2) Um... just HOW is the fighter tougher than the Barb? Barbs tend to have higher con (rage), DR x/-, pretty much all good saves (superstition), d12 HD vs the fighter's d10, and they can't be caught flat-footed... so how is the fighter stronger....the issue here is the word "tend". Is totally (and sadly) true that barbarian can be just tougher than fighters but it is not like all barbarian are that way. and the options are pretty limited too, no superstitiosn welcome mediocre saves. No beast totem and/or that heavy armored archetype by good AC.
Um... again.. what?
The barb will ALWAYS have:
More HD (d12 vs d10)
Better saves (2 good saves is always better than just 1, even without superstition to make it 3 good)
More resistance to damage (just about every Barb has DR X/-)
Higher Con (Rage is specced off Con and Rage gives a HUGE bonus to con that stacks with items).
Literally, the fighter is worse than the Barb in EVERY WAY SHAPE AND FORM at surviving short of having a better AC (if you do not take beast totem)...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think its weird that people don't want better designed classes and actively promote that we shouldn't try bringing weaker classes up to par.
I think it's a shame since outside of magical story hour, rogues and fighters have the least narrative power.
Honestly there is absoluetely no reason to play rogues onces ACG comes out...
Want to play a skills guy? The investigator does it MUCH better...
Want to play an Assassin? Slayer does wonders...or the strictly better ninja...
Want to play a trap guy? Ranger with Trapper archetype...
Want to play a tomb raider? Alchemist with Crypt Breaker archetype or Archeologist Bard...
Honestly there is literally NO reason to play rogues...
|
Very true, however, I believe that your points on degree of optimization by other players and the part about the GM falls strongly into the very simplistic point I just made.
I don't think so. I think a lot of people who'd care about their character being underpowered and overshadowed don't feel Rogues or Fighters are if playing them in highly unoptimized parties or with GMs who go out of their way to compensate. Their opinion that the class is balanced isn't about a different philosophy on what makes a good character, just a differing environment that influences what they think makes that sort of character. Two identical people with identical philosophies in different groups might have opposite opinions on this issue.
Party size, however, is definitely a demographic where these things can come into play.
Oh, definitely. The more players, the more roles are already covered, so the more likely someone who cares about being overshadowed is to be overshadowed if playing certain things...but on the other hand, the more players the more people there are to take up the slack for a weaker character if the player doesn't care about being overshadowed.
Party composition matters, too. If nobody ever plays classes with high skill points other than Rogue, Rogue players have a definite niche sorta by default.
To your point about published adventures...where do you stand on your belief as far as how Paizo publishes AP paths? I know they are generally made for a 15 point buy 4 person party if I recall...but do you feel they focus on creating them for more..as you say...optimized parties?
No, they don't. At least not mostly. Indeed, APs being cakewalks for such parties is a complaint I've seen a lot more than the reverse 'the APs are too hard' complaint.
I've only played in one of their APs with our group and there are 5 players and we rolled for our stats with the average being probably around a 20 point buy equivalent. I have not come across any difficulties with the party and have had to scale the encounters up about 25% for a bit of a challenge...and all characters are definitely not optimized. Would you say that is typical? Or is it a case of lucky dice combined with it being Rise of the Runelords?
That's probably typical. As I understand it, RotRL is actually one of the tougher ones.
Published material is interesting because it's not necessarily very difficult...but, in the hands of many GMs, it's also not very adaptable. If your characters can't defeat a particular challenge for whatever reason (examples: Nobody has flying or any ranged worth talking about and you're fighting an Erinyes, nobody has any ability with traps and there's a particularly deadly one of those, etc.) then you're just kinda screwed. This is even more true of PFS, I believe.
This means that your party (and in PFS your character alone, since not even the party is consistent) must be equipped for a wide variety of situations and there's a very high likelihood of getting pretty messed up some time if you aren't. That breeds a very specific mentality, not necessarily either for or against optimization, but it's a very different environment than something where the GM can and will tailor quests and encounters to the PCs capabilities, and inevitably effects the reasons one thinks particular capabilities are important.
Personally, I've done both (though not PFS), and come to the conclusion that with a good GM who wants people to have equal spotlight time, you can absolutely go with a character less powerful than the others. In an unmodified published adventure, or with a GM who enjoys making things hard for the PCs? Doing so is selfish if anyone in the party is invested in their characters and their success, since things aren't going to get easier just because your character is less capable, and you're thus actively decreasing the party's odds of success. Even if those odds are pretty high, reducing them from 80% to 75% isn't very nice to the other players.
Of course, that only matters if the people playing care about their characters and want them to succeed...but frankly, I have no desire to play in a game where people aren't invested in their characters a fair bit, and I don't think that's an unusual attitude.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I've never had an experience like this.A lot of people enjoy that kind of game though, and do experience this problem. Are they "wrong" for doing so, to the point that making some of the underperforming classes (monk, fighter, rogue) up to par would be tantamount to abetting a crime? I, personally, have never had an immunodeficiency problem, but I don't go around proclaiming that AIDS doesn't exist. Instead, I contribute to AIDS reasearch. Other playstyles are not wrongbadfun, and awareness and sympathy of playstyles other than one's own is NOT a bad thing.
I've never felt in competition with the other characters.Hopefully no one does. It's all about playing in a team, not against your teammates. But here's the thing: in a very tough game, some of us want to be able to contribute to the team on equal footing, not simply tag along and force everyone else to compensate for our inadequacies. Like I keep saying, if four kids are playing nerf basketball in the driveway, it's all good. But if little Timmy from the driveway is suddenly in the NBA playoffs, he'll have lots of fun, but the rest of his team is forced to carry him, to their detriment. If you never play in that kind of game, you won't ever see this, but again, that doesn't mean it isn't a thing.
'Underpowered' might imply a weaker combatant, but not a weaker character.You're missing the boat here. At higher levels, the fighter, rogue, and monk have no ability to do anything other than obligingly tag along, while their caster friends are given the ability to change the storyline as a class feature. That means, at upper levels, some classes are relegated to being lackeys at best and spectators at worst -- if the casters are actually using their abilities. The fighter is still great at combat, but he can't really do anything else, and that's a major weakness unless your game is nothing but combat.
Okay, you need to calm down on that. Firstly, I made no judgements on anyone's playstyles. Secondly, I was not responding to your baited 'what about a ultra difficult adventure turned up to 11' threadjack. I was responding the OP's question on whether a class being deemed "rubbish" and outpaced later on stops me from playing that class. I simply stated no, and qualified that with why. If you have some vendetta against someone who responds to a question, fine, but please avoid throwing accusations around, and inferring meaning that simply isn't there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly there is absoluetely no reason to play rogues onces ACG comes out...
Want to play a skills guy? The investigator does it MUCH better...
Want to play an Assassin? Slayer does wonders...or the strictly better ninja...
Want to play a trap guy? Ranger with Trapper archetype...
Want to play a tomb raider? Alchemist with Crypt Breaker archetype or Archeologist Bard...
Honestly there is literally NO reason to play rogues...
Unless you want to do all of those things. Of course you won't be as good as a specialist, but that doesn't mean the jack-of-all-trades is rubbish.
Unless you want to do all of those things. Of course you won't be as good as a specialist, but that doesn't mean the jack-of-all-trades is rubbish.Honestly there is absoluetely no reason to play rogues onces ACG comes out...
Want to play a skills guy? The investigator does it MUCH better...
Want to play an Assassin? Slayer does wonders...or the strictly better ninja...
Want to play a trap guy? Ranger with Trapper archetype...
Want to play a tomb raider? Alchemist with Crypt Breaker archetype or Archeologist Bard...
Honestly there is literally NO reason to play rogues...
Actually Pathfinder rewards specialization...
And, as Deadmanwalking had said, the Investigator can actually single-handily do all of them. Especially when you consider that Paizo has said they are powering up the Investigator from the playtest.
And actually, the rogue is piss-poor at doing any of the roles...
Sure they can play a trap guy... but traps are such a tiny role and most parties tend to dislike traps because:
Traps that work with trapfinding are boring (Roll to notice, roll to disarm, ok lets go...)
Traps that are are cool and flavorful tend to be more story driven ones that don't really work with Disable Device (i.e. pit traps (you just need to not step on them) or giant, mega traps).
Anything other than the trap guy though, the rogue is kind of weak... He is the WORST combatant in the same (3/4 BAB with no way to boost it [even the monk can act as full BAB with combat manuevers and flurry], literally the worst saves in the game, and they have no real mechanical advantage when it comes to skills... oh and htye are MAD as all hell).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually Pathfinder rewards specialization...Unless you want to do all of those things. Of course you won't be as good as a specialist, but that doesn't mean the jack-of-all-trades is rubbish.Honestly there is absoluetely no reason to play rogues onces ACG comes out...
Want to play a skills guy? The investigator does it MUCH better...
Want to play an Assassin? Slayer does wonders...or the strictly better ninja...
Want to play a trap guy? Ranger with Trapper archetype...
Want to play a tomb raider? Alchemist with Crypt Breaker archetype or Archeologist Bard...
Honestly there is literally NO reason to play rogues...
Of course it does. real life does as well. That doesn't mean it isn't satisfying playing the jack-of-all-trades, just as it doesn't mean it isn't satisfying being the jack-of-all-trades. I enjoy what most call 'underpowered' characters quite a bit. I don't take a class, feat, arcana, talent, spell, etc that doesn't make sense RP wise. It results in highly ineffective characters. And I love it. My last character was a halfling barbarian. My current character is a Soul Forger (good god are they weak at just about everything - mediocre AC, HP and combat, and badly restricted spell casting). Doesn't matter. They both made sense in my mind, and their backgrounds, which I write before creating the character, supported those routes, and ultimately created the choices they made. Any feat they take is directly associated to the actions they performed, and failures they endured, working up to that level. It has not disrupted the party. It has not affected the narrative capability of the game at all. If anything, their mediocrity create more plot hooks than anything else.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the mechanics of class A and class B both fit your concept, and A is obviously better mechanically than B, why would you pick B?
Variety. I'll play A, sure. But if I decide to play a similar concept again in the future I'll probably come at it from a different angle and try out B for a change.
As long as the character is interesting and is good enough to do the job, I don't particularly care if they're the best possible combination of plusses available.
.That's probably typical. As I understand it, RotRL is actually one of the tougher ones.
Published material is interesting because it's not necessarily very difficult...but, in the hands of many GMs, it's also not very adaptable. If your characters can't defeat a particular challenge for whatever reason (examples: Nobody has flying or any ranged worth talking about and you're fighting an Erinyes, nobody has any ability with traps and there's a particularly deadly one of those, etc.) then you're just kinda screwed. This is even more true of PFS, I believe.
This means that your party (and in PFS your character alone, since not even the party is consistent) must be equipped for a wide variety of situations and there's a very high likelihood of getting pretty messed up some time if you aren't. That breeds a very specific mentality, not necessarily either for or against optimization, but it's a very different environment than something where the GM can and will tailor quests and encounters to the PCs capabilities, and inevitably effects the reasons one thinks particular capabilities are important.
Personally, I've done both (though not PFS), and come to the conclusion that with a good GM who wants people to have equal spotlight time, you can absolutely go with a character less powerful than the others. In an unmodified published adventure, or with a GM who enjoys making things hard for the PCs? Doing so is selfish if anyone in the party is invested in their characters and their success, since things aren't going to get easier just because your character is less capable, and you're thus actively decreasing the party's odds of success. Even if those odds are pretty high, reducing them from 80% to 75% isn't very nice to the other players.
Of course, that only matters if the people playing care about their characters and want them to succeed...but frankly, I have no desire to play in a game where people aren't invested in their characters a fair bit, and I don't think that's an unusual attitude.
That's probably why the APs are slightly underpowered for a lot of people..they didn't want to create those scenarios where you run into a wall...easier for GMs to learn after a few fights and slowly scale up than be constantly bombarded with the death hammer and have to do a "redo" or something else each time...can be frustrating for players.
I agree with the attitude of being invested in your character...though dying is a part of the game and we generally get a kick out of it when someone kicks the bucket...especially in enjoyable and fantastic fashion. We all laugh about it...pay tribute...and move on. That might just also be a difference in our play styles as well. Losing a character stinks..but for us it's easy to laugh and move on and come up with our next fun concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think its weird that people don't want better designed classes and actively promote that we shouldn't try bringing weaker classes up to par.
I think that really is a misreading of the issue that people bring up when they say that claims of fighter and rogue uselessness and weakness are exaggerated. It's not that we don't think adding a couple of skill points to the fighter would be bad. It's not that we think scaling some combat feats better so they advance with the character level would be bad.
Rather, it's that doing so isn't absolutely necessary as much as they could be reasonably welcomed options since, in our experience, we're doing just fine despite the so-called deficiencies of these classes. So we may be picky about what changes we think will actually help matters without damaging the overall flavor of the game.
....That's probably typical. As I understand it, RotRL is actually one of the tougher ones.
Published material is interesting because it's not necessarily very difficult...but, in the hands of many GMs, it's also not very adaptable. If your characters can't defeat a particular challenge for whatever reason (examples: Nobody has flying or any ranged worth talking about and you're fighting an Erinyes, nobody has any ability with traps and there's a particularly deadly one of those, etc.) then you're just kinda screwed. This is even more true of PFS, I believe.
This means that your party (and in PFS your character alone, since not even the party is consistent) must be equipped for a wide variety of situations and there's a very high likelihood of getting pretty messed up some time if you aren't. That breeds a very specific mentality, not necessarily either for or against optimization, but it's a very different environment than something where the GM can and will tailor quests and encounters to the PCs capabilities, and inevitably effects the reasons one thinks particular capabilities are important.
Personally, I've done both (though not PFS), and come to the conclusion that with a good GM who wants people to have equal spotlight time, you can absolutely go with a character less powerful than the others. In an unmodified published adventure, or with a GM who enjoys making things hard for the PCs? Doing so is selfish if anyone in the party is invested in their characters and their success, since things aren't going to get easier just because your character is less capable, and you're thus actively decreasing the party's odds of success. Even if those odds are pretty high, reducing them from 80% to 75% isn't very nice to the other players.
Of course, that only matters if the people playing care about their characters and want them to succeed...but frankly, I have no desire to play in a game where people aren't invested in their characters a fair bit, and I don't think that's
The thing is even is the APs are easy (I think so anyway), trying to beat an AP with say 4 Fighters is going to be a a lot harder then trying to beat it with 4 Wizards. Now if the Fighter's don't care about success that's fine, but presumably when you play an AP you'd like to complete it.
'Underpowered' might imply a weaker combatant, but not a weaker character.You're missing the boat here. At higher levels, the fighter, rogue, and monk have no ability to do anything other than obligingly tag along, while their caster friends are given the ability to change the storyline as a class feature. That means, at upper levels, some classes are relegated to being lackeys at best and spectators at worst -- if the casters are actually using their abilities. The fighter is still great at combat, but he can't really do anything else, and that's a major weakness unless your game is nothing but combat.
I will give an example here. Let's say you are in the mid to high levels, and you need to kill NPC X for whatever reason. You have a rogue built on diplomacy.
2 others NPC's have easy access to NPC X. One of them is a friend that you can not convince to willingly harm her under any reasons. The other is not so loyal, but he won't help you without a favor. Trying to intimidate him will likely not end well, and without this favor he is just not going to cooperate. The 3rd option is that you can try to get to NPC X without the help of any of the other 2, but it will require a very complex plan.
Caster: I don't want to deal with this. "Dominate Person" on either of the other 2 NPC's = dead NPC X
Just to make sure things stay on topic my specific example is not the point. The point is that magic just allows the party to do things to the story that non-magic users can not.
That GM could have thought he had an evening of RP'ing and strategizing set for the players, only to have it ruined(in his opinion) by one spell.
PS: There are other scenarios where being able to cast spell X can bypass whatever a GM has planned.
The thing is even is the APs are easy (I think so anyway), trying to beat an AP with say 4 Fighters is going to be a a lot harder then trying to beat it with 4 Wizards. Now if the Fighter's don't care about success that's fine, but presumably when you play an AP you'd like to complete it.
That's a bit misleading. It's equally hard for both. A group of 4 fighters will undoubtedly get further into the AP than a group of wizards where a group of wizards would be able to succeed later...but would never get past the early scenarios. There's a reason wizards are weaker early and fighters are weaker late. The fighters would find a way to power through the low level scenarios if they're smart before succumbing to later magic...the wizards however, would undoubtedly be overrun with their low hp, AC, and damage starting out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think its weird that people don't want better designed classes and actively promote that we shouldn't try bringing weaker classes up to par.
I think that really is a misreading of the issue that people bring up when they say that claims of fighter and rogue uselessness and weakness are exaggerated. It's not that we don't think adding a couple of skill points to the fighter would be bad. It's not that we think scaling some combat feats better so they advance with the character level would be bad.
Rather, it's that doing so isn't absolutely necessary as much as they could be reasonably welcomed options since, in our experience, we're doing just fine despite the so-called deficiencies of these classes.
So we may be picky about what changes we think will actually help matters without damaging the overall flavor of the game.
Flavor? The Fighter is devoid of it. It does extremely little to fulfill the flavor text of it's own class and succeeds it in the weakest way. Reading it how much of it is actually true I wonder? Theyre certainly not masters of arms as they have to focus in one or two weapons to be effective. They don't rouse the hearts of armies. Despite "studying the art of combat" still only 2 skill points per level and full attacking is literally the best thing to do 99% of a campaign.
My point being, the classes in need of help dont get the "but it's flavorful card" when they fail repeatedly because they lack mechanics to live up to that flavor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards are not weaker then Fighters early on. And the early scenarios in most APs have space between them allowing the Wizards to be at full spells. Remember a Wizard can take multiple people out of a fight as a standard action at level 1. A fighter can't.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think its weird that people don't want better designed classes and actively promote that we shouldn't try bringing weaker classes up to par.
I think that really is a misreading of the issue that people bring up when they say that claims of fighter and rogue uselessness and weakness are exaggerated. It's not that we don't think adding a couple of skill points to the fighter would be bad. It's not that we think scaling some combat feats better so they advance with the character level would be bad.
Rather, it's that doing so isn't absolutely necessary as much as they could be reasonably welcomed options since, in our experience, we're doing just fine despite the so-called deficiencies of these classes. So we may be picky about what changes we think will actually help matters without damaging the overall flavor of the game.
Except that the examples of games where "the rogue and fighter are contributing fine!" are poor samples of class strength vs other classes. In many of the examples given, you could just as well run around as a Gnome Commoner with high str and still do decently... In the "RP focused" games (which is a term I hate), the challage level is right where the rogue is ok...
But you see, the very fact that the other classes can play just as easily at those levels AND play meatgrinders where as rogues and fighters get demolished in meatgrinder type games is the problem. The rogue and fighter are literally a waste of space. The only defense I have seen from them is that you have the word ROGUE written on the top of your character sheet...
One thing that really grinds my gears is the idea that "Roleplaying" means taking pointless, unoptimal feats... No, Skill Focus (Prof:Basketweaving) does not make you a better roleplayer. in fact, the guy who sinks his feats into TWF/S&B feats as a "Knightly" fighter/cavalier is actually roleplaying MUCH better since it makes SENSE for him to be out risking his life in combat... That is his profession. A freaking basketweaver is not going to go out and slay a dragon...
Oh! And nothing ticks me off more when these people complain about people who actually built a competent character. If you want to build a stupid, special snow-flake character who is pretty much bad at everthing, that is your perogative, but don't complain when the guy who is actually intelligent and makes SMART decisions shows you up...
Wizards are not weaker then Fighters early on. And the early scenarios in most APs have space between them allowing the Wizards to be at full spells. Remember a Wizard can take multiple people out of a fight as a standard action at level 1. A fighter can't.
Sorry I disagree...I feel they are clearly weaker...and they can only take multiple people out of a fight with luck and circumstance. Additionally they can easily be taken out of the fight with a one hit and move on with the weakest of foes...generally speaking the fighter will not. You lose initiative and you're closed in on and pinned and at that point...they're basically dead ducks.
|
|
The thing is even is the APs are easy (I think so anyway), trying to beat an AP with say 4 Fighters is going to be a a lot harder then trying to beat it with 4 Wizards. Now if the Fighter's don't care about success that's fine, but presumably when you play an AP you'd like to complete it.That's a bit misleading. It's equally hard for both. A group of 4 fighters will undoubtedly get further into the AP than a group of wizards where a group of wizards would be able to succeed later...but would never get past the early scenarios. There's a reason wizards are weaker early and fighters are weaker late. The fighters would find a way to power through the low level scenarios if they're smart before succumbing to later magic...the wizards however, would undoubtedly be overrun with their low hp, AC, and damage starting out.
But a party of four Clerics would rock the whole thing. And a party of three Wizards and one melee Cleric likely do better than three Fighters and a buffer Cleric.
And a party of four Witches could wreck things.
A lot of this has to do with healing being available at low levels...
The thing is even is the APs are easy (I think so anyway), trying to beat an AP with say 4 Fighters is going to be a a lot harder then trying to beat it with 4 Wizards. Now if the Fighter's don't care about success that's fine, but presumably when you play an AP you'd like to complete it.That's a bit misleading. It's equally hard for both. A group of 4 fighters will undoubtedly get further into the AP than a group of wizards where a group of wizards would be able to succeed later...but would never get past the early scenarios. There's a reason wizards are weaker early and fighters are weaker late. The fighters would find a way to power through the low level scenarios if they're smart before succumbing to later magic...the wizards however, would undoubtedly be overrun with their low hp, AC, and damage starting out.
Except for when they are not....
Color Spray, Sleep, Charm Person, Magic Missile, and Vanish are spells... That are all level 1...
Once you hit level 5, wizards pretty much leave fighters behind (especially since you are not wasting spellslots to cast haste or fly on the fighter...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh and don't get started about a party of 4 druids...
You effectively have 4 fighters+4 full casters (a druid party is even funnier because those animal focused buff spells now have even more targets to hit....) at level 1...
The thing is even is the APs are easy (I think so anyway), trying to beat an AP with say 4 Fighters is going to be a a lot harder then trying to beat it with 4 Wizards. Now if the Fighter's don't care about success that's fine, but presumably when you play an AP you'd like to complete it.That's a bit misleading. It's equally hard for both. A group of 4 fighters will undoubtedly get further into the AP than a group of wizards where a group of wizards would be able to succeed later...but would never get past the early scenarios. There's a reason wizards are weaker early and fighters are weaker late. The fighters would find a way to power through the low level scenarios if they're smart before succumbing to later magic...the wizards however, would undoubtedly be overrun with their low hp, AC, and damage starting out.But a party of four Clerics would rock the whole thing. And a party of three Wizards and one melee Cleric likely do better than three Fighters and a buffer Cleric.
And a party of four Witches could wreck things.
A lot of this has to do with healing being available at low levels...
You're definitely right on the clerics hands down..though that goes against the point I was trying to make that some here are flat out ignoring simply because they want to be right that class X must always suck.
Time to go back to work. I obviously won't be able to convince most of the people on here about the validity of things...nor will they obviously ever convince me as in all of my games we've never had issue. To you, however, it was a pleasure speaking with and I've enjoyed your interpretations on a lot of things. A pleasant day to you, and maybe we'll banter some more soon. Cheers.
Design Manager
|
Yeah, the "casters are weaker at low levels" statement is a load of hogwash. They have lower hit points certainly, but that's generally about it.
Low level monsters tend to have saves that are much less competitive than their AC, and between school/bloodline/domain/etc. abilities, bonus spells, etc. it's a rare day indeed for a caster to actually not have enough resources for the 3 combat encounter day that the system is balanced around. You can stretch that to force their resource management out more, but it's still quite probable that the Fighter's hit points will run dry well before the caster runs out of options.
To you, however, it was a pleasure speaking with and I've enjoyed your interpretations on a lot of things. A pleasant day to you, and maybe we'll banter some more soon. Cheers.Thanks! :)
Very nice speaking with you as well, and I look forward to doing so again.
DMW is a great guy... Except when it comes to discussing the best way of adding Dex to damage. Then he's my arch nemesis! >:)
|
|
Except that the examples of games where "the rogue and fighter are contributing fine!" are poor samples of class strength vs other classes. In many of the examples given, you could just as well run around as a Gnome Commoner with high str and still do decently... In the "RP focused" games (which is a term I hate), the challage level is right where the rogue is ok...
The strength of fighters and rogues in relation to the rest of the party can change quite dramatically depending on how many encounters there are in a day, and how much advanced notice the characters have.
It is most noticeable with spell casting characters. A wizard with the right spell can quickly and efficiently end an encounter ... assuming that wizard has the right spell prepared ... at the cost of using up a limited per day resource.
A DM can easily give "underpowered" classes like the fighter or rogue a chance to shine by simply changing the pacing of encounters, adding random encounters, and not having the monsters kindly wait until the party has finished resting to attack.
Except that the examples of games where "the rogue and fighter are contributing fine!" are poor samples of class strength vs other classes. In many of the examples given, you could just as well run around as a Gnome Commoner with high str and still do decently... In the "RP focused" games (which is a term I hate), the challage level is right where the rogue is ok...The strength of fighters and rogues in relation to the rest of the party can change quite dramatically depending on how many encounters there are in a day, and how much advanced notice the characters have.
It is most noticeable with spell casting characters. A wizard with the right spell can quickly and efficiently end an encounter ... assuming that wizard has the right spell prepared ... at the cost of using up a limited per day resource.
A DM can easily give "underpowered" classes like the fighter or rogue a chance to shine by simply changing the pacing of encounters, adding random encounters, and not having the monsters kindly wait until the party has finished resting to attack.
Except Wizard get the ability to retreat to regain spells with greater and greater easy they level up. By 5th, they are sleeping in an extended Rope Trick and by 9th they are teleporting back to their base of operations. Come higher levels instead of a base of operations, the Wizard planeshifts back to their private demiplane, which is of course fast time so he gets 2 days worth of spells for every day. Also, spells aren't really limited after 5th level and certainly not after 9th. If you can blow through 20+ spells on 6 encounters you are doing something wrong.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember all those times when all casters ran out of spells, then the Fighter/Rogue said "Screw it! I'm going on my own!" and did not die horribly a few moments later?
Me neither.
|
|
DMW is a great guy... Except when it comes to discussing the best way of adding Dex to damage. Then he's my arch nemesis! >:)To you, however, it was a pleasure speaking with and I've enjoyed your interpretations on a lot of things. A pleasant day to you, and maybe we'll banter some more soon. Cheers.Thanks! :)
Very nice speaking with you as well, and I look forward to doing so again.
Aw, thanks man. I feel more or less the same. :)
And hey, I don't think we disagree that there should be a generic Dex to damage Feat. That's some common ground! ;)
Wizards are not weaker then Fighters early on. And the early scenarios in most APs have space between them allowing the Wizards to be at full spells. Remember a Wizard can take multiple people out of a fight as a standard action at level 1. A fighter can't.Sorry I disagree...I feel they are clearly weaker...and they can only take multiple people out of a fight with luck and circumstance. Additionally they can easily be taken out of the fight with a one hit and move on with the weakest of foes...generally speaking the fighter will not. You lose initiative and you're closed in on and pinned and at that point...they're basically dead ducks.
It is not really circumstance when you jack up spell DC's and the bad guys have a very bad chance at failing. That put the odds in the caster's favor. Fighters dont have that may more hit points at low levels. 2 hits can take either of them out or one crit.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The strength of fighters and rogues in relation to the rest of the party can change quite dramatically depending on how many encounters there are in a day, and how much advanced notice the characters have.It is most noticeable with spell casting characters. A wizard with the right spell can quickly and efficiently end an encounter ... assuming that wizard has the right spell prepared ... at the cost of using up a limited per day resource.
A DM can easily give "underpowered" classes like the fighter or rogue a chance to shine by simply changing the pacing of encounters, adding random encounters, and not having the monsters kindly wait until the party has finished resting to attack.
Between scrolls (which wizards gain the ability to scribe right from first level) and judicious spell selection, I find it's only the more inexperienced players who run into the problem of not having the right spell prepared. While they not have "Durthold's Dragonslaying Dweomer" memorized when they bump into that white dragon, odds are good that if they know what they're doing they have at least a few items in their repertoire that will allow them to be effective. I've yet to see anyone outside of very new players, or someone who was so focused on their idea of a character married to a particular concept like "fire wielder" that they forgot to memorize non fire spells, actually get caught with their pants down so badly that they didn't have a good way to contribute.
And as I've mentioned previously, Fighters and Rogues, especially Rogues, are running on a resource far more limited and precious than spell slots or per day abilities; they rely on hit points. At the lower end of play Fighters don't have any particular advantage in their AC over other classes, and their poor saves means that they're likely to take the full force of any enemy spells that come their way. If the party is resting because they were so out of resources that they couldn't carry on and they get ambushed because they didn't take the appropriate precautions, in all likelihood the very first thing that will happen is that the Fighter or Rogue, lacking good caster support, will drop very quickly.
The casters may drop quickly as well, but that just shows that no one wants to be caught sleeping.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much as title says.
Every now and then we see someone showing how class X is rubbish (rogues for example)and how other classes outpace them later on. But does this stop you guys from playing these classes which are considered to be under-powered?
Yes, we do sometimes see someone showing how class X is rubbish- and they are invariably wrong.
Nor does it stop me from playing these classes which are "considered" to be under-powered because I do not value the opinion of those that call any class "rubbish".
Aw, thanks man. I feel more or less the same. :)
And hey, I don't think we disagree that there should be a generic Dex to damage Feat. That's some common ground! ;)
Indeed... It's the "Dervish Dance vs Agile Enchatment" discussion that starts the fiery battle where you reveal your evil*!
*(Not actually evil! But I gotta say something to make your opinion look less valid than mine! DD ALL THE WAY!)
|
|
Except Wizard get the ability to retreat to regain spells with greater and greater easy they level up. By 5th, they are sleeping in an extended Rope Trick and by 9th they are teleporting back to their base of operations. Come higher levels instead of a base of operations, the Wizard planeshifts back to their private demiplane, which is of course fast time so he gets 2 days worth of spells for every day. Also, spells aren't really limited after 5th level and certainly not after 9th. If you can blow through 20+ spells on 6 encounters you are doing something wrong.
True, but you also start facing enemies who can counter or adapt to those abilities with greater and greater ease.
Rope Trick leaves behind a clear indicator (the rope). Even if enemies aren't willing to climb up into the pocket dimension they can easily set up an ambush outside the spot and attack the party the moment they reappear. Assuming they don't have their own wizard capable of casting Dispel Magic on the Rope Trick.
A 9th level wizard would need to keep two teleports memorized since they'd need to teleport back into the dungeon (or to a landing spot outside the dungeon) after resting (assuming they want to keep a second teleport on hand so they can retreat again). That means the wizard is having to tie up a significant amount of their daily resources each delve.
And once you start getting into levels where daily planeshifts are an option, you're also in levels where sending extraplanar monsters to stalk the party is an option.
The 20+ spells aren't all going to be encounter appropriate, they're not all going to be equally effective, and you can easily throw more than six encounters at the party (especially once you start adding in random encounters).
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember all those times when all casters ran out of spells, then the Fighter/Rogue said "Screw it! I'm going on my own!" and did not die horribly a few moments later?
Yes. I remember plenty of times in my gaming history where the party wizard said "Guys, I'm out of spells" and the rest of us just shrugged and called it a learning experience in resource management while we pushed on through another handful of encounters before resting for the day.
|
This thread is really inspiring me. Now I really want to make a fighter for PFS with no archetypes or multiclassing. I'm sure with all those feats, I can find something to do with one that I wouldn't normally be able to do with most characters, just because it was too many feats.
It won't be the most optimized character out there, but I should be able to make a useful and fun character out of it.
I already have a mostly-rogue who went into the Halfling Opportunist prestige class that's kinda like a rogue, only weaker. He's at level 6, and manages to contribute every session. He may not be the best damage dealer, but he does enough to be useful, and he really shined in one adventure with more traps than usual.
I'm just not interested in monks. Never have been. But this thread is making me consider giving them another look.
Honestly there is absoluetely no reason to play rogues onces ACG comes out...
Want to play a skills guy? The investigator does it MUCH better...
Want to play an Assassin? Slayer does wonders...or the strictly better ninja...
Want to play a trap guy? Ranger with Trapper archetype...
Want to play a tomb raider? Alchemist with Crypt Breaker archetype or Archeologist Bard...
Honestly there is literally NO reason to play rogues...
Which is a feature, not a bug. The idea that any one class has a monopoly on any one niche or role is no dead, thank goodness. Best thing Paizo ever did.
Wizard can fill nearly any Sorc role, and often better. Does that mean that there's absolutely no reason to play a Sorc?
Oracle can fill nearly any cleric role, and often better. Is the cleric obsolete?
Yes. I remember plenty of times in my gaming history where the party wizard said "Guys, I'm out of spells" and the rest of us just shrugged and called it a learning experience in resource management while we pushed on through another handful of encounters before resting for the day.
Good for you... I can't remember the last time I've seen any fighter/rogue go on on his own in a game past level 8~9 and not regret it moments later.
|
Design Manager
|
***A 9th level wizard would need to keep two teleports memorized since they'd need to teleport back into the dungeon (or to a landing spot outside the dungeon) after resting (assuming they want to keep a second teleport on hand so they can retreat again). That means the wizard is having to tie up a significant amount of their daily resources each delve.And once you start getting into levels where daily planeshifts are an option, you're also in levels where sending extraplanar monsters to stalk the party is an option.
The 20+ spells aren't all going to be encounter appropriate, they're not all going to be equally effective, and you can easily throw more than six encounters at the party (especially once you start adding in random encounters).
Scrolls. The answer to all of the above is scrolls. Wizards get the scribe scroll feat for free, so for a fraction of your wealth you've got all the utility spells you need and they aren't even touching your daily resources. You use your daily resources for your actual in-combat spells, immediate action responses spells, etc.
And again, the Fighters and Rogues are goign to suffer far more from 6 encounter days than the casters are. When their buffing and healing run dry, they're out of the game. It doesn't matter if Power Attack lasts all day long, you still have to get close enough to use it and survive.
Yes. I remember plenty of times in my gaming history where the party wizard said "Guys, I'm out of spells" and the rest of us just shrugged and called it a learning experience in resource management while we pushed on through another handful of encounters before resting for the day.
I find this an unlikely statement unless "the rest of us" happened to include a cleric or druid who actually knew what they were doing and still had spells and abilities in reserve, or you're referring to a 1st level adventure... Probably still with a caster of some kind who hadn't used up his resources.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is really inspiring me. Now I really want to make a fighter for PFS with no archetypes or multiclassing. I'm sure with all those feats, I can find something to do with one that I wouldn't normally be able to do with most characters, just because it was too many feats.
It won't be the most optimized character out there, but I should be able to make a useful and fun character out of it.
Im sure you'd do rather fine as PFS is rather easy, meant to be triumphed by a random assortment of party members.
Longer lasting campaigns on the otherhand instead of short isolated missions...
|
|
Indeed... It's the "Dervish Dance vs Agile Enchatment" discussion that starts the fiery battle where you reveal your evil*!
*(Not actually evil! But I gotta say something to make your opinion look less valid than mine! DD ALL THE WAY!)
You're missing the nuance of my argument, man.
Wordy, wordy, nuance.
There's no nuance in eeeevil!!!! ^^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is really inspiring me. Now I really want to make a fighter for PFS with no archetypes or multiclassing. I'm sure with all those feats, I can find something to do with one that I wouldn't normally be able to do with most characters, just because it was too many feats.
It won't be the most optimized character out there, but I should be able to make a useful and fun character out of it.
I already have a mostly-rogue who went into the Halfling Opportunist prestige class that's kinda like a rogue, only weaker. He's at level 6, and manages to contribute every session. He may not be the best damage dealer, but he does enough to be useful, and he really shined in one adventure with more traps than usual.
I'm just not interested in monks. Never have been. But this thread is making me consider giving them another look.
Just to be clear the sentiment is that they could be better, not that they are useless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm willing to accept that Rogues and Fighters are less powerful than some of the other options, but I'm wondering if people have really felt the effects of this when playing the game.
The reason I'm curious is that I recently wrapped up a game where our party had the following composition:
Fighter (no archetype)
Druid (no archetype)
Rogue (Kitsune Trickster archetype)
Witch (no archetype)
We dealt with everything that our GM threw at us with such ease that he eventually (around level 10) got frustrated, declared the CR system to be "broken", and started having us fight CR encounters of APL+5. At that point he started killing us, but prior to that our fighter was splitting heads every round, our kitsune rogue was tagging people with bleed and sneak attack damage before slipping back into our druid's obscuring mist, and our witch kept cackling to keep up the misfortune and slumber hexes. At no point did any of us feel overshadowed (well, maybe against elementals).
So, I guess my question is, if you can do this well with half your party being under-powered classes, why does it matter that there are more powerful ones out there? If your fighter slays ogres and dragons, who cares that a Barb could have done it a little better?
|
|
Good for you... I haven't seen any fighter/rogue go on on his own in a game past level 8~9 and not regret it moments later.
You're always welcome at our table. We have ~20+ years of stories, some of which do end horribly (the roper incident).
Also, I didn't say the fighter/rogue went on alone. ANY character who goes off alone is pretty much asking for an early grave. The party continued on with an almost spell-less wizard (she still had a single dismissal spell and her cantrips left) and the fighters/rogues took the lead. The wizard still contributed with crossbow bolts and the occasional rays of frost.
Except Wizard get the ability to retreat to regain spells with greater and greater easy they level up. By 5th, they are sleeping in an extended Rope Trick and by 9th they are teleporting back to their base of operations. Come higher levels instead of a base of operations, the Wizard planeshifts back to their private demiplane, which is of course fast time so he gets 2 days worth of spells for every day. Also, spells aren't really limited after 5th level and certainly not after 9th. If you can blow through 20+ spells on 6 encounters you are doing something wrong.True, but you also start facing enemies who can counter or adapt to those abilities with greater and greater ease.
Rope Trick leaves behind a clear indicator (the rope). Even if enemies aren't willing to climb up into the pocket dimension they can easily set up an ambush outside the spot and attack the party the moment they reappear. Assuming they don't have their own wizard capable of casting Dispel Magic on the Rope Trick.
A 9th level wizard would need to keep two teleports memorized since they'd need to teleport back into the dungeon (or to a landing spot outside the dungeon) after resting (assuming they want to keep a second teleport on hand so they can retreat again). That means the wizard is having to tie up a significant amount of their daily resources each delve.
And once you start getting into levels where daily planeshifts are an option, you're also in levels where sending extraplanar monsters to stalk the party is an option.
The 20+ spells aren't all going to be encounter appropriate, they're not all going to be equally effective, and you can easily throw more than six encounters at the party (especially once you start adding in random encounters).
Two teleports? Only if the place you are retreating from is a significant distance from your base of operations. And remember that's only if you need to. If you need to regain all your spells and teleport back, then you still have gained a significant amount of power by resting. Furthermore, if the enemies want to try attacking my base of operations, well... I enjoy easy xp that comes to me.