| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, fun is subjective. Fun is not a valid argument in questions of balance. I had fun playing a Kobold Dragonfire Adept in 3.5... next to a machinegun rogue... does not necessarily mean they were well balanced against each other...
Was the rogue player having fun too? Were either of you having fun at the other one's expense? If the former question is yes and the latter is no, then I'd submit that relative balance between he two didn't matter.
Who cares whether or not the game completely changes if you have a high level caster or not? If you don't have one, your game takes one trajectory. If you have them, it takes another. This is part of the brilliance of RPGs - all sorts of options are possible depending on what the PCs are, what they have, what they want to do. Traveller ends up being a pretty different game depending on whether or not the PCs have a starship - so the GM prepares the game accordingly - like a GM does in PF and D&D-based games depending on what the players bring to the table.
But what happens IF YOU DON'T HAVE A WIZARD?
THAT is the problem, the game COMPLETELY CHANGES if you have a wizard, or any caster really. If you add an extra martials you really don't chnge much... just make things a little tougher so they don't die in combat so quickly, but if you add a wizard you need to completely change things because they can completely ignore things that would plague a fighter... and nothing short of intentional GM harrassment can really stop them ("Suddenly some random mage that is 13 levels higher than you teleports into your Private Mage Tower, dispells are your stuff, destroys your spare books and clones, and goes away. At the same time some rogue steals yoru current spell book SO HA!!!! NO SPELL CASTING FOR YOU!")
But the thing is PLAYERS don't like to feel like a tag a long. Why do you thing people complained about the rogue A LOT... enough in fact to force Paizo to Re-release it in another Hardcover book.
Oh and that is all well and dandy in something like a Home-brew game.. but how does that work in APs and PFS? APs are often used as a standard for measure because there is little variance when it comes to how a campaign IS due to GM interference compared to a homebrew.
And, before you try and make up something else, APs are VERY popular... they make up the bulk of Paizo's sales...
Who cares whether or not the game completely changes if you have a high level caster or not? If you don't have one, your game takes one trajectory. If you have them, it takes another. This is part of the brilliance of RPGs - all sorts of options are possible depending on what the PCs are, what they have, what they want to do. Traveller ends up being a pretty different game depending on whether or not the PCs have a starship - so the GM prepares the game accordingly - like a GM does in PF and D&D-based games depending on what the players bring to the table.
But what happens IF YOU DON'T HAVE A WIZARD?
THAT is the problem, the game COMPLETELY CHANGES if you have a wizard, or any caster really. If you add an extra martials you really don't chnge much... just make things a little tougher so they don't die in combat so quickly, but if you add a wizard you need to completely change things because they can completely ignore things that would plague a fighter... and nothing short of intentional GM harrassment can really stop them ("Suddenly some random mage that is 13 levels higher than you teleports into your Private Mage Tower, dispells are your stuff, destroys your spare books and clones, and goes away. At the same time some rogue steals yoru current spell book SO HA!!!! NO SPELL CASTING FOR YOU!")
yes the brilliance of RPGs a single choice made at character creation can potentially lock 70% of possible campaign arcs, i'm so thrilled by this development. while the other has all 100% unlocked, and those are the only 2 options. *sigh*
Was the rogue player having fun too? Were either of you having fun at the other one's expense? If the former question is yes and the latter is no, then I'd submit that relative balance between he two didn't matter.
Also, fun is subjective. Fun is not a valid argument in questions of balance. I had fun playing a Kobold Dragonfire Adept in 3.5... next to a machinegun rogue... does not necessarily mean they were well balanced against each other...
But again, fun is subjective. I fully realized I made a sub par character strictly for hilarities sake. But what happens when someone less knowledgeable tries to take the same idea but actually TRIES?
I remember one game I was in, the Rogue player actually felt jipped a bit because teh Witch's FAMILIAR was a better scout than him... even though the rogue was trying to play stealthy scout... The Witch's CLASS ABILITY completely over shadowed the rogue's PRIMARY FOCUS...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the thing is PLAYERS don't like to feel like a tag a long. Why do you thing people complained about the rogue A LOT... enough in fact to force Paizo to Re-release it in another Hardcover book.
Oh and that is all well and dandy in something like a Home-brew game.. but how does that work in APs and PFS? APs are often used as a standard for measure because there is little variance when it comes to how a campaign IS due to GM interference compared to a homebrew.
And, before you try and make up something else, APs are VERY popular... they make up the bulk of Paizo's sales...
I was a tag along in a campaign a few years ago as a fighter. It was an awful experience mostly because I was the only martial in a group full of casters, asides from one ranger. The first 6 levels were great but once the wizard got spells like fire wall, or the Druid could transform into a fricken dinosaur, it really killed it for me.
The problem with martials is that their options are so limited. Anything a martial can do, a wizard can do better and cooler.
But the thing is PLAYERS don't like to feel like a tag a long. Why do you thing people complained about the rogue A LOT... enough in fact to force Paizo to Re-release it in another Hardcover book.
Oh and that is all well and dandy in something like a Home-brew game.. but how does that work in APs and PFS? APs are often used as a standard for measure because there is little variance when it comes to how a campaign IS due to GM interference compared to a homebrew.
And, before you try and make up something else, APs are VERY popular... they make up the bulk of Paizo's sales...
I was a tag along in a campaign a few years ago as a fighter. It was an awful experience mostly because I was the only martial in a group full of casters, asides from one ranger. The first 6 levels were great but once the wizard got spells like fire wall, or the Druid could transform into a fricken dinosaur, it really killed it for me.
The problem with martials is that their options are so limited. Anything a martial can do, a wizard can do better and cooler.
I mean, what REALLY got to me was when a wizard kept using prestidigitation very day to clean himself and his stuff. I bought soap the very next time we were in town...
it's the little things that count to.
But the thing is PLAYERS don't like to feel like a tag a long. Why do you thing people complained about the rogue A LOT... enough in fact to force Paizo to Re-release it in another Hardcover book.
Oh and that is all well and dandy in something like a Home-brew game.. but how does that work in APs and PFS? APs are often used as a standard for measure because there is little variance when it comes to how a campaign IS due to GM interference compared to a homebrew.
And, before you try and make up something else, APs are VERY popular... they make up the bulk of Paizo's sales...
I was a tag along in a campaign a few years ago as a fighter. It was an awful experience mostly because I was the only martial in a group full of casters, asides from one ranger. The first 6 levels were great but once the wizard got spells like fire wall, or the Druid could transform into a fricken dinosaur, it really killed it for me.
The problem with martials is that their options are so limited. Anything a martial can do, a wizard can do better and cooler.
Simulacrum...
That spell... even when not cheesed (Snow Cone Wish Factory anyone?) the spell still lets you create something that is for all intents and purposes, your fighter...(just create a simulacrum of something twice your level... there by making it your level. Simulacrum Tarrasques anyone?
I just have one question for you. why can't martials have the OPTION of doing these nifty plot useful things? why does the party NEED a "wizard" to have access to these utility powers?
All characters have options for nifty plot things just by showing up at the table and actively seeking to interact with a campaign setting. Why does a character need to have the magical options people have been suggesting?
But if you're looking for a more concrete answer - genre convention does come to mind. Is it Conan, Shadowspawn, or Aragorn tearing aside the dimensional barriers and astral projecting? No, it isn't. It's wizard characters like Enas Yorl, Mazirian, or Turjan. Of course, if a GM doesn't want those powers at the behest of PCs, he can always cut the spell from the list and force both martial and spell casting PCs to rely on other methods like in the Elric saga with the dark ship in the Sailor on the Seas of Fate or a Well of Many Worlds.
yes the brilliance of RPGs a single choice made at character creation can potentially lock 70% of possible campaign arcs, i'm so thrilled by this development. while the other has all 100% unlocked, and those are the only 2 options. *sigh*
What does it matter how many options are out there when the group isn't going to pursue them all anyway? They'll pursue ones that they think will work and be fun for them and the ones that they think won't will be avoided. There isn't a damn thing wrong with having an all martial campaign - if that's what the players want to play. The whole group, GM included, just has to recognize that not all possible campaign options will work. Same is true with a group of all lawful good PCs, or all clerics, or all drow. And if you get tired of that campaign or think it's played out, start up another one with different parameters.
But the thing is PLAYERS don't like to feel like a tag a long. Why do you thing people complained about the rogue A LOT... enough in fact to force Paizo to Re-release it in another Hardcover book.
Oh and that is all well and dandy in something like a Home-brew game.. but how does that work in APs and PFS? APs are often used as a standard for measure because there is little variance when it comes to how a campaign IS due to GM interference compared to a homebrew.
And, before you try and make up something else, APs are VERY popular... they make up the bulk of Paizo's sales...
I was a tag along in a campaign a few years ago as a fighter. It was an awful experience mostly because I was the only martial in a group full of casters, asides from one ranger. The first 6 levels were great but once the wizard got spells like fire wall, or the Druid could transform into a fricken dinosaur, it really killed it for me.
The problem with martials is that their options are so limited. Anything a martial can do, a wizard can do better and cooler.
I mean, what REALLY got to me was when a wizard kept using prestidigitation very day to clean himself and his stuff. I bought soap the very next time we were in town...
it's the little things that count to.
The number 1 thing that bothered me the most was when the party and I were fighting an undead king. I was tanking this thing like a beast, but it took me out with a finger of death. Luckily, I was only knocked unconsciousness. I got up again from a heal and was taken out *again* by a spell that sucked all the air out of an area.
The sorcerer, who was late that day, then stepped in. He managed to out AC me, out damage me, and kill the darn thing with a geyser spell. Everyone in the party cheered him and I sat there twiddling my thumbs over my weak fighter. And this fighter was pretty min-maxed according to my friend who has been playing pathfinder since the day of release.
Ok, it looks like this needs mentioning again....
LORD OF THE RINGS IS A LOW MAGIC E6 SETTING BY PF STANDARDS
The fact that Boromir gets taken out by a few arrows should demonstrate that... and look at the enemies the Fellowship fights... Orcs, goblins, worgs... those are all things low level characters fight. They are not fighting Dragons, Demons, Evil Spellcasters, or people capable of destroying armies... Those are High level threats...
So using LotR to try and justify "martials narrative" just shows E6 is where martials belong.
I just have one question for you. why can't martials have the OPTION of doing these nifty plot useful things? why does the party NEED a "wizard" to have access to these utility powers?All characters have options for nifty plot things just by showing up at the table and actively seeking to interact with a campaign setting. Why does a character need to have the magical options people have been suggesting?
But if you're looking for a more concrete answer - genre convention does come to mind. Is it Conan, Shadowspawn, or Aragorn tearing aside the dimensional barriers and astral projecting? No, it isn't. It's wizard characters like Enas Yorl, Mazirian, or Turjan. Of course, if a GM doesn't want those powers at the behest of PCs, he can always cut the spell from the list and force both martial and spell casting PCs to rely on other methods like in the Elric saga with the dark ship in the Sailor on the Seas of Fate or a Well of Many Worlds.
no but Aragorn was a king and gained an army of ghosts because of who he was.
also, as has been said literature doesn't have the same problems of wizard vs martial because the the martial has the plot writer on his side.
I just have one question for you. why can't martials have the OPTION of doing these nifty plot useful things? why does the party NEED a "wizard" to have access to these utility powers?All characters have options for nifty plot things just by showing up at the table and actively seeking to interact with a campaign setting. Why does a character need to have the magical options people have been suggesting?
But if you're looking for a more concrete answer - genre convention does come to mind. Is it Conan, Shadowspawn, or Aragorn tearing aside the dimensional barriers and astral projecting? No, it isn't. It's wizard characters like Enas Yorl, Mazirian, or Turjan. Of course, if a GM doesn't want those powers at the behest of PCs, he can always cut the spell from the list and force both martial and spell casting PCs to rely on other methods like in the Elric saga with the dark ship in the Sailor on the Seas of Fate or a Well of Many Worlds.
no but Aragorn was a king and gained an army of ghosts because of who he was.
also, as has been said literature doesn't have the same problems of wizard vs martial because the the martial has the plot writer on his side.
And if you go by the book, he used the Army of the Dead to free a sieged army in the south, let them go, and then used that freed army to surround and destroy the Mordor army. The movie used the Army of the Dead as a Dues Ex Machina.
But the thing is PLAYERS don't like to feel like a tag a long. Why do you thing people complained about the rogue A LOT... enough in fact to force Paizo to Re-release it in another Hardcover book.
Oh and that is all well and dandy in something like a Home-brew game.. but how does that work in APs and PFS? APs are often used as a standard for measure because there is little variance when it comes to how a campaign IS due to GM interference compared to a homebrew.
And, before you try and make up something else, APs are VERY popular... they make up the bulk of Paizo's sales...
I was a tag along in a campaign a few years ago as a fighter. It was an awful experience mostly because I was the only martial in a group full of casters, asides from one ranger. The first 6 levels were great but once the wizard got spells like fire wall, or the Druid could transform into a fricken dinosaur, it really killed it for me.
The problem with martials is that their options are so limited. Anything a martial can do, a wizard can do better and cooler.
I mean, what REALLY got to me was when a wizard kept using prestidigitation very day to clean himself and his stuff. I bought soap the very next time we were in town...
it's the little things that count to.
The number 1 thing that bothered me the most was when the party and I were fighting an undead king. I was tanking this thing like a beast, but it took me out with a finger of death. Luckily, I was only knocked unconsciousness. I got up again from a heal and was taken out *again* by a spell that sucked all the air out of an area.
The sorcerer, who was late that day, then stepped in. He managed to out AC me, out damage me, and kill the darn thing with a geyser spell. Everyone in the party cheered him and I sat there twiddling my thumbs over my weak fighter. And this fighter was pretty min-maxed according to my friend who has been playing pathfinder since the day of release.
Truth be told your fighter was probably not well min maxed. A fighter should have VERY SOLID AC, and a strong to hit. Also very few things match a fighter full attacking in DPR besides Smiting Paladins, Rangers vs favored enemies, and very cheesed Blaster Wizards (Crossblooded Sorcerer 1/Wizard X with Orc and Red Dragonic Bloodlines. Wayand Spellhunter Fireball and Magical Lineage Fireball, Spell Perfection Fireball, Dazing Spell, Empower Spell, Intensify SPell, and Maximize SPell and a Goblin Wardrum... Now THAT will cause a lot of pain in a standard action... and make your GM hate you)
Truth be told your fighter was probably not well min maxed. A fighter should have VERY SOLID AC, and a strong to hit. Also very few things match a fighter full attacking in DPR besides Smiting Paladins, Rangers vs favored enemies, and very cheesed Blaster Wizards (Crossblooded Sorcerer 1/Wizard X with Orc and Red Dragonic Bloodlines. Wayand Spellhunter Fireball and Magical Lineage Fireball, Spell Perfection Fireball, Dazing Spell, Empower Spell, Intensify SPell, and Maximize SPell and a Goblin Wardrum... Now THAT will cause a lot of pain in a standard action... and make your GM hate you)
Oh don't get me wrong, my fighter had really good AC and a great to hit. I won't say it was the best, my AC could have been higher, but it was still very high. The problem was I got killed on my saves. Only problem is that a sorcerer min maxed a little harder can actually tank on the same level as a fighter.
I remember one game I was in, the Rogue player actually felt jipped a bit because teh Witch's FAMILIAR was a better scout than him... even though the rogue was trying to play stealthy scout... The Witch's CLASS ABILITY completely over shadowed the rogue's PRIMARY FOCUS...
In all fairness, animals - if intelligent enough - can make very good scouts. They tend to look quite innocuous, depending on the surroundings (and the presence or lack of hunting dogs). But even familiars start out kind of dumb and have trouble communicating things. I have a sneaking suspicion your GM might have gone easy on the witch's player on that one. Plus, that's a pretty significant risk, sending your spell book into potentially harmful territory... I might have made a witch pay for that one, depending on what was being scouted.
Of course, if one scout is useful, again depending on the situation, what's wrong with using two? Familiars won't hurt a rogue scout's stealth much and are pretty good at ferrying messages back, particularly when scouting out beyond the range of a message spell.
The ultimate question, though, is why is the witch stepping on the rogue's toes when he didn't need to do so?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The ultimate question, though, is why is the witch stepping on the rogue's toes when he didn't need to do so?
Because the witch CAN.
Because the witch CAN.
The ultimate question, though, is why is the witch stepping on the rogue's toes when he didn't need to do so?
Let me slightly amend the above statement:
Because the witch CAN without really using resources and probably do it better then the Rogue, so why not?
Truth be told your fighter was probably not well min maxed. A fighter should have VERY SOLID AC, and a strong to hit. Also very few things match a fighter full attacking in DPR besides Smiting Paladins, Rangers vs favored enemies, and very cheesed Blaster Wizards (Crossblooded Sorcerer 1/Wizard X with Orc and Red Dragonic Bloodlines. Wayand Spellhunter Fireball and Magical Lineage Fireball, Spell Perfection Fireball, Dazing Spell, Empower Spell, Intensify SPell, and Maximize SPell and a Goblin Wardrum... Now THAT will cause a lot of pain in a standard action... and make your GM hate you)
Oh don't get me wrong, my fighter had really good AC and a great to hit. I won't say it was the best, my AC could have been higher, but it was still very high. The problem was I got killed on my saves. Only problem is that a sorcerer min maxed a little harder can actually tank on the same level as a fighter.
Ah, that will get ya every time... I never understand why the Fighter is so freaking gimped. HORRID saves (the only class with worse is the rogue...), NO skill points for the life of him, and a joke ability of a "save buffer" that is out done by another class in the CRB (I mean.. who seriously thought Bravery was a good idea??? Especially when Paladins get a buff to will AND cna make everyone straight up IMMUNE TO FEAR...)
Oh and I have determined Sorcerers can actually do a lot... My Sorcerer scout (Fetchling Sorcerer with Umbral Bloodline) actually had a better stealth score than the party rogue xD
You have to abandon "mundane" in a fantasy game, or you get left behind by definition.
yeah so... the witch used like no feats, and had a better scout than a rogue who specilized probably putting a fair amount of his resources into this...
Truth be told your fighter was probably not well min maxed. A fighter should have VERY SOLID AC, and a strong to hit. Also very few things match a fighter full attacking in DPR besides Smiting Paladins, Rangers vs favored enemies, and very cheesed Blaster Wizards (Crossblooded Sorcerer 1/Wizard X with Orc and Red Dragonic Bloodlines. Wayand Spellhunter Fireball and Magical Lineage Fireball, Spell Perfection Fireball, Dazing Spell, Empower Spell, Intensify SPell, and Maximize SPell and a Goblin Wardrum... Now THAT will cause a lot of pain in a standard action... and make your GM hate you)
Oh don't get me wrong, my fighter had really good AC and a great to hit. I won't say it was the best, my AC could have been higher, but it was still very high. The problem was I got killed on my saves. Only problem is that a sorcerer min maxed a little harder can actually tank on the same level as a fighter.
Ah, that will get ya every time... I never understand why the Fighter is so freaking gimped. HORRID saves (the only class with worse is the rogue...), NO skill points for the life of him, and a joke ability of a "save buffer" that is out done by another class in the CRB (I mean.. who seriously thought Bravery was a good idea??? Especially when Paladins get a buff to will AND cna make everyone straight up IMMUNE TO FEAR...)
Oh and I have determined Sorcerers can actually do a lot... My Sorcerer scout (Fetchling Sorcerer with Umbral Bloodline) actually had a better stealth score than the party rogue xD
Amendment to my original post on a hypothetical Anzyrfinder:
The Fighter and Rogue class would be scrapped, since neither is focused enough to support a class. Thief would be readded, though Theft would get a pretty expansive definition. Steal Life, Luck, Time, The Girl/Guy etc. all of these are things a Thief should be able to steal.
Ok, it looks like this needs mentioning again....
LORD OF THE RINGS IS A LOW MAGIC E6 SETTING BY PF STANDARDS
The fact that Boromir gets taken out by a few arrows should demonstrate that... and look at the enemies the Fellowship fights... Orcs, goblins, worgs... those are all things low level characters fight. They are not fighting Dragons, Demons, Evil Spellcasters, or people capable of destroying armies... Those are High level threats...
So using LotR to try and justify "martials narrative" just shows E6 is where martials belong.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Boromir, in the book, wasn't taken out by a few arrows (lethal as they would be anyway). He's described as being pierced by many and still lived long enough to have last words with Aragorn. They do fight orcs, goblins, wargs, men of Harad and other Southrons, Easterlings, and, at the end, trolls (even Pippin kills one). But it's hard to claim that the literary ones are equivalent to early D&D analogs or should be expected to follow the same power conventions.
The LotR fellowship can be reasonably modeled capping out around 5th level - but that's not the only way to model them in D&D or PF. Higher level martials would also work reasonably well.
I remember one game I was in, the Rogue player actually felt jipped a bit because teh Witch's FAMILIAR was a better scout than him... even though the rogue was trying to play stealthy scout... The Witch's CLASS ABILITY completely over shadowed the rogue's PRIMARY FOCUS...In all fairness, animals - if intelligent enough - can make very good scouts. They tend to look quite innocuous, depending on the surroundings (and the presence or lack of hunting dogs). But even familiars start out kind of dumb and have trouble communicating things. I have a sneaking suspicion your GM might have gone easy on the witch's player on that one. Plus, that's a pretty significant risk, sending your spell book into potentially harmful territory... I might have made a witch pay for that one, depending on what was being scouted.
Of course, if one scout is useful, again depending on the situation, what's wrong with using two? Familiars won't hurt a rogue scout's stealth much and are pretty good at ferrying messages back, particularly when scouting out beyond the range of a message spell.
The ultimate question, though, is why is the witch stepping on the rogue's toes when he didn't need to do so?
Beast Bonded Witch did not care
Also:
Beast Eye makes the Bat is VERY good scout
Oh and The bat's blindsense does wonders... also remember, familiars are actually intelligent... 10th level witch actually has a familiar that has an int of ATLEAST 10... so smarter than your average Barbarian :P
I once made a summoner with more HP then parties martial person (they were either a fighter or a paladin, I forget which). My Eidolen also was stealthier then the party Rogue. BECAUSE WHY NOT.
You have to abandon "mundane" in a fantasy game, or you get left behind by definition.
That's a thing a lot of people forget while running D&D, especially on higher levels.
Ok, it looks like this needs mentioning again....
LORD OF THE RINGS IS A LOW MAGIC E6 SETTING BY PF STANDARDS
The fact that Boromir gets taken out by a few arrows should demonstrate that... and look at the enemies the Fellowship fights... Orcs, goblins, worgs... those are all things low level characters fight. They are not fighting Dragons, Demons, Evil Spellcasters, or people capable of destroying armies... Those are High level threats...
So using LotR to try and justify "martials narrative" just shows E6 is where martials belong.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Boromir, in the book, wasn't taken out by a few arrows (lethal as they would be anyway). He's described as being pierced by many and still lived long enough to have last words with Aragorn. They do fight orcs, goblins, wargs, men of Harad and other Southrons, Easterlings, and, at the end, trolls (even Pippin kills one). But it's hard to claim that the literary ones are equivalent to early D&D analogs or should be expected to follow the same power conventions.
The LotR fellowship can be reasonably modeled capping out around 5th level - but that's not the only way to model them in D&D or PF. Higher level martials would also work reasonably well.
A high level martial can take dozens of arrows and keep going...
A high level martial CAN LITERALLY WALK THROUGH LAVA... He can fall from terminal velocity and keep walking... he can stand toe to toe with a balor (barring the whole Dominate Person thing and all...)...
The whole party had to run when faced with a Balrog (i.e. a weak balor)... they are NOT high level... at all.
Because the witch CAN.
The ultimate question, though, is why is the witch stepping on the rogue's toes when he didn't need to do so?
If that is the justification, that pretty much tells me that the player is a dick and there's going to be a toxic relationship at the table. Overlapping abilities can be used cooperatively or competitively. If you're going to compete with your fellow players, why are you at my table? Good cooperative relationships can make this issue not a problem.
Ok, it looks like this needs mentioning again....
LORD OF THE RINGS IS A LOW MAGIC E6 SETTING BY PF STANDARDS
The fact that Boromir gets taken out by a few arrows should demonstrate that... and look at the enemies the Fellowship fights... Orcs, goblins, worgs... those are all things low level characters fight. They are not fighting Dragons, Demons, Evil Spellcasters, or people capable of destroying armies... Those are High level threats...
So using LotR to try and justify "martials narrative" just shows E6 is where martials belong.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Boromir, in the book, wasn't taken out by a few arrows (lethal as they would be anyway). He's described as being pierced by many and still lived long enough to have last words with Aragorn. They do fight orcs, goblins, wargs, men of Harad and other Southrons, Easterlings, and, at the end, trolls (even Pippin kills one). But it's hard to claim that the literary ones are equivalent to early D&D analogs or should be expected to follow the same power conventions.
The LotR fellowship can be reasonably modeled capping out around 5th level - but that's not the only way to model them in D&D or PF. Higher level martials would also work reasonably well.
Arrows can deal 1 damage. Boromir could be only level 1 and be pierced by many with no problem.
If that is the justification, that pretty much tells me that the player is a dick and there's going to be a toxic relationship at the table. Overlapping abilities can be used cooperatively or competitively. If you're going to compete with your fellow players, why are you at my table? Good cooperative relationships can make this issue not a problem.
Doing something that you can easily do that contributes to the team is never being a dick. Now if the Witch intentionally had to devote tons of resources and reduced their effectiveness in other areas to overshadow the Rogue, sure the Witch is being a jerk. Sadly, that is not the case and a Witch can overshadow the Rogue just by contributing.
A high level martial can take dozens of arrows and keep going...
A high level martial CAN LITERALLY WALK THROUGH LAVA... He can fall from terminal velocity and keep walking... he can stand toe to toe with a balor (barring the whole Dominate Person thing and all...)...
So we're back to martials being having nice things. Yay!
If that is the justification, that pretty much tells me that the player is a dick and there's going to be a toxic relationship at the table. Overlapping abilities can be used cooperatively or competitively. If you're going to compete with your fellow players, why are you at my table? Good cooperative relationships can make this issue not a problem.Because the witch CAN.
The ultimate question, though, is why is the witch stepping on the rogue's toes when he didn't need to do so?
But its not just over lapping because he was trying. He was just making a interesting Familiar Focused Witch (he REALLY likes that Beast Bonded archetype because of the Flavor) and with minimal investment just so happened to end up being better than the rogue...
He invests in stealth because he was doing a "dracula" type thing (hence the bat, points in stealth, intimidate, and necromancy focus with spells). He would hide in the shadows and weaken you before you know it and then crush you with necromancy spells. He barely used his slumber hex except when he REALLY needed to or for RP reasons (like taking down a suspect without them even realizing what happened so he can question them later). He was a rather weak witch (compared to the "optimized" Evil Eye-Misfortune-Cackle-Slumber witch), despite that he could STILL out do the rogue...
On a seperate tangent, The Beast Bonded Witch is actually pretty cool :P STILL have yet to figure out EXACTLY how his Magic Jar ability works... Ive heard different things from different people so its.. interesting xD
Arrows can deal 1 damage. Boromir could be only level 1 and be pierced by many with no problem.
Right. Because most people would model Boromir in PF as a 1st level character. That's totally credible.
So we're back to martials being having nice things. Yay!A high level martial can take dozens of arrows and keep going...
A high level martial CAN LITERALLY WALK THROUGH LAVA... He can fall from terminal velocity and keep walking... he can stand toe to toe with a balor (barring the whole Dominate Person thing and all...)...
A very British response:
British Filter:
I say good sir or madam, are you not aware of the fact that those particular points such as the aforementioned lava trek could be performed by any character of similar level stature. I must implore that you take greater care with your tone my good fellow as it comes across as condescending particularly when it appears ignorant of the sentiments expressed above.
Cheerio!