The issue comes from high level fighters.
Most E6 campaigns fighters are still strong, that's before barbarians get pounce and 3rd level spells are only accessed by full spellcasters.
From a game design perspective, I don't necessarily think that the fighter needs fixing in the sense that not all the classes need to be balanced.
If balance at all costs is the goal, then sure we should re-do the fighter.
The main issue with that mind set is that Pathfinder is a 20 level game and fighter never really become better than they are at 6th or 7th level.
Could you elaborate on this? I always felt like my fighters got a lot stronger in the 10-12 range, and the capstone is very good compared to a lot of class's capstones (or lack thereof).
Could you elaborate on this? I always felt like my fighters got a lot stronger in the 10-12 range, and the capstone is very good compared to a lot of class's capstones (or lack thereof).The issue comes from high level fighters.
Most E6 campaigns fighters are still strong, that's before barbarians get pounce and 3rd level spells are only accessed by full spellcasters.
From a game design perspective, I don't necessarily think that the fighter needs fixing in the sense that not all the classes need to be balanced.
If balance at all costs is the goal, then sure we should re-do the fighter.
The main issue with that mind set is that Pathfinder is a 20 level game and fighter never really become better than they are at 6th or 7th level.
From what I have experienced, enemies tend to shred through AC or ignore it. Actually getting into full attack range is very difficult. Fighter's lack any abilities that help them play the chess match that high level combat turns into.
All this can be hidden by a skilled GM going out of their way to hide problems.
Popularity has nothing whatsoever to do with class balance. DPR has little to do with it either. The reasons have been stated over and over again for literally years, and anyone hasn't been convinced by now never will be.what?
if people are playing a class and are happy playing that class, then by definition the class is fine.the reasons why clerics were changed in 3e was because no one wanted to play them in 2E even though at that time they were pretty "balanced" no one wanted to play them, so they got a power boost for "play balance" reasons
if there are lines to play the fighter, and no shortage of players playing fighter, even with tons of other options, and they are having fun playing fighters (or else why would they keep playing fighters), then by definition they don't need a power boost for "balance" reasons.
Exactly.
Look guys, there's a huge amount of difference between "I don't like the Fighter*, thus I play another class." vs "I don't like the Fighter, thus Paizo must fix it."
* or any other class.
It's perfectly OK for anyone to not like a particular class. This is exactly why Paizo is doing things right by giving you so many choices. So sure. I personally don't like the Fighter, so I play Rangers or Paldins. Cool. My choice, my style of playing, my preferences. Yay for PF for giving me those choices!
Don't like the Fighter? Then there's Ranger. And there's the Paladin, the Cavalier, the Barbarian, the Magus, the Inquisitor and others. CHOICES. Heck there's even quite well done 3PP content with psionic warriors and even something that looks a little like the Book of Nice Swords. <g>
No one is forcing you to play a Fighter. Some people love playing the Fighter, they are having Fun. Is their Fun thus badwrongfun because we don't care for the Fighter?
Popularity has nothing whatsoever to do with class balance. DPR has little to do with it either. The reasons have been stated over and over again for literally years, and anyone hasn't been convinced by now never will be.what?
if people are playing a class and are happy playing that class, then by definition the class is fine.the reasons why clerics were changed in 3e was because no one wanted to play them in 2E even though at that time they were pretty "balanced" no one wanted to play them, so they got a power boost for "play balance" reasons
if there are lines to play the fighter, and no shortage of players playing fighter, even with tons of other options, and they are having fun playing fighters (or else why would they keep playing fighters), then by definition they don't need a power boost for "balance" reasons.
No they aren't by definition "fine." They're by definition popular.
Popular and fine are not the same thing. That's like saying a theme park that's popular is fine even though 1/3 patrons get food poisoning and at least 1 ride breaks down every other week.
I am going to go out on a limb and say, that in a class based role playing system, that "balance" is not a mechanical determination but is infact play distrubution thing, and if a class is being played frequently, and players enjoy frequently playing that class, and those players had the freedom to choose any class that they wanted play, but still chose that class, then that class, for the most part is indeed "balanced" and doesn't need actual fixing.
I am going to go out on a limb and say, that in a class based role playing system, that "balance" is not a mechanical determination but is infact play distribution thing, and if a class is being played frequently, and players enjoy frequently playing that class, and those players had the freedom to choose any class that they wanted play, but still chose that class, then that class, for the most part is indeed "balanced" and doesn't need actual fixing.I have fun playing commoners. Are commoners "balanced"?
More to the point, which is more important--that it be fun, or that it be balanced?
Funny thing, I do like the fighter. I love being the martial without spells or supernaturals or any of that crap. It was my 1st, 2nd, and 3rd character.
You seem to equivocate acknowledging that they can be demonstrated to be weaker than just about any other martial with us not liking them. Just because we can observe the fact that they are not in fact as strong as other martials does not mean we do not like them.
Other people think they are just as strong if not stronger.
And many don;t care about the relative "power" of a class as long as they can still have fun playing it and can still contribute.
Many say the Wizard is stronger than the Sorcerer. Doesn't matter to me, I still prefer the Sorc. Should we "fix" the Sorcerer too?
But even assume Fighters are "weaker" than Barbarians- does that mean if someone comes to your game and shows you a Bbn "more powerful" than your Fighter you will stop having fun?
Could you elaborate on this? I always felt like my fighters got a lot stronger in the 10-12 range, and the capstone is very good compared to a lot of class's capstones (or lack thereof).The issue comes from high level fighters.
Most E6 campaigns fighters are still strong, that's before barbarians get pounce and 3rd level spells are only accessed by full spellcasters.
From a game design perspective, I don't necessarily think that the fighter needs fixing in the sense that not all the classes need to be balanced.
If balance at all costs is the goal, then sure we should re-do the fighter.
The main issue with that mind set is that Pathfinder is a 20 level game and fighter never really become better than they are at 6th or 7th level.
The issues come from higher level spells and mobility turning on for other classes but not the fighter.
Barbarians can pick up Pounce at 10th level. Paladins can pick up Fly.
By then 5th level spells have come online for the casters meaning teleport and other things become options.
The fighter is just outshined past 7th level, before that he is king.
More to the point, which is more important--that it be fun, or that it be balanced?Why is that a binary condition? Can't fun classes also be balanced? What if I don't have fun playing an unbalanced class?
Then your definition of fun would require balance. You don't balance the class for the sake of balancing it--you balance it because balanced classes are more fun for you.
That isn't everybody's definition of fun. If someone's definition of fun doesn't even register balance as a factor, should that person care about whether the class is balanced? Should a class be changed just for the sake of balance, or should it be changed only when doing so actually increases fun? If a person finds one class unbalanced but finds another class that does exactly what she thinks the first class should have done, is it reasonable to expect Paizo to change the first class to match the second when the second is already freely available for play?
Funny thing, I do like the fighter. I love being the martial without spells or supernaturals or any of that crap. It was my 1st, 2nd, and 3rd character.
You seem to equivocate acknowledging that they can be demonstrated to be weaker than just about any other martial with us not liking them. Just because we can observe the fact that they are not in fact as strong as other martials does not mean we do not like them.
Other people think they are just as strong if not stronger.
And many don;t care about the relative "power" of a class as long as they can still have fun playing it and can still contribute.
Many say the Wizard is stronger than the Sorcerer. Doesn't matter to me, I still prefer the Sorc. Should we "fix" the Sorcerer too?
But even assume Fighters are "weaker" than Barbarians- does that mean if someone comes to your game and shows you a Bbn "more powerful" than your Fighter you will stop having fun?
When I realize that my character is superfluous and basically just unnecessary DPR tacked onto the party?
Yeah pretty likely. I'd likely retire the character at that point and bring in someone more useful.
That's an impossible standard. Someone will always be able to show you a build that can do what you want to do better than you're doing it. You might as well have everyone play wizards arcanists and be done with it.
It's already been proven that, at equal optimization levels, a Barbarian is always ahead in everything from attack, damage, saves, AC, skill points, HP, and ability to full attack more often.
Is it really that bad to ask that the Fighter have at least something to be good at besides archery?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone's definition of fun doesn't even register balance as a factor, should that person care about whether the class is balanced?No. But then, balancing the class will not destroy the fun for that person...
Does not follow. It is quite possible to balance a class and thereby ruin it for folks that like the class as-is. Otherwise, why would we debating this?
It's already been proven that, at equal optimization levels, a Barbarian is always ahead in everything from attack, damage, saves, AC, skill points, HP, and ability to full attack more often.
Is it really that bad to ask that the Fighter have at least something to be good at besides archery?
and yet fighters are played more. if were really the case, then people wouldnt play them, monks and rogue are endagered specis at PFS games, fighters are not, and im willing to bet, that there are more fighters being played than any other martial.
It's already been proven that, at equal optimization levels, a Barbarian is always ahead in everything from attack, damage, saves, AC, skill points, HP, and ability to full attack more often.
All at once? (Edit: Well, there's probably a build out there that does it. Not sure what happens when Mr. Barbarian runs out of rage, though....) Is that your measure of a class?
I actually think fighters are fine for the first ten levels of play.
After that the GM has to step in with lop sided gear drops and maybe an artifact or two to keep the fighter going.
Personally, I would just be happy if there were 11 more feats out there that I wanted and if the first 11 I picked out stayed relevant (I'm looking at you great cleave).
For a class with nothing but combat and skills? Yeah, pretty much.It's already been proven that, at equal optimization levels, a Barbarian is always ahead in everything from attack, damage, saves, AC, skill points, HP, and ability to full attack more often.All at once? (Edit: Well, there's probably a build out there that does it.) Is that your measure of a class?
Splendid.
Then play a barbarian.
and yet fighters are played more. if were really the case, then people wouldnt play them, monks and rogue are endagered specis at PFS games, fighters are not, and im willing to bet, that there are more fighters being played than any other martial.It's already been proven that, at equal optimization levels, a Barbarian is always ahead in everything from attack, damage, saves, AC, skill points, HP, and ability to full attack more often.
Is it really that bad to ask that the Fighter have at least something to be good at besides archery?
Really? Cause aside from the one's I have played. I have only played with 2 fighters before (and one only played the game for one session).
I do :pFor a class with nothing but combat and skills? Yeah, pretty much.It's already been proven that, at equal optimization levels, a Barbarian is always ahead in everything from attack, damage, saves, AC, skill points, HP, and ability to full attack more often.All at once? (Edit: Well, there's probably a build out there that does it.) Is that your measure of a class?Splendid.
Then play a barbarian.
Great! Everybody's happy. I get to play what I want, and you get to play what you want. : D
Why isn't the reverse of the bolded statement true? Why shouldn't classes be balanced? If someone who doesn't care about balance won't notice anything different about his class of choice, why not?Then your definition of fun would require balance. You don't balance the class for the sake of balancing it--you balance it because balanced classes are more fun for you.
That isn't everybody's definition of fun. If someone's definition of fun doesn't even register balance as a factor, should that person care about whether the class is balanced? Should a class be changed just for the sake of balance, or should it be changed only when doing so actually increases fun?
Firstly, you haven't proven your premise--that someone who doesn't care about balance won't notice anything different if the class is changed. They very much can. Example: If you nerf the wizard enough so that it is balanced* with the fighter, wizard aficionados will most certainly notice.
*Assume some fitness function that places the wizard above the fighter.
I want to play a Fighter and not feel like dead weight. Why shouldn't I be able to have fun?
As mentioned above, for the typical player who thinks fighters are too weak, there already exists one or more class choices that does exactly what that player wants, whether it's hit harder, wear armor better, have more skill points, cast spells, etc. Why not play one of those?
You're suggesting that Paizo change something. But rules have inertia. It costs considerable resources (time, money, and softer considerations) to alter an existing feature. Therefore, the onus is on you to prove that your proposed changes are worth the expenditure--not just to you, but to the player base as a whole. That's going to be difficult when most players dissatisfied with the fighter are content to play other martial classes.
Someone can always show you a build that's better. Someone doesn't always show up to the table with a character that's better, which is what DD proposed. And if they did, then yes I would like switch to something that would contribute better.That's an impossible standard. Someone will always be able to show you a build that can do what you want to do better than you're doing it. You might as well have everyone play
Funny thing, I do like the fighter. I love being the martial without spells or supernaturals or any of that crap. It was my 1st, 2nd, and 3rd character.
You seem to equivocate acknowledging that they can be demonstrated to be weaker than just about any other martial with us not liking them. Just because we can observe the fact that they are not in fact as strong as other martials does not mean we do not like them.
Other people think they are just as strong if not stronger.
And many don;t care about the relative "power" of a class as long as they can still have fun playing it and can still contribute.
Many say the Wizard is stronger than the Sorcerer. Doesn't matter to me, I still prefer the Sorc. Should we "fix" the Sorcerer too?
But even assume Fighters are "weaker" than Barbarians- does that mean if someone comes to your game and shows you a Bbn "more powerful" than your Fighter you will stop having fun?
When I realize that my character is superfluous and basically just unnecessary DPR tacked onto the party?
Yeah pretty likely. I'd likely retire the character at that point and bring in someone more useful.
wizardsarcanists and be done with it.
No, I said " does that mean if someone comes to your game and shows you a Bbn "more powerful" than your Fighter you will stop having fun? " "Shows you". Not "shows up to play with".
If someone's definition of fun doesn't even register balance as a factor, should that person care about whether the class is balanced?No. But then, balancing the class will not destroy the fun for that person. If paizo improve, lets say, the skill per level and skill class for fighters Do really people that now enjoy fighter stop having fun with the class?
Yes. Because changing the Skill points from 2-4 means overall power creep, and also means a new 2nd edition, which means hundreds of dollars down the drain and many upset Paizo customers.
Not really. I'd love to be able to return to my first and favorite class without the knowledge that I could being helping my team so much more by picking a number of other classes and doing the exact same thing.
Its like showing up at a basketball game and tying your shoelaces together because you like them like that. You might even still manage to win.
You're just gonna spend the whole game knowing you could have done so much better if you had tied your shoes properly.
This is why I can't bring myself to play a fighter or rogue anymore, and why as a GM I have a growing mental laundry list of methods I can use to obscure the problems of these classes.
No, I said " does that mean if someone comes to your game and shows you a Bbn "more powerful" than your Fighter you will stop having fun? " "Shows you". Not "shows up to play with".Someone can always show you a build that's better. Someone doesn't always show up to the table with a character that's better, which is what DD proposed. And if they did, then yes I would like switch to something that would contribute better.That's an impossible standard. Someone will always be able to show you a build that can do what you want to do better than you're doing it. You might as well have everyone play
Funny thing, I do like the fighter. I love being the martial without spells or supernaturals or any of that crap. It was my 1st, 2nd, and 3rd character.
You seem to equivocate acknowledging that they can be demonstrated to be weaker than just about any other martial with us not liking them. Just because we can observe the fact that they are not in fact as strong as other martials does not mean we do not like them.
Other people think they are just as strong if not stronger.
And many don;t care about the relative "power" of a class as long as they can still have fun playing it and can still contribute.
Many say the Wizard is stronger than the Sorcerer. Doesn't matter to me, I still prefer the Sorc. Should we "fix" the Sorcerer too?
But even assume Fighters are "weaker" than Barbarians- does that mean if someone comes to your game and shows you a Bbn "more powerful" than your Fighter you will stop having fun?
When I realize that my character is superfluous and basically just unnecessary DPR tacked onto the party?
Yeah pretty likely. I'd likely retire the character at that point and bring in someone more useful.
wizardsarcanists and be done with it.
Not to mention, I don't value my character by comparing its statistics to the rest of the party. I play the character I want to play, and it generally goes well whether I have a bigger sword or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's already been proven that, at equal optimization levels, a Barbarian is always ahead in everything from attack, damage, saves, AC, skill points, HP, and ability to full attack more often.
No, it hasn't. Nothing of the sort "has been proven". Build comparos, esp when the builders are trying to prove a point, aren't worth much.
No, I said " does that mean if someone comes to your game and shows you a Bbn "more powerful" than your Fighter you will stop having fun? " "Shows you". Not "shows up to play with".Fair enough.
If someone did, then I'd check
1) Are they attempting to do the same thing as me, i.e. damage, crowd control, talking, etc...
2) Are they better at it than me
3) Are their defenses better than mine.
I'd weigh the 2nd against the 3rd if 1 is true and if the benefits outmatch the downside, I'd talk to the GM about making changes to my character to put them up to snuff.
I must confess, this approach to character creation is completely alien to me.
No, I said " does that mean if someone comes to your game and shows you a Bbn "more powerful" than your Fighter you will stop having fun? " "Shows you". Not "shows up to play with".Fair enough.
If someone did, then I'd check
1) Are they attempting to do the same thing as me, i.e. damage, crowd control, talking, etc...
2) Are they better at it than me
3) Are their defenses better than mine.
I'd weigh the 2nd against the 3rd if 1 is true and if the benefits outmatch the downside, I'd talk to the GM about making changes to my character to put them up to snuff.
Actually, If my PC had been in the campaign for a long time, and a new player showed up with a PC that out shown mine in my niche at all angles, I'd just ask the DM and the Player to pick another. I have seen a lot of time where a character grown organically over a campaign from level one, getting whatever loot can be found is less powerful that a newly created PC. However, my character is part of the story line, and his isn't.