|
It happened quite a bit in AD&D, but 3.0 and PF rely quite a bit more on action economy (outnumbered = bad) than the older system did.
There was a time when you'd actually send the Thief ahead to scout... Of course, usually he'd return at top speed clutching some kind of jeweled idol eye and pursued by enraged natives, resulting in everybody having to fight the forces of evil in their PJs - but to be fair, at least he returned!
You can still send the rogue out to scout ahead if they are reasonably skilled in stealth (and the player is the cautious type). It's just that a lot of players/DMs don't like that sort of thing for various reasons.
Sending scouts ahead is a fairly standard procedure in the groups I've played with, and the DMs have generally played ball with it. Which is probably why my experience with rogues has been more positive than the norm.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
The issue with the Fighter isn't primarily in combat, it's outside it, where people often feel they have little or nothing to do.
And the Kitsune Trickster is one of the few Archetypes that actually give Rogue something approaching real skill-class advantages. And their effectiveness, from description, was partially due to party synergy (which is always nice).
And I don't object inherently to people playing Rogues or Fighters...nor I think do most others. We just feel like they shouldn't be penalized for doing so, and the fact that some people don't care about the penalties, while nice for them, doesn't mean said penalties aren't real.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's my point. Going alone is a sure way to die. So not having limited resources is not a big advantage (especially when you're wholly dependent the resources of other classes, as Fighters often are).
If the Fighter's allies are out of resources, then so is the Fighter, because he drains a lot more resources from the party than he brings in.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It happened quite a bit in AD&D, but 3.0 and PF rely quite a bit more on action economy (outnumbered = bad) than the older system did.
There was a time when you'd actually send the Thief ahead to scout... Of course, usually he'd return at top speed clutching some kind of jeweled idol eye and pursued by enraged natives, resulting in everybody having to fight the forces of evil in their PJs - but to be fair, at least he returned!
You can still send the rogue out to scout ahead if they are reasonably skilled in stealth (and the player is the cautious type). It's just that a lot of players/DMs don't like that sort of thing for various reasons.
Sending scouts ahead is a fairly standard procedure in the groups I've played with, and the DMs have generally played ball with it. Which is probably why my experience with rogues has been more positive than the norm.
Scouting is indeed potentially good. But Rogues have no advantage at doing so over any other Class with Stealth, and a potentially severe disadvantage as compared to those with Invisibility (Bards, Inquisitors, Alchemists, Investigators, etc.). And most of them have enhanced escape methods if caught as well...which the Rogue does not (the Ninja has Vanishing Trick...but that's kinda mediocre for this purpose). Ooh, and Perception enhancers (Acute Senses leaps to mind) which, again, the rogue lacks.
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?
As a GM yes I have seen the fighter and monk suffer first hand. Nobody has ever taken a rogue to high levels in my games.
And saying the fighter slays dragons without details is not saying much. <--Not an insult, but not all GM's run creatures the same way.
|
| 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?
Considering the other half of your party was two of the most powerful classes in the game, and who sounded like they were doing a good job supporting the Rogue and Fighter, you ended up with a party that was exactly where it should be. Sounds like the Rogue was running a "magical" race as well, which likely helped (I'm guessing he had Vulpine Pounce?). What if it hadn't been a witch and druid running control and buff/debuff though? what if it had been a Fighter, a Rogue, a Cavalier, and an Inquisitor? I think you'd have found that it was a very different experience. Conversely, had it been a Witch, a Druid, a Barbarian, and a Bard, the experience likely would have been the same or tilted more strongly in your favor.
Basically, it sounds like you had a group consisting of players with very strong system mastery. There may be some other questions regarding the GM's ability to run the encounters, select monsters, utilize monster abilities, etc., but the core of the thing is that you had a group with two of the best classes in the game for control and support working very tightly in concert in two well-built versions of two of the "weaker" classes. Based on the scenario you're laying out I feel pretty confident that, yes, you could have done even more with a different group composition, and possibly a good bit worse.
It's that "a good bit worse" that tends to get people upset. They're generally people who like the Fighter and Rogue, but who have found themselves stymied and frustrated when they played in a game where they didn't have the good fortune to have two competent full casters backing them and keeping them relevant. They'd like to know that their characters chances of success hinge more upon their own choices and skill than upon who else in the group is going to be there to fill in the cracks, because those cracks are really only pronounced in a very small number of the (what is it, 29 now?) classes available in the game.
It happened quite a bit in AD&D, but 3.0 and PF rely quite a bit more on action economy (outnumbered = bad) than the older system did.
There was a time when you'd actually send the Thief ahead to scout... Of course, usually he'd return at top speed clutching some kind of jeweled idol eye and pursued by enraged natives, resulting in everybody having to fight the forces of evil in their PJs - but to be fair, at least he returned!
You can still send the rogue out to scout ahead if they are reasonably skilled in stealth (and the player is the cautious type). It's just that a lot of players/DMs don't like that sort of thing for various reasons.
Sending scouts ahead is a fairly standard procedure in the groups I've played with, and the DMs have generally played ball with it. Which is probably why my experience with rogues has been more positive than the norm.
Scouting ahead with a rogue is another complaint on the boards. In my groups the party does not often split so I don't know how it would go in my games though.
The short version is the inability of the rogue to escape or fight their way out is a weakness, if they are noticed.
|
|
The barbarian do not have two good saves. And the diference in AC could be huge (except, of course because paizo fixed that for barbarian post core).
With a +2 to Will Saves at 1st level that evolves to a +4 eventually, they come awfully close.
Ashield did some Math a couple of months ago, the diference in AC meant that hte barbarian could recieve almost three times more damage.
For -6 AC? Yeah, that seems possible. Of course, Beast Totem is hardly the only way to increase that.
My point is that there is huge gap between the superstitious + beast totem + other standard barbarian stuff and almost all other forms of barbarians. That gap is the wider, by far, among any martial.
True to some degree, though there are several good non-Beast Totem builds. Superstition is pretty essential, though, I admit.
The majority of barbarians are at the fighter power level. Only a really small set of option put hte barbarian on top.
See, if almost everyone takes a particular option, you don't get to say that the majority of them are less good because it's only one option. That's like saying Fighters should be looked at ignoring Weapon Specialization because 'most of them don't have it'. It's simply not true.
|
|
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.
Hit points are generally the easiest and cheapest thing to recover. Wands are very cheap per charge, and Use Magic Device is open to anyone willing to stick a rank in it (which is more likely to be the rogue than the fighter).
Scrolls do definitely extend the effectiveness of a wizard. But they're still rather expensive, especially once you start scribing higher level spells.
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.
The party I was thinking of consisted of a fighter, a paladin, a cleric who was about 1/2 through his spells, a rogue, and a wizard who was down to a single dismissal spell and some cantrips.
We were fighting giants and I believe Azer. Or maybe they were just dwarves from the plane of fire. Either way, we easily made it through another two or three encounters before a party of Azer ambushed us in close quarters. That took care of the rest of the cleric's healing. From there we had one more fight and a couple traps before we made it to a safe place to set up camp.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You remove weapon specialization of the equation and fighter remains basically the same. You remove suprestition and barbarian basically falls.
The majority of barbarians are at the fighter power level. Only a really small set of option put hte barbarian on top.See, if almost everyone takes a particular option, you don't get to say that the majority of them are less good because it's only one option. That's like saying Fighters should be looked at ignoring Weapon Specialization because 'most of them don't have it'. It's simply not true.
I'm not sure that's accurate...but even if it was, that's really not the point. I'm noting how ridiculous an argument predicated on "Most Fighters don't take Weapon Specialization." is, and noting that you're doing the same thing by saying most Barbarians lack Superstition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I don't object inherently to people playing Rogues or Fighters...nor I think do most others. We just feel like they shouldn't be penalized for doing so, and the fact that some people don't care about the penalties, while nice for them, doesn't mean said penalties aren't real.
Fair Enough. I tend to think power imbalance is only relevant if it's strong enough to interfere with someones ability to have a good time. In our game, with these classes, that was never the case.
As a GM yes I have seen the fighter and monk suffer first hand. Nobody has ever taken a rogue to high levels in my games.
And saying the fighter slays dragons without details is not saying much. <--Not an insult, but not all GM's run creatures the same way
It was certainly a team effort. We fought two before we started dying. Both times it went the same way. Our witch identified the dragon type with her insane Knowledge Arcana and cast haste, and our druid used the appropriate Protection from Energy, Communal. Our Nodachi wielding fighter shut down both encounters pretty handily with his buffs. The dude did a lot of damage on those 15-20 x2 crits with weapon specialization, and weapon training. The rogue opened up while the dragons were flatfooted (his INIT bonus was +11) and made them bleed.
Considering the other half of your party was two of the most powerful classes in the game, and who sounded like they were doing a good job supporting the Rogue and Fighter, you ended up with a party that was exactly where it should be. Sounds like the Rogue was running a "magical" race as well, which likely helped (I'm guessing he had Vulpine Pounce?). What if it hadn't been a witch and druid running control and buff/debuff though?...
The rogue was actually about as non-optimized as it gets. He wasn't running pounce, he was making ranged attacks from within 30 feet with a short bow. He did fine as long as it wasn't something immune to precision damage. To me it just seems a little silly to evaluate every class in a vacuum. You're going to be in a 4-5 man party in most cases, so the fact that you can build a well supported group with a fighter vs a barb seems like it makes the whole argument a wash.
If you'd like to see rogues or fighters buffed, great, I fully support you, but I disagree deeply with others who claim that there is "literally no reason to play a rogue".
Observations based on a homebrew campaign. I have a higher optimization level than most of my party. The first character I built was a really effective Oracle. In a party of 4 or more people, I was often dropping 50% or more of the enemies in a given fight, often with a single Black Tentacles spell. I also provided summons, buffs, and healing, and ton of other stuff. And I had decent skills to boot, with a particularly good diplomacy score, which combined with my own decisiveness wound up basically making me the leader. My character was also hot headed, and wound up being a little arrogant-- where the rest of the party feared the big bad evil wizard, my Oracle trusted his own power to handle it. My guy was able to simply overpower a lot of things, either on magic or skills or both, and his ego reflected this. When I moved away, we wrote him out of the main plot and had him go on side solo quests done with my DM over skype. He functions just fine by himself.
I then was offered a chance to rejoin the party as a new character, and decided that I wanted to play Captain America. I reached the conclusion that the best way to bring that concept to life was a Fighter (Brawler) with a dip into Monk (Maneuver Master). Paladins and Rangers might have been more potent but would come with stuff I wasn't interested in, and feats were the best way to achieve my melee goals. I also talked my DM into relaxing some feat prerequisites and working with me to make combat maneuvers more relevant, which she was for.
Cap is a beast in combat-- while he's not fully optimized for damage he as greater trip for mad AoOs and Shield Slam for more battlefield control. I pumped up his acrobatics so I could perform super hero level gymnastics, and his intimidate for Enforcer checks. He also has a rank in all of his class skills, so he's got OK Stealth and Sense Motive. I didn't have the ranks left to be good at anything else, such as Diplomacy, so this version of Cap was a socially awkward nerd who underwent a magical experiment that turned him into a socially awkward nerd in peak physical condition.
I was basically able to solo a ship full of dudes by shield bashing people overboard, keeping them knocked off their feet, and intimidation. I played to the environment where my Oracle would have just dropped summons and called it a day, and it was a blast. Solo adventures were tricky beyond combat-- it's hard to do covert ops behind enemy lines when you have a penalty in Bluff-- and I wished I had more skill points. But I discovered lacking ranks in diplomacy made me really, really careful about how I approached social situations. My Oracle could basically say whatever he wanted and roll the dice. Cap had to avoid that when ever he could. This also translated into a bit of a stumbling manner of speech, which lent itself to the socially awkward thing.
But man, Cap is a team player. Since he knows he can't lie to save his life, or figure out what this magical ring does, or a lot of other things, he takes pains to win over his teammates that my Oracle never did. He tactically advises people to best utilize their abilities as part of the unit. In social situations he let's the bard do the talking, but makes an occasional Sense Motive check, followed by a big scary "You're lying. I don't like when people lie." It's a very different feeling, but it's also pretty fun.
So, moral of the story is you can make a bad class good given the right circumstances. If your GM works with you to alleviate some of those problems. If you play in a campaign where the environment can actually be utilized. If you have a concept that best works with that class, and know what you are doing.
That doesn't make the class good per se. If the new Brawler class from the Advanced Class Guide were out I would have used that instead. And in a campaign that subscribed to a more standardized model of play, like PFS, I might have chosen something else.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair Enough. I tend to think power imbalance is only relevant if it's strong enough to interfere with someones ability to have a good time. In our game, with these classes, that was never the case.
That's great. I've been the Rogue when it was the case. Not so fun. And not due to optimized characters either.
If you'd like to see rogues or fighters buffed, great, I fully support you, but I disagree deeply with others who claim that there is "literally no reason to play a rogue".
But see, that's not a condemnation or a statement you can't play one. It's a statement that
"Whatever you want to do with a Rogue, there's another class that can do it better."
That's it. And it does indeed mean there's basically no reason to play one beyond wanting to write 'Rogue' on your character sheet or desiring to play 'hard mode'.
|
|
Scouting ahead with a rogue is another complaint on the boards. In my groups the party does not often split so I don't know how it would go in my games though.
The short version is the inability of the rogue to escape or fight their way out is a weakness, if they are noticed.
Oh, there are certainly risks with sending out a lone scout (or a pair of scouts). I didn't mean to imply that players/DMs don't like that sort of thing for bad reasons.
But it's never been an issue in my personal experience. The players who enjoy playing scout-type characters are generally accepting of the risks, and the times where a scout ended up captured or on the wrong end of a trap have generally lead to interesting plot developments. I've been amazed at what some players come up with when their backs are against the wall. The non-scouting players have generally been accepting of a little wait while the rogue scouts, because of how effective it is as setting up ambushes, bypassing fights, and otherwise extending play.
As for rogues, I think scouting is the reason why my group is generally positive toward sneak attack. Most of the issues with sneak attack are alleviated by a situation where it is super easy to get sneak attack damage. I've watched a knife-master rogue almost single-highhandedly clear a big chunk of camping barbarian highwaymen.
|
I do not look at classes as being underpowered or sucky. Each does have SOME use. I tend to look at what I want to build and play and will build the pc with the class as the base. Yes, I do have 2 pfs fights that are tank builds but one has been left for gm credit. I do not ever see myself as playing rogues but out of my not a fun build with that class. I have seen some people make awesome rogues though. Each class can stink if not built in a proper way.
Fair Enough. I tend to think power imbalance is only relevant if it's strong enough to interfere with someones ability to have a good time. In our game, with these classes, that was never the case.That's great. I've been the Rogue when it was the case. Not so fun. And not due to optimized characters either.
If you'd like to see rogues or fighters buffed, great, I fully support you, but I disagree deeply with others who claim that there is "literally no reason to play a rogue".But see, that's not a condemnation or a statement you can't play one. It's a statement that
"Whatever you want to do with a Rogue, there's another class that can do it better."
That's it. And it does indeed mean there's basically no reason to play one beyond wanting to write 'Rogue' on your character sheet or desiring to play 'hard mode'.
Back again...work lull. Maybe I'm missing something...and I undoubtedly am as I haven't spent countless hours crawling through archetypes and feats etc. But if your character concept that you want to play as a sneak with sick counter attacking precision damage, trap circumvention, elite scouting skills, enhancing your abilities with low level enhancement spells like true strike, not to mention the utility of hampering foes with dispels and stat drains all on top of being the Face character of the group with skill points to spare....how the heck do you do all that with another class and make it even better? BTW...I generally do not like class dipping...I find it doesn't make a lot of sense from a character background standpoint unless an RP element happened in the adventure.
I'm not trying to argue here...I REALLY don't know. Maybe that's one of the problems here...people not knowing the incredible in-depth knowledge that one would need to accomplish these things.
Fair Enough. I tend to think power imbalance is only relevant if it's strong enough to interfere with someones ability to have a good time. In our game, with these classes, that was never the case.That's great. I've been the Rogue when it was the case. Not so fun. And not due to optimized characters either.
If you'd like to see rogues or fighters buffed, great, I fully support you, but I disagree deeply with others who claim that there is "literally no reason to play a rogue".But see, that's not a condemnation or a statement you can't play one. It's a statement that
"Whatever you want to do with a Rogue, there's another class that can do it better."
That's it. And it does indeed mean there's basically no reason to play one beyond wanting to write 'Rogue' on your character sheet or desiring to play 'hard mode'.
Back again...work lull. Maybe I'm missing something...and I undoubtedly am as I haven't spent countless hours crawling through archetypes and feats etc. But if your character concept that you want to play as a sneak with sick counter attacking precision damage, trap circumvention, elite scouting skills, enhancing your abilities with low level enhancement spells like true strike, not to mention the utility of hampering foes with dispels and stat drains all on top of being the Face character of the group with skill points to spare....how the heck do you do all that with another class and make it even better? BTW...I generally do not like class dipping...I find it doesn't make a lot of sense from a character background standpoint unless an RP element happened in the adventure.
I'm not trying to argue here...I REALLY don't know. Maybe that's one of the problems here...people not knowing the incredible in-depth knowledge that one would need to accomplish these things.
As a one word answer: Alchemist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a one word answer: Alchemist.Fair Enough. I tend to think power imbalance is only relevant if it's strong enough to interfere with someones ability to have a good time. In our game, with these classes, that was never the case.That's great. I've been the Rogue when it was the case. Not so fun. And not due to optimized characters either.
If you'd like to see rogues or fighters buffed, great, I fully support you, but I disagree deeply with others who claim that there is "literally no reason to play a rogue".But see, that's not a condemnation or a statement you can't play one. It's a statement that
"Whatever you want to do with a Rogue, there's another class that can do it better."
That's it. And it does indeed mean there's basically no reason to play one beyond wanting to write 'Rogue' on your character sheet or desiring to play 'hard mode'.
Back again...work lull. Maybe I'm missing something...and I undoubtedly am as I haven't spent countless hours crawling through archetypes and feats etc. But if your character concept that you want to play as a sneak with sick counter attacking precision damage, trap circumvention, elite scouting skills, enhancing your abilities with low level enhancement spells like true strike, not to mention the utility of hampering foes with dispels and stat drains all on top of being the Face character of the group with skill points to spare....how the heck do you do all that with another class and make it even better? BTW...I generally do not like class dipping...I find it doesn't make a lot of sense from a character background standpoint unless an RP element happened in the adventure.
I'm not trying to argue here...I REALLY don't know. Maybe that's one of the problems here...people not knowing the incredible in-depth knowledge that one would need to accomplish these things.
How about we stop being glib and snooty and actually answer the legitimate question with a true answer please. Stating a class and not showing how they accomplish all the things I asked for isn't doing anything to help those that want to know.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'll always see the answer, and never the build.
As a GM yes I have seen the fighter and monk suffer first hand. Nobody has ever taken a rogue to high levels in my games.
And saying the fighter slays dragons without details is not saying much. <--Not an insult, but not all GM's run creatures the same way
It was certainly a team effort. We fought two before we started dying. Both times it went the same way. Our witch identified the dragon type with her insane Knowledge Arcana and cast haste, and our druid used the appropriate Protection from Energy, Communal. Our Nodachi wielding fighter shut down both encounters pretty handily with his buffs. The dude did a lot of damage on those 15-20 x2 crits with weapon specialization, and weapon training. The rogue opened up while the dragons were flatfooted (his INIT bonus was +11) and made them bleed.
See this is what I mean.
Crits from most any martial character will cause trouble, and it is not like fighters are shabby at doing damage. Everyone played their part.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you'd like to see rogues or fighters buffed, great, I fully support you, but I disagree deeply with others who claim that there is "literally no reason to play a rogue".
Even "literally no reason to play a rogue" is not the same as "class X is useless" but I can see how it can read that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They're generally people who like the Fighter and Rogue, but who have found themselves stymied and frustrated when they played in a game where they didn't have the good fortune to have two competent full casters backing them and keeping them relevant. They'd like to know that their characters chances of success hinge more upon their own choices and skill than upon who else in the group is going to be there to fill in the cracks
D&D has always been a Team game. The JOB of the full caster is to back the other party members, just like it's the rogues job to find traps, the tanks job to take and deal damage etc. The fact that a given team is deficient in teamwork and the casters are either incompetent or selfish is a problem with your Team, not the rules.
For example, in our 13th level RotRL game the bard and my Sorc cast a good number of party buffs. But it's a great trade off as now the fighter is far and away the most dangerous member of the party, doing the most DPR by far. He's also the toughest, which means my Sorc has to worry less about being ganked. Yes, the Fighter depends on my Sorc, but my Sorc depends on the Fighter. TEAMwork.
There is no class disparity, just bad teams.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a bit of a side question for this thread, do people take Underpowered Feats on "Underpowered" classes? How about on "Overpowered" classes?
If you mean skill focus profession(X) then no. If you mean skill focus perception then yes.
I take feats that are useful. I don't like to spend resources on flavor. I can be flavorful without using a feat.
Well, there's still the "Maximize class skill bonuses at level 1 without temporary enhancement" as a reason to take the rogue, but it doesn't last.
They're generally people who like the Fighter and Rogue, but who have found themselves stymied and frustrated when they played in a game where they didn't have the good fortune to have two competent full casters backing them and keeping them relevant. They'd like to know that their characters chances of success hinge more upon their own choices and skill than upon who else in the group is going to be there to fill in the cracksD&D has always been a Team game. The JOB of the full caster is to back the other party members, just like it's the rogues job to find traps, the tanks job to take and deal damage etc. The fact that a given team is deficient in teamwork and the casters are either incompetent or selfish is a problem with your Team, not the rules.
For example, in our 13th level RotRL game the bard and my Sorc cast a good number of party buffs. But it's a great trade off as now the fighter is far and away the most dangerous member of the party, doing the most DPR by far. He's also the toughest, which means my Sorc has to worry less about being ganked. Yes, the Fighter depends on my Sorc, but my Sorc depends on the Fighter. TEAMwork.
There is no class disparity, just bad teams.
But Fighter and Rogue are resource sinks while Sorcerers bring resources to the party. Two Sorcerers is way better then a Sorcerer and a Fighter. It's not that Fighter and Sorcerer isn't a better team then say Fighter and Fighter, but it's still a worse team then Sorcerer and Sorcerer, or Sorcerer and Ranger, or Sorcerer and Alchemist, or Sorcerer and Summmoner... or...
"Whatever you want to do with a Rogue, there's another class that can do it better."
Whatever you want to do with any class, there's another class that can do it better.
Oracles can out heal clerics.
Sorc can out blast wizards.
Just to be clear the sentiment is that they could be better, not that they are useless.
That's ultimately the crux of the debate, isn't it? If there are better options, but the option you chose isn't useless, is that okay? To that end, a lot of arguments seem to stem from the idea that choosing the weaker option is a willful act to hurt the party because you could be contributing more.
But Fighter and Rogue are resource sinks while Sorcerers bring resources to the party. Two Sorcerers is way better then a Sorcerer and a Fighter.
I'm calling this out. This statement is flat-out untrue and indefensible.
I'll give you an out: Define resource.
Fair Enough. I tend to think power imbalance is only relevant if it's strong enough to interfere with someones ability to have a good time. In our game, with these classes, that was never the case.That's great. I've been the Rogue when it was the case. Not so fun. And not due to optimized characters either.
If you'd like to see rogues or fighters buffed, great, I fully support you, but I disagree deeply with others who claim that there is "literally no reason to play a rogue".But see, that's not a condemnation or a statement you can't play one. It's a statement that
"Whatever you want to do with a Rogue, there's another class that can do it better."
That's it. And it does indeed mean there's basically no reason to play one beyond wanting to write 'Rogue' on your character sheet or desiring to play 'hard mode'.
Back again...work lull. Maybe I'm missing something...and I undoubtedly am as I haven't spent countless hours crawling through archetypes and feats etc. But if your character concept that you want to play as a sneak with sick counter attacking precision damage, trap circumvention, elite scouting skills, enhancing your abilities with low level enhancement spells like true strike, not to mention the utility of hampering foes with dispels and stat drains all on top of being the Face character of the group with skill points to spare....how the heck do you do all that with another class and make it even better? BTW...I generally do not like class dipping...I find it doesn't make a lot of sense from a character background standpoint unless an RP element happened in the adventure.
I'm not trying to argue here...I REALLY don't know. Maybe that's one of the problems here...people not knowing the incredible in-depth knowledge that one would need to accomplish these things.
I think if you pick a class and your concept is based on that class then you almost have to choose levels in that class.
What people are saying is more general in nature. As an example if I want to be an investigator for my church that goes after cults, demons, and undead, who also has social skills, and is jack of many trades I can do that as an inquisitor, bard, or ranger.
Now if I say I want to be the guy who inspires people with by words, and is a master of all knowledges among other things, then I almost have to go bard or at least multi-class into it.
Also, note: by your extended definition, Anzyr, you have just stated that a Sorcerer and a Fighter is worse than a Sorcerer and nobody. Prove that, and you have a point. If you can't, then you are wrong.
The barbarian do not have two good saves. And the diference in AC could be huge (except, of course because paizo fixed that for barbarian post core).With a +2 to Will Saves at 1st level that evolves to a +4 eventually, they come awfully close.
Yeah, and that'd be nice, but the Barbarian doesn't have that. Oh, unless you mean while using a limited use class feature?
Abilities they can contribute. Fighter can contribute in combat. Sorcerer can contribute both in and out of combat, have narrative power and can be total skill masters. Thus, more resources. It's not indefensible or untrue it is in fact both very defensible mainly because it is true.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A sorcerer is not better than a fighter to a player who wants to play a fighter.
Yeah, and that'd be nice, but the Barbarian doesn't have that. Oh, unless you mean while using a limited use class feature?The barbarian do not have two good saves. And the diference in AC could be huge (except, of course because paizo fixed that for barbarian post core).With a +2 to Will Saves at 1st level that evolves to a +4 eventually, they come awfully close.
You know what's really limited? Not having those class features in the first place.
Having a +4 part of the time is much, much better than never having it.
But Fighter and Rogue are resource sinks while Sorcerers bring resources to the party. Two Sorcerers is way better then a Sorcerer and a Fighter.I'm calling this out. This statement is flat-out untrue and indefensible.
I'll give you an out: Define resource.
It's completely wrong, since the Fighter does insane DPR and can take insane damage, neither of which a sorc can do except for a very short period, if at all. Even my very best spell option does less damage than the Fighter doing a FAO.
However, one can always summon a Schrödinger's spellcaster.
Abilities they can contribute. Fighter can contribute in combat. Sorcerer can contribute both in and out of combat, have narrative power and can be total skill masters. Thus, more resources. It's not indefensible or untrue it is in fact both very defensible mainly because it is true.
No, you said resource sink. In your definition you have said that fighters contribute in combat. That means that the provide resources, by your definition.
Therefore, both fighters and sorcerers provide resources to the party. They aren't identical, necessarily, but they're both positive.
You have just proven yourself wrong.
And what the heck is this about sorcerers providing narrative and fighters don't? If that were true, no one in the real world could ever provide narrative, because there is no real-world magic.
Abilities they can contribute. Fighter can contribute in combat. Sorcerer can contribute both in and out of combat, have narrative power and can be total skill masters. Thus, more resources. It's not indefensible or untrue it is in fact both very defensible mainly because it is true.No, you said resource sink. In your definition you have said that fighters contribute in combat. That means that the provide resources, by your definition.
Therefore, both fighters and sorcerers provide resources to the party. They aren't identical, necessarily, but they're both positive.
You have just proven yourself wrong.
And what the heck is this about sorcerers providing narrative and fighters don't? If that were true, no one in the real world could ever provide narrative, because there is no real-world magic.
The Fighter cannot contribute in combat without magical buffs at high levels, nor can they provide their own narrative power or their own out of combat abilities. Providing one out of a multitude of things makes you a resources sink when trying to perform the others. My statement stands.
Yeah, and that'd be nice, but the Barbarian doesn't have that. Oh, unless you mean while using a limited use class feature?The barbarian do not have two good saves. And the diference in AC could be huge (except, of course because paizo fixed that for barbarian post core).With a +2 to Will Saves at 1st level that evolves to a +4 eventually, they come awfully close.You know what's really limited? Not having those class features in the first place.
Having a +4 part of the time is much, much better than never having it.
Fighter have a +5 vs fear ALWAYS, Then add in Iron will, since the fighter has ELEVEN extra feats. Shoot, make that Improved Iron will. Those extra feats are Class features, just like Raging.
So you agree that there is no narrative power in the real world?
No, you can't really take control of the narrative of the real world. The closest thing to narrative power would be control of some kind of technology, but no one in IRL has narrative power. If it did the story of IRL would be quite broken. "Man if only I had someway to instantly restore this person to life." Pathfinder - no problem. IRL - Big problem outside of like 1 guy.
Thank you, Anzyr. I understand you now.
Just to be clear the sentiment is that they could be better, not that they are useless.That's ultimately the crux of the debate, isn't it? If there are better options, but the option you chose isn't useless, is that okay? To that end, a lot of arguments seem to stem from the idea that choosing the weaker option is a willful act to hurt the party because you could be contributing more.
As long as you(general statement) are not being carried, and it actually matters if your character is missing then you are ok.<---My personal opinion.
When the character in question really adds nothing to the party, then that is when I can understand others not liking it.
What I have done is just optimize my character more to make up the difference<----Sometimes the player in question gets annoyed, but I don't want to lose a character because he is not pulling his weight. I know some GM's compensate to make sure the party does not suffer too much, but not all do, and I still don't like relying on GM Fiat to save me.
Example: A player skimped(only put ranks every other level) on perception so I boosted my druid's perception and found all of the traps..etc... I got some evil looks, but I stayed alive.
I don't think they believe the player in question is willfully trying to hurt the party with a lesser option. The idea is just that if you have a more efficient way to do something then it does not do make sense do use the less efficient way. I think the problem is that some people look at the game as "I want to play class X", and other just see each class as a base point to get a concept created. As an example I use rangers as "ninjas" instead of the ninja class. That makes people use the rogue class to create the rogue instead of a bard, ranger or inquisitor. Of course like I said in an earlier post if you design around class mechanics then you will have to choose that class most likely, so I understand that also.
Thank you, Anzyr. I understand you now.
I'm pretty easy to understand. I follow objective truths and present them so others might learn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter have a +5 vs fear ALWAYS, Then add in Iron will, since the fighter has ELEVEN extra feats. Shoot, make that Improved Iron will. Those extra feats are Class features, just like Raging.
You mean Iron Will, that feat that can't be taken using Fighter bonus feats? Right... And Bravery is a joke.
And Barbarians get 10 Rage Powers (with the added benefit that most of them scale with level and don't have s~~*ty prerequisites). They also have twice as many skill points per level, a better list of class skills, Fast Movement and Uncanny Dodge. They can Pounce and break magic.
I've never seen a Barbarian run out of Rage rounds any faster than the rest of the party runs out of whatever resources they have... And Fighters often contribute for that moment to come much earlier than it would have if he party had brought a Paladin or Barbarian instead.
But there is no point in discussing this with you. Fighters and Rogues could be identical to Warriors and Experts and you would still argue that they are balanced, just because the book pretends they are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighter have a +5 vs fear ALWAYS, Then add in Iron will, since the fighter has ELEVEN extra feats. Shoot, make that Improved Iron will. Those extra feats are Class features, just like Raging.You mean Iron Will, that feat that can't be taken using Fighter bonus feats? Right... And Bravery is a joke.
But there is no point in discussing this with you. Fighters and Rogues could be identical to Warriors and Experts and you would still argue that they are balanced, just because the book pretends they are.
So much this. I really feel that's what all these threads break down into. No matter how obviously inferior the Fighter is to the Barbarian or Ranger, or the Rogue is the Alchemist/Bard/INT-based Caster/Investigator (coming soon) they won't stop moving goalposts until I'm convinced the playing field is Hallucinatory Terrain.
But if you take the red pill, you'll see that it was all hallucinatory terrain all along.
(Sorry, I just had to say that.)
So much this. I really feel that's what all these threads break down into. No matter how obviously inferior the Fighter is to the Barbarian or Ranger, or the Rogue is the Alchemist/Bard/INT-based Caster/Investigator (coming soon) they won't stop moving goalposts until I'm convinced the playing field is Hallucinatory Terrain.Fighter have a +5 vs fear ALWAYS, Then add in Iron will, since the fighter has ELEVEN extra feats. Shoot, make that Improved Iron will. Those extra feats are Class features, just like Raging.You mean Iron Will, that feat that can't be taken using Fighter bonus feats? Right... And Bravery is a joke.
But there is no point in discussing this with you. Fighters and Rogues could be identical to Warriors and Experts and you would still argue that they are balanced, just because the book pretends they are.
They're not moving the goalposts. They're just playing cricket while you're playing football. The two are never going to agree, and no matter how much one side believes it is objectively correct ... neither is. Or more correctly, both are.