The "3 Pillars of Adventuring" theory caught my interest; apparently the martials do at least an average performance in Combat but not so much in Exploration and Interaction encounters (especially the latter). The fact that there is a plethora of useful spells for all three types of situations is like rubbing salt to the wound. And that Combat requires everyone in the party to participate and survive contrasts the fact that the other two only requires one good specialist to benefit the whole party further steals spotlight from the martials.
As such, I've been thinking of stuff like new class features for these hypothetical new martial classes that lets them thrive in all three Pillars. Stuff like simply treating your carrying capacity as of one size larger, halving all TWF penalties, substituting STR for DEX when calculating AC, etc. Oh, more skill points and Diplomacy for everyone. ;)
P.S. Oops, didn't mention other ideas like limiting max penalties to your Leadership score, multiple 5-foot steps per round, or DEX TO DAMAGE...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics are one divine power away from being better than fighters. Divine favor works until then. The trait that increases luck bonuses by 1 is amazing. Grab the movespeed domain to rub salt into the wound.
Cleric = best martial
Wizards then replace rogue with the barest effort.
For an optimal group you only need two classes. (Though any prepared caster works uere)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics are one divine power away from being better than fighters. Divine favor works until then. The trait that increases luck bonuses by 1 is amazing. Grab the movespeed domain to rub salt into the wound.
Cleric = best martial
Wizards then replace rogue with the barest effort.For an optimal group you only need two classes. (Though any prepared caster works uere)
I'm fond of clerics as well and battle clerics are among my favorite sort (and they tend to be very resource efficient). However, comparing the cleric's combat prowess to the Fighter does a bit of a disservice. Even in Pathfinder, the real martials (Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger) will generally outshine clerics in the "own your face with direct damage" department. Barbarians are actually the weakest in burst damage at higher levels because their rage only ever adds up to +4/+6 to hit/damage alone (whereas smite / favored enemy both are pushing +10 to hit and +10 or better to damage) but barbarians have some other cool benefits going for them.
Paladins and Rangers can push harder than clerics in that regard and usually take less rev-up time (quickened divine power is a good spell for the cleric in a hurry though), and Paladins also get divine favor and can pick up divine power if they want to burn a feat on getting 4 new spells to their list (one of which can be a 4th level cleric spell such as divine power or it could be greater invisibility off the bard list and both are pretty nice, though divine power is harder to counter).
Clerics need divine power and similar spells to reach competency levels in combat. They're behind on BAB and they lack class features which push it further. For example, even with CL 20 divine power, a cleric clears the -5 BAB gap by +1, and adds +6 damage. This is merely catching up to the martials like Paladin and Ranger pre-buffs and it's good but when those classes start expending resources you begin seeing +40s to +50s in the upper teen levels in terms of hit and damage modifiers.
For example, if a ranger really wants you dead he pops instant enemy as a swift action. Instantly he's at +30 hit/+10 damage before ability scores. Most rangers that specced Str prime at 1st level will have around a 30 Str at 20th, which is instantly +40/+20. If the ranger really, really doesn't like you, he declares Quarry on you as a free action (+44/+20). The ranger's likely using a +5 enhancement weapon (either crafted himself or a lesser weapon with a cleric or wizard casting greater magic weapon to save cash) which brings us to +49/+25. Haste (boots of speed) bring us to +50/+25 with +1 attack (doesn't stack with divine power).
Now at this point, the Ranger probably hits the vast majority of enemies with all of his attacks (even his iteratives which are currently sitting at +35 at the lowest). This is with fairly minimal outside support. If the Ranger has buff-buddies such as a wizard (or better yet a bard), the numbers can fly into the stratosphere (greater heroism, good hope, and Inspire Courage push his routine to a whopping +59/+32).
At this point the Ranger hits 95% of the time on all attacks, or hits frequently against mega-tanks (dedicated tanks can get ACs in the 50s-60s), or trades excess accuracy for damage or status conditions using Power Attack or Dazing Assault (I prefer dazing assault as at this point the Ranger can full attack making off-hand shield bashes and getting 100% of this static modifiers to the damage, and now throwing out something like 6-8 attacks per round, each with a DC 30 save or lose your turn).
I'm a very big fan of clerics but let us give credit where it is due, right? The core (non-fighter, non-monk, non-rogue) martials do have some nice things and they excel at what they do (gibbing enemies who they can physically attack). Their issues, I think, stim more from being very limited in problem solving and/or non-burgermaking areas.
I put paladins at tier 3, but I remain unconvinced that rangers are higher than tier 4. Fighters are tier 5 but clerics are tier 1, putting all of the above to shame.
Paladins hit tier 3 for me because of excellent defenses and survival with 4th level casting and great damage. The ranger gets an AC and skills instead of great defenses. Bards, Alchemist, investigators, Usummoner, and even hunter strike me as better than the ranger.
Stuff, some quoted from others.
Actually, Spider-man HAS caught bullets before, but it was a rather odd circumstance and not something he'd try again. By his own admission, he has reflexes 40X normal human levels. Your points still stand, just came back from Comic Con so my inner geek is still awake, carry on :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I put paladins at tier 3, but I remain unconvinced that rangers are higher than tier 4. Fighters are tier 5 but clerics are tier 1, putting all of the above to shame.
Paladins hit tier 3 for me because of excellent defenses and survival with 4th level casting and great damage. The ranger gets an AC and skills instead of great defenses. Bards, Alchemist, investigators, Usummoner, and even hunter strike me as better than the ranger.
I'd definitely place rangers on tier 3 with Paladins. They have a lot of versatility and even have AoE crowd control. Their nonmagical hiding abilities allow them to strike-vanish and cannot be magically countered with things like see invisibility, true seeing, or invisibility purge (glitterdust mostly just tilts their skill checks into "Can probably see them now"). They also have in-house access to item creation, freedom of movement, a good number of immunization and defensive spells like resist energy and delay poison at spell levels suitable for spamming them, and they are very versatile in their combat options.
Their defense is "Kill it first or hide from it and kill it next round" in most cases. They're very versatile, especially with their animal companions who can serve as an additional character or a competent mount to up their mobility (and their mounts receive all the benefits they do in their favored terrain). Their big weakness is that they don't meet the magic-resistance that a Paladin does, but they can excel at offing VIP targets and then suddenly vanishing into nowhere again. Also boots of friendly terrain are cheap and a Ranger can keep adding additional instances of the boot's effect for +50% cost (so +3,600 gp for each additional terrain) which is a decent competitor to boots of speed (unless the ranger just adds the effects to said boots).
Rangers are ideally paired with a team member who can cast mind blank on them during their adventure (otherwise the ranger will have to craft something to get stronger defenses vs will-targeting effects).
Clerics lack a lot of the prowess that they did in 3.5 because their buffing spells and summoning spells got nerfed hard (they no longer utter a spell and get full BAB and all the benefits associated with it plus stacking benefits with their other buff spells, nor can they summon colossal centipedes to grapple their foes while they beat on them).
Clerics cannot effectively match a Paladin or Ranger at what they do, even bringing to bear the might of their spells. They can at best try to cover their role if they are missing (they do adequate at this but it's nothing to write home about and I say that as a fan of war-clerics).
If you can pose a reason why this isn't true, I'm all ears and ready to learn something new. However, to my current knowledge clerics are amazing but they just cannot match Paladins and Rangers in combat effectiveness. Problem solving? Definitely. Can they do stuff Paladins and Rangers cannot? Without a doubt. Can they match them in a slugfest? No, they cannot.
Hiding is action economy intensive. It is not a viable defense like the paladins. Divine bond can get a pretty bamf AC but she probably prefers the other option.
Oh sure hitting things is something pallys and rangers do better, but when it comes to combat in general that goes to the cleric. Martial v caster disparity hits hard here. The cleric easily makes for a better front liner (something the ranger should avoid).
Rangers are pretty high tier 4 but can you really say the skill points make up for the weaker combat presence than the Paladin? Investigators and Alchemist can do more damage AND have better utility. All those cool ranger spells you talk about, the hunter gets faster and isn't dependent on max level spells like the ranger (instant enemy).
Hiding is action economy intensive. It is not a viable defense like the paladins. Divine bond can get a pretty bamf AC but she probably prefers the other option.
Oh sure hitting things is something pallys and rangers do better, but when it comes to combat in general that goes to the cleric. Martial v caster disparity hits hard here. The cleric easily makes for a better front liner (something the ranger should avoid).
Rangers are pretty high tier 4 but can you really say the skill points make up for the weaker combat presence than the Paladin? Investigators and Alchemist can do more damage AND have better utility. All those cool ranger spells you talk about, the hunter gets faster and isn't dependent on max level spells like the ranger (instant enemy).
I know from history that Ashiel is going to ask you for specific proof. While we I normally agree with Ashiel, the times I have not specific proof was asked for. Just saying it, is not likely to be accepted.
How is a cleric a better frontliner than a ranger?<---One question you will be asked to provide proof for.
Cleric is a better frontliner via the 3 tier gap. Even a wizard who focused on it could be a better frontliner. To say otherwise you have to argue ranger into tier 3, which means finding how it is equal to an investigator or alchemist or even a hunter. Investigator clearly has both better damage and utility. Hunter is in tier 3 just because of 6th level casting and non garbage class features. Hunter has problems next to a druid but a druid is 2 tiers higher.
Oh, and monks can dodge 1 bullet (missile)/rd, and takes another feat to catch it. Dodge missile has a real limitation on it. Note spidey can't catch a bullet, but certain martial artists in Marvel-dom can.
Iron Fist? I love Iron Fist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure Danny Rand or Shang-Chi have been shown to catch bullets, but both a kung fu guy fighting Taskmaster, and then Taskmaster himself, have been shown to do so.
I haven't seen Spidey catch a bullet without using webbing, but it's been a while, also.
40x human? Wow, did they upgrade that. He used to be equal to Cap in the 10-15x dept.
---------------
Amusingly, it sounds like "Ranger isn't Tier3 because it doesn't get a good Will save and good Will defenses, and we'll just ignore the good Reflex save, Evasion, and Energy casting resistances, as well as customizability against ANY type of foe, including non-Evil ones, and the copious skills, stealth kills, and all that stuff".
Yes, Ranger is a Tier 3, even with lesser spellcasting. It has all the required elements, and you can buff the spellcasting some if you like. It may not tank as well as the Paladin, but it can arguably intimidate and stealth better, and damage infliction is going to be on par.
==Aelryinth
Quite frankly there are a lot of limiters that don't really need to be there. I'm reminded of my constant house rules that weapon size difference goes by 'handedness' so a Halfling can wield a medium longsword as a two handed weapon and any handedness past that gets a cumulative pentalty. That way when you get to abilities like Titan Mauler instead of some garble that doesn't even work right at first you can just be able to count as a size category bigger for the purpose of wielding weapons and the game doesn't break down.Sounds very similar to the house rule I use which is based on 3.0 which was, also, very similar. In 3.0, weapons had size categories right along with creatures.
A short sword = small longsword
A longsword = medium longsword
A greatsword = large longswordAnd so forth.
Creatures could wield a weapon their size in 1-hand, a smaller weapon as a light weapon, and up to +1 size category as a 2-hander. It was IMHO very simple and worked well. It also made random treasure suck significantly less for small or large sized races since finding a medium longsword wasn't a huge loss for a halfling, nor finding a halfling-sized longsword a huge bummer for a human. In 3.5 and PF, suddenly they magically take a -2 penalty for it being mis-sized (poor Bilbo and Frodo, Sting was giving them a -2 since that elven blade sure as hell wasn't made for no halflings :P).
It also opened up things that you just can't do in Pathfinder anymore. Like wielding a small-sized longspear 1-handed with a shield (sorry, no phalanx reach + shields, that'd be silly, like fighters having nice things).
EDIT: Because of course it was so very too much OP to let Fighter-types take Exotic Weapon Proficiency [Bastard Sword] and be able to wield bastard swords ranging from small to large size to deal 1d8, 1d10, and 2d8 damage. Oh no, the horror.
Note while this rule is functional, it doesn't really work.
A size L shortsword is a shortsword, not a longsword. It's balanced as a shortsword for a thrusting weapon...the hilt is going to be thicker, longer, made for the hand of a size L humanoid, who probably has a fist the size of a small ham (it would be the difference between holding a softball bat by the narrow end vs the thick end, for an example). Even wielding it in two hands is going to be awkward, because the dimensions of the weapon aren't ALL going to double with size (it's probably NOT twice as thick, for instance).
So, it's going to be awkward. That said, you can ADAPT...if you practice with it a bit, and even better if you can adjust the hilt to fit your hands.
==Aelryinth
Hiding is action economy intensive. It is not a viable defense like the paladins. Divine bond can get a pretty bamf AC but she probably prefers the other option.
Oh sure hitting things is something pallys and rangers do better, but when it comes to combat in general that goes to the cleric. Martial v caster disparity hits hard here. The cleric easily makes for a better front liner (something the ranger should avoid).
Rangers are pretty high tier 4 but can you really say the skill points make up for the weaker combat presence than the Paladin? Investigators and Alchemist can do more damage AND have better utility. All those cool ranger spells you talk about, the hunter gets faster and isn't dependent on max level spells like the ranger (instant enemy).
I know from history that Ashiel is going to ask you for specific proof. While we I normally agree with Ashiel, the times I have not specific proof was asked for. Just saying it, is not likely to be accepted.
How is a cleric a better frontliner than a ranger?<---One question you will be asked to provide proof for.
Although I'm not on the side of arguing that martial/caster disparity doesn't exist one thing that I just don't see is casters being superior frontliners. I guess you could summon some meat shields but I'm not counting that and even with divine favor I've never really seen a battle cleric that was actually effective. (barring the archetype that specifically does this) On a few points I do think caster situations are exaggerated, in the sense that they have all spells prepared at once and come pre-buffed for a specific situation. Biggest example was Warpriest. It seemed that it was completely undervalued compared to a cleric but it worked out better than a cleric for my purposes when I played one because I didn't have to spend all day buffing myself when combat started and I had numerous sources of buffs to pick from based on the situation rather than blow a bunch of resources on more buffing than I needed for the situation.
I know that casters pretty much get unfair advantages and exceptions and are more capable of getting out of impossible situation and have the only means to combat a lot of supernatural threats, but, in addition to giving martials better things,part of the reason the problem doesn't show up at my table anymore is that whether I'm playing or GMing I have a hard time relating to the clairvoyantly buffed, perfect spell prepared, 15 min workday, not conserving daily resource gamescape that's described around here. So I can at least understand when posters come on saying that martial/caster disparity doesn't exist.
One reason why I like and keep talking about Spheres of Power so much is that not only are casters less inherently versatile on top of powerful they more than likely have some kind of at-will ability that keeps them relevant for as long as martials are so it fits directly in the playstyle I'm used to. It seems that whenever I have a competent martial there's one guy in the group that blew his best spells and is pretty much useless until we rest because my group doesn't stop adventuring because the wizard is tired.
Don't leave Druids out of this equation.
@ Malwing: When you say 15 minute workday, are you referring to adventuring days with no more than 4-5 encounters?
Because that's exactly the sort of days I see casters dramatically outperforming Fighters all the time above level 5ish.
You want a frontliner? There are even Wizard Builds that do it better than a Fighter once they reach the appropriate level. Probably Witch too, though I haven't experimented much with the Witch class in that regard.
Divine Full Casters do it pretty easily with the right stat distribution and spell selection.
Again though- barring the druid and a few specific cleric/oracle builds- these are indeed inferior front-liners for the first few levels but they get the job done and surpass the Fighter early and the Paladin/Ranger a little later.
Probably doesn't surpass something like the Warpriest or a Battle Bard until past level 10 though.
By 15 min workdays I mean "a few rooms into the dungeon". I find it awkward to measure by encounters because encounters aren't equal and aren't always monsters. I can spend a day with 3 encounters or 10 with the same cumulative CR.
In regards to Wizards and Full divine caster builds that can outperform Fighters as frontline combatants; Any chance I can see a build? I can believe Warpriest and probably Druid but I am curious to see actual numbers for Cleric/Oracle and Wizard. I especially find builds like that difficult because readied ranged attacks against casting is very much a thing and more ruthless martial PCs wind up doing things like disarming component pouches/holy symbols, targeting casters with readied actions, using alchemical items, call-shotting limbs to suppress somatic components, grappling with weapons; The absolute worst is any martial with a free hand. Bypassing that stuff is one thing and something that casters do, but I've seen trying to be a frontliner while that stuff is going on has ended powerful NPC casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cleric is a better frontliner via the 3 tier gap. Even a wizard who focused on it could be a better frontliner. To say otherwise you have to argue ranger into tier 3, which means finding how it is equal to an investigator or alchemist or even a hunter. Investigator clearly has both better damage and utility. Hunter is in tier 3 just because of 6th level casting and non garbage class features. Hunter has problems next to a druid but a druid is 2 tiers higher.
I know from history that Ashiel is going to ask you for specific proof. While we I normally agree with Ashiel, the times I have not specific proof was asked for. Just saying it, is not likely to be accepted.
How is a cleric a better frontliner than a ranger?<---One question you will be asked to provide proof for.
Wraithstrike is not wrong. :)
Before I Continue
This is the definition of "Tier 3" by the guy who came up with tiers and knows what they are and what they mean.
Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.
That is an extremely accurate description of a Ranger.
Hiding is action economy intensive.
Stealth (according to the skill) checks are made as part of movement. A 5 ft. step + Stealth check is adequate to vanish if you've got cover, concealment, or some variation of hide in plain sight. Which means a Ranger can full attack, 5 ft. step and immediately re-Stealth. You might have an idea as to where he is (he didn't go far) but he now enjoys what is essentially invisibility.
It is not a viable defense like the paladins. Divine bond can get a pretty bamf AC but she probably prefers the other option.
Remember that the animal companion shares the ranger's favored enemy bonuses and favored terrain bonuses. This means that when the Ranger pops Instant Enemy, the animal companion is getting up to a +10/+10 to hit/damage as well. The animal companion also enjoys all the benefits of favored terrain (including but not limited to the bonuses to Perception and Stealth checks).
Oh sure hitting things is something pallys and rangers do better, but when it comes to combat in general that goes to the cleric. Martial v caster disparity hits hard here. The cleric easily makes for a better front liner (something the ranger should avoid).
You need to explain why the cleric makes for a better front liner as opposed to just repeating it over and over. Yes the cleric has superior spellcasting and can carry a frontliner role if needed but you need to actually explain why because cleric + buffs = not even close to Paladins and Rangers (who do the same buffing but better).
Honestly, the best argument I could see for a cleric being a superior front-liner would be that at 17th level using an ioun stone and a prayer bead can gate a Solar into a combat and control it without question at the cost of 10k in components and Solars are 22HD outsiders (full BAB) that cast as 20th level clerics (so divine power and all that jazz) and are really hard to kill for the vast majority of the game (which means you essentially win this encounter unless the enemy is prepared to counter your tactic). This is also probably the best trick I've found that a cleric has in Pathfinder that they can brag about (oracles can do this too but I like clerics more).
Unlike Fighters, Rangers do have a lot of tricks to bring to bear in combat. They have a decent variety of AoE CC spells such as entangle, spike growth and stone spikes, wind wall, and fickle winds (seriously, **** this spell). This is in combination with lots of very effective defensive spells.
Hunters while better casters aren't as good at actually attacking as Rangers (they lack critical bonus feats early, are behind on to-hit bonuses, do not get sufficient buffs to compensate, their animal aspects do not stack with magic items (virtually everything that would help you hit, move, or skill better is an enhancement or competence bonus, which means they don't stack with bull's strength type spells or magic items that grant enhancement bonuses, nor do they stack with magic items that grant skill bonuses such as elixir of hiding). They're also exceptionally reliant on their AC to function (via teamwork feats) and offing their animal companion slows them down hard (AC is mostly expendable for a Ranger).
If the Ranger decides to not go with the animal companion (which is a valid choice) the Ranger gets a strong mid-game buff to allies by being able to dump 1/2 his favored enemy bonuses onto anyone within 30 ft. of him as a move action (which isn't bad, especially if your party composition includes summoners or other front-liners). I generally prefer the animal companion in most comps because of the added utility early game and value of having an expendable sidekick.
Rangers are pretty high tier 4 but can you really say the skill points make up for the weaker combat presence than the Paladin?
I never said skill points, though yes their skills are useful as they can afford to cap all the skills they need even while dumping Intelligence (a Ranger can tank to 7 Int and still have more skills than a 12 Int Fighter). However, when I was talking about problem solving I was also including their small but precise list of spells and class features that allow them to react or prepare for problems.
Investigators and Alchemist can do more damage AND have better utility. All those cool ranger spells you talk about, the hunter gets faster and isn't dependent on max level spells like the ranger (instant enemy).
Unfortunately Investigators cannot qualify for magic item creation under normal circumstances because investigators explicitly do not gain caster levels as part of their class (the way it is worded they can create their extracts and stuff and those things have an effective caster level equal to their investigator level, but the investigator cannot qualify for things like Craft Wondrous Item).
Also, instant enemy isn't a max-level spell, it comes online at 10th level for rangers organically and is a cheap scroll or wand until then for when you really need to burgermeat some guy.
But I'm not arguing that the Ranger is better than all those classes. Every single one of them is Tier 3 (Ranger included) as all excel at certain tricks really, really well, while being versatile enough to frequently have something to contribute to most any situation or to enhance the overall success rate of the party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although I'm not on the side of arguing that martial/caster disparity doesn't exist one thing that I just don't see is casters being superior frontliners. I guess you could summon some meat shields but I'm not counting that and even with divine favor I've never really seen a battle cleric that was actually effective.
Let there be no confusion. I definitely think that martials could use a little more shoring up and I definitely believe and profess the caster-martial disparity.
However, I do believe in facts as well and it's important to me to be accurate on what good things martials do have. Could they stand improvement? Absolutely. For one I'd like to see Rangers/Paladins begin the game at CL 1st and progress from there, getting 0 level spells immediately from 1st-3rd as opposed to not at all.
I'd like to see all martials have better defenses and/or answers to magic users. I'd like to see skills in general being better overall to do incredible things like magic. I'd like to see more mobility for martials.
However, the system for the these changes needs to be re-defined at its core (which is a project I'm working on with a few friends). A lot of things at the core mechanics needs to be adjusted. For example, either you end up with the irritating task of applying magical-like functions on a per-class basis or wizards just get to cherry pick all the good skills at the right levels anyway (and it overvalues Headband of Intellect). Movement issues are not solved by pounce and never will be (in the same way that a missing eye is not solved by a bandaid).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In reality I've found my Hunter and Animal companion to be harder to kill, do more conistent damage, and overall terrorize my GM more effectively than most Rangers. Mostly in part due to the very high Armor class, quick access to defensive spells, utility spells, and ability to permanently Outflank and Broken Wing Gambit with Paired Opportunist.
Lance Charge and Archer Ranger builds are the only Ranger builds that can do about as well as my Hunter.
Not disputing that the Ranger is a very solid T3, but I think you need an opportunity to really play a Hunter up past level 8 if you haven't yet.
Although I'm not on the side of arguing that martial/caster disparity doesn't exist one thing that I just don't see is casters being superior frontliners. I guess you could summon some meat shields but I'm not counting that and even with divine favor I've never really seen a battle cleric that was actually effective.Let there be no confusion. I definitely think that martials could use a little more shoring up and I definitely believe and profess the caster-martial disparity.
However, I do believe in facts as well and it's important to me to be accurate on what good things martials do have. Could they stand improvement? Absolutely. For one I'd like to see Rangers/Paladins begin the game at CL 1st and progress from there, getting 0 level spells immediately from 1st-3rd as opposed to not at all.
I'd like to see all martials have better defenses and/or answers to magic users. I'd like to see skills in general being better overall to do incredible things like magic. I'd like to see more mobility for martials.
However, the system for the these changes needs to be re-defined at its core (which is a project I'm working on with a few friends). A lot of things at the core mechanics needs to be adjusted. For example, either you end up with the irritating task of applying magical-like functions on a per-class basis or wizards just get to cherry pick all the good skills at the right levels anyway (and it overvalues Headband of Intellect). Movement issues are not solved by pounce and never will be (in the same way that a missing eye is not solved by a bandaid).
I had made a patch for 4/9 casters because it all seemed so weird to have 4/9 casters work like that.
Although the general issues have been fixed at my tables I had been working on some concept to deal wit versatility. but the problem is that unless you straight add things the way feats work makes it impossible to have room for new better things. Then there's the issue of what to ad to who. In the end I wind up trying to discover the worst feat taxes and condensing them for room for other better feats to not disrupt the rest of the game, because I can't be bothered to rewrite every feat Paizo puts out and third party feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see all martials have better defenses and/or answers to magic users. I'd like to see skills in general being better overall to do incredible things like magic. I'd like to see more mobility for martials.
This.
Someone (pages ago) suggested that martials have a way to deflect a targeted spell with their sword or shield.
Perhaps a mechanic whereby one sacrifices an attack in order to have a chance to deflect a spell (rays, clearly - AoE are harder to justify with this mechanic)?
To make martials an effective counter to magic-users, an effective counter like this might be in order!
Great minds think alike, though I took it one step further. I've expanded the 4/9 casters into 5/9 [like Psychic Warrior] and grant a spell level at 1, 5, 9, 13...I had made a patch for 4/9 casters because it all seemed so weird to have 4/9 casters work like that.Although I'm not on the side of arguing that martial/caster disparity doesn't exist one thing that I just don't see is casters being superior frontliners. I guess you could summon some meat shields but I'm not counting that and even with divine favor I've never really seen a battle cleric that was actually effective.Let there be no confusion. I definitely think that martials could use a little more shoring up and I definitely believe and profess the caster-martial disparity.
However, I do believe in facts as well and it's important to me to be accurate on what good things martials do have. Could they stand improvement? Absolutely. For one I'd like to see Rangers/Paladins begin the game at CL 1st and progress from there, getting 0 level spells immediately from 1st-3rd as opposed to not at all.
I'd like to see all martials have better defenses and/or answers to magic users. I'd like to see skills in general being better overall to do incredible things like magic. I'd like to see more mobility for martials.
However, the system for the these changes needs to be re-defined at its core (which is a project I'm working on with a few friends). A lot of things at the core mechanics needs to be adjusted. For example, either you end up with the irritating task of applying magical-like functions on a per-class basis or wizards just get to cherry pick all the good skills at the right levels anyway (and it overvalues Headband of Intellect). Movement issues are not solved by pounce and never will be (in the same way that a missing eye is not solved by a bandaid).
I'm too wary for that. I'd have to manually add to spell lists and be on the look out for too good discounts and things like that. I love solutions that require less work from me.
Heh, I've never shied away from work but I tend to make my houserules in ways that push a lot of the work off into the future when a given character reaches a given level.
In the case of Paladins/Rangers/Bloodragers, I've got it set up such that they select a few [probably 2 or 3, I don't feel like looking it up] spells for 5th level spells at each level from 17 onward for approval.
Rather than me having to construct a full size list.
I'm a big fan of not work, particularly because I have a lot of third party material. In fact its one reason why I argued long and hard against new casters getting new spell lists if you keep staunch divisions in types of magic. It just takes more work to deal with out of hardcover spells, third party spells, and adventure path spells each time a new spell list gets introduced. That and it starts to makes determining the spell level of spell like abilities require more work. Then some casters get spells at a different spell level for flavor(when they could have gotten those spells from class features, which makes determining the level and effect of scrolls and potions require work.
To me the reason to have all these rules is to not have to do all this work and there are some cases where we really could be doing less work for what things are and could be.
Bloodragers can even get just as good rage as a Barbarian (Primalist grants 2 rage powers each tier exchange) while still being able to cast.
Design Manager
|
Hunters while better casters aren't as good at actually attacking as Rangers (they lack critical bonus feats early, are behind on to-hit bonuses, do not get sufficient buffs to compensate, their animal aspects do not stack with magic items (virtually everything that would help you hit, move, or skill better is an enhancement or competence bonus, which means they don't stack with bull's strength type spells or magic items that grant enhancement bonuses, nor do they stack with magic items that grant skill bonuses such as elixir of hiding). They're also exceptionally reliant on their AC to function (via teamwork feats) and offing their animal companion slows them down hard (AC is mostly expendable for a Ranger).
While I agree with pretty much everything else you said in that post, I did want to nktpick this one a bit. As Insain Dragoon also pointed out, Hunters actually rock pretty serious socks. They get early acces to potent spells like lead blades, early access to powerful accuracy boosting feats like Outflank, and their pet is significantly tougher than the Ranger's, particularly in the absence of instant enemy, which the Ranger can't cast without losing a combat round until 10th level, at which point the Hunter gets animal growth, which the Ranger won't have for another 3 levels (of some note, the Hunter has also had strong jaw for some time at this point).
I would say that yes, the Hunter is far more reliant on his pet, but working in conjunction with that pet the Hunter is actually capable of superior low level combat contributions and stays competitive through much of the mid-game. By the time the Ranger's combat supremacy is really locked in, the Hunter has access to a level of spellcasting that allows him to play in "the big kid's league" with superior control and utility options.
Let's do a little thought experiment with pallys and rangers. Drop the spell casting for each. What tier are they now? I say ranger drops to tier 5 while paladins only fall to tier 4. For me, paladin spellcasting = ranger spell casting. Rangers basically stop being viable without their spells while the paladin is still a powerhouse with smite, divine grace, divine bond, and lay on hands.
I also don't value magic item crafting so much that doing it puts you in tier 3. I also put bloodragers in tier 4 unless they are the one true barbar build via primalist. Then I put them in tier 3.
I'm not seeing anything I was aware of about rangers. Perhaps you can explain to me how ranger is just slayer+? They are in basically the same role. So if ranger is tier 3 then the slayer has to look as bad next to ranger as crb rogue looks to slayer
Let's do a little thought experiment with pallys and rangers. Drop the spell casting for each. What tier are they now?
4.
Keep in mind that even without spells Ranger still has tons more skills than the paladin, and similar but different utility.
If we're talking strictly combat it largely depends on build and situation but the ranger will tend to be more versatile through sheer dint of how easy it is to make a switch hitter.
I hardly even use the spells on my dwarf ranger and he's still plenty shooty in what he's doing even with a paladin in the group (against mainly evil dragon opponents).
It's simply a different dynamic. Paladin is overall much more defensive and support where the ranger provides more utility in terms of skills and bonuses in terrain and enemy types. You also can't leave out the animal companion which in and of itself adds whole new dynamics to the story. Paladins are custom built to go toe to toe with BBEG's Rangers are better suited to hunt small groups. Both do just fine when the situations are switched.
So what about Slayer versus Ranger? Same role, yes. Same methods, no.
Slayers are much more simple minded and also far more consistent with studied target. However Rangers perform better against groups and tend towards superior action economy with favored enemy being passive and animal companions providing another method of attacking. Slayers are also great at the combat, not so great at the utility (spells plus more archetype support favors ranger). Slayers, to me, are for people who'd love to play a Ranger but can't wrap their heads around one not being intimately tied to nature. Their loss really.
Essentially you wrote off the whole rest of the ranger (no prereq combat feats, animal companion, favored enemy, favored terrain, plus other stuff like quarry and hide in plain sight).
Is slayer trash next to ranger like crb rogue is to slayer?
If slayer and ranger are equivalent at all then both are tier 4.
Is slayer trash next to ranger like crb rogue is to slayer?
If slayer and ranger are equivalent at all then both are tier 4.
Given that they're both considered T4 anyway I'd say no. They're focused differently but are not overall lessened.
The Tier's themselves have a lot of variance between them. Their are fighter archetypes that occupy T4 because of the overall versatility they provide
Is slayer trash next to ranger like crb rogue is to slayer?
If slayer and ranger are equivalent at all then both are tier 4.
Given that they're both considered T4 anyway I'd say no. They're focused differently but are not overall lessened.
The Tier's themselves have a lot of variance between them. Their are fighter archetypes that occupy T4 because of the overall versatility they provide
Well yeah. A mutagen warrior martial master eldtrich guardian with stamina rules is tier 4.
I just never saw why rangers would get to be tier 3.
Is slayer trash next to ranger like crb rogue is to slayer?
If slayer and ranger are equivalent at all then both are tier 4.
Given that they're both considered T4 anyway I'd say no. They're focused differently but are not overall lessened.
The Tier's themselves have a lot of variance between them. Their are fighter archetypes that occupy T4 because of the overall versatility they provide
Well yeah. A mutagen warrior martial master eldtrich guardian with stamina rules is tier 4.
I just never saw why rangers would get to be tier 3.
In some people's opinion they are, in other's they're not.
It's interesting there's even a debate about that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is slayer trash next to ranger like crb rogue is to slayer?
If slayer and ranger are equivalent at all then both are tier 4.
Given that they're both considered T4 anyway I'd say no. They're focused differently but are not overall lessened.
The Tier's themselves have a lot of variance between them. Their are fighter archetypes that occupy T4 because of the overall versatility they provide
Well yeah. A mutagen warrior martial master eldtrich guardian with stamina rules is tier 4.
I just never saw why rangers would get to be tier 3.
I would argue it's because
1. The Ranger Spell list actually kicks ass
2. Choice in animal companion makes a huge difference in how much utility you have. A Large Flying animal companion= Permanent mounted flight as an example. In a situation where your companion is too big I believe a simple scroll of Reduce Animal is all you need to keep them around.
3. Large numbers of skills, bonuses to them, stealth abilities with actual utility.
According to the original definition of Tier 3 they definitely belong there. As to how high in tier three, that's debatable.
Reminder: A Fighter build that can do 5000000 damage per round is still only tier 5, even if it has the potential to overpower every encounter in the game. Tiers are generally not a measure of brokenness, just a measure of how many roles you can fulfill with one character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's do a little thought experiment with pallys and rangers. Drop the spell casting for each. What tier are they now? I say ranger drops to tier 5 while paladins only fall to tier 4. For me, paladin spellcasting = ranger spell casting. Rangers basically stop being viable without their spells while the paladin is still a powerhouse with smite, divine grace, divine bond, and lay on hands.
I'm not seeing anything I was aware of about rangers. Perhaps you can explain to me how ranger is just slayer+? They are in basically the same role. So if ranger is tier 3 then the slayer has to look as bad next to ranger as crb rogue looks to slayer
Is slayer trash next to ranger like crb rogue is to slayer?
If slayer and ranger are equivalent at all then both are tier 4.
I think this isn't true at all. It's very possible for a tier 4 to compare to a tier 3 in many but not all ways. Rangers by virtue of item creation and the utility and options that their spells provide are more versatile and broad. That's a hallmark of tier 3 classes. Would a bard be a tier 3 class if it didn't have spells? Hells to the noes.
Paladin wouldn't either. They'd be tier 4 again easily. They excel defensively but a lot of Paladin's utility and versatility come from their spell list. Without it, you lose access to things like the restoration line, their buff spells (like divine favor and potentially divine power), they lose bless weapon (which is worth casting even at 20th level because you auto-confirm crits vs evil foes while it's active). They lose resist energy and death ward which make them harder to hinder by casters and monsters (and immunizes them to shadows).
Because smite, lay on hand, divine grace, and so forth do not make the Paladin versatile. It makes them sturdy and makes them deal a lot of damage but that is the end of that.
Mind you, since we're talking about tiers, I'm going to reference the originator of tiers again.
Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.
This is where Barbarians usually fall. Barbarians lack versatility but they tend to do their one shtick really, really well. Despite loss of versatility and problem solving (which would bring them to tier 3 along with Paladins and Rangers) they still fit very well into a party because they are just really damn good at what they do and have a few niche tricks that keep them competitive.
A slayer is an easy tier 4 and may even be able to compete with a Ranger at a lot of things without having the overall versatility. There are certain things they can or will do better than rangers and there are things rangers will do better, but they won't match the ranger's versatility. A slayer, for example, cannot just cast a spell and become completely immune to poisons for hours on end but a ranger can and that's worth something (especially when you're the martial fighting the wyverns).
I also don't value magic item crafting so much that doing it puts you in tier 3. I also put bloodragers in tier 4 unless they are the one true barbar build via primalist. Then I put them in tier 3.
You may not value it but that doesn't really mean anything to me. It's quite valuable. Being able to craft your own items at half cost means not only improved efficiency but it means you aren't a slave to the RNG gods or NPCs for getting your goodies. It also means you have more effective loot for consumables and the ranger's ability to produce consumables on the cheap is a huge edge in their favor (for example, an elixir of hiding costs a measly 125 gp to craft and gives +10 to Stealth as a competence bonus for a full hour. You can comfortably carry a few of these for when you need to go balls to the walls solid snake mode.
In-class access to item creation is pretty much a huuuge boon to a class (Master Craftsman sucks and is a trap). It alone is a massive point in the favor of a Paladin or Ranger and Barbarians are sadder for its loss.
It's another weapon in their arsenal of success.
Reminder: A Fighter build that can do 5000000 damage per round is still only tier 5, even if it has the potential to overpower every encounter in the game. Tiers are generally not a measure of brokenness, just a measure of how many roles you can fulfill with one character.
True-ish. It is also important to remember that 3.5 was a 7 tier game (0-6) while PF is only 5 tiers.
Gunslingers are basically just big damage and they are tier 4.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The long and short of it is, the majority of the core classes stand beside each other pretty well. A barbarian is tier 4 but fits in a group of higher tiers easily enough to be valued. Rangers, Paladins, and Bards are solid tier 3 classes (and lots of the expanded classes like the alchemist and inquisitors fall into this comfy zone).
I do still think martials do need better things. I do still acknowledge martial/caster disparity. Just, again, I think it's important to acknowledge where they do excel at and why. A cleric casting divine power does not wholly replace a competent martial. It doesn't even come close to doing what they are good at doing (nor does a druid, IMHO).
That doesn't change the fact that clerics tend to be angel summoning badasses that can probably fake it well enough for casual fights and can always call god to step in and stomp the dragon for her.
The long and short of it is, the majority of the core classes stand beside each other pretty well. A barbarian is tier 4 but fits in a group of higher tiers easily enough to be valued. Rangers, Paladins, and Bards are solid tier 3 classes (and lots of the expanded classes like the alchemist and inquisitors fall into this comfy zone).
I do still think martials do need better things. I do still acknowledge martial/caster disparity. Just, again, I think it's important to acknowledge where they do excel at and why. A cleric casting divine power does not wholly replace a competent martial. It doesn't even come close to doing what they are good at doing (nor does a druid, IMHO).
That doesn't change the fact that clerics tend to be angel summoning badasses that can probably fake it well enough for casual fights and can always call god to step in and stomp the dragon for her.
Our big difference is I don't value item crafting like you do because of my gaming experience.
1) You can't craft because of time constraints.
2) the GM throttles wealth to compensate.
Those two factors do not have to be taken to extremes for item crafting to lose much of it's impact.
Another big difference is our value of defense as utility. To me paldins and spell sunder barbars (one true build and variants) can do a lot by virtue of being able to bypass barriers that destroy the rangers. (Though other barbars are tier 4)
I think the CRB is pretty broken. Three T1s, one T2, two T3s, two T4s, and three T5s. The most problematic classes (T1 and T5) dominant core and are the root of the overall system balance problems.
Tiers aren't actually relevant to the question Ashiel asked.
Tier has nothing to do with power except at the "cannot do anything effectively" rungs. Tier describes only versatility.
Surely you wouldn't claim that a wizard front lines better than a fighter just because the wizard is a "tier 1" class, why does tier then make the cleric better at that specific role? Arguably the cleric isn't even tier 1. The cleric list is more specialized than the wizard list and combat competence doesn't make up for that gap.
Oh I would totally say a wizard frontlines and can outslug a fighter. They don't even have to be optimized for it after a certain level. Just possess bodies and polymorph them as needed to out slugfest. Summons, walls, BFC, undead, bond servants, golems, ect let a wizard take up the fontline better.
But it's a 4 tier difference. Ofcourse wizard can outclass both fighter and crb rogue at the same time with little effort.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The long and short of it is, the majority of the core classes stand beside each other pretty well. A barbarian is tier 4 but fits in a group of higher tiers easily enough to be valued. Rangers, Paladins, and Bards are solid tier 3 classes (and lots of the expanded classes like the alchemist and inquisitors fall into this comfy zone).
I do still think martials do need better things. I do still acknowledge martial/caster disparity. Just, again, I think it's important to acknowledge where they do excel at and why. A cleric casting divine power does not wholly replace a competent martial. It doesn't even come close to doing what they are good at doing (nor does a druid, IMHO).
That doesn't change the fact that clerics tend to be angel summoning badasses that can probably fake it well enough for casual fights and can always call god to step in and stomp the dragon for her.
Our big difference is I don't value item crafting like you do because of my gaming experience.
1) You can't craft because of time constraints.
2) the GM throttles wealth to compensate.
Those two factors do not have to be taken to extremes for item crafting to lose much of it's impact.
They kind of do. Time restraints are easy to circumvent through crafting on the go and rushed crafting (+5 DC, half crafting time, woot). More than enough to make simple consumables for your staples. Likewise, it's hard to justify not having time for crafting unless the GM is actively forcing it and being grossly obvious about it (and that also tends to imply the game is very shallow in the RP department because your PCs never take any downtime or do things other than rush to the next battle to kill something).
Likewise, the GM changing the nature of the game by reducing treasures to spite players likewise does nothing to actually counter the value of item creation, just as the GM making magic not work in their world doesn't counter the value of wizards in the context of the game.
A GM can, with enough effort and acrobatics, force anything into seeming more or less desirable than it actually is. For example, I could just decide that clerics are hated by the general populace because of *insert campaign specific reason here* and suddenly just being a cleric means everyone starts hostile or unfriendly the moment it's determined that you can cast cleric spells or wear a holy symbol or something. Suddenly nobody sells you stuff without really hard Diplomacy checks all over the place, nobody helps you, blah blah blah.
We're not talking about cleric hater world.
Another big difference is our value of defense as utility. To me paldins and spell sunder barbars (one true build and variants) can do a lot by virtue of being able to bypass barriers that destroy the rangers. (Though other barbars are tier 4)
Yes. Rangers are weaker defensively against certain types of spells (particularly mind-affecting ones as they're pretty solid against most Fortitude and Reflex hindrances not only due to having good saves in those areas but also due to having spells that immunize them to harsh issues that affect those).
But I think the Ranger gets plenty to make up for that and their defenses are not bad. They just aren't at the Paladin and Barbarian level. But not being the best is not the same as not being okay or good, nor does it severely inhibit their roles.
Paladins are probably the best tanks in the game. That makes them resilient but it doesn't do much to change their utility. Likewise, expecting other martials to be the Paladin doesn't seem particularly fair. Alchemists, Inquisitors, Bards, and Slayers certainly are far from Paladins in terms over durability, and those classes are pretty decent. Clerics aren't even capable of Paladin-level defenses.
I think the CRB is pretty broken. Three T1s, one T2, two T3s, two T4s, and three T5s. The most problematic classes (T1 and T5) dominant core and are the root of the overall system balance problems.
Gut Fighter, Monk, Rogue, and the rest of the core classes play pretty nice with each other overall. Most of the worst spells in 3.x got the nerfbat pretty hard. There's only a few outliers now that are really cheesy (simulacrum and limited wish->geas jump immediately to mind).
Again, they have issues, but even wizards are far from the beasts they were in 3.x.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tiers aren't actually relevant to the question Ashiel asked.
Tier has nothing to do with power except at the "cannot do anything effectively" rungs. Tier describes only versatility.
Surely you wouldn't claim that a wizard front lines better than a fighter just because the wizard is a "tier 1" class, why does tier then make the cleric better at that specific role? Arguably the cleric isn't even tier 1. The cleric list is more specialized than the wizard list and combat competence doesn't make up for that gap.
Oh I would totally say a wizard frontlines and can outslug a fighter. They don't even have to be optimized for it after a certain level. Just possess bodies and polymorph them as needed to out slugfest. Summons, walls, BFC, undead, bond servants, golems, ect let a wizard take up the fontline better.
But it's a 4 tier difference. Ofcourse wizard can outclass both fighter and crb rogue at the same time with little effort.
I'm noticing that you will never actually answer the question. I didn't ask anything about Fighters. They can't even reliably keep up with Paladins and Rangers in terms of attack power. >_>
Meanwhile, most of the other things that you mention suck at trying to match a real martial, aside from body possession (and even then, only when abusing simulacrum). :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For example, you can't bind any outsider that matches a well built martial. They just don't exist within the HD limits. Even things like balors and pit fiends that are beyond them aren't actually good enough to match a martial at their game. The closest that a core caster can get is a cleric who can gate a Solar who is actually strong enough to rival a martial at their own game (because they have a +22 BAB, 28 Str (unbuffed), and cast as 20th level clerics (so they can toss divine power for +6/+6). Even they can't really match them in attack/damage unless they're given a lot more gear than they have by default though. They're more than suitable for slaying the Tarrasque though.
Golems? Well, you try to say that item creation isn't very useful because your GM regularly engages in some questionable practices but golems take forever to make and are horribly priced (really, the answer to golems is just say no, because it's a waste). Their cost vs value is obscenely bad. They all universally suck at fighting (even the goofy ones like adamantine golems).
Summons? Nerfed to hell compared to 3.x summons (where you could routinely summon gargantuan monsters without effort and drown your enemies in massive grapple checks). Good spell utility though! :o
Polymorphing isn't that good against lots of enemies. Natural attacks have some wicked drawbacks. Most of the time I'd much rather have a sword and board than five natural attacks that get hosed by DR and have poor damage bonuses. Especially when I'm probably going to hit with every attack in my 5-8 attack routine and auto-confirm criticals. :|
The thing is, I'm not trying to argue for the heck of it. All I was saying originally was let's give credit where it is due and work on shoring classes up where they're lacking. You said clerics are better at fighting and I asked you to explain how.
Your explanation can be summarized as "because clerics are tier 1". Okay, but...what does that matter? I asked you to explain how. I explained what the martial can do, so you show me how the cleric does it better. It shouldn't be so hard that it takes this many posts and this much avoiding and sidestepping the question if it is so easy for the tier 1, right?
Humor me. C'mon. I really wanna see.
Uhh if you won't agree about wizard v fighter than I see no reason to argue cleric v ranger which is a weaker argument.
Edit: also you won't be convinced since you believe rangers to be tier 3. I'm stuck to typing on a phone and working around Chinese internet blocks. So I try to keep post very short.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uhh if you won't agree about wizard v fighter than I see no reason to argue cleric v ranger which is a weaker argument.
...Are...are you serious? This is...a joke, right?
You can't possibly be this thick. I refuse to believe it.
At what point did I say anything about a FIGHTER other than to say that I was saying NOTHING about a FIGHTER!?
*insert famous Pulp Fiction quote here*
Edit: also you won't be convinced since you believe rangers to be tier 3. I'm stuck to typing on a phone and working around Chinese internet blocks. So I try to keep post very short.
Tiers have exactly 0% to do with anything I've asked of you.
Tiers have exactly 0% to do with anything I've asked of you.
In your mind they might not. But I already know from your positions that you won't be convinced.
So why bother? More likely than not you already know what clerics can do and have already decided your position on that. I don't have some secret optimization trick to share with you.
I was more curious about what could possibly make rangers tier 3 than I was about fullcasters being better at fighting than t4s.
On that note, a few things go on in your games that make rangers tier 3 to you.
1) Power attack is not something you always use.
2) Monsters boost ac with treasure.
3) Tons of item creation.
4) Easy access to inherent bonuses.
Your Rangers have higher reflex saves than paladins, close will because of wisdom pumping, slightly lower fort, close AC do to dex pumping and paladins not needing it for heavy armor. So in your games ranger defenses are not all that weak, they carry around bags of pearls of power, and they have more accuracy from no power attack or deadly aim.
Yes, I see why Rangers hit tier 3 for you but none of that applies to our(my groups') games.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know from personal experience that Ashiel *can* be convinced. You just actually have to provide evidence and ensure that the evidence provided is valid.
Simply stating things as if they were fact does not work to convince Ashiel; this is the largest reason why one may falsely conclude that she won't be convinced or change her mind.