To get back on topic I think the classic(wizard, cleric, rogue/thief, fighter) party is becoming obsolete, but that does not mean the classes are. We have classes that can do several things now, so if you are good at system mastery you can still get get by even if you don't have the full power of a cleric or wizard.
As an example you could have inquisitor(skills and face and combat), slayer(different skills and combat), Witch(has some arcane and divine spells), Oracle(divine spells, and X(varies by build))
To get back on topic I think the classic(wizard, cleric, rogue/thief, fighter) party is becoming obsolete, but that does not mean the classes are. We have classes that can do several things now, so if you are good at system mastery you can still get get by even if you don't have the full power of a cleric or wizard.
As an example you could have inquisitor(skills and face and combat), slayer(different skills and combat), Witch(has some arcane and divine spells), Oracle(divine spells, and X(varies by build))
That's because you never needed the classes, you needed the roles. As you have stated, there are now plenty of options to have the various roles filled. Especially once you start mix and matching the tier 3 classes, where you can have all of the roles filled but not have any individual character do the filling.
That's because you never needed the classes, you needed the roles. As you have stated, there are now plenty of options to have the various roles filled. Especially once you start mix and matching the tier 3 classes, where you can have all of the roles filled but not have any individual character do the filling.To get back on topic I think the classic(wizard, cleric, rogue/thief, fighter) party is becoming obsolete, but that does not mean the classes are. We have classes that can do several things now, so if you are good at system mastery you can still get get by even if you don't have the full power of a cleric or wizard.
As an example you could have inquisitor(skills and face and combat), slayer(different skills and combat), Witch(has some arcane and divine spells), Oracle(divine spells, and X(varies by build))
I agree, but many players see classes and not roles, and they feel like those classes should be required. So when they see some alternate party group not only playing, but also succeeding it bothers them for reasons I don't understand.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, but many players see classes and not roles, and they feel like those classes should be required. So when they see some alternate party group not only played, but also succeeding it bothers them for reasons I don't understand.That's because you never needed the classes, you needed the roles. As you have stated, there are now plenty of options to have the various roles filled. Especially once you start mix and matching the tier 3 classes, where you can have all of the roles filled but not have any individual character do the filling.To get back on topic I think the classic(wizard, cleric, rogue/thief, fighter) party is becoming obsolete, but that does not mean the classes are. We have classes that can do several things now, so if you are good at system mastery you can still get get by even if you don't have the full power of a cleric or wizard.
As an example you could have inquisitor(skills and face and combat), slayer(different skills and combat), Witch(has some arcane and divine spells), Oracle(divine spells, and X(varies by build))
I don't get it either. I've got players that have no problem grasping the MMO trinity and how various classes mechanically fit in to rolls just fine. But you sit down at a table and suddenly mechanics be damned, only a rogue is a sneaky thief.
I don't get it either. I've got players that have no problem grasping the MMO trinity and how various classes mechanically fit in to rolls just fine. But you sit down at a table and suddenly mechanics be damned, only a rogue is a sneaky thief.I agree, but many players see classes and not roles, and they feel like those classes should be required. So when they see some alternate party group not only played, but also succeeding it bothers them for reasons I don't understand.That's because you never needed the classes, you needed the roles. As you have stated, there are now plenty of options to have the various roles filled. Especially once you start mix and matching the tier 3 classes, where you can have all of the roles filled but not have any individual character do the filling.To get back on topic I think the classic(wizard, cleric, rogue/thief, fighter) party is becoming obsolete, but that does not mean the classes are. We have classes that can do several things now, so if you are good at system mastery you can still get get by even if you don't have the full power of a cleric or wizard.
As an example you could have inquisitor(skills and face and combat), slayer(different skills and combat), Witch(has some arcane and divine spells), Oracle(divine spells, and X(varies by build))
It always makes me face palm when the same people talk about how the Rogue is the only one "uniquely suited" to that position with all their class features geared at it... which I can only take to mean they are referring to having Stealth as a class skill and maybe the Fast Stealth talent.
Huh, a Rogue could use an archetype like that now that I think about it. 1/2 level to stealth checks, Dampen Presence as a bonus feat, a permanent Negate Aroma effect, and then a "light step" ability that confounds tremor sense. I'd seriously consider playing a Rogue for that regardless of what was replaced.
I don't get it either. I've got players that have no problem grasping the MMO trinity and how various classes mechanically fit in to rolls just fine. But you sit down at a table and suddenly mechanics be damned, only a rogue is a sneaky thief.I agree, but many players see classes and not roles, and they feel like those classes should be required. So when they see some alternate party group not only played, but also succeeding it bothers them for reasons I don't understand.That's because you never needed the classes, you needed the roles. As you have stated, there are now plenty of options to have the various roles filled. Especially once you start mix and matching the tier 3 classes, where you can have all of the roles filled but not have any individual character do the filling.To get back on topic I think the classic(wizard, cleric, rogue/thief, fighter) party is becoming obsolete, but that does not mean the classes are. We have classes that can do several things now, so if you are good at system mastery you can still get get by even if you don't have the full power of a cleric or wizard.
As an example you could have inquisitor(skills and face and combat), slayer(different skills and combat), Witch(has some arcane and divine spells), Oracle(divine spells, and X(varies by build))
That's because combat is fairly easy to understand and relatively universal in how it's treated.
Out of combat tends to change a lot. So, people tend to stick to their prejudices.
I don't get it either. I've got players that have no problem grasping the MMO trinity and how various classes mechanically fit in to rolls just fine. But you sit down at a table and suddenly mechanics be damned, only a rogue is a sneaky thief.I agree, but many players see classes and not roles, and they feel like those classes should be required. So when they see some alternate party group not only played, but also succeeding it bothers them for reasons I don't understand.That's because you never needed the classes, you needed the roles. As you have stated, there are now plenty of options to have the various roles filled. Especially once you start mix and matching the tier 3 classes, where you can have all of the roles filled but not have any individual character do the filling.To get back on topic I think the classic(wizard, cleric, rogue/thief, fighter) party is becoming obsolete, but that does not mean the classes are. We have classes that can do several things now, so if you are good at system mastery you can still get get by even if you don't have the full power of a cleric or wizard.
As an example you could have inquisitor(skills and face and combat), slayer(different skills and combat), Witch(has some arcane and divine spells), Oracle(divine spells, and X(varies by build))
It always makes me face palm when the same people talk about how the Rogue is the only one "uniquely suited" to that position with all their class features geared at it... which I can only take to mean they are referring to having Stealth as a class skill and maybe the Fast Stealth talent.
Huh, a Rogue could use an archetype like that now that I think about it. 1/2 level to stealth checks, Dampen Presence as a bonus feat, a permanent Negate Aroma effect, and then a "light step" ability that confounds tremor sense. I'd seriously consider playing a Rogue for that regardless of what was replaced.
So like an actualy THIEF archetype?
I would say they get 1/2 level bonus to stealth, disable device, perception, acrobatics, slight of hand, and escape artist.
Probably a heightened ability to stealth (aroma negation and lighten step as you call it)
HiPS
Replace Sneak attack with investigator inspiration mechanic (not studied strike and studied combat though)
Gain Combat Expertise as a bonus feat, get a bonus to steal manuever and dirty tricks manuever.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something very simple, you cant roleplay if your character is dead
Having good mechanics can help your character survive
You cannot tell me what to do pal
My next character will be a dead guy carried around by two other characters Weekend at Bernie's style just try and stop me
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something very simple, you cant roleplay if your character is dead
Having good mechanics can help your character survive
You cannot tell me what to do pal
My next character will be a dead guy carried around by two other characters Weekend at Bernie's style just try and stop me
Why get carried? "Dead" doesn't stop you from taking actions.
|
Something very simple, you cant roleplay if your character is dead
Having good mechanics can help your character survive
You cannot tell me what to do pal
My next character will be a dead guy carried around by two other characters Weekend at Bernie's style just try and stop me
A dead guy with leadership mounted on an cuadruped large syntheticist is more optimized, specially if the dead guy has no head
Fighter and Rogue have been worthless since the ranger and paladin were upgraded. I think ranger and paladin are still competitive. Fighter and rogue are worthless. If you play one, you do so just to try it. They are no longer competitive.
The fighter at least does his job of hitting things hard, but I admit that is about it before archetypes come into play or someone is really good with system mastery, and gives up some of the damage for options.
That is why I like the ACG archetype that allows the fighter to gain feats on the fly.
|
Agreed. I just think Pathfinder fails in this regard, which in turn is why these discussions come up over and again. Even the whole concept of "RAW vs RAI" is antithetical to RPGs as they were originally designed and conceived.
RPGs were originally designed and conceived to be played by many separate small groups, where each GM's word was law, and 10 gaming groups might play in 15 different settings (by rotating GM duties around the group). RAW vs. RAI becomes serious business only when you try to unify hundreds of those small groups under an internationally standardized umbrella.
"Living campaigns"/"Organized play" are the biggest reason why RAW vs. RAI matters. For all the good they've done for the hobby, and all the players they've enabled to find a game, they do severely curtail the former nigh-omnipotence of the individual GM. There's a good reason to do that (making the play experience as uniform as possible, at any PFS game anywhere in the world), but it only applies if you're trying to have a uniform experience in the first place.
My suggestion: If you want to restore the nigh-omnipotence of the GM, and ignore the raging RAW vs. RAI debates, run or play in a home campaign (or alternate between a home campaign and PFS). Let the GM's word be law again, and let the rules lawyers run their own game next week if the GM disagrees with their interpretations this week.
"Living campaigns"/"Organized play" are the biggest reason why RAW vs. RAI matters. For all the good they've done for the hobby, and all the players they've enabled to find a game, they do severely curtail the former nigh-omnipotence of the individual GM. There's a good reason to do that (making the play experience as uniform as possible, at any PFS game anywhere in the world), but it only applies if you're trying to have a uniform experience in the first place.
It's not just organized play that has created a desire for this uniformity. People have grown up, moved, found themselves not able to easily stay with a single group/DM, and/or are playing with others over the internet. Having a very DM oriented system works fantastic for those that find and stay in the same face to face group for several decades. It works less well in other circumstances, and one of the casualties of this is the classic party setup. If you're routinely playing with someone new or playing over the internet, you don't want to have to spend half your time figuring out individual interpretations; you need a much clearer baseline for what your character can and can't do. Having more specific classes helps with this as it give the player more focused mechanics to work with that don't rely on DM interpretation to do everything. To me as a DM, that's a good thing. As long as the expanded mechanics come with a clear message that I retain veto power over everything, I like having the rules cover most of the common tasks and abilities; that gives me more time to worry about everything else.
Fighter and Rogue have been worthless since the ranger and paladin were upgraded. I think ranger and paladin are still competitive. Fighter and rogue are worthless. If you play one, you do so just to try it. They are no longer competitive.
Or with archetypes you turn the fighter into a brawler Alchemist
Fighter and Rogue have been worthless since the ranger and paladin were upgraded. I think ranger and paladin are still competitive. Fighter and rogue are worthless. If you play one, you do so just to try it. They are no longer competitive.Or with archetypes you turn the fighter into a brawler Alchemist
Or there is always the tripping focused fighter... always nasty.
Or there is always the tripping focused fighter... always nasty.Fighter and Rogue have been worthless since the ranger and paladin were upgraded. I think ranger and paladin are still competitive. Fighter and rogue are worthless. If you play one, you do so just to try it. They are no longer competitive.Or with archetypes you turn the fighter into a brawler Alchemist
If the enemy can be tripped.
"Living campaigns"/"Organized play" are the biggest reason why RAW vs. RAI matters. For all the good they've done for the hobby, and all the players they've enabled to find a game, they do severely curtail the former nigh-omnipotence of the individual GM. There's a good reason to do that (making the play experience as uniform as possible, at any PFS game anywhere in the world), but it only applies if you're trying to have a uniform experience in the first place.My suggestion: If you want to restore the nigh-omnipotence of the GM, and ignore the raging RAW vs. RAI debates, run or play in a home campaign (or alternate between a home campaign and PFS). Let the GM's word be law again, and let the rules lawyers run their own game next week if the GM disagrees with their interpretations this week.
Agreed, this is the main advantage of RAW. And to be clear, I'm not complaining about it, merely pointing out that obsolete classes is part of the collateral damage caused by seeking that advantage. Me personally, I don't play PFS largely for this reason -- it feels exactly like a MMORPG to me. When I say RAW is antithetical to the original intent of RPGs, I'm not saying that it's wrong, or bad, only that it's counter to statements such as this one:
In a sense, the D&D game has no rules, only rule suggestions. No rule is inviolate, particularly if a new or altered rule will encourage creativity and imagination.
RIP Tom!
To me as a DM, that's a good thing. As long as the expanded mechanics come with a clear message that I retain veto power over everything, I like having the rules cover most of the common tasks and abilities; that gives me more time to worry about everything else.
Interestingly, I see on these boards lots and lots of players who apparently feel that such veto power is abusive. Pathfinder players in particular (as a group, not necessarily individually) seem to be growing a feeling of entitlement to RAW, and arguing RAW. That trend seems to me to run counter to your goals. Hopefully you manage to avoid that in your actual gaming.
Interestingly, I see on these boards lots and lots of players who apparently feel that such veto power is abusive. Pathfinder players in particular (as a group, not necessarily individually) seem to be growing a feeling of entitlement to RAW, and arguing RAW. That trend seems to me to run counter to your goals. Hopefully you manage to avoid that in your actual gaming.
To my experience this kind of playing just doesn't work. The rules are as such that it is impossible to play a game RAW. Even the most rules-lawyer-like GM is forced to make calls.
The GM is the rules. The rules in the CRB are only valid because the GM says though. The GM can never be wrong about the rules. "House Rule" is a term for a rule that goes against or alters a rule or rules in the game the GM tells the players they are playing. A lot of times on these boards Players will call "GM calls" house rules, which technically true the alternative is having the game end once one of these calls comes up. What is arrogant is when a Player feels they know what the right call is by RAW and then tells the GM that anything different is a house-rule. As a GM the mature response to these players is "well in this universe it works like this".
As a player your say in the rules of the game is whether or not you play, and a GM without players is not a GM at all.
Fighter and Rogue have been worthless since the ranger and paladin were upgraded. I think ranger and paladin are still competitive. Fighter and rogue are worthless. If you play one, you do so just to try it. They are no longer competitive.Or with archetypes you turn the fighter into a brawler Alchemist
Huh, didn't notice those two could stack.
I did however notice that Fighter's mutagen guy and the feral fighter stack, which is great!
Too often I see things where Two archetypes are built, and could thematically complement each other.. Cept the both change one ability. For example the Drunken Master and Master of the Empty hand. Or again with drunken master and flowing monk.
There is also a lot of problem with many of the older martial classes and the way they're built. But honestly it extends even into the newer ones. And that is the concept work.
,
Take for example if you wanted to build a famous wizard character, Merlin, gandolf, harry potter.. Even witches like baba yaga and sabrina.
Wizard pretty much covers all of these characters easy peasy. Of cource sorcerer, arcanist, magus and witch are also easily cover it, some of them much closer.
For fighters though.. Its far harder. Say you wanted to do Robin Hood. Obviously you've got to be really good at archery, to split an arrow in twain. But he also bested people with the quarter staff, and with the sword. He wasn't very well armored, typically wearing light.
Now ranger sounds like a good position to start off in, and its probably right too. So you're going to need point blank shot and precise shot. You could take the archry tree for the rest of the feats. You'll also need TWF for the quarter staff, and some feats for the sword use. Like what kind of daring swordsman doesn't parry or disarm? So, then maybe you need a level of swashbuckler in there? Course rangers don't get acrobatics.. But the mobility.. Dodge mobility.. then the mobility feats you where looking for? Maybe you should drop the quarterstaff cause you're spending too many feats into it.
There is so much more work needed to be done with a martial guy concept than a magic guy concept, generally speaking, cause the magic guy is pretty much "Do i got spells? Yep? Kay, I'm Gandof!"
Because players do in fact have a right to know the rules to the game they are playing. Most players don't have an issue with the DM giving them a list of house rules and changes before the game starts. The issue comes up when the DM makes all of his rulings on the fly, usually against the players.
When all of the DM's rulings are "I don't want or like that so you can't do it", it's easy to see why so many players find "DM's word is law" to translate to "The DM can cheat to screw you over."
While it may seem hard to believe for some, there are still a lot of people out there with the "Players vs DM" mentality. There are still a lot of DMs who get on a power trip as soon as the dice start rolling. There are also a lot of people(adults or otherwise) who don't have the ability to discuss issues outside of the game. All of this only serves to further the issue.
Trying to throw around the negative connotation of "entitlement" to make the players seem like a group of ungrateful children is hardly fair.
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because players do in fact have a right to know the rules to the game they are playing. Most players don't have an issue with the DM giving them a list of house rules and changes before the game starts. The issue comes up when the DM makes all of his rulings on the fly, usually against the players.
When all of the DM's rulings are "I don't want or like that so you can't do it", it's easy to see why so many players find "DM's word is law" to translate to "The DM can cheat to screw you over."
While it may seem hard to believe for some, there are still a lot of people out there with the "Players vs DM" mentality. There are still a lot of DMs who get on a power trip as soon as the dice start rolling. There are also a lot of people(adults or otherwise) who don't have the ability to discuss issues outside of the game. All of this only serves to further the issue.
Trying to throw around the negative connotation of "entitlement" to make the players seem like a group of ungrateful children is hardly fair.
Rules = consistency. I've never had a problem with houserules nor have other members of my group when I'm GM'ing, but I have been in groups where the GM would often and inconsistently make up rulings on the fly. That's a problem, especially if players have taken the time to discuss the rules and theme of the campaign and submitted a character for the GM to approve. If something about that character stops working mid-session because the GM decides he doesn't like it for some reason, that can be an issue.
If I discover something I've approved is problematic, I typically make a note of it and then discuss it with the group after the session. If others agree it is a problem, I'll propose a houserule and give the player using the mechanic a chance to weigh in. What I don't do is stop in the middle of a fight and say "Sorry, firearms don't target touch AC anymore because it's ruining my encounter" or something similar.
I also try very hard not to tell players how to play. I once played for a GM who made characters act out all social scenes, and inevitably the players, not the characters, with the best social skills always succeeded and the introverts and quieter players would fail, despite the fact that their characters could have nailed the DC's. Eventually, I pulled him aside and told him that the point of the game was for everyone to have fun, and by not letting people let their characters do what they want them to do, he was marginalizing and kind of bullying those players.
There's also a skewed perception about how people actually treat RAW at home as opposed to how they talk about it on the forums. There's no objective point where houserules and GM rulings can be clearly discussed as regards the merits or flaws of a given rule or mechanic, so if people are going to discuss such a thing here on the forums, they need to discuss from the basis of "What does the rule actually say". That doesn't mean every single one of these people is a foaming at the mouth rules Nazi aiming to override their GM; they just understand that a discussion in a forum such as this can't be based around the thousands of unique idiosyncrasies a given table or GM might have but needs to be evaluated on the merits of what it does or does not say.
To the point- I don't want an iron-fisted GM flinging out arbitrary and inconsistent rulings because he's on a power trip reveling in the control of getting to be "god", and I don't think anyone wants that guy who's interrupting the GM in the middle of a sentence to try and override something he's said. That has nothing to do with RAW or RAI, that is a function of someone being a rude ass, and those kind of people will find a way to vent their spleen regardless of the venue.
Because players do in fact have a right to know the rules to the game they are playing. Most players don't have an issue with the DM giving them a list of house rules and changes before the game starts. The issue comes up when the DM makes all of his rulings on the fly, usually against the players.
When all of the DM's rulings are "I don't want or like that so you can't do it", it's easy to see why so many players find "DM's word is law" to translate to "The DM can cheat to screw you over."
While it may seem hard to believe for some, there are still a lot of people out there with the "Players vs DM" mentality. There are still a lot of DMs who get on a power trip as soon as the dice start rolling. There are also a lot of people(adults or otherwise) who don't have the ability to discuss issues outside of the game. All of this only serves to further the issue.
Trying to throw around the negative connotation of "entitlement" to make the players seem like a group of ungrateful children is hardly fair.
Actually, I had a few DMs like this too.
The first of which was for a game of GURPS set during the fall of the roman empire, with some fantasy elements. When the game was starting, I and a few other players worked with him to create different parts of the world. Magic changed a few times, though one of the creations i had created with him, Necromancy, was slightly different from the others.
Character creation rules also had a max level people could have for magic. And I know its a tired meme, but all of that changed when the fire nation attacked. Literally. As in, he put it into the game. Along with my little pony characters (humanized and changed in some ways) eventually to the point where technology exploded. He seriously fought with one player who just wanted a sword he could wield in two hands, because "technology hasn't progressed enough" and two or three sessions later, we're getting blue tooth translators and fighting giant robot scorpions and cyborged 'changelings' who are all doing it for the glory of some super bio weapon called Nightmare Moon.
One player died a few times, and I had to work for like two sessions, when I'm come back that player (the GM's right hand man) was playing some sort of super zombie centaur necromancer who had magic over the level of character creation and was throwing around blood fireballs (using necromancy) The character also had some sort of magic bulldung ability to activate a spell just before he was about to die to switch the souls around of the players so he could live longer. Course he got my character. :/
Worse yet of course, was when I tried to make a new character, who was basically starting now at level 1, things changed again and again on how I could make it, eventually the DM just goes on about how I'm a power gamer, due to my characters never having any flaws, and my low level necromancer acting like he's the most powerful necromancer ever. (Mind you, he was the only necromancer when we started, in a small army of over 1000 men, who used alchemy and trickery specifically to seem more powerful. The other character was a curious cat character who, as soon as opportunities presented themselves, would break down into exploring things and pressing buttons and whatever else.)
*********************
Second Gm had a game that eventually got into epic levels, which is when I started playing. There was two teams, one was the epic level team, the other was about level 10 still and we'd switch between the two.
At first all the books where open, except oriental named classes. Cept one player, who got to play a monk for whatever reason. Oh and half breeds and outsiders (like half elves or teiflings) where not allowed either. cept again, the player who got to play a monk was also playing a teifling on the other team who could speak draconic, which was a hidden language like druidism.
I had a character built for this game, as did a few others, and we had plans on how to develop them. Then halfway through the game the DM goes "Only player handbooks and complete series are allowed. Nothing else is."
Shortly after the players pretty much quit on that too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To get things back on topic I think no class(older melee) is really obsolete even if they are less optimal. Simple classes like the fighter are a good way to bring someone into the game. Due to table variation and style of play I doubt any of the older melee classes will ever really stop seeing use.
To get things back on topic I think no class(older melee) is really obsolete even if they are less optimal. Simple classes like the fighter are a good way to bring someone into the game. Due to table variation and style of play I doubt any of the older melee classes will ever really stop seeing use.
Some of them also got new archetypes that I am looking forward to trying.
To get things back on topic I think no class(older melee) is really obsolete even if they are less optimal. Simple classes like the fighter are a good way to bring someone into the game. Due to table variation and style of play I doubt any of the older melee classes will ever really stop seeing use.
I dunno, I think the Slayer is actually a better option for introducing new players. The Fighter can give you option paralyzation with so many different feats you can take as a class feature, especially when 90% of them are terrible. The Slayer/Ranger's combat styles give you a pretty proper idea of what feats you want for what you want to do right out of the box.
I think the real reason the Fighter isn't going to go "obsolete" is just because it's in the core rulebook.
So I just noticed that Extra Martial Flexibility can only be taken once.
Which kills the idea I had for the fighter archetype combo.
OP Sample Build at least as far as Paizo is concerned.
I'm overly disappointed at the omission of one line of text.
i'm mostly disappointed that rogues got not a single archetype to get inspiration/studied combat and strike (like they said they would in the playtest), favored target (like they said they would in the playtest), brawler featgrabbing (which apparently everyone under the sun got), or panache (again, almost everyone got this), or ANY FREAKING WAY TO SHORE UP ANYTHING AT ALL (more feat tax for your saves with horrific drawbacks is not helpful). no new better or fixed rogue talents, no way to grab investigator or slayer talents (which again, they said they'd get in the playtest), no nothing.
you had ONE JOB paizo, and you will never learn your lesson or listen to the thousands of posts of feedback because of something as trivial as page count.
monk got pummeling style at the very least, but we all know that will get crane wing'd in a matter of weeks due to MoMS pounce at level 2 bringing forth cries of "monk op nerf now".
just
ugh.
i'm not going to get excited over unchained's apparent reworks either, since i can already tell they're going to miss the point entirely and nothing will change.
Or there is always the tripping focused fighter... always nasty.Fighter and Rogue have been worthless since the ranger and paladin were upgraded. I think ranger and paladin are still competitive. Fighter and rogue are worthless. If you play one, you do so just to try it. They are no longer competitive.Or with archetypes you turn the fighter into a brawler Alchemist
Until he gets hit by a will or reflex save effect that renders him useless. Saves is the main reason why those classes are worthless. It's the reason why Wizards and Casters are king.
This game would improve by leaps and bounds if it got rid of crits, no save spells, and tightened up spell save DCs substantially. Seems none of the designers have ever bothered to make the math work past level 5 or so.
Because players do in fact have a right to know the rules to the game they are playing. Most players don't have an issue with the DM giving them a list of house rules and changes before the game starts. The issue comes up when the DM makes all of his rulings on the fly, usually against the players.
When all of the DM's rulings are "I don't want or like that so you can't do it", it's easy to see why so many players find "DM's word is law" to translate to "The DM can cheat to screw you over."
While it may seem hard to believe for some, there are still a lot of people out there with the "Players vs DM" mentality. There are still a lot of DMs who get on a power trip as soon as the dice start rolling. There are also a lot of people(adults or otherwise) who don't have the ability to discuss issues outside of the game. All of this only serves to further the issue.
Trying to throw around the negative connotation of "entitlement" to make the players seem like a group of ungrateful children is hardly fair.
Rules = consistency. I've never had a problem with houserules nor have other members of my group when I'm GM'ing, but I have been in groups where the GM would often and inconsistently make up rulings on the fly. That's a problem, especially if players have taken the time to discuss the rules and theme of the campaign and submitted a character for the GM to approve. If something about that character stops working mid-session because the GM decides he doesn't like it for some reason, that can be an issue.
If I discover something I've approved is problematic, I typically make a note of it and then discuss it with the group after the session. If others agree it is a problem, I'll propose a houserule and give the player using the mechanic a chance to weigh in. What I don't do is stop in the middle of a fight and say "Sorry, firearms don't target touch AC anymore because it's ruining my encounter" or something similar.
I also try very hard not to tell players how to play. I...
I don't like players sifting every damn book for every possible advantage and finding it because the game developers haven't enough oversight over their game to make sure it isn't turned into a giant cheese fest because they let a broken spell, ability combination, or the general inflation of offense over defense along with action economy that makes it next to impossible for me to make challenging encounters without using my own rulings.
Maybe it's fun for you as a player to kill everything easily while feeling like a great player due to your ability to exploit. But it's not fun for me to DM a bunch of players ripping apart everything in an adventure because the enemies are so poorly designed that they fail to provide even the challenge a puddle might present to a man in rain boots.
Because that's this game right now. The big enemy at the end of Kingmaker volume 2? Dead in 1 round due to a spell and missed saving throw it had next to no chance of making. It's AC and hps were so low the fighter and barbarian did enough damage in two rounds to kill it. So the BBEG at the end of the module took 12 seconds to kill. This has been a constant problem for the entire time Pathfinder has existed due to outlandish damage from crits and saves for spells, especially using metamagic.
So as a DM that wants to create a challenging game. You better believe I'm going to do what I need to do to make that happen. The number game that many players seem to get off on that is entirely slanted in their favor means nothing to me. I'm telling a story. If players don't want to play in a story, then I'm not the guy to be their DM. I don't consider a story very good if the players roll over everything because of optimized numbers. It wouldn't make a great book, movie, or anything else.
Until he gets hit by a will or reflex save effect that renders him useless. Saves is the main reason why those classes are worthless. It's the reason why Wizards and Casters are king.
Odd you should say these two things, since casters tend to have awful saves.
And by 20 the save issue fixes itself
I don't think it is too bad at 12 either
And everything goes out the window with mythics
Generally I find the Melee/Martial classes to be under the bar compaired to mages because of a handful of things. One particular thing stood out to me.
Mages are defined by their their roleplay, Martials are defined by their feats.
Now obviously, you can roleplay martials and still define them via that. But a mage is less reliant on builds and feats and many kinds of mechanics to define them.
For example if you had two wizards, nothing stops the two from casting the same spells, even if the mechanical undercarriage does favor one school over another. Obviously the player who took evocation is going to be all blasty. And the one who went enchantment is going to be all mind gaming people. But there is absolutely nothing that really stops the two from sharing spells.
With martials its different. One character is a two weapon fighter, another is a two handed fighter. What stops the two-handed fighter from doing the two weapon fighter thing is crippling penalties. -6, -8 penalties is nothing to laugh at. And it gets worse and worse as time goes on.
essentially, most of the older martial worked from -10 trying to get back to 0. Mages start off at 0 and build on top of it.
The newer martial classes are a step in the right direction with a handful of things, so the older stuff is little more looked down on.