A 20th level fighter is bathing: how does he survive an attack by a 10th level party?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

651 to 700 of 755 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Darkheyr wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Disarming a PC is frustrating because it actually works against PCs.

Can't disarm claws, bites, tentacles, horns, or anything of that nature.

It also works splendidly on many opponents you might encounter.

Now, of course, if your campaign revolves around dragon hunting, or fighting oder enemies equipped with mostly natural weapons... Yes, that is a problem.

No more than paladins not getting evildoers to smite or rangers getting favoured enemies to hack at, though. Unless you are willfully building your character completely onto a sidetrack, your DM should take such things into consideration when planning encounters. Players should get to use their shticks now and then.

It's not really "odd" enemies, it's nearly anything that's not Humanoid.

A Paladin without Smite and a Ranger without Favored Enemy are diminished in capacity, but they have spent nothing to gain that advantage.

Sure they have. They've spent levels for reduced-power classes. It's like playing a rogue! But not that bad.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I'd rather fight a balor reduced to two slams than a balor with anything with "vorpal" in the name.

Disarm may not be "optimal", but it's not that uncommon to see it used in a campaign, nor is it useless. It's not a great point for "See? Fighters don't suck!" but it is a pretty plausible scenario.

Disarm is often better...WAIT FOR IT...when done through spells.

Though a Martial Master would be pretty sick with it.


Quote:

Paladins are still good(Heh. Puns.) even when they're smiting though. Disarm is nothing if you aren't disarming. It's more or less a wasted investment.

It's not the DM's fault that a HUGE number of monsters rely on natural attacks rather than manufactured weapons. It's more unlikely to face a large number of humanoid enemies as they take MUCH more time to build.

And the most dangerous enemies are usually wielding no weapons at all and are casting spells.

The likelyhood depends exclusively on your campaign. Ours featured humanoids more than anything else during the truly important encounters, since AD&D times. Your experience might differ.

Besides, it's not quite like a fighter looses out that much performance merely because he can't disarm. He can still chop up things well enough - certainly better than the paladin without Smite Evil.

As for spellcasters - I have disarmed those as well. Can be quite fun.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Darkheyr wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Disarming a PC is frustrating because it actually works against PCs.

Can't disarm claws, bites, tentacles, horns, or anything of that nature.

It also works splendidly on many opponents you might encounter.

Now, of course, if your campaign revolves around dragon hunting, or fighting oder enemies equipped with mostly natural weapons... Yes, that is a problem.

No more than paladins not getting evildoers to smite or rangers getting favoured enemies to hack at, though. Unless you are willfully building your character completely onto a sidetrack, your DM should take such things into consideration when planning encounters. Players should get to use their shticks now and then.

It's not really "odd" enemies, it's nearly anything that's not Humanoid.

A Paladin without Smite and a Ranger without Favored Enemy are diminished in capacity, but they have spent nothing to gain that advantage.

Sure they have. They've spent levels for reduced-power classes. It's like playing a rogue! But not that bad.

"Reduced power"?

Smite and FE make them work at 110%. Not having Smite or FE still leaves them at 100%.


I dunno, those are pretty major class abilities they don't get access to. Without smite, what is a paladin? Not unlike a monk without flurry. The paladin gets lots of stuff, but his big damage-dealing payload is gone.

Just because they still end up roughly equal to or better than the fighter doesn't mean there's no loss. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I dunno, those are pretty major class abilities they don't get access to. Without smite, what is a paladin? Not unlike a monk without flurry. The paladin gets lots of stuff, but his big damage-dealing payload is gone.

Just because they still end up roughly equal to or better than the fighter doesn't mean there's no loss. :P

A Paladin without Smite is still a man with full BaB, heavy armor, the ability to add up to +5 in enhancement or special abilities to his weapon, ridiculous saves, immunity to several debilitating things, and swift action self healing and status removal. And spells.

A Ranger without Favored Enemy is still a man with full BaB, medium armor, decent saves, stellar Initiative scores and skill modifiers, and nearly as many Feats as a Fighter...without the pesky details of prerequisites on several of them, and an Animal Companion. And spells.

Like I said. Makes them function at 110%. Doesn't mean they're not still rockin' without that.


And the fighter still has another wagonload of feats to perform with even without getting to disarm. Your point?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

His point is the fighter still does not have the ability to add enhancements to his weapon, ridiculous or even good saves, still has to meet prereqs on his feats, doesn't automatically get an animal companion, can't heal himself or remove status effects, doesn't have a lot of skill points or skill, and no immunities.

After you take away his ability to disarm. A really MINOR ability. Take away smite and FE, MAJOR abilities, and the paladin and ranger still aren't looking all that horrible.

==Aelryinth


... And take away disarm, and the fighter still hits harder and more accurately than either unless they get to use the very ability we talk of being removed, and even then only for a limited time per day.

But apparently it's horrible for a fighter not to make use of his disarm feats.

Really, it's simply a non-issue unless you happen to be in a campaign where you regularily encounter non-disarmable enemies. And in that case it's either you to blame - you should have known better and did it anyway - or your DM because he did not keep an eye on the potential issue or did it anyway.

Just the same as if you dropped a paladin into a campaign where you're only fighting animals. Good luck with your Smite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Just the same as if you dropped a paladin into a campaign where you're only fighting animals. Good luck with your Smite.

If optimization were my chief concern, I'd play a 20th level paladin in Against the Beasts (or Against the Neutral Mercenaries, or Against the Golems, or whatever) before I played a 20th level fighter.

High level paladins are really solid, and a strongly built one won't even need Smite. Divine Bond is excellent. Lay on Hands is excellent. Divine Grace is excellent. You get a bunch of immunities and team buffs that don't only help against evil. And a 20th level paladin has limited but powerful spellcasting available to him (even if he doesn't have Unsanctioned Knowledge, better yet if he does).

Smite is icing on the cake of excellence.

But once you hit the high paladin levels, even the Divine Bond stuff aside, you can bring pure attack and damage against nonevil foes up above a fighter's if you put your mind to it. Unsanctioned Knowledge, dance of a hundred cuts, and a +4 courageous weapon is a threesome made in heaven*, for example. Or Lesser Rod-quickened good hope for an action economy and spell slot lite version. Then you save Divine Bond for when you want to be really over the top, like when you fight the Big Bad Nonevil Guy, and may the gods help anyone you actually Smite.

*:
Puns!


I never claimed they were not solid. I really like what Pathfinder did with paladins.

Them being solid does not change the fact that fighters are harder hitters straight out of the box. Preparation time and situational bonuses can change that, of course, as can quicken rods - though that's one hand you're not using for something else.

A fighter with dueling gloves goes up to a +6 advantage on his main weapon just from weapon training. More from Greater Weapon Focus / Spec to a +7 / +10 advantage. At that advantage, he can even have a brilliant energy backup weapon without much trouble.

I like the paladin, I really do - but from strict direct combat baseline stats the fighter is higher. It's his shtick. The main saving grace of the paladin (where attack bonus and damage is concerned) is only that he brings his own buffs. And if I had the preparation time, I'd rather have those buffs on the fighter. Once the paladin's buff novas are exhausted, I'd rather have the fighter.

Now, of course, double fun if you have a paladin *and* a fighter...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkheyr wrote:

I never claimed they were not solid. I really like what Pathfinder did with paladins.

Them being solid does not change the fact that fighters are harder hitters straight out of the box. Preparation time and situational bonuses can change that, of course, as can quicken rods - though that's one hand you're not using for something else.

Agreed, it is a tradeoff. I think I'd go one handed on a paladin anyway, though, so I don't see it as a huge cost to pick the option I would have used anyway. 1.5Str isn't all that important here, and as far as personal preferences go, I like benefits like still being able to use my weapon in a grapple, even if they don't necessarily show up in DPR.

Quote:
It's his shtick.

I agree. I just think that once the paladin hits high enough levels (and a solid enough build, because I admit this is higher end stuff I'm bringing up) it becomes straightforward enough for the paladin to beat the fighter at the fighter's shtick that it's no longer necessarily accurate to describe the fighter as holding a strong advantage in the area of said shtick.

Paladin spellcasting really comes into its own at high levels, and can really help the paladin deal damage. Maybe sometimes weapon training +6 without an action will be better, but on balance I think paladin spellcasting, while a late-blooming feature, can be used to erase the fighter's advantage if the paladin so chooses.

Quote:
The main saving grace of the paladin (where attack bonus and damage is concerned) is only that he brings his own buffs. And if I had the preparation time, I'd rather have those buffs on the fighter.

Actually, a lot of the best stuff (such as the dance of a hundred cuts we referenced, or the divine bond) is personal only, so it's not always a question of either buffing the fighter or buffing the paladin. Also, when choosing who to buff, a relevant consideration is also who can absorb the enemy's stuff and still bring the buff offense to bear, which is another point for the paladin. As we prepare to battle Pitmaster Pete, would I rather cast bull's strength on the fighter so he can waste it at the bottom of a hungry pit, or on the Paladin whose Divine Grace will keep my +2 in the fight?

(A rather specific example, sure, but in more general terms, Divine Grace and Lay On Hands will, over the course of an adventuring career, together translate to a lot more combat rounds spent on-target)

Quote:
Once the paladin's buff novas are exhausted, I'd rather have the fighter.

That's one area I'd really have to disagree as well, because what causes one to run out of buffs is long adventuring days with many encounters, and while a paladin will surely run through his buffs during long days, he'll simultaneously be suffering less debilitation due to his good defenses and his self-healing. Are we comparing the paladin whose buffs and Lay on Hands are exhausted after twelve encounters (but during the course of those twelve his Divine Grace saved him from a bestow curse, and his mercy cured him from a waves of exhaustion), to the fighter who's now on a level field with the buffs, but is cursed and exhausted? Or something like that?

I've posted some thoughts on fighters and long days at high level (drawn from actually playing one through a lot of long days) before. I'd really hesitate to recommend a fighter for long-day performance, especially over a paladin (even a buffing paladin).


Darkheyr wrote:

I never claimed they were not solid. I really like what Pathfinder did with paladins.

Them being solid does not change the fact that fighters are harder hitters straight out of the box. Preparation time and situational bonuses can change that, of course, as can quicken rods - though that's one hand you're not using for something else.

A fighter with dueling gloves goes up to a +6 advantage on his main weapon just from weapon training. More from Greater Weapon Focus / Spec to a +7 / +10 advantage. At that advantage, he can even have a brilliant energy backup weapon without much trouble.

I like the paladin, I really do - but from strict direct combat baseline stats the fighter is higher. It's his shtick. The main saving grace of the paladin (where attack bonus and damage is concerned) is only that he brings his own buffs. And if I had the preparation time, I'd rather have those buffs on the fighter. Once the paladin's buff novas are exhausted, I'd rather have the fighter.

Now, of course, double fun if you have a paladin *and* a fighter...

From a "direct combat baseline", sure, but that's one of the less important things after a point. Hit/damage has diminishing returns. Full BaB and high Str is already good enough. Fighter boosts that a little bit to "Still good enough even with poorer rolls".

The Fighter is a glass cannon. I'll take someone who can sustain himself longer and doesn't NEED my buffs over someone who can barely survive n his own every time.

The base Fighter is inferior in pretty much every way to the Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian. Pure damage is covered better by the Barbarian (who still has stellar saves and can actually get a BETTER AC). Feats are covered better by the Ranger (who gets them without prereqs, has better saves, and much better skills), and the Paladin does the "sturdy warrior" better (this should be self explanatory).


Quote:
Agreed, it is a tradeoff. I think I'd go one handed on a paladin anyway, though, so I don't see it as a huge cost to pick the option I would have used anyway. 1.5Str isn't all that important here, and as far as personal preferences go, I like benefits like still being able to use my weapon in a grapple, even if they don't necessarily show up in DPR.

That I can relate to, actually. The option to use a longsword two-handed for a minor disadvantage in damage, but keep using it onehanded where a greatsword can't be used... It definitly has merit.

Quote:
I agree. I just think that once the paladin hits high enough levels (and a solid enough build, because I admit this is higher end stuff I'm bringing up) it becomes straightforward enough for the paladin to beat the fighter at the fighter's shtick that it's no longer necessarily accurate to describe the fighter as holding a strong advantage in the area of said shtick.

There I'll still disagree. But I admit that it can vary with situations. Being able to actively prepare by means of magic for combat is a situation definitly favouring the paladin. Not having that moment is another matter entirely - if you cannot initiate combat on your terms, or are not able to buff out of earshot and sight, it can be a significant advantage that you bring those numbers right out of the box.

Quote:
Actually, a lot of the best ones (such as the dance of a hundred cuts we referenced) are personal only, so it's not always a question of either buffing the fighter or buffing the paladin.

I know. I was mostly talking of buffs such as Greater Heroism. And to be fair, the Dance requires a very specific feat with a very specific choice - compared to options such as Shadow Conjuration, Dimension Door and many other useful spells. Oh, and Int 13 - same as Combat Expertise.

Quote:


That's one area I'd really have to disagree as well, because what causes one to run out of buffs is long adventuring days with many encounters, and while a paladin will surely run through his buffs during long days, he'll simultaneously be suffering less debilitation due to his good defenses and his self-healing. Are we comparing the paladin whose buffs and Lay on Hands are exhausted after twelve encounters (but during the course of those twelve his Divine Grace saved him from a bestow curse, and his mercy cured him from a waves of exhaustion), to the fighter who's now on a level field with the buffs, but is cursed and exhausted? Or something like that?

If we look at each of them in a vaccuum and ignore the possibility of a fighter ending a fight quicker since he does not need buffing time, then yes - the paladin fares better, with the fighter having to resort to consumables to keep up, or needing specific gear against specific threats.

If however you have the means to deal with those things in-party anyway, not so much. That's the main difference, really - the fighter operates at a higher baseline, while the paladin can bring much of the low-level utility normally expected from clerics.

How much will be dependent on the fights encountered as well - You seem to see it normal to encounter ability drain, curses and many other effects - for me, humanoid encounters are the norm. If I knew I would be hunting undead as part of some kelemvorite hit squad, I'd certainly pick the paladin over the fighter any day.

Quote:

From a "direct combat baseline", sure, but that's one of the less important things after a point. Hit/damage has diminishing returns. Full BaB and high Str is already good enough. Fighter boosts that a little bit to "Still good enough even with poorer rolls".

The Fighter is a glass cannon. I'll take someone who can sustain himself longer and doesn't NEED my buffs over someone who can barely survive n his own every time.

The base Fighter is inferior in pretty much every way to the Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian. Pure damage is covered better by the Barbarian (who still has stellar saves and can actually get a BETTER AC). Feats are covered better by the Ranger (who gets them without prereqs, has better saves, and much better skills), and the Paladin does the "sturdy warrior" better (this should be self explanatory).

Please, drop the hyperbole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Remember, every ability or featline that isn't ultimately the best possible option is a completely useless trap option. Nobody's ever a titan fighter. No monk has spell resistance. No fighter disarms. And if they are or do, they aren't just gonna be subpar—they are going to be awful s%+~ and/or a net negative for the party.

Hyperbole is the bread and butter of these threads. It's the biggest reason that the people who think rogues and fighters are perfectly even with casters still have something to debate.


Where's the hyperbole, exactly? Everything I said is true.

Darkheyr wrote:
How much will be dependent on the fights encountered as well - You seem to see it normal to encounter ability drain, curses and many other effects - for me, humanoid encounters are the norm.

So all the enemies you fight are humanoid martial characters? Never fight spellcasters either?

Yippee for you, I guess. Sounds pretty dull to me.

I'm also laughing at you assuming the Paladin A.) NEEDS buffs and B.) Usually casts them in combat, instead of before.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Remember, every ability or featline that isn't ultimately the best possible option is a completely useless trap option. Nobody's ever a titan fighter. No monk has spell resistance. No fighter disarms. And if they are or do, they aren't just gonna be subpar—they are going to be awful s%!! and/or a net negative for the party.

Hyperbole is the bread and butter of these threads. It's the biggest reason that the people who think rogues and fighters are perfectly even with casters still have something to debate.

Please, KC, you know better than that. Look at our Age of Worms game real quick. Do you know HOW DEAD some of us would be if we had SR?

The Monk's SR is not just "not the best" it's "Basically the worst". It's SR of a grade that's barely a speedbump to enemies (who have higher CLs than PCs usually) and yet hinders allies buffing or healing you.

Look again back at how a Disarm based Fighter would have fared. How many things even COULD be Disarmed? How many of the things that could have been would it have made the slightest difference against?

The Titan Fighter issue i a bit of a different ball of wax. it really IS a trap option because it actively makes you worse under the guise of making you better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkheyr wrote:
How much will be dependent on the fights encountered as well - You seem to see it normal to encounter ability drain, curses and many other effects - for me, humanoid encounters are the norm. If I knew I would be hunting undead as part of some kelemvorite hit squad, I'd certainly pick the paladin over the fighter any day.

I would propose that that is another part of the low vs high level dynamic. Things that are debilitating beyond just hit point damage are, I would posit, markedly more common at the higher levels where I see the paladin really accelerating away from the fighter.

Quote:
If we look at each of them in a vaccuum and ignore the possibility of a fighter ending a fight quicker since he does not need buffing time

Unorganized anecdote might be a bit unconvincing here, but on the topic of ending fights quicker, I would draw your attention to this post about more organized playtesting on the topic, done by Sslarn (et al.).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Hyperbole is the bread and butter of these threads. It's the biggest reason that the people who think rogues and fighters are perfectly even with casters still have something to debate.

Yeah, I'll be honest, I think there's ultimately a more compelling argument when it comes to ordinary, average stuff than when it comes to Aroden's Spellbane wielding Torag wizards who only ever bathe inside a prismatic sphere, or whatever. ;)


Rynjin, I'll leave it at "No, that's not what I said". Make of that what you will.

Edit: How odd. I hit refresh before posting and did not see Coriats posts.

Quote:
I would propose that that is another part of the low vs high level dynamic. Things that are debilitating beyond just hit point damage are, I would posit, markedly more common at the higher levels where I see the paladin really pulling away.

Not necessarily. Let me be clear - even our old D&D epic-level party was primarily encountering humanoid opponents. Not exclusively, but when it was ability draining undead, it was usually for a well-thought out reason and/or the rare nasty surprise. It's not like those things are found in your common cellar. Our opponent distribution was much more founded on in-setting logic. That makes it far simpler to carry consumable contingency options around, or to have a cleric keep a spell or two handy just in case.

And I'm reading the links right now - quite a good read, actually.


The point of a discussion is actually...discussing. "I won't state what I said but that totally wasn't it" is not furthering the discussion.

Neither is "You're using hyperbole right now but I won't specify what I think is hyperbolic because reasons".


You're entirely free to start an actual discussion if you are unhappy with our exchange - but I won't bother replying in any elaborate way if all you're saying is "YOU ARE WRONG" and a fairly large cup of hyperbole - not to mention derisive commentary.


...What?

I said:

-Barbarians are better at damage.

-Rangers are better at Feats,

-Paladins are better at defense.

Which of those things is hyperbolic? Which of those things is shouting "YOU ARE WRONG?

I've run the math on Barbarians already.

The Ranger thing is right there in the class description. He gets a Feat at 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, and they don't need prerequisites. All he's missing is a Bonus at 1, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. 6 less Feats, but 6 less Feats without needing to meet ability or Feat prereqs. "Almost as many, with an added bonus of", like I said.

Paladins have better saves (objectively), several immunities, self-healing, status removal, and spells.

Where's the hyperbole? I did MY part already. Just because you can't formulate a counter-position doesn't mean I'm exaggerating, here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkheyr wrote:
Not necessarily. Let me be clear - even our old D&D epic-level party was primarily encountering humanoid opponents. Not exclusively, but when it was ability draining undead, it was usually for a well-thought out reason and/or the rare nasty surprise. It's not like those things are found in your common cellar. Our opponent distribution was much more founded on in-setting logic.

Eh, our party has fought a fair few humanoids, lately, but that doesn't mean direct damage only. The humanoids we tangled with in Faerie recently were dropping plenty of debilitating stuff - feeblemind, insanity, prismatics (where a failed save might put you on other planes, turned to stone, etc) - the troglodyte priests we tangled with a bit further had nausea and ability damage from slimes and molds, there were the poison using snake cultists in between...

And then there are whatever undead we end up fighting, too. They tend to specialize in that sort of thing, sure, but there's still plenty of it floating around besides what they bring. We haven't been in an undead focused campaign or anything, no more undead than usual I think, but special attacks are a lot broader than undead.

Quote:
And I'm reading the links right now - quite a good read, actually.

Glad you're finding it interesting. Anecdotes from games are one thing, but playtests like that are a treasure.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Barb damage: For realistic purposes, Pounce and Come and Get me are unclimbable walls to the average fighter, and can massively increase damage output. Put in Reckless Abandon on top of it, well...

So a Barb will outdamage a fighter in melee combat.
The fighter will hold the edge in archery...but that's about it.
Now, the fighter somehow has to overcome the barbarian's superiority in speed, uncanny dodge, DR, saves, hit points, and if desired, AC on top of this.

For Rangers, keep in mind that the iconic feat, Shield Master, Rangers not only get six levels earlier, but don't have to waste pre-req feats to get. That's the huge thing about rangers...they don't have to take dump feats to get the good feats, and Fighters do.

For Paladins...come on. No fighter has the staying power of a paladin. Lay on hands means bundles and bundles more hit points for a paladin. Better saves and outright immunities on top of it. Spells and Weapon Bond can easily equal the damage gap with fighters even against neutral foes (since the enhancement bonus of the sword bond stacks with the enhancement on the weapon, the Paladin's +2 sword becomes +4 as the fighter is laying about with +1 weapon Mastery and weapon spec).

The paladin will outlast the fighter because he can heal himself and endure the damage coming his way.
Noteworthy, Smite is the shield-friendliest ability around. The damage boost is so high for it that using it with a shield is still a good idea, especially if you can shield bash in addition. Smite also works with TWF and archery. A paladin archer smiting outdamages any other archer on the field.

These are proven facts. It's why people rage on the fighter. I want a fighter that is the dominant physical combatant that he was in 1e. except maybe against giant-class humanoids, heh! He does not exist in the post 3E world or in PF.

==Aelryinth


Quote:
I've run the math on Barbarians already.

Even for a cursory study on that math:

The fighter is apparently not using a mithral full plate, which would be netting him a max dex bonus of +7, while the barbarians mithral breastplate is at max +5, not +6. An even better option for the fighter would be celestial armour, though it is questionable whether anyone but a dervish could make use of that +12 max dex.

On top of that, it is dependant on two specific rage powers not everyone will have.

The damage and to hit part is even more questionable - the Courageous enhancement has been clarified by SRK for HeroLabs when the question came up there to only affect morale bonuses to saves, for instance. Witch Hunter is situational, and yet again two specific rage powers not everyone has. You also include two weapon properties on the barbarian (total +2 in specials, leaving max +3) yet neglect to do so for the fighter.

Oh, and you forgot that fighters, too, have DR 5/-.

Sorry, but that's not exactly very convincing math. How you can believe that a ranger 'is better at feats' when he needs 14 wisdom just to access his class features, and has less feats overall... Ignoring prerequisites on a specific set is a necessity on that class, not the massive advantage you make it out to be.

Feel free to convince me different - but so far I'm not convinced that there is a barbarian, ranger or paladin able to regularily put out the same numbers that are the fighters lowest baseline. They have their advantages, and the fighter is lacking - but not in baseline numbers.


Darkheyr wrote:
Quote:
I've run the math on Barbarians already.

Even for a cursory study on that math:

The fighter is apparently not using a mithral full plate, which would be netting him a max dex bonus of +7, while the barbarians mithral breastplate is at max +5, not +6. An even better option for the fighter would be celestial armour, though it is questionable whether anyone but a dervish could make use of that +12 max dex.

The former is due to the wealth limits I imposed (they each got about 15k in "class specific" gear, which the Barbarian's Mithral Breastplate counted towards. But if you want to assume BOTH have Mithral gear, this can get fun. I'd mean the Barbarian has another 11k to futz around with ove rthe Fighter because Gloves of Dueling are freakin' expensive.).

Darkheyr wrote:
On top of that, it is dependant on two specific rage powers not everyone will have.

They are the most commonly chosen Rage Powers. If you want to play that game, the Fighter isn't allowed to have Weapon Spec and Focus (and Greater). Or Power Attack.

That's how common Superstition, Witch Hunter, and Beast Totem are.

Darkheyr wrote:
The damage and to hit part is even more questionable - the Courageous enhancement has been clarified by SRK for HeroLabs when the question came up there to only affect morale bonuses to saves, for instance. Witch Hunter is situational, and yet again two specific rage powers not everyone has. You also include two weapon properties on the barbarian (total +2 in specials, leaving max +3) yet neglect to do so for the fighter.

SKR no longer works for Paizo, HeroLab is not a rules source, even if he did work for Paizo, non-FAQ statements by devs don't count as official rules clarifications (from the mouths of the devs themselves), and finally: There is NO way to read the text of that abiity and say it only works for saves against Fear. It is simply not written that way.

I gave the Fighter the same weapon properties. Mostly because there's no weapon property that would have made a difference there in the slightest.

Darkheyr wrote:
Oh, and you forgot that fighters, too, have DR 5/-.

I did. Noted at about post #3 of the thread.

Darkheyr wrote:
Sorry, but that's not exactly very convincing math.

The math is very convincing unless you insist on disallowing the Barbarian any of his class specific advantages and allowing the Fighter all of his. And even then the Fighter comes out looking slightly better, at best.

Seriously "Not every Barbarian will have these common things!" vs "This Fighter will have these very specific things!" is incredibly silly.

Not even the person I was directly responding against in that thread was this obtuse.

Darkheyr wrote:
How you can believe that a ranger 'is better at feats' when he needs 14 wisdom just to access his class features, and has less feats overall... Ignoring prerequisites on a specific set is a necessity on that class, not the massive advantage you make it out to be.

He needs a 14 Wis by END GAME. You can start with an 11 (and most characters, even ones without a Wis focus, start with at least 12) and be just fine.

He has less Feats, but you're downplaying the massive advantage of ignoring prerequisites. There's a reason why Rangers and Slayers make the best TWfers and Sword and Board users.

Darkheyr wrote:
Feel free to convince me different - but so far I'm not convinced that there is a barbarian, ranger or paladin able to regularily put out the same numbers that are the fighters lowest baseline. They have their advantages, and the fighter is lacking - but not in baseline numbers.

The ONL advantage the Fighter has in "baseline numbers" are hit/damage (if you disallow the most common Rage Powers almost every Barbarian takes and Smite), and in Max Dex and ACP (which, when you bring the Mithral Celestial Plate into the equation,a s you have, is 100% meaningless to all but the most Dex based of Fighters).

What other "baseline numbers" does he excel at? Show me. Preferably in a way that doesn't involve you going "Well if you give the Fighter this, this, this, and this, and ban the other class from doing...anything...".


Quote:
The former is due to the wealth limits I imposed (they each got about 15k in "class specific" gear, which the Barbarian's Mithra Breastplate counted towards).

Because imposing arbitrary wealth limits that just happen to stop one side from making full use of their class features are such an excellent base line for comparisons.

Quote:

They are the most commonly chosen Rage Powers. If you want to play that game, the Fighter isn't allowed to have Weapon Spec and Focus (and Greater). Or Power Attack.

That's how common Superstition, Witch Hunter, and Beast Totem are.

Assumption. One that depends entirely on your character concept and build. You can throw out those fighter-exclusive feats if you want and end at the same conclusion - the barbarian gains far more in numericals from those powers. And again, only against specific enemies.

Quote:
SKR no longer works for Paizo, HeroLab is not a rules source, even if he did work for Paizo, non-FAQ statements by devs don't count as official rules clarifications (from the mouths of the devs themselves), and finally: There is NO way to read the text of that abiity and say it only works for saves against Fear. It is simply not written that way.

He did when he responded to a request by the HeroLab team, who were kind enough to repost it on their forums. And quite frankly - yes there is, even though it was worded poorly. You can of course choose to assume that the HeroLab folks are lying and Paizo never actually said anything about it - it's not FAQ'ed, after all, I give you that. I'll stick with not assuming that a +1 ability is that good. At the very least, there is legitimate concern that it should be implemented the way you assume.

Quote:
I gave the Fighter the same weapon properties. Mostly because there's no weapon property that would have made a difference there in the slightest.

Why would a fighter take those two properties? And +2d6 damage is irrelevant? The option to add +4 or +5 abilities is irrelevant?

Quote:
He needs a 14 Wis by END GAME. You can start with an 11 (and most characters, even ones without a Wis focus, start with at least 12) and be just fine.

And how exactly are you increasing that WIS score without spending coin or ability increases that could be used elsewhere? Seriously, on the previous page you listed Int 13 as a disadvantage, but needing Wis 14 is not?

Quote:
He has less Feats, but you're downplaying the massive advantage of ignoring prerequisites. There's a reason why Rangers and Slayers make the best TWfers and Sword and Board users.

I am not downplaying it. It is simply not as massive an advantage as you make it out to be. It is useful, very much so, but does not automatically lead to "rangers do feats better".

Quote:
The ONL advantage the Fighter has in "baseline numbers" are hit/damage (if you disallow the most common Rage Powers almost every Barbarian takes and Smite), and in Max Dex and ACP (which, when you bring the Mithral Celestial Plate into the equation,a s you have, is 100% meaningless to all but the most Dex based of Fighters).

And in AC. And no, I'm not disallowing it. I am merely stating that your build strictly requires rage powers not nearly everyone will take or that only work against certain enemies, and then compare it to the baseline numbers any fighter will have.

I never, ever doubted that any of the other martials can challenge and even surpass fighters in pure numbers against specific enemies or in specific situations. But stating MY BARBARIAN WITH THESE POWERS DOES MORE DAMAGE AGAINST SPELLCASTERS does not automatically give him better numbers in general.

Quote:
What other "baseline numbers" does he excel at? Show me. Preferably in a way that doesn't involve you going "Well if you give the Fighter this, this, this, and this, and ban the other class from doing...anything...".

Give him what? Un-archetyped fighters are designed around running in heavy armour, and weapon training is automatic. At best, you can exclude fighter-specific feats. You're the one not even giving the fighter the gear to utilize his class abilities.

And you're still completely ignoring the massive DPR increase Weapon Mastery will get you.

And on a side note, I find it rather amusing that a level 20 NPC fighter with some disarm feats would be an excellent match against that barbarian in terms of pure numbers. Not meant as a bash or anything, just an amusing realisation.


Darkheyr wrote:
And you're still completely ignoring the massive DPR increase Weapon Mastery will get you.

Probably because the # of folks who actually play at 20th level are less than probably 5% of Pathfinder's total community.

And Witchhunter is a Rage Power that will work more often than it won't. The most dangerous enemies in the game are ones that have spells or spell-like abilities. It's incredibly difficult to crack open a Bestiary, flip to a random page, and end up with a monster without spells or SLAs.

Int 13 is a disadvantage because it grants you nothing but an extra skill point(And qualifies for lackluster feat chains) whereas Wisdom 14 enables your combat ability by raising your Will Save and grants Rangers their spellcasting ability.


Sorry, but no. Merely because you regularily encounter spellcasters in your game does not mean that to hold true in all games.

And Wisdom 14 is not a boost aside from the +2 will save over a 10 - it's a bloody requirement for rangers and paladins. A fighter can choose to take int 13 (or 14 really, in most cases) or not if he wants to follow certain skill chains or has skill point considerations. Completely optional.

And if you're comparing level 20 characters, you should compare all of it, not just the parts you want to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkheyr wrote:
it's a <snip> requirement for rangers and paladins.

Actually, only rangers. Paladin casting keys off of Charisma in Pathfinder.

(This surprised me at first, too.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oh. I missed that as well. *blinks*

That... is actually pretty cool. Alleviates MAD for the Paladin a bit. I like it.


Rynjin wrote:

Please, KC, you know better than that. Look at our Age of Worms game real quick. Do you know HOW DEAD some of us would be if we had SR?

That's not exactly a fair comparison, considering you don't get spell resistance until much later.

Moreover, spell resistance is risky, but not crippling. A caster beats the SR more than half the time even if they haven't grabbed Spell Penetration—which they may well have done by 13th level if they're healing a guy who has SR.

And it only affects the monk while in combat. Outside of combat it's not even a factor (so it's no barrier to post-combat healing or pre-combat buffing), and combats last a lot less long at high levels. It means the monk is forced to use somewhat subpar tactics (since sometimes he has to tumble away and sacrifice a standard action to let himself be healed), but it gives him a real advantage every blue moon. Some builds are like that—they invest more in a single scenario, like a ranger with Favored Enemy and a bane weapon. It's not always optimal, but it's fun and accentuates the character.

Also, I think our game is a bit nastier than the average. :P

I'll grant that SR is definitely the least beneficial of that list, but the monk only needs mid-combat healing every now and then, especially since he's got a good defense (and for related reasons, offensive spells only affect him about half the time).

Rynjin wrote:


Look again back at how a Disarm based Fighter would have fared. How many things even COULD be Disarmed? How many of the things that could have been would it have made the slightest difference against?

It won't be great against a lot of enemies, but the majority of adventurers feature humanoid or humanoid-shaped bosses. Nualia, Karzoug, Zyrxog, Grallak Kur, pretty much any of the enemies in Hook Mountain Massacre, Ripnugget, a lot of the guys I've been fighting in Second Darkness whose names I don't remember...even mages use rods and staves. You're great at fewer fights, but often the important ones are where you excel.

Quote:
The Titan Fighter issue i a bit of a different ball of wax. it really IS a trap option because it actively makes you worse under the guise of making you better.

It makes you better at the thing you want to be better at. You deal somewhat less damage than a guy fighting with a normal weapon, but are much more effective with an oversized weapon than anyone else. Personally, I'd prefer to stack it with titan mauler, but even titan fighter itself is just "net loss on DPR". Not a trap.


@Darkheyr: You do realize almost every limit I imposed was to the Fighter's BENEFIT, right? The Barbarian ended up with Mithral armor and a 4k Wondrous Item.

The Fighter ended up with a HIGHLY SPECIFIC 15000 gold item that boosts his hit/damage by 2 apiece, and adds to several other things as well.

The Rage Powers are something I'm not budging on. They are THE optimal Rage Powers for Barbarians who want to deal damage and also increase survivability, just like the Weapon Focus/Spec line is the optimal path for Fighters who want t maximize damage.

And it is hardly "situational". It works against almost EVERYONE.

The vast majority of the bestiary has at least 1 SLA, Su ability, or spell.

The vast majority of CLASSES have at least 1 SLA, Su ability, or spell. The only classes that don't are Fighter, Rogue, Slayer, Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, and Cavalier/Samurai.

And of THOSE, the Rogue has options (common ones, Minor and Major Magic), the Slayer has archetypes (Stygian Slayer and Grave Warden), and even Fighter through archetypes (Mutation Warrior) to have Su abilities or SLAs.

And even the ones that don't might be of a race that has racial SLAs...which is again MOST of them.

Quote:
And how exactly are you increasing that WIS score without spending coin or ability increases that could be used elsewhere? Seriously, on the previous page you listed Int 13 as a disadvantage, but needing Wis 14 is not?

Wis does more. It increases Will saves (important) and Perception checks (important). Even a Fighter will want a headband of Inspired Wisdom at high levels to shore up his atrocious Will save. Spending coin on increasing Wis is an investment EVERY class benefits from.

Quote:
He did when he responded to a request by the HeroLab team, who were kind enough to repost it on their forums. And quite frankly - yes there is, even though it was worded poorly. You can of course choose to assume that the HeroLab folks are lying and Paizo never actually said anything about it - it's not FAQ'ed, after all, I give you that. I'll stick with not assuming that a +1 ability is that good. At the very least, there is legitimate concern that it should be implemented the way you assume.

AGAIN, HeroLab is not a rules source. It has NEVER BEEN a rules source. People pretending HeroLab is AT ALL relevant to a rules discussion get on my nerves.

What matters when determining rules: Text, and FAQs.

The text does not even imply what SKR says. There has been no FAQ.

SKR didn't even WRITE the property as far as I know, he was just responding as the only guy who actually answered rules questions at the time, so you don't even have "author intent".

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It won't be great against a lot of enemies, but the majority of adventurers feature humanoid or humanoid-shaped bosses. Nualia, Karzoug, Zyrxog, Grallak Kur, pretty much any of the enemies in Hook Mountain Massacre, Ripnugget, a lot of the guys I've been fighting in Second Darkness whose names I don't remember...even mages use rods and staves. You're great at fewer fights, but often the important ones are where you excel.

Staves are rarely powerful enough that depriving a caster of them matters. Rods MIGHT Be worthwhile, but barely.

I would hardly say "most" adventures prominently feature humanoids. At least not of the published ones I've played. Rise of the Runelords tapers off on that trend later on. From book 3 on, I've barely faced anything that uses a weapon.

Carrion Crown is pretty much weapon-less from beginning to end.

Serpent's Skull likewise, at least up to book 3.

Even Skull and Shackles is pretty low on weapon wielders in the important fights.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It makes you better at the thing you want to be better at. You deal somewhat less damage than a guy fighting with a normal weapon, but are much more effective with an oversized weapon than anyone else. Personally, I'd prefer to stack it with titan mauler, but even titan fighter itself is just "net loss on DPR". Not a trap.

...That's an oxymoron.

The only (game mechanics) reason to wield a large weapon is to deal more damage.

Instead, you are trading damage for the ability to...look cool?

That's pretty much the definition of a trap option.


Every single installment of Age of Worms so far has included major enemies that rely upon wielded objects. Any enemy wizard that doesn't have a familiar will have a bonded object, and some of those bonded objects will be wands, staves or weapons. This is minor, but it's come up in the past (particularly for villains that don't work, flavor-wise, with familiars).

Frankly though, I'm just not seeing what you're saying. I pointed out a ton of adventurers that feature major geared enemies. You pointed out a bunch that don't. So, yes, you're correct. Not all adventures work for Disarm. But, as I've proven, a ton work perfectly, as-intended: It's a great ability to have for many of the real, important fights.

There are mechanics other than DPR, even for a fighter. The titan fighter has benefits on combat maneuvers, for instance. He also has the option of wielding more weapons—if the group beats a hill giant with a +2 flaming greataxe, they don't have to sell it.

Also, if you have such a binary view of what defines a "trap option", isn't every martial class except one a trap option? Logically, there must be one class that can attain higher DPR than anyone else, and every other class would be a trap option (unless, after all this time, we're going to argue that the martial classes are so balanced that everyone's DPR is the same). That's what happens when you wield that term so generously.

If you define a net disadvantage, no matter how minor, as a "trap option", "trap option" loses any real power as a derisive remark. The point of a class isn't to have +1 DPR higher than the other guy, it's to play what you want. The reason a rogue is bad is that it fails at that. The reason the titan fighter is good is that it succeeds. I think you've spent too long on this sort of thread.


No, because it's not binary. There are advantages and disadvantages to every class. When you trade one thing, you often get another.

DPR is not the sole measure of effectiveness, but when the point of a thing is to increase DPR...it DECREASING it instead kinda defeats the purpose, don't you think?

Yes, a NET disadvantage defines a trap. Because the net disadvantage is determined after applying all other factors. If something makes you worse overall, and provides less in exchange than it does for the disadvantage, it is a trap.

And here's the kicker: For the majority of the Titan Fighter's run, he doesn't even have the so-called advantage to CMB.

The Titan Fighter takes a -4 to-hit for using a large 2H weapon.

So until 9th level, he's taking a penalty to attack rolls AND CMB (because anything that affects attack rolls affect Combat maneuver checks as well).


Quote:

@Darkheyr: You do realize almost every limit I imposed was to the Fighter's BENEFIT, right? The Barbarian ended up with Mithral armor and a 4k Wondrous Item.

The Fighter ended up with a HIGHLY SPECIFIC 15000 gold item that boosts his hit/damage by 2 apiece, and adds to several other things as well.

No, I don't see that, sorry. It's completely arbitrary. It's like comparing a wizard to a sorcerer without giving the wizard access to additional spells via purchased scrolls.

Quote:
The Rage Powers are something I'm not budging on. They are THE optimal Rage Powers for Barbarians who want to deal damage and also increase survivability, just like the Weapon Focus/Spec line is the optimal path for Fighters who want t maximize damage.

I never said they were not a reasonable choice - merely that they are far from the only viable choice depending on your concept, since they require you to forego other totem powers.

Quote:

And it is hardly "situational". It works against almost EVERYONE.

The vast majority of the bestiary has at least 1 SLA, Su ability, or spell.

The vast majority of CLASSES have at least 1 SLA, Su ability, or spell. The only classes that don't are Fighter, Rogue, Slayer, Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, and Cavalier/Samurai.

And of THOSE, the Rogue has options (common ones, Minor and Major Magic), the Slayer has archetypes (Stygian Slayer and Grave Warden), and even Fighter through archetypes (Mutation Warrior) to have Su abilities or SLAs.

And even the ones that don't might be of a race that has racial SLAs...which is again MOST of them.

First of all, especially considering your tone, read the ability. It works against creatures using spells and SLAs - supernatural abilities are not even mentioned. The supernatural bit is for Superstition exclusively, not Witch Hunter.

Second, no, not everything you encounter has spells or SLAs. If that works for you, great. Other games are different. Not every game merely runs preset bestiary entries.
There is one core race with SLAs - gnomes. Sorry, still not seeing the mandatory prevalence of spellcasting opponents. It might happen, or it might not.

Quote:

AGAIN, HeroLab is not a rules source. It has NEVER BEEN a rules source. People pretending HeroLab is AT ALL relevant to a rules discussion get on my nerves.

What matters when determining rules: Text, and FAQs.

The text does not even imply what SKR says. There has been no FAQ.

SKR didn't even WRITE the property as far as I know, he was just responding as the only guy who actually answered rules questions at the time, so you don't even have "author intent".

I have not claimed, not even once, that HeroLab made any 'ruling' on the matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The supposition that one will face opponents that are predominately caster/non-caster, or armed/unarmed is entirely setting based. The core rules were published with the expectation that they could be applied to settings beyond Golarion, so listing (convincing) anecdotes concerning adventures in Golarion only provides evidence for a specific subset of instances.

Theoretically, both sides of the argument are based on an infinite representation of their specific idea: you could have (infinitely diverse) adventures with only caster or non-caster opponents, or only armed or unarmed opponents.

That said, having the stats up for how the barbarian deals with a specific subset of opponents is at the least not fully representative of the demonstrated barbarian's performance. It probably wouldn't take a lot of effort* to do the statistics for the remainder of the total set of opponents.

If the barbarian is still triumphant in that comparison with the fighter, that proves the point more strongly.

If the fighter comes out on top in that comparison, then maybe that's the niche a fighter fills that the barbarian doesn't fill as well (probably could still be filled better by others)

It might take a little more effort to properly equip both characters for their level, taking presumably near optimal items. This would be a good thing to do in order to eliminate potential arguments against fairness in equipment (this would require acknowledgment from both parties on what constitutes near optimal equipment -- hard to obtain over internet)

* I might do it if I weren't constrained to a phone for the next few days. This post is already a bit long for a phone post


Rynjin wrote:

No, because it's not binary. There are advantages and disadvantages to every class. When you trade one thing, you often get another.

DPR is not the sole measure of effectiveness, but when the point of a thing is to increase DPR...it DECREASING it instead kinda defeats the purpose, don't you think?

The point of any class is to grant options. Otherwise we'd all play paladins, clerics and wizards, but we want more than that. We want options. We want the option to play a backstabber, or a guy with an oversized weapon.

There will always be one build that wins fights better than anyone else. So why doesn't everyone use that build?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkheyr wrote:

Oh. I missed that as well. *blinks*

That... is actually pretty cool. Alleviates MAD for the Paladin a bit. I like it.

Yeah, it's one reason I've emphasized paladin spellcasting. It is markedly better - largely in terms of available slots, which was always a 3.5 weakness - since it keys off Charisma. It can be in the neighborhood of 50% more spells at 20th.


@Darkheyr: Ah, right, my bad on the Su thing. Still, look at the published classes.

Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin/Antipaladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Wizard, Inquisitor, Magus, Oracle, Summoner, Witch, Arcanist, Bloodrager, Hunter, Shaman, Skald, and Warpriest all have spells.

Monks have SLAs, either at high level by default or lower levels with Qinggong.

Rogues can get SLAs.

So that leaves the same number of classes I mentioned before without SLAs or spells.

Races:

Gnomes, Aasimar, Dhampir, Drow, Fetchling, Ifrit, Oread, Sylph, Tiefling, Undine, Changelings, Duergar, Kitsune, Svirfneblin, and Wayangs have SLAs by default. Several others have SLAs as options.

Monsters:

Honestly, too many to list. EVERY Outsider (sans Elementals), many Monstros Humanoids, many Humanoids, Dragons, some Plants, many Undead...really, anything that's not an Ooze or an Animal has a solid chance of having an SLA or spell.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

No, because it's not binary. There are advantages and disadvantages to every class. When you trade one thing, you often get another.

DPR is not the sole measure of effectiveness, but when the point of a thing is to increase DPR...it DECREASING it instead kinda defeats the purpose, don't you think?

The point of any class is to grant options. Otherwise we'd all play paladins, clerics and wizards, but we want more than that. We want options. We want the option to play a backstabber, or a guy with an oversized weapon.

There will always be one build that wins fights better than anyone else. So why doesn't everyone use that build?

You're falling into the "It has roleplay value, therefore it's not a trap" fallacy. You can LIKE something without it being GOOD.

Especially not when it's an option like Prone Shooter or Titan Fighter which make you mechanically worse at everything you're attempting. Playing suboptimally is a choice, but you choosing to do so doesn't make it any more USEFUL, or less of a trap.

Options are meaningless unless there is SOME redeeming quality to them. The Titan Fighter is hands down worse up to 9th level, and only slightly better after. So for almost half of teh play scale, it has gimped itself for flavor.


And how many of those races are you likely to encounter?

Again, what you experience might be very different in the next game. In fact, I'd dare say that most non-core races will not be encountered on a regular base in most games.

Even the class distribution is not nearly equal in many settings, or all parts of that setting. Sure, if you're playing FR and your campaign is set in Halruaa or you're doing that old Empire of Magic era thing, you'll make great use of that rage power.

If you're trekking through the Silver Marches wilderness, probably not so much. A ranger with FE:Orcs will be better off.

Bestiary entries and non-core races, no matter how many, do not automatically translate into equal opportunity appearance ingame.


What do you think is more likely:

90% of the options never appear, and exist only to waste space on paper.

Or

Most people actually use the options provided so every game isn't a bunch of weaksauce Fighters in every encounter.


What I find likely, and certainly what would be my preference, is that their appearance would directly depend on the setting and story being told.

Drow at every corner on the surface of Faerûn, for instance, would quickly stretch my patience.

What I also would find likely is that anything within the basic core rules will be used vastly more often than anything in additional books, for obvious reasons.

Quote:
Most people actually use the options provided so every game isn't a bunch of weaksauce Fighters in every encounter.

And there is the hyperbole again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkheyr wrote:
Bestiary entries and non-core races, no matter how many, do not automatically translate into equal opportunity appearance ingame.

I dunno, I think there is a certain point where it stops being "benefiting from this rage power is circumstantial" and starts being "NOT benefiting from this rage power is circumstantial."

I'm not sure exactly where it lies, and I don't want to overstate the case, but out of thirty CR 20 monsters in the d20pfSRD, 29 (!) are vulnerable to Witch Hunter. I do think this point lies south of 29/30.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Rynjin. Perhaps the preponderance of casters (or caster-lites) in bestiaries is indicative of the (objective?) fact that casters -are- harder to stat up in any way that even remotely approaches a concept of balance (as demonstrated via NPC stat blocks, anyway).

This leaves the creation of martial only opponents in the hopefully competent hands of the GM, while easing some of the heavier burden.

An assumption on my part, as I don't work for Paizo.

--
Edit: in reply to a post mentioning the difficulty of creating wizards and the relative ease of creating clerics/oracles/sorcerers/etc...

To respondent: I was speaking more toward the idea that it is a lot easier to artificially inflate encounter CR with a particularly synergistic set of spells.

If you have a set of high level caster (sort of caster) to compare against, you are less likely to accidentally create something far beyond the expected encounter difficulty.

That said, using the pregenerated stat blocks directly also allows for far less GM work than actually creating casters.

I'd further argue that feat selections are likely less onerous to generate (though that is gut feeling without -as of yet- supporting evidence). These are also less likely to be a source of imbalance (if not possibly resulting in a lower difficulty than desired - see this thread for evidence)


Darkheyr wrote:

Quote:
Most people actually use the options provided so every game isn't a bunch of weaksauce Fighters in every encounter.
And there is the hyperbole again.

Sorry, I should be more exact.

Most people actually use the options provided so every game above level 6 or 7 isn't a bunch of Animals, Oozes, and humanoids (but no Gnomes, or half of the non-Core races) with the Ninja/Rogue, Fighter, Slayer, Cavalier/Samurai, Gunslingeer, and Swashbuckler classes (but no archetypes) as the sole foes.

Because unless that's the case...Witch Hunter is far from situational.


The exaggeration bit of the argument (I believe) stems from the insistence that the majority of enemies will have sufficient caster abilities to qualify for the specific barbarian ability... To suppose that all creatures satisfy the positive condition is hyperbole just as much as the assertion that all creatures do not satisfy the positive condition.

I actually found a few additional points of order with regard to the assertion:

Rynjin wrote:
Most people actually use the options provided so every game isn't a bunch of weaksauce Fighters in every encounter.

The use of the phrase 'most people' (do the thing I suggest-paraphrase), is a fallacy that the audience ought to identify and realize is a weak basis for the following point.

'Isnt a bunch of weak sauce Fighters' unnecessarily introduces escalating language to an otherwise civil discussion. Your opinion on the worth of fighters has been spelled out without this additional clarification

This assertion furthermore makes it appear as though your opposition holds the stance that the alternative to your stated assumption is only the polar opposite. That is a mis-attribution.

I'm all for good, solid argumentation. If your point is superior (typically. As seen on these boards, you are arguing from the superior position), then you ought not abase your argument with lesser methods - it makes people doubt your argument's validity.


Adept_Woodwright wrote:

The exaggeration bit of the argument (I believe) stems from the insistence that the majority of enemies will have sufficient caster abilities to qualify for the specific barbarian ability... To suppose that all creatures satisfy the positive condition is hyperbole just as much as the assertion that all creatures do not satisfy the positive condition.

Except in this case it isn't hyperbole (recall that I said "most", not "all" as you seem to have changed it to at the end there). I've pointed out already how the majority of races and classes qualify. Excuse me if I won't trawl through a thousand entries in the Bestiary and post each one that has an SLA or spellcasting capability in addition.

It's not an exaggeration. Go look yourself if you want to insist I'm lying that badly.

I hardly think this is some radical statement. The majority of creatures, classes, and playable races have at least one SLA or the ability to cast spells in some way, shape, or form. Therefore, the majority of things in the game are susceptible to Witch Hunter.

It just seems as though "hyperbole" is the new buzzword replacement for "I can't argue against that but I feel like invalidating your claim anyway".


I don't think exaggeration is equivalent to lying, so let me backtrack if you think I'm questioning your integrity here. I merely question the form with which you've presented your argument and a basic assumption for your arguments.

I posted ~2 hours ago what I thought was the crux of the issue and a reasonable method of settling the question.

I then gave what I believed to be at least a plausible explanation for the number of caster types compared to martial types.

Were these points petulant? I didn't think so at the time, but I certainly can't be a good judge of my own ideas.

---

Edit - I don't *think* I'm using misattribution with the use of the word "all" instead of "most."

In your clarifying post, you fairly clearly indicated that the opposing view held the concept 'Only martials allowed '

Rynjin wrote:
Most people actually use the options provided so every game above level 6 or 7 isn't a bunch of Animals, Oozes, and humanoids (but no Gnomes, or half of the non-Core races) with the Ninja/Rogue, Fighter, Slayer, Cavalier/Samurai, Gunslingeer, and Swashbuckler classes (but no archetypes) as the sole foes.

Maybe I got something really out of context?

651 to 700 of 755 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / A 20th level fighter is bathing: how does he survive an attack by a 10th level party? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.