| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The classes should not be balanced imo. They are already a bit too balanced for my taste.
|
The classes should not be balanced imo. They are already a bit too balanced for my taste.
I really have to question this.
So you're saying you'd like more of an imbalance? Where? What should be stronger and what should be weaker?
Because right now there's at least two classes that are nearly at NPC level to those who check the math and capabilities of these classes. Yeah, math isn't everything, but in a game based in math for a lot of things (attack rolls, saves, skills, etc), it's a pretty good benchmark on finding out how powerful certain things are and how well they're able to participate in given situations (unless rules are ignored, at which point it's hard to compare it as the same game).
|
@Anzyr: I disagree profoundly with you on Campaign Traits. RAW you might be correct. RAI you are clearly not, and most GMs I've met would go by the latter.
But that's off-topic. And irrelevant to boot given the Bard, Ranger, and Alchemist Archetypes with Trapfinding. Plus the Investigator and Slayer.
@Rightbackatya:
Okay, you want proof? Post a Rogue build. I'll make some character of another class that does basically everything it does only better. Really, I can do this pretty readily.
Fighter's a little bit harder, but if you post a fighter build I'll be perfectly happy to give it a go. I'll probably need to use Slayer for anything Feat intensive, but it's doable.
So put your money where your mouth is.
The classes should not be balanced imo. They are already a bit too balanced for my taste.I really have to question this.
So you're saying you'd like more of an imbalance? Where? What should be stronger and what should be weaker?
Because right now there's at least two classes that are nearly at NPC level to those who check the math and capabilities of these classes. Yeah, math isn't everything, but in a game based in math for a lot of things (attack rolls, saves, skills, etc), it's a pretty good benchmark on finding out how powerful certain things are and how well they're able to participate in given situations (unless rules are ignored, at which point it's hard to compare it as the same game).
I have made a few threads about this in the past, but yeah I would ideally like more of an imbalance. They way the classes are now is fine though, as long as they are not further balanced :-)
|
|
I have made a few threads about this in the past, but yeah I would ideally like more of an imbalance. They way the classes are now is fine though, as long as they are not further balanced :-)
N. Jolly didn't just express disbelief. He(?) asked you to explain where and what should be more and less powerful and how. I'm interested in that, too, so please answer the question.
Also...while I believe you're serious, I disagree with you completely on every possible level.
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.
To stick with the image: While not every one needs to be Mike Tyson at least every one should be in the same weight class. So no Flyweight (Rogue) and Heavyweight (Wizard) in the same game.
I'm not morain, although I share the preference for imbalance. As an example, I like the bard class but would prefer if they were less effective in combat but the same in other respects - bard doesn't seem battle-y to me (I don't identify with skalds and so forth).
|
|
I have made a few threads about this in the past, but yeah I would ideally like more of an imbalance. They way the classes are now is fine though, as long as they are not further balanced :-)
From what I've seen, you want to make Wizards more powerful, and I can't possibly comprehend why. Like it's beyond me to wrap my head around that way of thinking, so if you could explain it, I would appreciate it greatly. The idea of balance being a bad thing here just seems counter intuitive to most things I've learned about game design.
To stick with the image: While not every one needs to be Mike Tyson at least every one should be in the same weight class. So no Flyweight (Rogue) and Heavyweight (Wizard) in the same game.
To be fair, Tyson was in the same game as Little Mac, and that dude only weighed 120 lbs.
But no, I totally agree with you here, having the cruiser weight champion teaming with the heavyweight champion seems like the smaller character is going to learn why there's weight classes in the first place.
|
|
I'm not morain, although I share the preference for imbalance. As an example, I like the bard class but would prefer if they were less effective in combat but the same in other respects - bard doesn't seem battle-y to me (I don't identify with skalds and so forth).
It's very possible to make a Bard who sucks at combat if you like.
What does the game gain by not allowing people who do identify with skalds and so forth to play more combative Bards, and thus making the game less fun for them?
Removing effective options is almost always an awful idea.
*shrug* Sure. As I said above, I don't think it's necessarily a sensible thing for publishers to strive for - I think they should focus on balance.
I was just answering N. Jolly's question with an example of what I'd prefer.
As another example of differing preferences (for illustrative purposes, not in any advocacy sense). I also like restricted options. I like level caps and restrictions on class based on race. Etcetera etcetera. In a game with lots of options, I am (paradoxically) less likely to try anything too out there.
|
|
There's a spell called Aram Zey's Focus that gives trapfinding as well as bunch of bonuses if you should already have it it like a bonus to disable device and the ability to roll again if you would trigger the device just to *really* drive home how awesome casters are.And it lasts for how long? And how many spell slots are you going to blow just to steal the show from some one who can do the same thing without resource expenditure?
Which would be why you play an Archaeologist or Crypt Breaker or Urban Ranger or Investigator or Slayer.
And it definitely lasts long enough to disarm a magical trap, so it's an option for doing that, even if you need to use other means to find it (which is easy enough, really).
More balance? Sure, the game lack some balance. If the monk became quite okay with all the archetype, the Rogue and the Fighter still lack the power of the other class, and the new class to come will just make it more apparent. At least, Fighter are pretty good at what they are doiing, and they will shine even when they are beside a barbarian or a paladin. the Rogue... well, if he is with a Urban Ranger or an Archeologist, he will have a hard time. And at least, the Fighter is pretty usefull for the game (it helps a lot to make some concept at low level to dip in one or two level).
It's a shame that the idea of ''Grit point'' didn't come up in the CRB: it would have work well for the Rogue and the Fighter...
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 think this is actually a very good observation.
In literature, wizards and similar caster-types are typically already mythic by default precisely because they do unnatural and unrealistic things. (Gandalf can light a fire when no one else can, even though he writes "Gandalf is here" in marks all can read from Rivendell to the Mouths of Anduin by doing so; he survives a fall believed to be endless, and singlehandedly slays a demon of the ancient world -- of course, he's also an angel.)
To face off against such, fighters in the sword-and-sorcery tend to have mythic abilities as well. In fact, looking at the officially mythic abilities of the Champion path, I don't actually see much if anything that would be out of character or out of order for Conan before the 6th tier.
Maybe the balance solution is just to make noncasters mythic by default.
Just gonna go ahead and point out that the Trap Breaker Alchemist is giving up poison use for Trapfinding, which most Alchemists will never use anyways. You otherwise give up nothing and can still combine with the Vivisectionist to get sneak attack and the standard melee Alchemist build.
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 think this is actually a very good observation.
In literature, wizards and similar caster-types are typically already mythic by default precisely because they do unnatural and unrealistic things. (Gandalf can light a fire when no one else can, even though he writes "Gandalf is here" in marks all can read from Rivendell to the Mouths of Anduin by doing so; he survives a fall believed to be endless, and singlehandedly slays a demon of the ancient world -- of course, he's also an angel.)
To face off against such, fighters in the sword-and-sorcery tend to have mythic abilities as well. In fact, looking at the officially mythic abilities of the Champion path, I don't actually see much if anything that would be out of character or out of order for Conan before the 6th tier.
Maybe the balance solution is just to make noncasters mythic by default.
And gandalf is small potatoes compared to what casters can do in pathfinder. He's a 5th level magic user for crying out loud. He casts lightning bolt once, animal messanger a couple times and and like 2 magic missiles. Thats about it. Mostly he fights with his sword.
And I am inclined to agree that the abilities granted by the mythic rules are closer to what high level martials ought to be able to do. Its just a matter of the fact that it shouldnt be a 'special' case. It should just be the norm.
Edit:
In terms of the OP, I do think that balance is something that needs to be strived for. But not in the sense of numbers matching up, or everyone having similar capacity to do each thing. More in the sense that everyone should have the same amount of influence over the story. Magic can literally change the course of an adventure, and certainly of encounters. That needs to be given back (yes I said back) to mundane characters.
The mid to high level rogue should be varys from Game of thrones with a spies in every corner of the kingdom gathering information for him and accomplishing various tasks, assasinations, theft, information gathering etc. Not necessarily trailing the party, but giving him the power to influence the story. The fighter and cavalier should have an army at the ready, available to charge in and flatten foes who challenge him openly or present him with an easy target, or even just to provide a distraction for the party to sneak in and take out the bad guy.
This shouldnt be a function of the story, this should be something those character get for being higher level non-magical characters.
The wizard gets to summon extra planar beings to smash his enemies. The fighter gets to call in shots from trebuchets from his army surrounding the evil fortress. Thats the kind of balance I want to see.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want every class to be able to do all the things another class can do, but I want them to be able to do equally spectacular things that are appropriate to their niche.
I don't want a 20th level Fighter to be able to swing his sword so hard he casts fireball, but I do want him to be able to jump a ludicrous distance into the air and execute a full attack against a flying foe, possibly kicking off of the body afterwards to strike at another. I think the Fighter should be able to use his skill in battle to inspire men with his deeds and recruit armies, and those should be gifts built directly in to his chassis.
I don't think Rogues should be able to use Disable Device to heal deadly wounds, but I do think they should be able to become so talented with Escape Artist that they can escape nearly any prison, even one that's essentially a pocket plane of nothingness designed to hold powerful outsiders that couldn't conceivably have a lock to pick.
Basically, yes, I wish the classes were better balanced, but that doesn't mean I want cookie-cutter 4E style abilities where everything becomes a block of math that you just add the appropriate fluff and keywords to for each class. I want it to be balanced in the sense that each class should have equally potent options for doing the things that they're supposed to be the best at. A Fighter shouldn't need a Wizard just to function at higher levels, the Wizard should make the already functional Fighter better. Rogue's shouldn't be faced with the constant realization that there's half a dozen classes that do what they do only better, and even worse, a spell for almost every skill that makes a person instantly as good at a thing as a Rogue who has devoted a lifetime to doing it.
Even Sean Reynolds noted that 6th level is about the maximum point in game that a human being from "our reality" can conceivably reach. It doesn't make sense that real world limitations should continue to apply to a specific set of classes when they spend 7/10 of their careers performing well beyond what our world accomodates. It's silly that you can survive being impaled by a rampaging triceratops or atmospheric reentry without a spaceship or suit, but gods forbid you jump more than 10 feet in the air or swing a sword more than once after moving 10 feet if you haven't devoted your entire career to being able to do so.
I don't want Fighters who do what Wizards do, but I want high level martials who high level casters would have reason to actually view as equals, instead of slightly more intelligent and better equipped shield guardians.
I don't want a 20th level Fighter to be able to swing his sword so hard he casts fireball, but I do want him to be able to jump a ludicrous distance into the air and execute a full attack against a flying foe, possibly kicking off of the body afterwards to strike at another. I think the Fighter should be able to use his skill in battle to inspire men with his deeds and recruit armies, and those should be gifts built directly in to his chassis.I don't think Rogues should be able to use Disable Device to heal deadly wounds, but I do think they should be able to become so talented with Escape Artist that they can escape nearly any prison, even one that's essentially a pocket plane of nothingness designed to hold powerful outsiders that couldn't conceivably have a lock to pick.
Agreed. With specific attention to the fighter,.... is there any feat that has as much effect on the game as a Planar Ally/Binding spell?
One, possibly... Leadership. Which is often disallowed because it's "too powerful." It's one of the few feats available to fighters that can have a really significant effect out of combat, but it still largely restricts you to normal mundane followers, while wizards are binding efreeti for a limitless supply of wish spells.
Even the mythic tier abilities available to champions are boring by comparison; my fighter can (finally) fly by making Hulk-like jumps at his 6th tier, which I agree is unrealistic -- while the wizard at this point has been able to fly for at least six levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Rogues should be able to use Disable Device to heal deadly wounds, but I do think they should be able to become so talented with Escape Artist that they can escape nearly any prison, even one that's essentially a pocket plane of nothingness designed to hold powerful outsiders that couldn't conceivably have a lock to pick.
I love this example because oddly, in an old home game of mine, a high level rogue did basically exactly this, using ridiculously high skills. It was in the Great Wheel cosmology, and the party cleric imprisoned him on a prison demiplane run by inevitable wardens that had no escape (this rogue was played on and off by a guest player who only showed up to the game pretty rarely, and he was a bit of an recurring foil to the party, but the cleric decided she wanted to use her spells to eliminate him nonlethally and permanently). But as is the case in Planescape, belief is power. He began to spread rumors throughout the prison of a very secret and obscure time that happened every 100 years when a planar convergence occurred due to the demiplane's drifting through the ethereal, allowing a prisoner who performed a very tricky set of actions to make an Escape Artist check to slip through a crack in the demiplane and into another demiplane that is easier to leave. Because of the rogue's high skills, eventually the rumor became so pervasive that even the inevitables began to consider a remote possibility that this escape was a reality, and they mustered guards to defend against it. This increased the belief among the now-convinced inmates to feverish levels, which pulled the demiplane into just such a convergence. While the wardens were busy dealing with the more brutish or spell-slinging inmates, the clever thief slipped out and escaped.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are the classes balanced? No.
Is balance needed? No.
Is balance something to strive for? Yes.
Regarding "mundane" versus "magical"...
The notion that fighters and rogues have to be "mundane" is ridiculous right off, simply because they need to be relevant in a magical world at the same CR/Level, where a truly all-natural person would merely die. It's also ridiculous because the warriors and rogues in storybooks, legends and movies are always pulling off superhuman acts: facing (what looks like) incredible odds and winning, at the very least...
These are all basically fighters or rogues... "mundane" indeed.
I think the issue here is that people take what are effectively a "static E6" view of fighters and rogues. They assume that the mundane classes can't do superhuman stuff, which only really makes sense for the low level game. Once a character ascends into mid- or high-level gaming, it's absurd to expect (even) fighters and rogues to be constrained by "realism" the same way... as if it were ever applicable in a fantasy world to begin with.
A level 14 character, fighter or not, is an appropriate subject for the Legend Lore spell, and that should speak to the issue further. By this point, we're talking about Perseus, Robin Hood, and characters whose awesome-factor literally etches their name into the fabric of reality, transcending time... I mean 56371274283 years later, on the other side of the world, someone can (by casting Legend Lore) ask the universe about such a character, and the universe will answer. That's not the hallmark of someone constrained by season 3 of Mythbusters. This is someone like Cú Chulainn, personally taking on armies.
It's more realistic from a game perspective to realize that a level 12 fighter, by mechanics, can fall from orbit and live, and is uber enough to be forever remembered as legend, and both of these facts work very well together. High level "mundane" classes are not mundane, they're superhuman, and this should be considered when making design choices or when imagining what they can and can't do.
Iron Heart Surge, the one that removes status affects is not supernatural. The text strictly calls out your fighting spirit and dedication as the reason why it works, and ToB said that even though the maneuvers seems magical unless called out as such they were extraordinary.I could not remember the name of the other ability so I could not check it.
Oh. thought you were talking about one of the healing maneuvers for the former. IHS, imo, is only a problem when you take the weird RAW it has. Being able to shake off effects through force of will isn't an uncommon theme, even D&D has it already.
The other ability is Awaken the Stone Dragon, the capstone ability for the Deepstone Sentinel.
I know the RAW for IHS is not good, but I was saying the fact that it can remove status affects irks some people because it is done without magic, and that thinking is why Paizo has to be careful with what martials have. I am surprised many of the barbarian's rage powers go over as well as they do. Maybe because ToB gave their maneuvers levels, and they progressed like spells, it had an affect on how it was received.
There's a spell called Aram Zey's Focus that gives trapfinding as well as bunch of bonuses if you should already have it it like a bonus to disable device and the ability to roll again if you would trigger the device just to *really* drive home how awesome casters are.And it lasts for how long? And how many spell slots are you going to blow just to steal the show from some one who can do the same thing without resource expenditure?
Minutes per level, plenty of time to disable most traps, especially since the caster should have a lesser metamagic rod, extend (or 2) and all it costs is one 2nd level spell slot, a much cheaper resource then another character, or a trait.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think it would be folly to make a class centered around mastery of arcane magic equal to a class centered around mastery of (e.g.) combat.
After all, the master of combat is a master of combat, while the master of Arcane Magic is essentially a master of everything.
Now, if you were to distill the master of Arcane Magic class down into a master of, say, Blasting, or Healing, or Theurgy or Necromancy? By all means those classes have every right to be the equal to a Master of Combat.
Fixed that for you.
I think I agree with what you're saying though, if what you're saying is that it's bonkers that a spellcaster who's never cast a summon or calling spell in their life can grab Summon Monster IX or Gate as their 9th level spell and instantly have access to the most powerful summoning magic available. Or that a character who's never cast Burning Hands, let alone Fireball, can fling Delayed Blast Fireballs or Meteor Swarms around like it's no big deal.
Martial classes have to slog their way through piles of prereqs to get to the "good stuff" associated with a particular combat style or maneuver. A Fighter who wants to be able to hit somebody after knocking them down has to spend about 1/7 of his total resources, which includes 3 feats, only one of which can be exchanged once every 4 levels if it turns out that tripping people was a poor idea for that campaign. A Wizard who has spent his entire career practicing abjuration spells can wake up and decide "I'd like mastery over fire", teleport over to the City of Brass, drop some gold, and pick up all of the most powerful fire-related spells without ever having had to spend a single day practicing with fire magic to attain that level of mastery. He's also only expending gold and daily resources, so if it turns out fire was a bad idea, he hasn't lost anything and can go back to what he was doing the next day.
|
|
Ex skills though are explicitly allowed to break the laws of reality and it's not like high level fighters aren't already superhuman.
I wish they'd use this idea more though. As discussed in another thread, the number of (Ex) abilities that actually do break the laws of reality are generally few and far between. They tend to be more like "things that are a little inexplicable, like a colossal reptile flying through the air at massive speeds, but for which there could be a reasonable explanation". Ex tends to not have sufficient explanation within our laws, but generally don't do things that would otherwise require magic to do, like raising the dead, translocating, obviously breaking physical limitations like exceeding the limitations set out in the skill descriptions, etc.
I'd like to see more (Ex) abilities that are actually in the same weight class as (Su), SLA, and spells. They don't necessarily need to do the same things (though I wouldn't complain about a little mundane overlap), but if my special ability is telling someone to duck and giving them a +2 to AC, and your special ability is setting yourself up as the benevolent deity of your own little plane of existence, something's off.
I know the RAW for IHS is not good, but I was saying the fact that it can remove status affects irks some people because it is done without magic, and that thinking is why Paizo has to be careful with what martials have. I am surprised many of the barbarian's rage powers go over as well as they do. Maybe because ToB gave their maneuvers levels, and they progressed like spells, it had an affect on how it was received.Maybe.
Ex skills though are explicitly allowed to break the laws of reality and it's not like high level fighters aren't already superhuman.
I know this, but it many people don't like it.
To many times this has taken place:
1. TOB is broken
2. How so?
1. .......
2. That is not true because .....
1. Well what about ......?
2. Nope because ......
<keeps going with other questions>
1. Well I still won't allow it because it feels to anime/wuxia/etc
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't we have this (balance) discussion a year or so ago? Seems familiar. I'll repeat what I said then.
I don't want a strict balance. 4e tried that and it leads to the "samey" feeling that a lot of classes were felt to have.
What I want is a dynamic balance, or carefully crafted "imbalance." In this scenario no one is just as good as someone else at anything, but each class has a potential to shine at different times or in different circumstances. If one person is always best or always worst that's not desirable. But neither is no one ever standing out because everyone is always exactly as effective. Instead we should strive for a game where everyone gets to be awesome at different moments.
The tricky part is that designing such a system is very difficult.
One, possibly... Leadership. Which is often disallowed because it's "too powerful." It's one of the few feats available to fighters that can have a really significant effect out of combat, but it still largely restricts you to normal mundane followers, while wizards are binding efreeti for a limitless supply of wish spells.If that is what you represent as the norm, the problem isn't the classes, but a whole new crop of crappy GM's who allow abuse by caster players.
Because the problem isn't with the rules, but with the people who follow them. Right.
(The above is sarcasm.)
|
|
Didn't we have this (balance) discussion a year or so ago? Seems familiar. I'll repeat what I said then.
I don't want a strict balance. 4e tried that and it leads to the "samey" feeling that a lot of classes were felt to have.
It's not balance that's the problem there but homogeneity.
What I want is a dynamic balance, or carefully crafted "imbalance." In this scenario no one is just as good as someone else at anything, but each class has a potential to shine at different times or in different circumstances. If one person is always best or always worst that's not desirable. But neither is no one ever standing out because everyone is always exactly as effective. Instead we should strive for a game where everyone gets to be awesome at different moments.
I agree that different people should be good at different things, but disagree that it should be as class-based as this implies. The classes should all have skill, utility, and combat options...just somewhat different ones per class.
The tricky part is that designing such a system is very difficult.
Agreed.
If you want a rules system that players can't abuse, you'll have to roll back a crap ton of things that will make the players rebel. On the other hand, part of the job description of a competent DM is to introduce appropriate consequences for gaming the system on this level.One, possibly... Leadership. Which is often disallowed because it's "too powerful." It's one of the few feats available to fighters that can have a really significant effect out of combat, but it still largely restricts you to normal mundane followers, while wizards are binding efreeti for a limitless supply of wish spells.If that is what you represent as the norm, the problem isn't the classes, but a whole new crop of crappy GM's who allow abuse by caster players.Because the problem isn't with the rules, but with the people who follow them. Right.
(The above is sarcasm.)
I've never picked any combination of abilities in say Legend that have ever been considered abuse. Not even that time I killed a guy simply via passive defenses as he attacked me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
One, possibly... Leadership. Which is often disallowed because it's "too powerful." It's one of the few feats available to fighters that can have a really significant effect out of combat, but it still largely restricts you to normal mundane followers, while wizards are binding efreeti for a limitless supply of wish spells.If that is what you represent as the norm, the problem isn't the classes, but a whole new crop of crappy GM's who allow abuse by caster players.
In what sense is it "abuse" to use a standard (core) spell for its intended purpose?
If you're going to suggest that the core spell list as written makes wizards too powerful, then you've more or less proven my point.
An efreeti is explicitly allowed to grant up to three wishes a day as a spell-like ability, meaning without any cost to itself. The planar binding spell (or planar ally, if you're feeling nice) allows me to get a service out of an outsider at for a relatively nominal cost.
If you don't like my using efreet as wish factories,.... how many other things can I do by summoning other types of outsiders for service? I need to be transported instantly across the country? Done. I need to be transported instantly to another plane? Done. I need my friend raised from the dead as a wight? Done. I need to commune with a higher power? Done. I need this stone wall disintegrated so I can walk through? Done.
This is what the spell does. This is what that one spell is supposed to do. How am I supposed to use the planar ally spell nonabusively?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want a rules system that players can't abuse, you'll have to roll back a crap ton of things that will make the players rebel.One, possibly... Leadership. Which is often disallowed because it's "too powerful." It's one of the few feats available to fighters that can have a really significant effect out of combat, but it still largely restricts you to normal mundane followers, while wizards are binding efreeti for a limitless supply of wish spells.If that is what you represent as the norm, the problem isn't the classes, but a whole new crop of crappy GM's who allow abuse by caster players.Because the problem isn't with the rules, but with the people who follow them. Right.
(The above is sarcasm.)
I don't think caster-martial imbalances reside in exploitive corners of the rules.
I tend to find them more in stuff like how a first level spell gives a human a 30 foot swim speed, but 20 ranks of Swim lets him move 15 feet as a full round action, or how a fighter can pick out a mirror image, run up and attack it, and duly cleave air with his one movement-constrained attack, while a spellcaster can pick out a mirror image, cast slow at it, and gets to automatically affect the real target instead without even having to roll, or how a 12th level martial wih superhuman Constitution can sprint for an extra handful of rounds, straight line only no matter how agile you are, before dropping while wind walk is wafting you along at 600 ft per round for an hour per level.
In other words, it's smeared all over ordinary, basic interactions with the rules. I'd be happy to discuss whether choosing spells like planar binding is abusive at some other time, but as far as the topic of basic class balance goes, having a high level fighter a little less firmly tied to the magical apron strings for the most basic of tasks, in and out of combat, is of greater concern to me.
I don't think caster-martial imbalances reside in exploitive corners of the rules.I tend to find them more in stuff like how a first level spell gives a human a 30 foot swim speed, but 20 ranks of Swim lets him move 15 feet as a full round action, or how a fighter can pick out a mirror image, run up and attack it, and duly cleave air with his one movement-constrained attack, while a spellcaster can pick out a mirror image, cast slow at it, and gets to automatically affect the real target instead without even having to roll.
The ones I like are status effects. A wizard can deliver a blindness spell and inflict a permanent inability to see.
The best a fighter can do is use a Dirty Trick to impose the same condition for a round, or until the opponent spends a move action.
A first-level wizard can deliver a sleep spell to instantly knock a foe out -- or a deep slumber spell at higher levels. I'm not sure there's a way for a fighter to KO a foe instantly; a rogue can do it, but only at 10th level using a specific advanced talent, only when using sneak attack, and only if the target fails a saving throw.
And this is a knock-out punch we're talking about. This is about as realistic as one could get. Knocking people out should be a bread-and-butter action for a fighter. What the hell is Tyson using, power word?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, Mike Tyson is a Cleric that worships himself. This grants him the War domain (ironically).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He has a Tattoo Holy Symbol and rolled up Half Orc to pick up the Toothy racial trait.
First off, how can you ask if there should be balance between classes without having a defintion as to what balance actually means?
Actually, Deadmanwalking offered a pretty good definition on the first page of this thread.
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.
Uh this is a roleplaying game.
Really? ;)
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.
You brought up the concept of a BBEG. Is your idea of a BBEG Fighter is an optimized high-level Fighter who doesn't allocate any ability points, skill points, or feats to anything but a specific build's progression?
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 take inspiration from historical figures and characters from fiction, alike. I consider what kind of power an inspirational, cunning, and highly-intelligent fighter would amass over his career. Then, based on their environment and available resources, I determine what kind of cool stuff he has to supplement his martial skill.
Bottom line, it's terrific that your villains have stats to back them up. What I'm proposing to you, though, is that it's a fallacy to assume that every creature on Golarion is based on an optimized build, or that every adventurer, villain, etc., focuses their training on DPR (or what have you). Players are more than free to built their characters as they wish, but - just as in real life - some fighters are leaders. Some fighters are also politicians. Alexander the Great wasn't the BBEG for that party of Persian adventurers because he was straight lethal with a kopis sword. He was the BBEG because he was freaking brilliant, fearless, had a grasp of tactics that was unmatched in his time, and was surrounded by roughly 30-60,000 of the most hardened soldiers at any given time. In Pathfinder, his wealth and plunder could translate to something like, "Give me one of everything from the Ultimate Equipment" book. Maybe he's like, "Oh, so sorry adventurers... let me introduce you to the Orb of Dragonkind that I looted from Osirion!"
Does that sound contrary to the spirit of the conversation? As if we're no longer talking about a Fighter but something else? Is a Wizard BBEG merely the sum of what he's got in his spellbook? Of course not! :)
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.You brought up the concept of a BBEG. Is your idea of a BBEG Fighter is an optimized high-level Fighter who doesn't allocate any ability points, skill points, or feats to anything but a specific build's progression?
You can't allocate what you don't have. In the case of a 10 Int fighter, he gets 2 skill points per level, another if he's human, and another if he opts for a favored class bonus.
I'm not sure how someone's supposed to be "super skillful" with level-appropriate ranks in only four skills.
In fact, that's one of the issues with a BBEG Fighter. Fighters make lousy BBEGs precisely because it's so hard to actually make them effective in that role.
Bottom line, it's terrific that your villains have stats to back them up. What I'm proposing to you, though, is that it's a fallacy to assume that every creature on Golarion is based on an optimized build, or that every adventurer, villain, etc., focuses their training on DPR (or what have you). Players are more than free to built their characters as they wish, but - just as in real life - some fighters are leaders. Some fighters are also politicians. Alexander the Great wasn't the BBEG for that party of Persian adventurers because he was straight lethal with a kopis sword. He was the BBEG because he was freaking brilliant, fearless, had a grasp of tactics that was unmatched in his time, and was surrounded by roughly 30-60,000 of the most hardened soldiers at any any given time.
That doesn't really sound like a "fighter" to me. That sounds more like a bard, cavalier, or even an aristocrat. (I will grant that you could build him on the Tactician archetype.) If you look at the class abilities built into the fighter chassis, a high-level fighter is more or less automatically "straight lethal with a kopis sword" or other chosen weapon.
So if you're claiming that Alexander the Great wasn't a particularly good swordsman -- a claim I accept, by the way -- you're implicitly suggesting that he was actually a different class.
This isn't reflavoring the fluff. ("Yes, he's technically a monk, but that's just because he's been a dockside brawler ever since he was twelve. He's not oriental and has never set foot in a monastery, but he's a master of la boxe savate.") This is outright ignoring the key crunch aspects of the a character. ("Yes, he's a wizard, but he's a wizard who doesn't use arcane magic. Instead he has a full BAB and proficiency in all weapons and armor, and casts divine spells using a slow progression." "You mean he's a paladin.")
So if you're claiming that Alexander the Great wasn't a particularly good swordsman -- a claim I accept, by the way -- you're implicitly suggesting that he was actually a different class.
Alexander the Great is only a fighter in the legendary ancient material. The historical individual was an aristocrat with delusions of fighterhood.
Fantasy Alexander did some badass stuff, though.
Hell, look at the stuff fantasy Dante did. Not bad for a Florentine aristocrat and poet.
Maybe. My experience has disagreed.
That's unfortunate... but that's just your experience.
If you have the optimized wizard and the optimized cleric and the token something for the monk the monk can tell and it doesn't necessarily make him feel badass.
Sure, if the premise of your GM's campaign is to randomly generate encounters appropriate to the party's level and thereby let numbers and dice-driven probability determine the degree of drama that each player feels.
Not at all. You don't have to do that even a little.
Actually, that's exactly what you have to do. When you say something like, "this villain is scary because of the traps and minions he has, not his own power," you're saying "this villain is scary because of all the stuff he developed/amassed as a 'living' character, not the game mechanics associated with his class."
At the same time though, the stuff that isn't class mechanics isn't tied to class mechanics in the first place. The character's motivation, method of operations, backstory and style are all independent of class, so I don't think it comes into play when you're discussing the class choice. Whether or not he's got fighter on his character sheet though IS just class mechanics.
This relates to what I tried to propose in my last post, above.
Naturally the needs of the campaign change this... I just can't think of any situation where a fighter is the best choice here. As a raw physical presence on the battlefield he's unimpressive, and as a mastermind his class doesn't support it. He can work as say, the leader of a low level bandit troupe, but not much else.
Like I said in my last post, look to history and popular fiction alike for inspiration. Is an individual as brilliant as, say, Alexander the Great, or Gaius Julius Caesar, or Temujin, so impossible for Pathfinder? Is "leader of a low level bandit troupe" the best you can imagine for a Fighter?
@OP: it's an odd subject, to be sure. for my two copper: while i don't think the classes should be balanced against each other (4e showed us what that looks like, and it' entirely too baby-proofed for my taste), i think they should be balanced against what they're up against and be at least competent by themselves in normal game conditions (lookin' at you rogue and monk).
that said, i do think we should adhere to the mountain cleave law: if the wizard can rend the very fabric of space and time with a thought at 20th, i (as a fighter) should be able to split mountains with my blade at 20th.
Maybe. My experience has disagreed.That's unfortunate... but that's just your experience.
If you have the optimized wizard and the optimized cleric and the token something for the monk the monk can tell and it doesn't necessarily make him feel badass.Sure, if the premise of your GM's campaign is to randomly generate encounters appropriate to the party's level and thereby let numbers and dice-driven probability determine the degree of drama that each player feels.
Naturally the needs of the campaign change this... I just can't think of any situation where a fighter is the best choice here. As a raw physical presence on the battlefield he's unimpressive, and as a mastermind his class doesn't support it. He can work as say, the leader of a low level bandit troupe, but not much else.Like I said in my last post, look to history and popular fiction alike for inspiration. Is an individual as brilliant as, say, Alexander the Great, or Gaius Julius Caesar, or Temujin, so impossible for Pathfinder? Is "leader of a low level bandit troupe" the best you can imagine for a Fighter?
Here's a better question. What does the Fighter contribute to being a BBEG that any other class can't do better? Other classes can easily animate/call/create/summon/recruit minions. Other classes can easily amass far more skills then the Fighter or ways to replace skills via spells. What is your Fighter actually good at? Leading? Not really, Bards can inspire their allies. Tactics? Not really, there are beyond genius INT casters after all. He's only better at fighting and even then at high levels a Fighter depends on other classes to be good at that.