronomically more options he can utilize. He has Flight and Fireball, Alter Self and Suggestion...and the Fighter has no equivalent suite of tricks. Which is the issue in a nutshell, and I believe Kthulhu's point.
The Fighter, with 10 extra levels, can do one thing better than the Wizard: Combat. And not even all of that, since the Wizard can do several useful combat tricks such as Invisibility, Mirror Image, or See Invisibility...while the Fighter cannot.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see a 5th level wizard do more damage, have an AC equivalent, a CMB/CMD equivalent, saving throws, skills, anything that a 15th level fighter can do and better.
Exaggerating arguments do not make good arguments and don't prove any point other than how much the topic has made people sore.
Someone said a group of level 15 martials wouldn't have fared any better than some low level caster party when it came to climbing down a rope. This is one area that martials do fine and some even get abilities that can compete with the spell. A spell that's restricted to six classes leaving many casters with less of a chance of climbing than a martial. Should clerics now get some ability that let's them climb too?
This was met poorly by tirades of casters being able to do other things as well and how this is some huge investment for a martial class. This is no more an investment as preparing spells. Yes spells can provide more variety, but you are still limited to a number per day. Asking for more versatility in martials is asking for all classes to be the same. You want every class to be able to overcome any challenge.
I think you are confused. People want Classes to be able to overcome multiple challenges, not *all* challenges. However, the only challenge that a Fighter is "good" at overcoming is combat. And even in combat they lack many, many options that give other classes versatility there. And that is a shame when people look at classes like Alchemist and Barbarian who can full attack on a charge and have utility abilities, Ranger who can cheat Prerequisites for their "Bonus Feats", cast utility spells, *AND* have triple the skills. Or Paladins who get a host of immunities, self-healing, utility magic, double the skill points, superior saves, and crazy boosts against Evil enemies. Or maybe Druid who can take a pouncing form, has a pet Fighter, casts spells that bend nature itself to their will, and still has double the skill points.
Maybe the problem isn't that we want Fighters to do *all* of the things. We want them to be able to actually do something well outside of combat and not be severely lacking for options in combat. It's really that simple.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I think you are confused. People want Classes to be able to overcome multiple challenges, not *all* challenges. However, the only challenge that a Fighter is "good" at overcoming is combat. And even in combat they lack many, many options that give other classes versatility there. And that is a shame when people look at classes like Alchemist and Barbarian who can full attack on a charge and have utility abilities, Ranger who can cheat Prerequisites for their "Bonus Feats", cast utility spells, *AND* have triple the skills. Or Paladins who get a host of immunities, self-healing, utility magic, double the skill points, superior saves, and crazy boosts against Evil enemies. Or maybe Druid who can take a pouncing form, has a pet Fighter, casts spells that bend nature itself to their will, and still has double the skill points.I'd like to see a 5th level wizard do more damage, have an AC equivalent, a CMB/CMD equivalent, saving throws, skills, anything that a 15th level fighter can do and better.
Exaggerating arguments do not make good arguments and don't prove any point other than how much the topic has made people sore.
Someone said a group of level 15 martials wouldn't have fared any better than some low level caster party when it came to climbing down a rope. This is one area that martials do fine and some even get abilities that can compete with the spell. A spell that's restricted to six classes leaving many casters with less of a chance of climbing than a martial. Should clerics now get some ability that let's them climb too?
This was met poorly by tirades of casters being able to do other things as well and how this is some huge investment for a martial class. This is no more an investment as preparing spells. Yes spells can provide more variety, but you are still limited to a number per day. Asking for more versatility in martials is asking for all classes to be the same. You want every class to be able to overcome any challenge.
How does not building them for DPR get them triple the base starting skills, utility spells, self-healing, full attack + movement, immunities, superior saves, or even cheating "bonus feat" prerequisites. And keep in mind, if you suggest something that's open to all classes, that just gives the other classes *even* more versatility because they already have options to do those things and can now focus on the other.
*Mr. Popo voice* But no please... do go on *Mr. Popo voice*
(Also what's with this weird DPR persecution complex, I didn't even mention DPR once, but right there the comment is.)
Ok... which of those gives you Self-Healing? Or 4+INT starting skill points. Is there a non-race specific one that lets you pounce? How about feat that lets you full attack after you use one of your abilities (ooo Dimensional Dervish is a thing isn't it!), is there one that will let you actually get around high stat prerequisites for your "bonus feats", maybe one that Maximizes your damage, takes a group of enemies out of a fight if they fail a save, or how about one that lets you make objects out of nothing, got something that gives non-race specific flight, or geez even burrow? No really, what are these feats that help the Fighter, without making the other classes even better. Please do tell. It would certainly help your argument if you did.
And what are thoe feats that help Fighter out of combat versatility?
Because stuff like Cosmopolitan and Skill Focus really don't matter if you don't have the skill points to back them up.
EDIT:Ninja'd by Anzyr.. ¬¬'
And what are thoe feats that help Fighter out of combat versatility?
Because stuff like Cosmopolitan and Skill Focus really don't matter if you don't have the skill points to back them up.
EDIT:Ninja'd by Anzyr.. ¬¬'
In fairness, your post is significantly more to the point and more eloquent.
Knowing 10-12 spells per level is completely different from having the ability to cast 10-12 spells per level per day.Why is a single talent worth so much at mid to high levels? You have 5-7 other ones at this point.I think the point is that a second level spell isn't really a scarce resource at mid to high level. I also can't imagine a prepared caster running around without a few low level pearls of power.
I suppose the only thing to really ask yourself is how scarce of a resource do you think a spell slot is by comparison to a feat? I would just point out that of the two, only spell slots can be gained through money.
Because you only have those 5-7 others.
Compare that to a Caster. Wizards can conceivably know every spell on their list (but tend to average about 10-12 spells per spell level in my experience) while Sorcerers/Oracles (who get the short end of the stick) end up learning somewhere between 20 and 30 spells over the course of their carreers and Druids/Clerics have access to ALL spells on their list.
Essentially, if a non-magical feat/talent is limited use and not providing benefits comparable to the best spell available to a caster, or at will and not providing benefits comparable to a spell of 1-2 spell levels lower, then it's horribly underpowered.
I said nothing about balance before, and the point here is options, which noncasters have less of.
Out of the 739k gold remainder of my above post you spend 137k on a book of clear thought +5. Coupled with your initial 13 strength to qualify for combat expertise should you need it you now have an 18 intelligence. 2 base + 6 int + 1 favored class and you're sitting at 180 skill points. 20 ranks in 9 skills or any variation of. Grab a +6 int headband for 36k or grab a +6 Int/wis one for 90k and you're now up to 12 skills having 20 ranks. Those skill focuses go further now.And what are thoe feats that help Fighter out of combat versatility?
Because stuff like Cosmopolitan and Skill Focus really don't matter if you don't have the skill points to back them up.
EDIT:Ninja'd by Anzyr.. ¬¬'
Which of those does anything I requested? Because having to sink money into a Stat Item to avoid Prerequisites is something anyone can do. The Ranger gets to just *do* it. Skill Focuses also don't get you 4+ INT skills. And lord help you if a Bard took Skill Focus (Bluff), because they just got Skill Focus (All INT based skills) with one feat thanks to Pageant of the Peacock. Can your "extra" feats get you all that? Don't forget that includes Craft (Basketweaving), Craft (Poison), Craft (Disturbing Mental Image), Craft (Forum Post)... etc.
What you need for versatility is 2 or 3 of the things I mentioned in my post. Of which you have yet to provide a feat for (see above). Please do so as it will help your argument and not providing them is making your argument look weak.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't we all just flag and move on like adults?
So all you're asking for is that all classes be the same. Got it.
Fighter Tacticians get 4+INT, Lore Wardens get 2+2+INT
Can your bard out DPR a fighter now too? Do they compete with CMD/CMB? What about that epic AC of a bard? Do bards get some crazy number of hit points? Do tell.
***
None of you will be happy until fighters cast spells. This game is not for you. WoW is calling you.
That is not a Feat. I'm asking for feats that remedy the issues not Archetypes. Why? One remedies Fighter issues, the other only fixes it for a specific kind of Fighter.
And I said 2-3 off the list. Not *all* of them. Did you notice how each class I mentioned had different things? Or do you believe Barbarians, Druids, and Paladins are "the same"?
If you can't provide 2-3 of the many options for versatility in my post, please consider conceding the point.
I said nothing about balance before, and the point here is options, which noncasters have less of.Knowing 10-12 spells per level is completely different from having the ability to cast 10-12 spells per level per day.Why is a single talent worth so much at mid to high levels? You have 5-7 other ones at this point.I think the point is that a second level spell isn't really a scarce resource at mid to high level. I also can't imagine a prepared caster running around without a few low level pearls of power.
I suppose the only thing to really ask yourself is how scarce of a resource do you think a spell slot is by comparison to a feat? I would just point out that of the two, only spell slots can be gained through money.
Because you only have those 5-7 others.
Compare that to a Caster. Wizards can conceivably know every spell on their list (but tend to average about 10-12 spells per spell level in my experience) while Sorcerers/Oracles (who get the short end of the stick) end up learning somewhere between 20 and 30 spells over the course of their carreers and Druids/Clerics have access to ALL spells on their list.
Essentially, if a non-magical feat/talent is limited use and not providing benefits comparable to the best spell available to a caster, or at will and not providing benefits comparable to a spell of 1-2 spell levels lower, then it's horribly underpowered.
Read my last few posts. You have 512k gold, 10 feats from levels and 8 feats from the fighter class to add armor, saves, and versatility to your character. You need nothing else for offensive prowess to hit an average CR 20 on ALL attacks, 12 skills with 20 ranks, a +6 wisdom headband on top of whatever other stat you started with, a 24 intelligence.
How much more do you need for versatility?
Numbers dont equal solutions.
Casting feather fall still takes 2 rounds (round and a half at best) and is a limited resource.It's a limited resource, but at high levels, not a very limited one.
And feather fall would only take one round. It's an immediate action to cast and has to be cast on an already falling creature. So, stop off the edge and cast. Time it so you're withing 60' of the bottom.That's assuming the caster doesn't already have some form of Overland Flight up.
Limited resources don't stop being limited if you can use them twice a day. Tying up slots reduces versatility in another area.
So can we also assume all the martials have rings of feather fall, or some other means of flight too since we're making assumptions? 2200gp isn't much for a high level character. Swap out a ring and jump. Put your main ring back on when you get to the bottom.
Arcanist laughs at your idea of having to "tie of spell slots"
You're adventuring in a desert. Of what use is Fast Climber? You're stuck with it.
You're adventuring in Plains. Along a river. In a dungeon of 10' corridors.
Unless you're in a situation where there's something to climb and a need to climb it, you've wasted one of your precious Talent slots. It's like taking Mounted Combat and never getting into a fight on horseback. It's a complete waste.
The wizard memorizes a different spell...or, if it's overland flight, keeps it because flying is extremely useful, even moreso if there's nothing around to climb.
And that's the difference between spells and talents. 1) I can swap out my spells tomorrow, without need for a five day delay and a bunch of gold for retraining and 2) spells are useful outside those situations, and can do things skills cannot (Spider Climb can go across ceilings or virtually unclimbable walls, for instance...even at level 3).
Being able to make scrolls for half price is a class benefit that Rogues don't have. It allows out of combat preparation. The rogue can't climb walls outside of adventuring and announce he's got double speed for his next two climb checks all of a sudden.
At high levels, the casters give everyone Overland Flight and climbing becomes pretty redundant without some extremely contrived circumstances (anti-magic dungeons or something).
==Aelryinth
Design Manager
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can your bard out DPR a fighter now too?Yes.
Not when a dumb brute creature just stands still and trades Full-Attacks, but under every other circumstance you better believe it.
Back when I was playtesting for Dreamscarred Press' Path of War I actually did some comprehensive comparisons between the bard (arcane duelist), cavalier, warlord, inquisitor, fighter, and magus, each in a party where the other 3 members consisted of the iconic sorcerer, rogue, and cleric.
When calculating total combat contributions, damage from the party that would not have otherwise succeeded or occurred (such as a Rogue whose attempted sneak attack would not have connected if the bard were not using inspire courage, or damage from a charge attack the cleric was able to take as an immediate action thanks to the cavalier's Tactician) was divided in 1/2 and credited to the facilitating character. Probably not surprisingly, the order of effectiveness in adding to the party's total DPR was Bard, Warlord, Cavalier, Inquisitor, Magus, and finally, Fighter.
More importantly though, the Fighter's contributions to combat at levels 6, 11, and 16 actually did the least to lower the number of combat rounds required to complete an encounter; by 16th level, the party where the bard was filling the role of primary frontliner and melee DPR was completing combats as much as 3 rounds faster than the Fighter, while Cavalier and Warlord had right around a 2 round advantage. Magus performed closest to the Fighter, with his party completing encounters with a mere 3/4 of a round advantage (though the Magus finished most of his run-throughs with resources left over as he was playing fairly conservatively in anticipation of a 4 combat encounter day. It's possible that he could have stretched that lead by novaing a bit more heavily).
Due to the fact that they were finishing combat rounds more quickly, the Bard, Cavalier, Inquisitor, and Warlord actually all found that they were able to accomodate 2-4 additional combat encounters in a given day over the party with the Fighter. It probably goes without saying that all the other classes also performed better out of combat than the Fighter. The modules used for testing and the party level used to challenge them were-
Broken Chains - 6th level party
Ruby Phoenix Tournament - 11th level party
The Moonscar - 16th level party
Despite the fact that none of the testing was done as an evaluation of the Fighter, but was actually aimed at testing the balance of the Warlord, I learned a few major things:
1) Teamwork focused classes do way more to enhance the game. If you ever go read the now locked "Main Problem with Fighters" you'll see I actually started out arguing on the side that the Fighter was fine as is because this is a teamwork oriented game and the other classes are supposed to be facilitating the Fighter. My mind was changed fairly dramatically after starting the Path of War playtesting when I really dug in and discovered what self-sufficient classes who are actually geared towards team play are capable of. This also had the side effect of convincing me to reconsider where I stood on the Paladin, who I'd previously believed to be a little OP, but who clocked in right behind the Warlord and just barely ahead of the Cavalier when I ran him through a quick playthrough of the level 10 test.
2) Items are never a substitute for built in options. Again, I started with this idea that the Fighter is supposed to be the guy using items. He's the guy with winged boots and a magic weapon, and that's how he gets things done, right? The problem becomes, everyone else has access to the same items, plus their own suite of abilities. The Fighter doesn't have anything that makes him particularly good at using magic items, in fact, he probably has the lowest facility with them of any class in the game. Even the most cleverly built Fighter was still bringing less to the table. He's also so much more dependent on having that gear and so much less able to create it for himself, that he frequently had fewer handy knick-knacks and useful items to see him out of a tight situation, like a sudden and unexpected fall.
3) Action economy is king. The ability to sustain movement and effectiveness is a huge game changer. The classes who could eke the most out of their standard actions, or who were improving the total action economy of the group by gaining extra actions from Teamwork feats or other abilities, had the biggest advantages. This was one of the major reasons the Fighter was so solidly behind; his action economy compared to the other classes was just terrible. Between swift actions, extra standard actions, even extra full round actions (like charge), it was almost like the Fighter was taking 1/2 as many turns as the other classes.
So ever since really learning to appreciate those points, I've definitely seen the need to improve the noncaster classes. I won't call them mundane, because frankly I don't think there's room in a game that intends you to slay dragons, travel planes, defy devils, and lay low hydras for mundane people. I want heroes. And even if they aren't Supernatural, they should still be Extraordinary.
Anyone can Bull Rush? How about Fighters who can initiate a Bull Rush against two enemies simultaneously without needing them to stand in a conga line and impose big penalties?
Fighters are poor at skills? How about abilities reflecting that the reputation of a guy who can wrestle trolls is bound to get out and earn him some serious street cred wherever he goes, making guards stand aside and nobles give a little extra consideration to his words? Or maybe Fighters who are so good at climbing that if an ally falls they can drop after them, catch them, and then snag the wall halting both their falls? The latter option wouldn't even take that much deviation from the existing rules, mostly just making a couple skill checks more achievable for the guy most likely to be performing them and allowing the drop and catch.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Here's an interesting thought:
Consider a 5th-level fighter and a 10th-level commoner.
The fighter's main abilities are his combat ability (BAB and feats) and his higher HP. He has +5 BAB, six feats, and ~32 HP (before factoring CON and such, which isn't part of the class). The commoner has the same BAB, five feats, and ~35 HP. The fighter is ahead with proficiencies (and one extra feat), but the commoner has double the skill ranks and more final HP (due to more CON bonuses/FCBs).
To put it another way:
If your GM offered you the choice of either playing a fighter or playing a commoner with weapon/armor proficiencies and half XP needed per level, you should choose the commoner over the fighter.
Overland flight is personal, so casters do not give it to everyone. Which is fine, because not all superheroes fly either.
The issue is not even that you can switch spells out the next day if your climbing spells are pointless. The issue is that if you invest a rogue talent or feat or whatever into Climbing, you still never get to compare, not even at level 20, with what that 2nd level spell provides.
Why doesn't a rogue's wall climbing allow eventual climbing on ceilings, or the ability to move across 3-D solid terrain like an anime ninja at the higher levels?
It's like it caps out at a fat kid struggling to climb a rope in gym class.
Ssalarn, If I could favorite that twice, I would in a heartbeat.
Especially the part of the teamwork-focused classes. I really wish paizo had bought into that design philosophy. Not that I dislike Dreamscarred's take on it, but both the fact that it's 3rd party and the fact that Dreamscarred being a smaller publisher means that they can't put out the same volume of support that Paizo could if they did it instead.
If your GM offered you the choice of either playing a fighter or playing a commoner with weapon/armor proficiencies and half XP needed per level, you should choose the commoner over the fighter.If your GM offers you the opportunity to play ANy class at half xp you should take it.
Really? A level 20 commoner is comparable to a level 10 wizard?
Why can't we all just flag and move on like adults?
Too many of these threads get hijacked into the same useless "caster/martial disparity" debate, and always by the same people. Many of whom then resort to personal insults.
|
Design Manager
|
Ssalarn, If I could favorite that twice, I would in a heartbeat.
Especially the part of the teamwork-focused classes. I really wish paizo had bought into that design philosophy. Not that I dislike Dreamscarred's take on it, but both the fact that it's 3rd party and the fact that Dreamscarred being a smaller publisher means that they can't put out the same volume of support that Paizo could if they did it instead.
Yeah, teamwork (and Teamwork) dynamics are some of my favorite in the game. I'm really big on "You + me = 2.5" instead of "You + me = 1.5". Teamwork should be a party of adventurers coming together to be greater than their individual parts, as opposed to a party of adventurers coming together so that one of the parts can function.
Take DrDeth's example of how his favorite tactic is for his sorcerer to basically throw the fighter at the enemy so he can shred face. Fastball special a la' arcane goodness. Wouldn't a better example of teamwork be a griffon mounted, order of the staff cavalier with Mounted Mastery challenging that enemy, charging him, and then annihilating him with Synchronized Smash as the sorcerer drops a fireball right on top of both of them? Two players combining their strengths creating a more potent whole, instead of one player's abilities being subverted to serve as the crutch that allows another player to participate.
***EDIT***
Which brings up another cool idea: how about Fighter and Rogue abilities that capitolize on the bonuses they receive when they are buffed by a friendly caster, or let them react to enemy spells? Maybe Rogues who can attack with two weapons as a standard action while hasted, or counter-attack with a ranged weapon whenever they succeed on a savign throw with their Improved Evasion. How about Fighters who can make full attacks at the end of a charge when benefiting from a flight spell cast by an ally, or deal mental damage to an enemy caster whenever a mind-affecting ability is used on them?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Too many of these threads get hijacked into the same useless "caster/martial disparity" debate, and always by the same people. Many of whom then resort to personal insults.
...Says the guy who is always present, shouting "Rogues are the ROXXOR!!!" and claiming those who disagree with with him are dirty theorycrafters who don't play the game (or play it wrong).
Why can't we all just flag and move on like adults?Too many of these threads get hijacked into the same useless "caster/martial disparity" debate, and always by the same people. Many of whom then resort to personal insults.
Yes, I have noticed that one side tends to calmly present the facts and math, while the other side tends to claim the maths are just theory and that the other side "doesn't really play the game". In fact, I think that has happened on this very page. I wonder which side is which...
Have you ever considered the debate is "useless" because some people actively attempt to argue against the fact that Caster have way way more options then martials. And that many of those options are much stronger then "deal more damage". Or that they allow them to completely overcome obstacles without rolling. Or avoid inconveniences like death. Or...
