|
Can't help but notice that two of those for my part...don't exist yet as I have no idea what they are outside of a 2-3 paragraph marketing campaign since the book isn't out yet. :).
There's a playtest document detailing them to some degree, and a few Blog Posts giving additional details. Heck, they're legal for PFS.
I'll be honest...one of the reasons that 3.5 eventually crashed out on us was because with every book they released they broke more and more things with they strive for "more power". It feels like a lot of these new classes from what little I've read are also doing that...probably because of the vocal outcry from people when a new class wouldn't be considered one of the best 4-5 out there.
There's little evidence of that being a particular problem. The consensus is actually that Slayer is weaker than Ranger and Investigator is being seriously b~~%$ed about as too weak as well. I disagree and think both are fine, but neither's notably better than Ranger, Inquisitor, or Dawnflower Dervish Bard (all of which are less powerful than a Druid or Wizard). Arcanist might theoretically be power creep, but it'd be the only one that was.
I can easily see as I stated where the Vivisectionist you both mentioned would be a good and fun addition...but I also do not see how it easily outclasses the rogue...merely seems on par with being better in combat and in my opinion slightly less effective out. Better overall? Perhaps, but it doesn't seem to be to the point where people should forever stop playing a rogue.
The Alchemist is actually the worst Rogue equivalent listed, IMO. And either in or out of combat they have Extracts to shore up their skills...Acute Senses and Invisibility, for example, go a long way towards making up for a slightly lower number of skills.
It seems like if we were ranking things on a scale of 1-10...people are considered solid "6"'s and "7"'s to be sub par because they're striving for the "best". I realize there's a whole lot of people here saying the same thing...that even in unoptimized groups the fighter and rogue clearly drop off...but I'm not seeing it. Drop off? Sure. Clearly to the point that it hinders play? Absolutely not. There's over a hundred years of RPG experience in my group of 5 and we've played in pathfinder games with both of these classes and never noticed enough of a difference for us to outwardly care. I really do think this comes down to a preference type of mentality.
To some degree that's true. It's not that Rogue is impossible to use...it's that it's not very good in combat (a big problem in a combat-oriented game like Pathfinder), and all the examples I list above (and several other possibilities to a lesser degree) do what it does out of combat at least as well (often better) and are much better in combat.
It's not that you can't play a Rogue...it's that why would you?
Out of curiosity how do the archaeologist bards equal the rogues damage output? I just don't see it.
Yes. They can. Check here for some examples. It mostly comes down to being miles more accurate than the rogue and a lot of available buff spells.
You may have seen me around offering to make a build to just be better than a particular Rogue build. This is pretty much the only time anyone's taken me up on it. There are several builds throughout the thread...all based on different restrictions applied to both of them. I even worked out DPR.
|
Wait, what do we all mean by "narrative"? People keep saying the fighter doesn't have narrative potential, and I honestly don't understand how that's possible.
I say narrative is the ability to affect a story. In that case, everyone can, regardless of ability. Certainly, it's possible in the real world without magic. Adding abilities doesn't increase someone's capability to affect a story--perhaps how it's affected, but not that it's affected.
Anzyr gave the example of raising someone from the dead, and yes, I can see that if you're going by that definition, then you need magic. He also said that it's impossible to provide narrative in the real world.
How about the rest of you? What does narrative mean to you?
Narrative is basically everything outside combat. A Ranger's facility with moving through the woods unseen and unhindered, tracking someone hundreds of miles over all kinds of terrains, etc. would be narrative.
A ninja's ability to assassinate political leaders and rivals with deadly poison undetected and influence the progress of nations, a wizard's ability to create planes or teleport between worlds, a Paladin's ability to dispel the ailments of beggars on the street with a touch of his hand and convert them to his god, an alchemist's ability to unlock the secrets of immortality, these are all narrative abilities, baked in to the class and designed to ensure they have their own special niche in the story, their own ability to influence the movements of their world. The Fighter has less narrative power than any other class in the game.
Narrative power comes from 3 basic sources: class features, skills, and magic.
The Fighter is lacking in all 3.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
NOt sure If I am understanding you. I am saying that weapon specialization or the lack of it does not change the power level of fighter. The lack of suprestition make the barbarian fall from uber saves to mediocre ones. And that is true for a small set of options.
It is not that barbarian rokcs overall, there a really small set of options that put the barbarian on top and without those the barbarian is at the fighter level.
This is not true for paladins or druids for example (although the gap between ranger with and without instant enemy is absurly high too).
*sighs* It was an analogy, not something I was saying was equivalent.
My point was, a vast majority of Barbarians take Superstition. Saying that 'most Barbarians don't have Superstition' or 'only a few builds have it' is deeply and profoundly incorrect.
And Superstition is really all you need. You probably want a Totem, too, but several of them are quite viable, so that's hardly only one build.
And Druids actually do have a similar thing. It doesn't drop them to Fighter levels, but Druids sans Natural Spell are basically an order of magnitude less awesome. So arguing "The majority of Druids are below Cleric and Wizard level, only one option lets them get above that." is pretty much complete crap...since all of them, in fact, have that option. Ditto Barbarians and Superstition.
I will still argue that they are balanced, just because the that's the way they play IRL as opposed to PvP theorycraft.Remember how we talked about different playstyles? Remember how these classes are balanced for some specific playstyles (including yours), but not others (e.g., Anzyr's)? Remember Paizo repeatedly explaining that everyone's style is supposed to be valid, not just yours?
Dismissing others' actual play observations as "schoedinger theorycraft" is akin to dismissing their playstyle not only as badwrongfun, but actually as being fictional -- which is not only demonstrably not true, but also is basically you telling them that they're lying.
Not cool.
You can say "these classes are balanced, given the way my group plays." You don't get to say "anyone who finds them not balanced isn't really playing."
Except that when the devs play their own games, the classes are still balanced.
I am not dismissing others "actual play observations" but I do dismiss their "schoedinger theorycraft". Almost all the "actual play observations" posted here support the fact that Fights and Rogues are fun classes that contribute. So, by and large for "actual play observations" the classes come out fairly balanced (with some variations for table differences, of course.).
In all of my games the classes are more or less balanced. In the Devs own games they are balanced.
Only for a very vocal minority, few of which ever talk about actual IRL game issues- are the classes not balanced. You see the same posters making "teh rouge is suxxor" claims over and over and over- and many of them admit openly they don't even play Pathfinder.
They said.the monk was weak and they have varying GM styles and we don't know what level they typically play to or why the classes do.ok. It could be house rules, optimization skils, or both.You nees more info than the "the devs make it work". If I write a computer program I can probably mod it so that it works but that does not make it ok for everyone else. In additional the people that don't like PF is small, and who is part of this "many"? Most of us just want certain classes to be better.
I think the issue is less some classes just being stronger, but of classes being more tactical. Paladins, rangers, alchemists, bards, and fullcasters have offensive resources that they manage. If applied skillfully they end up perfroming better than "underpowered" classes like the rogue and fighter. If those resources are just haphazardly wasted then those classes can just be constantly worse than the fighter and rogue.
The fighter and rogue problems come from them only having build optimization and very little tatical resource expense or "play optimization". Which those are different skills. A well built wizard played badly is far worse than a well built fighter played badly.
The obvious exception to this is the barbar. Which just rotfls all day over encounters with like 4 rage powers and power attack.
| 3 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.
If that is true and you would welcome some buffs, why fight our plea for them? Even if you think it is not absolutely necessary, only nice to have. As long as half of the player base is contrary to buffing the weak classes it is 100% sure it will not happen.
What could you possibly loose if the fighter got some more skillpoints and the rogue some combat prowess? What about those changes makes it worth preventing them?
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.
Correct. The right wizard build can be really strong early on. An earth wizard with good strength and a good weapon can be nearly as good in melee as a fighter. (or at least does he hit like a fighter but does less damage due to power attack). Plus he has a strong school power dealing damage and debuffing all in addition to his spells.
It's not the first time I mention him but the "wizards are weak early on" people always ignore it.He is quite flavourful too, behaving and clothing himself like peasant most of the time. With his straw hat, flail and pig familiar.
To get prof in the flail he needs to be a half-orc
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.
In our kingmaker game when our rogue died the player was kind of glad and rerolled as a house ruled titan mauler who COULD wield an oversized two-handed weapon because he was not having fun with the low combat potential.
When the ranger died he rerolled as a full caster because just being on mop up duty after the other casters won the game was not fun anymore.We started with three pc melee guys and ended with one pc melee and one npc melee.
So yes, we felt the effects in our game.
Part of the problem might have been that the summons our master summoner threw at the enemies were good enough to keep most enemies from our casters.
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.
Er... this has happened more than a few times in the many years I've been playing.
More commonly though, the spellcaster goes through their best spells and they are not totally out, but they want to rest. This is because they are a bit fearful about going it without being at full power. This isn't a concern for fighters or rogues (or monks).The non-spellcasters (fighters, rogues, monk, ninjas) then ended up getting the job done and dominating the spotlight. When the going got tough, the tough got going and they proved their worth. They proved they were heroes.
Shock horror, sometimes it was even the monks that did best in this scenario, not just the fighters or rogues. Also, fighter/rogues can actually be very strong and a few of them can do a lot in an adventure or dungeon; but I come from fighter/rogue heavy parties back in the day, so I saw a lot of this.
Just anecdotes, but your "joke" on what never happens without consequence was something I saw happen without the non-spellcasters getting creamed. As a poster said a bit above, the APs aren't that hard.
Simply, adventurers don't need spells or spellcasters to be heroes.
| 3 people 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.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.
If you want to make a serious defense on fighter never ever mention bravery.
Back in July 2012, I was helping another poster on these boards with a Paladin through PM. The poster approached me concerning them due to some of the stuff I wrote concerning Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, and Fighters. I didn't present him a build, moreso provided a variety of nice options to consider and some pros & cons of each. The poster sent a thanks (which was really nice) and a funny bit at the end. :)
Hey, just passing by to thank you for the advice on the Paladin build.
It was really useful. Thank you very much!
BTW... You got a Vampire smitten (and destroyed) in your name! The other players assumed "Ashiel" was the name of some NPC from Golarion. The bard actually rolled a Knowledge(History) but failed (mostly due to not even the GM being a poster in this forum.. the natural 4 didn't help either)
I told'em the sage story! Heh...
Anyway, thanks again!
PS: The "Fearless Aura" feat made the Barbarian's player (who usually plays a fighter) rage more than his character. I believe his exact words were something along the line of "And all fighters get is Bravery?! F&@~ this s!$~!"
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.
Er... this has happened more than a few times in the many years I've been playing.
More commonly though, the spellcaster goes through their best spells and they are not totally out, but they want to rest. This is because they are a bit fearful about going it without being at full power. This isn't a concern for fighters or rogues (or monks).
The non-spellcasters (fighters, rogues, monk, ninjas) then ended up getting the job done and dominating the spotlight. When the going got tough, the tough got going and they proved their worth. They proved they were heroes.
Shock horror, sometimes it was even the monks that did best in this scenario, not just the fighters or rogues. Also, fighter/rogues can actually be very strong and a few of them can do a lot in an adventure or dungeon; but I come from fighter/rogue heavy parties back in the day, so I saw a lot of this.Just anecdotes, but your "joke" on what never happens without consequence was something I saw happen without the non-spellcasters getting creamed. As a poster said a bit above, the APs aren't that hard.
Simply, adventurers don't need spells or spellcasters to be heroes.
You know, I definitely agree with you there under the qualifier that we're talking about Paizo published adventures. Paizo APs and modules are, for the most part, written in a way that allows relatively unoptimized groups to complete them. Personal experience with the APs has shown that, unless modified to be more challenging, optimized groups absolutely steamroll these APs like they're nothing.
Occasionally though some gems pop up and throw the party for a loop. Good ole book 3 of Kingmaker! Books 1+2 were constant "Monster of the week" single combat nova days then in book three you encounter a long, resource draining dungeon, and a very powerful boss at the end who's very capable of causing a TPK (or being pretty trivial if the party Wizard prepped Dispels and if the beatstick has on the ring of FoM that dropped earlier). My poor players expended so many of their resources and were heading for TPK land, until the barb managed to crit and rolled well on get past the bosses displacement and mirror images.
Edit:
To clarify how my party failed. Spellcasters ran out of spells. Spellcasters didn't prepare dispel magic despite knowing about the High level casters 3 days in advance. They failed their knowledge check, hard, and didn't realize what bypasses the DR. They ran out of healing 2 encounters before the boss because they didn't stock up in town.
Party of 6 and they fought the boss straight out the book. The group I DM for is mostly new players and players who don't know how to optimize. I'd say they're weaker than an optimized 4 person party and slightly stronger than an "average" 4 person party that these books are designed for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Difficulty in Paizo APs seems best described as "feast or famine". For example, in CotCT, the initial portion of book one is a joke and most of the NPCs are just strait up dumb (even the ones who are said to be smart) and weak, and then shortly thereafter is an encounter that seems to exist just to produce a TPK.
Reign of Winter, despite requiring a TON of editing by the GM because the book was constantly making mistakes, is also something of a meatgrinder in quite a few levels. Accounting for the movement issues, snowy conditions, and the sorts of enemies who you're fighting, the game is brutal and can be a pain for people who're really experienced and know what they're doing. It's TPK fuel for others.
I can't say I've run a ton of APs very far through, but I've noticed the difficulty of encounters generally decreases the more fighters & rogues show up as NPCs. Good ol' Fighter NPCs using the CRB CR system. It's like XP/Treasure pinatas. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My brother ran Skulls and Shackles recently. He restatted every single Fighter/Rogue multiclass NPC into a Slayer. The results were a definite increase in enemy effectiveness, but they did feel like "Treasure Pinatas" :)
Also Slayers TWF with Swords of subtlety are SCARY. (They grant +4/+4 when used for a sneak attack)
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.
Er... this has happened more than a few times in the many years I've been playing.
More commonly though, the spellcaster goes through their best spells and they are not totally out, but they want to rest. This is because they are a bit fearful about going it without being at full power. This isn't a concern for fighters or rogues (or monks).
The non-spellcasters (fighters, rogues, monk, ninjas) then ended up getting the job done and dominating the spotlight. When the going got tough, the tough got going and they proved their worth. They proved they were heroes.
Shock horror, sometimes it was even the monks that did best in this scenario, not just the fighters or rogues. Also, fighter/rogues can actually be very strong and a few of them can do a lot in an adventure or dungeon; but I come from fighter/rogue heavy parties back in the day, so I saw a lot of this.Just anecdotes, but your "joke" on what never happens without consequence was something I saw happen without the non-spellcasters getting creamed. As a poster said a bit above, the APs aren't that hard.
Simply, adventurers don't need spells or spellcasters to be heroes.
You know, I definitely agree with you there under the qualifier that we're talking about Paizo published adventures. Paizo APs and modules are, for the most part, written in a way that allows relatively unoptimized groups to complete them. Personal experience with the APs has shown that, unless modified to be more challenging, optimized groups absolutely steamroll these APs like they're nothing.
Occasionally though some gems pop up and throw the party for a loop. Good ole book 3 of Kingmaker! Books 1+2 were constant "Monster of the week" single combat nova days then in book three you encounter a long, resource draining dungeon,...
Yep, cheers.
Well I play fighters and monks a fair bit (used to be rogues a few years back) and some pals and I used to get quite bloody tired of the spellcasters slowing us down because they had used up all their top level spells and wanted to nap until their confidence came back.
I mean, it is annoying to have these absolute destroyer characters want to rest after a few combats. The melee chars are good to go and just want to get stuck back in!
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.
I'm pretty easy to understand. I follow objective truths and present them so others might learn.
[emphasis in first quote mine] Consider me willing to learn Anzyr. I know a lot of people would be interested to meet this "1 guy" who is restoring people to life. ;)
I swear... it bugs me when people complain about "power creep" and bring up the rogue and fighter as arguments...
I mean really? The fighter was shown up right in the CRB. He barely gets any class abilities what so ever... one of the few he gets (Bravery) is pretty much a worse version of the Barbarian's FLAT WILL BONUS and the paladin's FLAT OUT IMMUNITY TO FEAR. Actually, all of the Fighter's actual "class abilities" (pretty much the stuff that is not extra feats) are pretty much worse than every other martial's... His weapon training looks nice... until you see the Barb effectively gets the same thing, except in the form of a Str boost. Bravery seems flavorful! Until you see the Barb has a flat will boost, the paladin laughs at saves (and is flat immune to being scared), and the ranger has a high will anyway. Armor training looks awesome! Until you realize that Mithral pretty much takes most of the coolness out of armor training (sure you have a high dex character with Mitril Plate+Armor training but that only really works if you start high level). Add in the fact that Pallies can easily add Cha to AC (2x if you dip into Oracle) and Barbs can get a HUGE Nat Armor buff, it makes armor training look bad.
As for the rogue... he is literally the WORST class in the game... His mechanics are EVERYWHERE. He has NO synergy what so ever. Heck, the core monk has more syngery in his class abilities than the rogue...
...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.
Er... this has happened more than a few times in the many years I've been playing.
More commonly though, the spellcaster goes through their best spells and they are not totally out, but they want to rest. This is because they are a bit fearful about going it without being at full power. This isn't a concern for fighters or rogues (or monks).
The non-spellcasters (fighters, rogues, monk, ninjas) then ended up getting the job done and dominating the spotlight. When the going got tough, the tough got going and they proved their worth. They proved they were heroes.
Shock horror, sometimes it was even the monks that did best in this scenario, not just the fighters or rogues. Also, fighter/rogues can actually be very strong and a few of them can do a lot in an adventure or dungeon; but I come from fighter/rogue heavy parties back in the day, so I saw a lot of this.Just anecdotes, but your "joke" on what never happens without consequence was something I saw happen without the non-spellcasters getting creamed. As a poster said a bit above, the APs aren't that hard.
Simply, adventurers don't need spells or spellcasters to be heroes.
You know, I definitely agree with you there under the qualifier that we're talking about Paizo published adventures. Paizo APs and modules are, for the most part, written in a way that allows relatively unoptimized groups to complete them. Personal experience with the APs has shown that, unless modified to be more challenging, optimized groups absolutely steamroll these APs like they're nothing.
Occasionally though some gems pop up and throw the party for a loop. Good ole book 3 of Kingmaker! Books 1+2 were constant "Monster of the week" single combat nova days then in book three you encounter a
That is a piss poor caster player then... You don't need your top level spells to dominate... you just need to be smart (Black Tentacles is always a crowd pleaser).
I swear... it bugs me when people complain about "power creep" and bring up the rogue and fighter as arguments...
I mean really? The fighter was shown up right in the CRB. He barely gets any class abilities what so ever... one of the few he gets (Bravery) is pretty much a worse version of the Barbarian's FLAT WILL BONUS and the paladin's FLAT OUT IMMUNITY TO FEAR. Actually, all of the Fighter's actual "class abilities" (pretty much the stuff that is not extra feats) are pretty much worse than every other martial's... His weapon training looks nice... until you see the Barb effectively gets the same thing, except in the form of a Str boost. Bravery seems flavorful! Until you see the Barb has a flat will boost, the paladin laughs at saves (and is flat immune to being scared), and the ranger has a high will anyway. Armor training looks awesome! Until you realize that Mithral pretty much takes most of the coolness out of armor training (sure you have a high dex character with Mitril Plate+Armor training but that only really works if you start high level). Add in the fact that Pallies can easily add Cha to AC (2x if you dip into Oracle) and Barbs can get a HUGE Nat Armor buff, it makes armor training look bad.
As for the rogue... he is literally the WORST class in the game... His mechanics are EVERYWHERE. He has NO synergy what so ever. Heck, the core monk has more syngery in his class abilities than the rogue...
Well, you are kind of hard about the Fighter. Sure, Bravery is not that good, but...
Armor training: sure, you can get the equivalent with Mithral, but it will cost 4000 to 9000 PO to get it, and chances are that armor in loot will not be mithral... The fighter is far less dependant of this material, can invest somewhere else and will not be penalized if you can't found a mithral full plate in a small town of Varisia...
Ranger, high will? Not that much. Better Wisdom, maybe, but it's all.
Weapon training will apply all the time, and to the weapons of your choice (so, not only to ''STR based character). And with the the GP save from mithral, you can get Glove of Duelist for +2 damages and attacks (so, a little ''4str'' more in equivalence...)
Paladin will get Cha to CA...7 time per days at level 20? and against one creature at time... And against evil creature only... And, he is mad: maybe he will get good CHA, but his DEX will be quite dumped...
And, in this comparison, you forgot the best class feature of the Fighter: Feat. From your example, he's the only (with the Ranger) who can easily go switch hitter witout being human, while still getting many ''utility'' feat. If the Fighter is kind of lame outside of fight, he is not that behind the Paladin and the Barbarian (unless you try to ''push'' the game mechanics to creat some raging/pounce/lance power-monster....) and will be sometime the best way to make an idea work (and it's the goal of each class).
And the Rogue is maybe the worst class, but in a game, uless there is an Urban Ranger/ Archeologist/ Vivisectionist with you, you will still get your role.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saigo, the paladin is no more MAD then the Fighter. Where the Fighter needs Will to bump his poor Will save and dumps Cha, the paladin HAS a Strong Will Save, and dumps Wis to take Cha instead. With the Wis penalty, he STLL ENDS UP WITH A BETTER STARTING WILL SAVE THEN THE FIGHTER.
Oh, and Iron WIll is a general feat, not a combat feat. Remember that.
Net Win: Paladin, as he gets a LOT of benefit out of a high CHA, and the fighter just gets a small mod to his Will save. The Paladin gets Cha mod to ALL HIS SAVES. Oh, and it boosts his spells, number of spells, lay on hands...Synergy.
Yeah, that's fair, right?
Armor Training: This is not a Fighter AC buff. YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE DEX. In the very latest AP book, there's a fighter/ll. Armor Training 3. Half Plate. DEX 14.
He is getting NO BENEFIT FROM HIS ARMOR TRAINING 3...because he doesn't have the dex.
Compare to a MOnk. They get a 4 pt AC bonus over their levels. Straight up AC, no need to have a Dex to the moon to get it. Synergy.
The Ranger buffs Will like a Fighter. However, Rangers get Wis-based spells. HE has an incentive to buy Wis boosters, and get even more spells out of them. Synergy.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back in July 2012, I was helping another poster on these boards with a Paladin through PM. The poster approached me concerning them due to some of the stuff I wrote concerning Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians, and Fighters. I didn't present him a build, moreso provided a variety of nice options to consider and some pros & cons of each. The poster sent a thanks (which was really nice) and a funny bit at the end. :)
Hey, just passing by to thank you for the advice on the Paladin build.
It was really useful. Thank you very much!
BTW... You got a Vampire smitten (and destroyed) in your name! The other players assumed "Ashiel" was the name of some NPC from Golarion. The bard actually rolled a Knowledge(History) but failed (mostly due to not even the GM being a poster in this forum.. the natural 4 didn't help either)
I told'em the sage story! Heh...
Anyway, thanks again!
PS: The "Fearless Aura" feat made the Barbarian's player (who usually plays a fighter) rage more than his character. I believe his exact words were something along the line of "And all fighters get is Bravery?! F&@~ this s!$~!"
Whoever sent you that message must be incredibly strong, intelligent, handsome, charismatic and humble. I'm sure of it.
Saigo, the paladin is no more MAD then the Fighter. Where the Fighter needs Will to bump his poor Will save and dumps Cha, the paladin HAS a Strong Will Save, and dumps Wis to take Cha instead. With the Wis penalty, he STLL ENDS UP WITH A BETTER STARTING WILL SAVE THEN THE FIGHTER.
Oh, and Iron WIll is a general feat, not a combat feat. Remember that.
Net Win: Paladin, as he gets a LOT of benefit out of a high CHA, and the fighter just gets a small mod to his Will save. The Paladin gets Cha mod to ALL HIS SAVES. Oh, and it boosts his spells, number of spells, lay on hands...Synergy.
Yeah, that's fair, right?
Armor Training: This is not a Fighter AC buff. YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE DEX. In the very latest AP book, there's a fighter/ll. Armor Training 3. Half Plate. DEX 14.
He is getting NO BENEFIT FROM HIS ARMOR TRAINING 3...because he doesn't have the dex.
Compare to a MOnk. They get a 4 pt AC bonus over their levels. Straight up AC, no need to have a Dex to the moon to get it. Synergy.
The Ranger buffs Will like a Fighter. However, Rangers get Wis-based spells. HE has an incentive to buy Wis boosters, and get even more spells out of them. Synergy.
==Aelryinth
The Paladin NEED 3 strong stat to be functional: Strengh, Constitution and Charisma. The Fighter NEED 2 strong stat to be functional: Strengh and Constitution. Sure, you want a small bonus in Wisdom. But you can make it work with a 14 easily (while a Paladin need almos as much Charisma than Strengh). Sure, the difference is not that big, but IMO the Fighter is a little less mad.
I know that Iron Will is a general feat. But he still get general feat, right? And his combat feat will be get by Combat Feat Bonus, if you see my point... While Paladin will struggle with feat if he choose something else than ''2-handed power attacking''.
By level 10, a Fighter can easily get some ''Belt of Physical perfection or wathever and get good DEX. And there is not only the point of the CA: he will move at his normal speed in Heavy Armor, wich his far better then +1 or +2 to the CA from DEX IMO.
The Ranger get some synergie from Wisdom, yes. But he need good Dex for CA, good Strengh for Damage, good Con for HP...
And my main point is: we cannot judge some class as being bad simply some other class can be better in number. Is there some concept that the Fighter is better to do than the other? Yes. Will it work in a group? Yes. So I don't see problem with it.
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.
Er... this has happened more than a few times in the many years I've been playing.
More commonly though, the spellcaster goes through their best spells and they are not totally out, but they want to rest. This is because they are a bit fearful about going it without being at full power. This isn't a concern for fighters or rogues (or monks).
The non-spellcasters (fighters, rogues, monk, ninjas) then ended up getting the job done and dominating the spotlight. When the going got tough, the tough got going and they proved their worth. They proved they were heroes.
Shock horror, sometimes it was even the monks that did best in this scenario, not just the fighters or rogues. Also, fighter/rogues can actually be very strong and a few of them can do a lot in an adventure or dungeon; but I come from fighter/rogue heavy parties back in the day, so I saw a lot of this.Just anecdotes, but your "joke" on what never happens without consequence was something I saw happen without the non-spellcasters getting creamed. As a poster said a bit above, the APs aren't that hard.
Simply, adventurers don't need spells or spellcasters to be heroes.
Sure, if the adventure is easy, it's easy. But IME, in any non-stupidly-easy campaign, if all casters run out of spells, Fighters and Rogue will deeply regret trying to go on by themselves. Especially considering they are the 2 classes that usually most contribute for party casters to run out of spells.
In fact, any character that tries to press on when his allies are out of resource is very likely to suffer terribly. Especially when they are wholly dependent on the resources of said allies.
|
Yeah, what's with all the "Other than bonus feats, fighters suck" comments? Bonus feats are THE defining feature of the class. That's like saying "Other than spellcasting, wizards suck".
And just because fighters can't quite keep up with the "better" martial classes, it doesn't mean they aren't worth playing. It just means you could do better if you're in the small minority of people who play high powered, optimize-or-else meatgrinder games. There's nothing wrong with either approach, and I can see avoiding fighters in favor of barbarians or paladins in those games, but realistically, most Pathfinder games aren't that high powered.
Also, what's with the people talking about potential changes to the fighter, rogue, and/or monk classes? This thread is about whether or not you play the classes as they exist today using the current rule set. I play Pathfinder Society, which is RAW only. I also GM an adventure path home game, where our only house rules are very minor things. I play the game as it exists today, and have no interest in talking about potential changes in future versions. If the title of the thread had been "What changes would you like to see for fighters, rogues, and monks in Pathfinder 2.0?", I never would have clicked on it. Until Paizo announces that Pathfinder 2.0 is coming very soon, I'm not the type to bother with such speculation.
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.
If that is true and you would welcome some buffs, why fight our plea for them? Even if you think it is not absolutely necessary, only nice to have. As long as half of the player base is contrary to buffing the weak classes it is 100% sure it will not happen.
What could you possibly loose if the fighter got some more skill points and the rogue some combat prowess? What about those changes makes it worth preventing them?
There are a couple of reasons I can think of - and I'm not speaking for everybody, just for me - that put me off suggested improvements or at least make me wary of them:
1) Usually it's not just a case of improving a fighter's skill points or giving the rogue a little more offensive punch. Many solutions I've seen people bandy about are a bit more radical than that, and "fix" things that I don't think really need fixing.
2) Many of the improvement suggestions suffer in the delivery. I find them too often based on the hyperbolic statement that "fighters can't have nice things" (or similar) which immediately undermines the credibility of the person making the suggestion.
Personally, I think putting the monk on the fighter table, giving the fighters 4 skill points/level, putting bad saves on the 1/2 level schedule but without the +2 strong save bonus, and giving the rogue some more skill and combat-based talents would be great changes for Pathfinder 2.0 (and make for good house rules now). But I don't find the rogue, monk, and fighter classes unplayably weak now and am going to be a bit choosy about what sorts of "fixes" I'll accept as useful, in general.
|
|
Yeah, what's with all the "Other than bonus feats, fighters suck" comments? Bonus feats are THE defining feature of the class. That's like saying "Other than spellcasting, wizards suck".
Eh. If everyone got full spellcasting from the same list, and Wizards just got double the spells known (and a few mediocre Wizard only spells)...that might be a valid sentiment. And guess what's true about Feats?
And just because fighters can't quite keep up with the "better" martial classes, it doesn't mean they aren't worth playing. It just means you could do better if you're in the small minority of people who play high powered, optimize-or-else meatgrinder games. There's nothing wrong with either approach, and I can see avoiding fighters in favor of barbarians or paladins in those games, but realistically, most Pathfinder games aren't that high powered.
Actually, combat heavy games are the only ones Fighters are going to excel at, what with being just this side of utterly useless outside combat. If they're not even good for high optimization ones of those...
Also, what's with the people talking about potential changes to the fighter, rogue, and/or monk classes? This thread is about whether or not you play the classes as they exist today using the current rule set. I play Pathfinder Society, which is RAW only. I also GM an adventure path home game, where our only house rules are very minor things. I play the game as it exists today, and have no interest in talking about potential changes in future versions. If the title of the thread had been "What changes would you like to see for fighters, rogues, and monks in Pathfinder 2.0?", I never would have clicked on it. Until Paizo announces that Pathfinder 2.0 is coming very soon, I'm not the type to bother with such speculation.
It's all sorta tied together. Though I'll note that I haven't been talking about changes to either, just various classes that do their jobs better than they do.
Umm, no. He didn't say that. ***Considering how SKR did an almost immediate 180 on his stance regarding martial balance in game the moment he stopped working for Paizo and started talking about how Rogues should be able to do extraordinary teleports and fighters should be able to to leaping pounces 60 feet in the air***
Yeah, actually, I think he did.
Was that Sean Reynolds talking about teleporting Rogues and Fighters cutting wedges out of fireballs? I'm pretty positive it was. Was that Sean Reynolds saying 6th level is where our reality tops out and everyone above that is or should be basically a superhero? I'm pretty sure it was.
Nope. Read it again, in context. SKR never said a Rogue SHOULD Teleport or a Fighter SHOULD cut wedges out of fireballs. What he said that just because those abilities are considered Su and not Ex that doesn't mean those abilities couldn't exist. It's like saying "there's no reason a fighter should not be able to use a firearm" is not the same as "all fighters should use guns".
In other words, if they wanted to design a Rogue with a Advanced Talent for a Tport, the fact that Tport is considered Su should not be a barrier. But they ALREADY have a rogue that can walk thru a wall. So yeah, I agree with him. Nothing should bar a Rogue from having some sort of Tport ability as long as it's
* an appropriate power level for character level , and
* appropriate to the theme of the class.
THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS SAYING ALL ROGUES SHOULD BE ABLE TO TPORT AT WILL @ FIRST LEVEL. It just means some sort of Tport COULD be added to some rogue variant at a high enough level.
No wonder Sean has trouble with his posts, everyone is constantly reading into his posts things that aren't there.
My point was, a vast majority of Barbarians take Superstition. Saying that 'most Barbarians don't have Superstition' or 'only a few builds have it' is deeply and profoundly incorrect.
I have only seen it once. But as our group is heavily into teamwork with Buffing and healing, that ability got into the way more than it helped. We also have longer combats than some.
I"m not sure you get it DrDeth, so I'll explain it. SKR said that abilities like those *should* exist and I like many posters in that thread agreed with him. Does that mean all Rogues have to take the "BOMF" talent? No. You can stick to Rumormonger if you want. However, the rest of us *will* be taking the "BOMF" talent. But you know what this means, it means that Rogues *will* be able to teleport, even if your Rogue chooses not to, which is the same as saying Rogues can teleport.
In our kingmaker game when our rogue died the player was kind of glad and rerolled as a house ruled titan mauler who COULD wield an oversized two-handed weapon because he was not having fun with the low combat potential.
When the ranger died he rerolled as a full caster because just being on mop up duty after the other casters won the game was not fun anymore.We started with three pc melee guys and ended with one pc melee and one npc melee.
So yes, we felt the effects in our game.Part of the problem might have been that the summons our master summoner threw at the enemies were good enough to keep most enemies from our casters.
Kingmaker isn't trap heavy, but the Rogues high social skills should have been helpful. But yeah, no doubt a Titan Mauler will be better in combat. No one thinks a rogue should be.
A Ranger can be super deadly as a archer, and he has Mad Skills, so I am not sure why he was only doing "mop up duty".
It's not uncommon for a game to have more spellcasters at higher levels. It is a bit of a challenge to play a wizard at low levels.
But yeah, it's generally agreed that the MS is the single most broken variant in the game, with the ability to spam unlimited meat shields. It's banned in many games. That changes your game a lot. Especially if that Player is a Optimizer and the rogue & ranger players were not, as I surmise.
The Fighter NEED 2 strong stat to be functional: Strengh and Constitution.The fighter also needs dex (need that initiative and AC to not go splat), int (need 13 for your combat maneuvers) and wisdom (because your will is s$@!). Cha's the only thing you can go without (unless you want to use one of your only noncombat skill options).
For DEX, a Fighter will love to have it, true. But, for a ''standard 2 handed fighter'', he don't really need it. The heavy armor will get him a good enough AC and, for the first level, he don't get anything to have more than 12.
For INT, a Fighter will love to have it. But many fighter build will not use combat maneuvers and go for Raw damage/ tank.
For WIS, a Fighter will love to have it. But I can think of some Dwarf Fighter who will have +5 on will at level 1 with 12 wisdom (Steel Soul + Power attack and you are ready for combat).
Juste like all the martial class, the Fighter would love to get good stat anywhere, but you could easily make a good dwarf fighter with only good STR and good CON.
|
|
I have only seen it once. But as our group is heavily into teamwork with Buffing and healing, that ability got into the way more than it helped. We also have longer combats than some.
My point was, a vast majority of Barbarians take Superstition. Saying that 'most Barbarians don't have Superstition' or 'only a few builds have it' is deeply and profoundly incorrect.
*shrugs* I've literally never seen a Barbarian without it. Including the one a player not particularly inclined to optimization made when all we had was the corebook (I got into Pathfinder early).
Buffing is an issue, but IME mostly results in the Barbarian raging a round later rather than not taking Superstition.
Thanks for the link Deadmanwalking. I admit I don't know how he got a damage bonus that high...I assume it's mostly a combination of the buff spells he would have going. Here's my issue with that (not that it's an actual issue).
I have never once played in a game where if we got caught by surprise...we could afford to have a character or two spend 2-3 rounds immediately buffing themselves. Combats a lot of times are short and brutal rarely lasting more than 7-8 rounds unless it's a huge never ending melee. If characters spent those rounds buffing...in our games at least one person would assuredly be dead.
Do you generally play games where when you get into combat you buff for several rounds? I am not saying there's anything wrong with it mind you, it's simply something we tend not to do unless it's a specific buffer class like a bard. Or am I missing something crucial (as I have not read through all the spells you had on the list)that allows those buffs and spells to linger from a very long period of time so that the individual can go into possible dangerous scenarios already self-buffed?
I've noticed that a TON on this thread about why Fighters and Rogues are subpar is because they do not have the ability to enhance their fighting capabilities (in the case of the rogue that is) where others do via spells etc. Yet it always seems to come down to buffs...which in my opinion...are not a luxury one can afford to spend time on once the doody has hit the fan.
In our kingmaker game when our rogue died the player was kind of glad and rerolled as a house ruled titan mauler who COULD wield an oversized two-handed weapon because he was not having fun with the low combat potential.
When the ranger died he rerolled as a full caster because just being on mop up duty after the other casters won the game was not fun anymore.We started with three pc melee guys and ended with one pc melee and one npc melee.
So yes, we felt the effects in our game.Part of the problem might have been that the summons our master summoner threw at the enemies were good enough to keep most enemies from our casters.
Kingmaker isn't trap heavy, but the Rogues high social skills should have been helpful. But yeah, no doubt a Titan Mauler will be better in combat. No one thinks a rogue should be.
A Ranger can be super deadly as a archer, and he has Mad Skills, so I am not sure why he was only doing "mop up duty".
It's not uncommon for a game to have more spellcasters at higher levels. It is a bit of a challenge to play a wizard at low levels.
But yeah, it's generally agreed that the MS is the single most broken variant in the game, with the ability to spam unlimited meat shields. It's banned in many games. That changes your game a lot. Especially if that Player is a Optimizer and the rogue & ranger players were not, as I surmise.
I assume the Ranger was on "mop up" because once proper casters reduce the enemies to debuffed pinatas, that's about the only duty left.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
