I'm not trying to be inflammatory about this topic.
A lot of discussions take place about the various classes characters can choose from in this game, and a lot of them invariably deal with the balance between Martial classes and Spellcasting ones. Personally, I think it would be folly to make a class centered around mastery of (e.g.) combat equal to a class centered around mastery of arcane magic.
Don't get me wrong. Every class should have features that are compelling and interesting. I firmly believe that if a class doesn't have a valid (that is, engaging and fun) role to play in the game, then it's not worth having it. I can't reconcile that with the opinion that every class should "punch at the same weight class", though.
The Wizard class's description nicely sums up how I feel about a dedicated arcane spellcaster's power level:
Beyond the veil of the mundane hide the secrets of absolute power. The works of beings beyond mortals, the legends of realms where gods and spirits tread, the lore of creations both wondrous and terrible—such mysteries call to those with the ambition and the intellect to rise above the common folk to grasp true might. Such is the path of the wizard. These shrewd magic-users seek, collect, and covet esoteric knowledge, drawing on cultic arts to work wonders beyond the abilities of mere mortals.
I think a 20th-level Fighter should be truly spectacular. I think their abilities should reflect sublime skill and absolutely heroic prowess. Even that 20th-level Fighter's abilities should be within the realm of the mortal and the "mundane", though (as in, untouched by the divine and the arcane). A 20th-level Fighter that is balanced against a 20th-level Wizard begs the question: how does his non-magic skill transcend what is humanly possible, and, if it does, how is it not magic?
I think the Mythic ruleset and the old 3.5 Epic rules should absolutely allow a "mundane" class to do stuff that a "magic" one can, because they are less about (e.g.) King Arthur (who happened to have a great sword and a powerful mentor) than they are about someone like Sir Gawaine (whose strength grew to superhuman levels from dawn until noon, at which point it gradually went back down to his normally heroic level).
Again, I'm not trying to start a fight and I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone that their class has to suck. Nor am I advocating that classes like the Fighter, the Rogue, etc., can't be improved.
Thoughts?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, there's some question about whether Conan the Cimmerian is a "mere mortal"; he's just as much a matter of legend as is Gandalf the Grey. I don't think you can draw a line and say that "up to this level is heroic, but beyond it is no longer mundanely heroic, but magical."
We've already seen, for example, that even a mid-level fighter literally cannot be killed by a fall (there's a maximum of 20d6 falling damage, 120 hit points). This, in turn, suggests that NASA should have used high-level fighters for its astronauts, since if something went wrong on Apollo 13, they could merely have stepped out of the capsule, fallen to Earth, and then walked to the nearest pay phone and called for help.
On the other hand, being able to survive the Plummet of Certain Doom is more heroic, more in keeping with the source material, and more fun.
Personally, I don't find being told "no" by the game master to be particularly fun. I particularly don't want to be told "no, because realism" when the person playing the cleric next to me is told "yes, because magic." That makes it very clear that Playing a Fighter Is Supposed To Be Realistic Instead of Fun.
And as a result I would rather play a game that is Fun Instead Of Realistic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Further to above. Does anyone besides me remember that scene at the end of Blade Runner where Roy punches through a stone wall to hurt Decker?
My fighter wants to do that. He wants to be so badassed that he can do something totally and awesomely cinematic like kill a mook on the other side of total cover simply by punching through the wall.
As far as I know, there are no rules to support that. So, "no, because realism." Even if I've got an adamantine weapon that technically ignores the hardness of the wall, and so should go through stone like cardstock.
So I guess I should cast a burst spell like a fireball through a nearby window instead. Because that's so much more realistic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is difficult to judge what is balanced and what is not. A paladin may seem overpowering if the opposition tends to be powerful single opponents that are evil. A wizard might seem underpowered if the group usually fights constructs and spell resistant creatures.
Many classes have situational bonuses and can shift challenges or how an adventure should be shaped depending on a lot of different factors. Certainly, some classes enjoy more potential benefits than others (spellcasters tend to be more advantaged than rogue classes).
A tweaked game (Pathfinder 2.0?) might stabilize the issues a bit better, yet is a costly prospect. House rules help a lot, yet are not admissible for tournament / PFS play.
To make a character completely "fair" would require tweaks similar to GURPs, where all of the character features are purchased by point buy that potentially makes all players equal. Of course, play preferences and system mastery will make the players independently unequal - this cannot be solved by rules.
Of course, point buy shenanigans might lead to multiplication of the problems with the Pathfinder racial guide - players can easily munchkin a very powerful race that is very cost efficient. Equal, yes. Desirable, depends on the group and what consequences they are willing to pay.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Edit* This is my Personal Opinion.
It's not a question of, "Should there be balance?", and more of a question of, "Can there be balance between the classes?". Unfortunately, no it's not possible. This is not really Paizo's fault truth be told. Pathfinder is built on the back of older and antiqued(by modern standards) D&D/d20 editions. Without a total strip down and full overhaul of every single class, they can not be balanced.
In 3.5 DnD there was the Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords. That book introduced Maneuvers and Stances which were an attempt to give Martial classes access to mundane "spells" to reflect their skill at arms. But that book had very mixed reactions among players. Many players who enjoyed classes like Fighter and Rogues enjoyed having access to these new semi-spells. Players who largely favored divine/arcane classes flamed that book for daring to give Martials toys that properly belong exclusively in the realm of mystics. Dreamscarred Press has recently done a fairly good job revamping that book to work for Pathfinder as "Path of War".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orfamay Quest,
I would argue that Conan is heroic, rather than superhuman. He has used magical items in his adventures, but his own abilities are exceptional - not magical, divine, etc.
Where falling damage is concerned... that may be an example of superhuman ability by our standards, but was that the intent? Or was it a result of questionable game design?
I ask that question because if that's evidence of intent for mundane classes to transcend into the magical/superhuman, then it's also evidence of some sadism on the part of the game designers. Meaning, if I'm playing a Fighter, and the game designer is interested in expressing that, past a certain level my character defies mortal ability, I can think of much more beneficial ways than "You can survive a ridiculous fall!" :)
I do agree with your "fun versus realism" point. I guess I'm less concerned about the "realism" part as I am about the "balance between the classes" bit, though. Do you feel the game is a non-starter is a Fighter is not capable of making their shield function like (e.g.) a Prismatic Wall, or if their mobility-related feats don't replicate (e.g.) Teleport?
KestrelZ,
I agree wholeheartedly with your opening point. I think it cuts to the very heart of the matter. Pathfinder is, practically by definition, interactive fiction. If the GM doesn't specifically tailor the campaign - every encounter, really - to challenge the specific cast of characters and entertain the players controlling them, then the game is no better than a book you're not having fun reading.
The issue then, to me at least, isn't whether or not the Fighter can't punch through a wall like Roy Batty can. It's neither here nor there to me, unless the Fighter is also a cyborg and the GM is being a jerk. The issue, to me, is why that GM isn't setting up the Fighter for "success" (in the sense of tailored, meaningful encounters).
Imagine, for instance, if you were watching (or reading) "The Princess Bride" and Inigo Montoya runs into the Six-Fingered Man... except the Six-Fingered Man is really a Wizard who already buffed himself out with all manner of sword-blocking magic. What sucks about this scene? The fact that the most sublime swordsman in the universe of "The Princess Bride" can't get through a bunch of spells? Or that that Bill Goldman is a massive sadist who set up an excquisite revenge finale only to cruelly have the character whipped like a dog?
Rawrsong,
I'll have to check those books out - thanks! :)
Having to rely on someone else to "set you up for success" is a terrible feeling. I'd rather succeed by virtue of "being able to succeed". Balance is also important because a level 13 Fighter and a level 13 Wizard should be roughly equal challenges to fight against. As a wise party would much rather fight a level 13 Fighter then a level 13 Wizard, this is not the case. This is why a straight Fighter 20 isn't the end of campaign BBEG and that's lame that Fighters can't be end of campaign BBEGs without having support casters who would really be better off if the BBEG was another support caster.
To the topic question: Yes. There's a long, long line of mythology and fiction involving a purely-martial character going up against a spellcaster and winning. Having some balance to the classes would allow that to exist again.
There should still be differences, but in combat you shouldn't have one seriously outshining the other. Leave the shine for elsewhere.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, classes should be balanced.
No, that doesn't necessarily mean martials should be able to do everything spellcasters do, or vice versa.
But it does mean that, presented with an obstacle they're designed to face, they should have equal odds of overcoming it, and probably a roughly equivalent number of options regarding how to do so. How to arrange this is an enormous logistical problem given the nature of the Pathfinder system and how it's been designed (well, in fairness, it's mostly 3.0 and 3.5's fault)...but that's pretty clearly the ideal to strive for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orfamay Quest,
I would argue that Conan is heroic, rather than superhuman. He has used magical items in his adventures, but his own abilities are exceptional - not magical, divine, etc.
I'm not sure this is a meaningful distinction; the point is that his abilities are exceptional enough that they might as well be magical. If I remember correctly, it's called out at least one ("Tower of the Elephant"?) that he scaled a wall unaided that the onlookers do not believe can be scaled by a human being. Whether this climbing ability is the result of barbarian training, a spider climb spell, or being bitten by a radioactive spider seems irrelevant to the effect, which is that Conan can do thing that are literally incredible.
Similarly, he has successfully deflected spells ("Red Nails," IIRC) in such a way to kill enemy casters with them. (When Luke Skywalker does that, it's because he's a Jedi and using the Force.) He's taken beatings which leaves people gasping something like "no one could have survived that!"
Conan is literally superhuman. Whether that's as a result of being awesome or being magical is irrelevant -- a high level fighter should also be superhuman.
I do agree with your "fun versus realism" point. I guess I'm less concerned about the "realism" part as I am about the "balance between the classes" bit, though. Do you feel the game is a non-starter is a Fighter is not capable of making their shield function like (e.g.) a Prismatic Wall, or if their mobility-related feats don't replicate (e.g.) Teleport?
I think it's a definite weakness, because it means the martial classes are less fun to play, because they get told "no" far too often. I don't consider it a non-starter (obviously, as I still play Pathfinder; I'd not hang out on the boards if I didn't), but I don't often play martials Because Realism Must Trump Fun (unless you're a caster).
The issue then, to me at least, isn't whether or not the Fighter can't punch through a wall like Roy Batty can. It's neither here nor there to me, unless the Fighter is also a cyborg and the GM is being a jerk. The issue, to me, is why that GM isn't setting up the Fighter for "success" (in the sense of tailored, meaningful encounters).
Partly because the GM can't. He's restricted by the rules.
Imagine, for instance, if you were watching (or reading) "The Princess Bride" and Inigo Montoya runs into the Six-Fingered Man... except the Six-Fingered Man is really a Wizard who already buffed himself out with all manner of sword-blocking magic. What sucks about this scene?
The fact that there's no way within the rules for Inigo to be awesome enough to get through the sword-blocking magic.
We already see Inigo being awesome -- he literally takes wounds that would kill a normal human, but continues to fight. He's already superhuman. But that's not enough to handle, e.g., an etherealness spell.
The alternative is for the GM to play Count Rugen as an idiot who doesn't use obvious defensive spells. But that doesn't really work, because it still doesn't limit PC casters, who are free to use the most over-the-top ridiculous spell combinations, and the GM can't make effective martial opponents.
Yes, classes should be balanced.
No, that doesn't necessarily mean martials should be able to do everything spellcasters do, or vice versa.
But it does mean that, presented with an obstacle they're designed to face, they should have equal odds of overcoming it, and probably a roughly equivalent number of options regarding how to do so.
This. I'd also say "equal access to those options" (e.g., if a wizard simply has to memorize a different spell tomorrow, but the fighter needs to retrain four feats, that's not balanced.)
|
|
Yes, classes should be balanced.
No, that doesn't necessarily mean martials should be able to do everything spellcasters do, or vice versa.
But it does mean that, presented with an obstacle they're designed to face, they should have equal odds of overcoming it, and probably a roughly equivalent number of options regarding how to do so.
This. I'd also say "equal access to those options" (e.g., if a wizard simply has to memorize a different spell tomorrow, but the fighter needs to retrain four feats, that's not balanced.)
My intent was for that statement to be in regards to individual martial and spellcaster characters having equal odds and options. So yeah, definitely in agreement with you there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This, IMHO, is a no-brainer. Of course they should be balanced. Spellcasters in particular need reined in, in a big way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Balance is a fine thing but not necessary.
Just ask anyone who considers themselves an "old timer". I play a rogue because I want to play a rogue, not because I need to play someone as powerful as a wizard. No that rogue does not need to fight as well as a fighter and no I don't expect him to be as world shattering as a wizard and no he doesn't need to heal like a cleric. I expect him to sneak around and disarm traps and open locks and occasionally backstab or poison someone because that is what rogues do.
Why do I do that? Because I want to play a rogue.
That's a very good ability indeed that might make sense as a powerup to martials, although there's still the issue that very few feats are as powerful as their level-equivalent spells.
Case in point:
Jawbreaker (Combat)
You deliver a powerful strike to the mouth, breaking teeth and bone.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist, Heal 6 ranks.
Benefit: When you make a successful Stunning Fist attempt against an opponent that is grappled, helpless, or stunned, instead of imparting any other Stunning Fist effect, you can cripple that opponent's mouth, dealing normal unarmed strike damage and 1d4 points of bleed damage. Until the bleed damage ends, the target is unable to use its mouth to attack, speak clearly, and employ verbal spell components. A creature that is immune to critical hits or that has no discernible mouth is immune to the effects of this feat
Okay, it's based on Stunning fist, so it's limited uses per day, and it requires that you be in touch range, make a to-hit roll, and that the opponent fail a saving throw. And it requires you be at least 6th level to take.
The effect is to impose a silence effect and bleed damage.
A wizard at that level can use deep slumber to render someone helpless, at range, without needing a to-hit roll. Or a suggestion spell to effectively take them out of combat, again at range without a to-hit roll. Or an aboleth's lung at only level 2, to suffocate them.
|
|
Balance is a fine thing but not necessary.
Just ask anyone who considers themselves an "old timer". I play a rogue because I want to play a rogue, not because I need to play someone as powerful as a wizard. No that rogue does not need to fight as well as a fighter and no I don't expect him to be as world shattering as a wizard and no he doesn't need to heal like a cleric. I expect him to sneak around and disarm traps and open locks and occasionally backstab or poison someone because that is what rogues do.
Why do I do that? Because I want to play a rogue.
Right. But here's the thing, if the Rogue is powered up (by making his areas of specialty as effective as everyone else's and making him really good at them) and everything is balanced...then you will still have fun playing a Rogue. And some people who wouldn't have that fun with the current version will too.
It costs people who don't care about balance nothing to make things balanced, and improves things for those who do. So there's absolutely no inherent down side to the idea. In practice, there could be unfortunate consequences...but it's not inherent in the idea at all.
(By this logic, of course, by 2070 the Pathfinder 9th Edition fighters will have to use exponential notation to keep track of their hit points.)
And at the same time, spellcasters will be able to violate causality by level 3 and you will need a functioning hypercube to model the results of 9th-level spells :P
Notice that they never power up martials without also powering up spellcasters ;)
Balance is a fine thing but not necessary.
Just ask anyone who considers themselves an "old timer". I play a rogue because I want to play a rogue, not because I need to play someone as powerful as a wizard. No that rogue does not need to fight as well as a fighter and no I don't expect him to be as world shattering as a wizard and no he doesn't need to heal like a cleric. I expect him to sneak around and disarm traps and open locks and occasionally backstab or poison someone because that is what rogues do.
Why do I do that? Because I want to play a rogue.
Sorry, not all 'old timers' buy that.
To the topic question: Yes. There's a long, long line of mythology and fiction involving a purely-martial character going up against a spellcaster and winning.
Sure. Sometimes it's due to cunning, or some magical items, or exploiting some prophecy, or whatever. But rarely - outside of characters who fall under Mythic or Epic - do you have pure brawn and sword-skill prevailing against magic.
Orfamay Quest,
That's fair. I don't necessarily share your sentiments, but I respect where you're coming from. I certainly don't want this to devolve to "I am right, you are wrong!" :)
I think every class should be unbalanced against a single other class. Equality for all!
More seriously, though, I think that balance is a good thing, but can be taken too far, as well. I know that the first editions of the game were- in a lot of ways- awfully unbalanced, and yet they never really seemed to cause any issues (or at least few issues) in my gaming groups, perhaps because we were all close friends and sharing in mutual entertainment.
I wonder if perhaps things like Pathfinder Society (and before it, the Living XXX games for D&D) are in some ways responsible for the over-emphasis (IMO) on class balance, and that as a result, it has spilled over into non-"competitive"/league (whatever it's called) gaming.
Having to rely on someone else to "set you up for success" is a terrible feeling.
Having a tailored, meaningful encounter is a terrible feeling?
Balance is also important because a level 13 Fighter and a level 13 Wizard should be roughly equal challenges to fight against. As a wise party would much rather fight a level 13 Fighter then a level 13 Wizard, this is not the case. This is why a straight Fighter 20 isn't the end of campaign BBEG and that's lame that Fighters can't be end of campaign BBEGs without having support casters who would really be better off if the BBEG was another support caster.
We're now getting into the considerations of making good NPCs and encounters, though. Those, I would argue, are two different things.
I mean, it's not like the BBEG Wizard guy is simply going to exist in a vacuum either, right?
Yes. Of course!
Balance will never be perfect, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved. (And Pathfinder balance has a lot of improving to do!)
Saying the devs shouldn't bother trying because perfect balance is impossible is like saying people shouldn't bother taking care f their health because they'll never be immortal.
To the topic question: Yes. There's a long, long line of mythology and fiction involving a purely-martial character going up against a spellcaster and winning.Sure. Sometimes it's due to cunning, or some magical items, or exploiting some prophecy, or whatever. But rarely - outside of characters who fall under Mythic or Epic - do you have pure brawn and sword-skill prevailing against magic.
Are you unfamiliar with the Conan series? Or more generally, with the entire sword-and-sorcery genre? Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser? Wagner's Kane? Solomon Kane? Bran Mak Morn? We could also add to that the entire planetary-romance genre -- Barsoom, Gor, Almuric -- where alien science replaces "magic" but the effect is much the same. It makes no narrative difference if you're deflecting scorching rays or simply rays-that-scorch.
To the topic question: Yes. There's a long, long line of mythology and fiction involving a purely-martial character going up against a spellcaster and winning.Sure. Sometimes it's due to cunning, or some magical items, or exploiting some prophecy, or whatever. But rarely - outside of characters who fall under Mythic or Epic - do you have pure brawn and sword-skill prevailing against magic.
In addition to what Orfamay said, let me point this out: Rarely, outside of mythic or epic, do you see the characters going directly against magic users at all. So since we're starting at mythic storytelling, it makes no sense not to go all of the way.
I don't think classes needed to be balanced in combat, but they every class should be be able to do thing inside and outside of combat that affect the game at all levels.
The problem is not just balance, but what players find to be acceptable. I think the Tome of Battle did a nice job of giving martials a hand up, but to many it is beyond the suspension of belief so they call it "anime"
, use phrases such as "over 9000", and so on to talk of their disapproval of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like these questions.
"Is there balance between the classes?" and "Should there be balance?"
For reference, look at Gurps, where your "class" is a specifically constructed custom entity, at its core balanced with others in the same setting.
Despite the balanced player resources and multiple options for different games the system has never ever made it into the big spotlight like DnD (whatever edition) or Pathfinder has.
As a second reference, look at DnD 4th. A system so extremely focused on balance and class rules that the classes blurr. The effects of different classes attacks are dissimilar but the execution is the same. Its more like a computer program in its simplistic efficiency.
The ultra effective systems of DnD 4th are its biggest strength, you can really churn through combat after combat in record time in that system if you have some experienced players. On the other hand, it also feels a bit "plastic" or fake, along with a lack for strong GM tools and uninteresting out of combat play made the system a failure, in some peoples opinion.
.
3.5, and thus Pathfinder, has some of the strongest GM tools for developing worlds and populating them with a variety of obstacles, along with such a heap of player material that has accumulated through the times.
It may just be my system mastery as a GM, but knowing the tools for other game systems (a fairly decent list including Numinera, Gurps, Savage worlds, Cyberpunk 20xx, D&D 4th and others) i can safely say that I can much more confidently claim that I can make pretty much any campaign I want using pathfinder, populating it with customized or scratch built creatures, in a fairly short amount of time.
The variety of possible stories, and the GM's ability to exert control over the content in the form of CR and ECL, along with a healthy knowledge of the system and how to liberally apply CR the way its meant to be, you get a system that can accommodate a variety of playstyles. In my recently finished story The players had to up their powergame and really stick it to me in a game of rocket tag to the death, sadly it ended in an unofficial TPK, as the battered characters suddently found themselves with different goals after a near defeat. It was a game of having the odds stacked against you and foes behind every corner, and the characters were suitably aggression oriented with a slew of methods to dish out damage in droves.
The next game is to be a different story altogether, the NPC have already proven to be friendlier and supportive, and the only combat for two sessions was one where an old, drunkard half ork monk, feeling aggression rise in his ork blood, provoked a fight with a bear.
This party is hardly efficient at all, I doubt they could win a ECL +2 fight (which was pretty much standard in the other campaign), there is no tank or protector, the HP pools are mediocre at best, and no strong healer. On the other hand, every character in the latter story has a defined soul, several roleplaying elements waiting to be explored and a large open world with a core story hidden somewhere in it.
Ill leave it to you to decide which is more fun, I find immersion to be more interesting to play, but it is also exhausting when played at length, hardcore rocket tag is exiting, but it too can be exhausting.
It was a wall of text, but what I want to say is, class power level is nearly irrelevant.
If the class works and is passable in battle then that is fine, so long as it has elements that makes the player want to play it and enjoys it.
Different stories call for different classes.
The Rouge and the Upcoming Investigator have little to offer for combat. They have some tricks to pull and some sneaky tactics, but honestly wouldnt you rather do a steady 20 dpr as a Paladin or Cavalier rather then a possible 50 damage every 3 rounds or so when you finally land a sneak attack? The thing is.. Those numbers dont matter when youre not supposed to do damage, for example when youre sneaking around or stealing or even just rummaging through a forest for food.
A Wizard can do those things you say? No honestly, they cant. They can do it for a few minutes, tens of minutes, perhaps even a few hours a day, but at the cost of limited munitions
.
A good GM will be up-front about his story. He tells his players what to expect, what they are about to do, and gives them some options for the story, not only in character selection but also in what kind of story they are about to play.
This will let the players tailor their characters to the story, and the Gm tailor the story to the characters, my current party has a lot of skills and out of combat abilities, so I will have to adapt the story to them where they are strong, and where they are weak. For the first time in years this group will truly fear for its safety if faced with a horde of weak opponents, for they have no sustainable source of blasts nor a cleaving master of melee combat. I will enjoy the first time they find themselves in this sort of situation, because hidden in the background will be a lot of options for environmental destruction, did anybody say burning bridges and falling rocks? Sounds like a job for a rouge, or Possibly an Investigator.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Rouge and the Upcoming Investigator have little to offer for combat.
Well, of course not! A makeup-oriented class would definitely not be effective in combat!
Though, I would be interested to see the iconic for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
a lvl 20 fighter should have a Castle and a fighters guild, a lvl 20th rogue should have a thieves guild. WHY DID THEY TAKE THIS FROM US?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It was a wall of text, but what I want to say is, class power level is nearly irrelevant.
If the class works and is passable in battle then that is fine, so long as it has elements that makes the player want to play it and enjoys it.
Different stories call for different classes.
In Pathfinder, this is basically crap. Pathfinder is predicated on a 4-6 encounter day, most of them combat encounters. Yes, if you diverge from that different things become relevant (and balance breaks down)...but that's the default mode of the game, made explicit in the books, and thus classes should do about equally well when you play that way as a whole lot of people do. Classes are not remotely equal when the game is played that way, which is a serious problem.
A good GM can overcome all sorts of systemic issues by focusing the plot, modifying mechanics, and a host of other things...but the better the game system, the less he has to.
The Rouge and the Upcoming Investigator have little to offer for combat.
Not to derail the thread, but with Studied Combat this is deeply untrue of the Investigator.
Adding half your level to attack and damage starting at level 4 is a rather significant bonus, and can be done as a Swift Action very shortly thereafter. Investigator's looking to be around on par with Dawnflower Dervish in combat...and that's one of the classes people compare to full Martials.
It being true of the Rogue and nobody else is basically the problem with the Rogue.
When encounters have to be designed purposefully just to give you something to do, yeah, that feels pretty patronizing and bad.
My point is that, if it's done properly, it doesn't feel that way.
Nothing precludes him from having any of those things. The problem here is that this villain is scary because of the traps and minions he has, not his own power.
To arrive at this, though, you have to reduce the villain to just his class mechanics. I genuinely don't get the point of doing that.
This problem then compounds on itself because while having a mastermind villain without much raw power on his own is perfectly fine, the fighter is probably the worst chassis in the game to build it on.
I disagree with that automatic pronouncement. I think the needs of the campaign would determine who the best and worst chassis would be for the BBEG to be built on.
Short version:
Different classes are good in different situations, unlike what adventure path designers would have you believe "Level appropriate ECL" is not the Law of God, furthermore combat encounters do not have the be the most important and the most fun part of every story you play.
Skill gimps are good at being savvy and skilled and sneaky.
Martials are good at looking good with a heavy metal object in their hands.
Casters are good at winning the game looking all magicky-badass while they're at it.
Sidenote:
You want the perfect party line up for "winning" against the foes your Dm matches you against?
its not "Fighter-Rouge-Cleric-Wizard" as the classic game would have you believe.
its "Cleric-Alchemist-Oracle-Wizard", in that order.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Short version:
Different classes are good in different situations, unlike what adventure path designers would have you believe "Level appropriate ECL" is not the Law of God, furthermore combat encounters do not have the be the most important and the most fun part of every story you play.
Totally...but the more you depart from the basic formula, the less you're playing Pathfinder as it was designed and intended. That's not bad, but it makes the advice you give not readily applicable to those who are running a more conventional/stereotypical game.
And besides, Bard or Investigator do better than Rogue at all of the non-combat stuff, too, and literally everyone's better than Fighters at non-combat things. Just to pick two examples that focusing on different stuff doesn't notably help.
Skill gimps are good at being savvy and skilled and sneaky.
Here's the thing. All the skill characters other than Rogue are good at the stuff you list...and either combat or spellcasting or both on top of that. Bards, Inquisitors, and Investigators are also better at the skills part.
Martials are good at looking good with a heavy metal object in their hands.
Casters are good at winning the game looking all magicky-badass while they're at it.
Those are both pretty accurate, though.
Sidenote:
You want the perfect party line up for "winning" against the foes your Dm matches you against?
its not "Fighter-Rouge-Cleric-Wizard" as the classic game would have you believe.
its "Cleric-Alchemist-Oracle-Wizard", in that order.
I'd disagree in detail, but not in general. There are lots of better Classes than Fighter and Rogue. Which is exactly the problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think classes should necessarily be "balanced", that is to say that classes need not necessarily all do equally well in similar circumstances.
But I think that no class should be able to completely over shine another, as is the case now.
When encounters have to be designed purposefully just to give you something to do, yeah, that feels pretty patronizing and bad.My point is that, if it's done properly, it doesn't feel that way.
Nothing precludes him from having any of those things. The problem here is that this villain is scary because of the traps and minions he has, not his own power.To arrive at this, though, you have to reduce the villain to just his class mechanics. I genuinely don't get the point of doing that.
This problem then compounds on itself because while having a mastermind villain without much raw power on his own is perfectly fine, the fighter is probably the worst chassis in the game to build it on.I disagree with that automatic pronouncement. I think the needs of the campaign would determine who the best and worst chassis would be for the BBEG to be built on.
Uh this is a roleplaying game. You roleplay you mechanics. If you are roleplaying a 10 INT Fighter as a super skillful individual even though he only has a paltry few points in a random assortment of skills, you are roleplaying that character wrong. So if you aren't looking at the Villain's class mechanics, what exactly are you looking at? Their sunny disposition or their opposition to building in the Far Lands? Because all my villains have plenty of character, they just also have the numbers to back them up. (And not a one of them is Fighter, though I did pull a great bait and switch once with the help of a Thrallherd BBEG.)
I don't think classes should necessarily be "balanced", that is to say that classes need not necessarily all do equally well in similar circumstances.
But I think that no class should be able to completely over shine another, as is the case now.
I think this is where all of us who support balance are at, really. Not that they have to be exact equals, but that the disparity shouldn't be so massive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why a straight Fighter 20 isn't the end of campaign BBEGIf you're going to be honest, you'll admit that that's equally true of a straight Wizard 20. He's simply too squishy against a party of end game level. The usual BBEG is something that's going to combine elements of BOTH. Such as an ancient spell casting Dragon or Pit Fiend.
Or a bard who took Perform (Sing), Perform (Dance), Perform (Juggle), and Perform (Mind Screw) that has a lot of goblin minions and loves to juggle glass balls and hide in mazes.