I would like to see a 1st lv wizard vs a 1st lv fighter...
20 pt buy, core races, max starting cash.
Combat starts at 100' between combatants.
Who wants build the wizard and who wants to build the fighter?
Edit: sorry forgot to add any archtype but 3rd party.
You know... 1st level is so swingy, it might go both ways.
The Wizard is more likely to win initiative... And that maybe +3 on the Fighter's Will save is really bad. Of course, if the Fighter does make his save or gets to act first, he has a good chance of one-shotting the Wizard (mostly because pretty much everything has a chance of one-shotting anything at 1st level).
It's an all-or-nothing situation based mostly on luck and Initiative that it really doesn't add anything...
I'd bet on the Wizard, though. He's likely to have higher Initiative and a decent AC (14~16)... So the Fighter probably needs at least a 10 to hit him... And needs at least a 12 or so to make his Will save.
Oh I was just considering the ways a cookie cutter fighter could get annihilated under those conditions by getting stabbed to death by the wizard.
If I wanted to be really cheeky.
Oh I was just considering the ways a cookie cutter fighter could get annihilated under those conditions by getting stabbed to death by the wizard.
If I wanted to be really cheeky.
Hell! At 1st level it's very possible that the Wizard's familiar can deal enough damage to kill the Fighter. 12~15 hp isn't all that much...
Ok what 1st spells will one shot a creature at 100'?
A readied two handed falchion swing.
I think people tend to forget the only appreciable difference between a level 1 fighter and virutally any other character is a feat, a bit of hp and +1 to attack rolls.
I think people tend to forget the only appreciable difference between a level 1 fighter and virutally any other character is a feat, a bit of hp and +1 to attack rolls.
Well... That and a few gp.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, did you know that back on the WoTC boards it was determined that the wizard could win that fight by selling hsi spellbook to buy a massive pack of attack dogs and cower behind a tower shield?
These scenarios are hilarious, and sadly don't prove very much except how much of a bastard I really am.
I bolded the part I think you missed.I think people tend to forget the only appreciable difference between a level 1 fighter and virutally any other character is a feat, a bit of hp and +1 to attack rolls.Well... That and a feat. And a few gp.
You shouldn't edit your quotes to make other people look dumber, Ben... That's just mean!
XD
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back from work and...oh grief... (o_o);
Okay, let's see if I can try to rummage through all these posts and talk a bit more about this now that I'm not struggling for time. \(0o0)/
About Terminology of "PvP"
Some people seem to be getting bent out of shape over the terminology. Let me set this strait. It is Player vs Player combat insofar as the Game Master is not some sort of AI script, they are a living, breathing, player. While some might argue that a GM is not a player, they are most definitely playing this game when they are GMing, and they control all the NPCs and creatures in the exact same way that the rest of the players control their respective characters - making choices for those characters based on who and what they are.
As I noted in the OP (albeit briefly), this means that while GMs may hold back or make dumb choices intentionally as the situation warrants (like having a goblin spend a turn digging a maggot out of her butt-hole or something), the GM is a human mind making all the choices. It is not different in any practical sense from what the PCs do, save the GM does it for a lot more creatures.
Contrast this to "PvE"...
Player versus environment, or PvE (also known as Player versus Monster, or PvM in some communities), is a term used in online games, particularly MMORPGs, CORPGs, MUDs, and other online role-playing video games, to refer to fighting computer-controlled enemies—in contrast to PvP (player versus player).
Where enemies are controlled using specified scripts and/or controlled by mechanics for determining how they choose to fight or deal with situations - mechanics that can be used to do things like make the dragon attack your big guy with a shield instead of the bard buffing the big guy with the shield.
When playing World of Warcraft, playing in PvE scenarios feels nothing like playing D&D. However, it's in PvP where suddenly it feels like you're in (real time) D&D/Pathfinder battles. You can't taunt another player, so if you want to prevent that other player from wrecking your healer or prevent them from killing your mages you have to actually get up and do something about it. Now in games like World of Warcraft, characters have methods of doing this (Warriors for example can rush onto enemies, stun them, daze them, slow their movement speed, tear their buffs away, or push out enough damage to make them try to pull away to recover).
Just to reiterate: All creatures and characters in Pathfinder are controlled by players. One of those players controls everything else but (unless they are cheating) they follow the same rules that the players are (and have additional rules governing what's typically considered appropriate for play).
GMs Trying to Kill Players
This is something I never suggested or mentioned during the OP. Player vs Player does not imply a fair fight by design, nor does it require it to be about killing your opponent, anymore than wrestling with your child requires you to hit them with a folding chair (btw, if your idea of play wrestling with your child DOES included hitting your child with a folding chair, either you may wish to re-evaluate your parenting or your child is beyond awesome).
What it does imply is that one side is in conflict with another side and contest ensues. This is true pretty much from the get-go with most Pathfinder games. By nature, we GMs create stories and conflicts within our games. Those conflicts are frequently resolved (or agitated by) battle or some contest of ability between certain characters (such as the party vs a band of goblins). And if we are not cheating, not metagaming, and being true to the stories that we are telling, we are rightfully going to have the bad guys fight like they don't know that they are little sacks of experience points and loot for the PCs to grab on the way to their next level.
Dealing with PvP-Type Combat
Since there is not an aggro-system in play beyond actually making yourself enough of a threat to make enemies want to kill you first (good luck using your sword & shield to seem more threatening than the guy who said he'd see your buddy in hell and then made good on that promise in a literal fashion last round) you need mechanics that are like those in World of Warcraft. Specifically, you need ways to reliably hinder, harass, or cut off your enemies who are trying to harm your allies.
This means that warrior characters that want to fulfill the "tough guy who protects the squishies" needs to be able to do things like block movement (be big and get in their way), daze enemies (dazing assault is probably the best feat in the game for this and most every martial should have it), control enemies (fear effects, blinding, confusing, or otherwise preventing enemies from effectively attacking; and I don't mean only on a successful critical hit), and have mechanics that allow them to neutralize threats (paladins can neutralize negative energy and level drains, provide immunities, etc; rangers can AoE crowd-control enemies, immunize vs poison, and cast freedom of movement; barbarians can do lots of cool stuff including chasing down enemies trying to move past them, or even punch a ranger's instant enemy or a druid's shapechange right off of them).
Where Balance is Concerned
You'll notice I never once mentioned wizards in the OP. This was intentional, because this is not a martial/caster disparity thread. Those trying to make it into one are grasping at straws. Let's take a moment to look at the classes that were actually mentioned in the OP.
1: Classes aren't created equal and they should be. While many would decry that Fighters don't need to be balanced with Rangers, Paladins, and Barbarians because it's a coop game, they still get the same treasure and XP values as those classes which means that if I use a CR 8 barbarian the party may struggle against them, but if use a CR 8 fighter it's a free XP pinata.
Because this is one of the best examples of class imbalance by role that one can find in Pathfinder. Rangers, Paladins, and Barbarians are all very reasonably balanced against one-another with each having certain fields that they excel at, varied defenses, and a number of tricks that can be used to solve problems in the middle of a fight. Then you have the Fighter who hits things (and often not any harder than those other classes). However, you are expected to award the same amount of treasure and experience points for all of these characters.
So while a CR 8 barbarian might actually be a formidable challenge to a party in suitable CR ranges, the CR 8 fighter is free XP as he is effortlessly neutralized due to things like bad saves and lack of options when compared to his peer the barbarian. Now those who have been playing for a while may recognize the issue before it arises but not everyone is familiar with this and may produce swingy encounters that are undesirable.
Strong vs Weak Classes
So let's take the barbarian vs fighter example and make a key change. We'll distinguish one of them as a PC and the other a PC. So again, these are two classes who are supposed to fill the same role, be the same CR (which implies roughly similar level & WBL), and yet one of them is grossly disadvantaged.
So if you have a party consisting of monk, rogue, fighter, and sorcerer against a group of ranger, barbarian, bard, and wizard, one side is sitting at a massive advantage over the other, even if they're supposed to be equivalent to one-another.
Not Just Combat
While the PvP element is reserved primarily for combat, the legitimacy of the need for classes to have methods of reacting to the world around them is real all over the place. The very same abilities that allow Paladins, Rangers, and Barbarians to be more effective in combat also allow them to be more successful in environmental play. The ranger can use the exact same resist energy or delay poison to pass through hazardous areas such as areas of volcanic activity without fear of being melted or suffocating on poisonous gases. The Paladin's defenses help them with traps, and they can help their allies by removing diseases and healing wounds. Barbarians can literally angry away antimagic fields, walls of fire, or a wall of force.
So What Now?
"Knowledge is power!" - Schoolhouse Rock
"Knowing is half the battle!" - G.I. Joe.
What you do with the knowledge is up to you. You can walk away, smiling, knowing a little more about the balance of the game and how it works. You think more deeply about your options and what you can bring to the table. You might decide "Hey, I'm going to take Dazing Assault instead of Improved Vital Strike" because one makes you do a little more damage in some situations but the other allows you to control your enemies so they can't ignore you. You might think about how you want to handle issues that may rise up in the future and be a better team member for your party by spotting where the holes are so you can bolster your group with your choices (in abilities, equipment, etc).
If you're interested in homebrew, 3PP, or game design you can make better judgments as to how your creations will work in the game, thinking about them both from a protagonist and antagonist perspective. You'll have a better idea of what needs to be met and why getting a happy middle between "mushroom" and "the rock" is a good idea.
If you're a GM, you can make more informed decisions when crafting your adventures, NPCs, environments, and encounters. You may also get a better feel for where you need to shore up some things with some benevolent homebrew and how to best advise new players when teaching the game.
Next post I'm gonna try to respond to some specific posts.
So if you have a party consisting of monk, rogue, fighter, and sorcerer against a group of ranger, barbarian, bard, and wizard, one side is sitting at a massive advantage over the other, even if they're supposed to be equivalent to one-another.
I think this is where a lot of misunderstanding and discontent lays. From what I've seen out of Paizo's responses here, they're not supposed to be equivalent. They're supposed bring something different to the game while remaining in their approximate design space, and that's it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember when I wrote Weapons of Machinesmith Destruction that a big criticism from our creative director was that he did not think it would be very fun to have to fight against...for the PC's.
So, it is a consideration and when you sit down and look at all the high level bbeg's you should ask yourself.
Where are the 20th level Fighter warlords and high level Rogue conspirators?
I believe it's called natural selection. :P
So it is ok some classes are 2nd class citizens?
Yes. In fact, the day all classes become equal is the day I probably put down Pathfinder and look for a different game.
So it is ok some classes are 2nd class citizens?Yes. In fact, the day all classes become equal is the day I probably put down Pathfinder and look for a different game.
Now for the million dollar question.
Why?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if you have a party consisting of monk, rogue, fighter, and sorcerer against a group of ranger, barbarian, bard, and wizard, one side is sitting at a massive advantage over the other, even if they're supposed to be equivalent to one-another.I think this is where a lot of misunderstanding and discontent lays. From what I've seen out of Paizo's responses here, they're not supposed to be equivalent. They're supposed bring something different to the game while remaining in their approximate design space, and that's it.
Unfortunately they fail at that in most respects. Rarely do they bring anything different, most fail to fill the design space.
|
Ok what 1st spells will one shot a creature at 100'?Sleep [Risky because of full-round casting]
See, this is why I asked for the terrain.
Also, if the Wizard goes into this KNOWING he's having an arena match with the Fighter, Fighter has very very little chance.
Conjurer with Bonded Object
Str: 7
Dex: 14
Con: 14
Int: 20
Wis: 11
Cha: 7Pre-cast before battle: Mage Armor
Round 1: Shield and take cover or drop prone
[If said Fighter is an Archer with 16 dex (because Archers also need strength for damage and wisdom to not get mind controlled and constitution to not die) he can now hit only on a 20 [10+4+4+4+2dex]
Round 2: cast Sleep if it shooting arrows or stand up and use Color Spray if it approached a martial that approached via Bonded Object [IIRC you can crawl in prone at 1/2 speed, I might be mistaken.]
Round 3: Approach unconscious target or flee if spell failed.
Round 4: Coup De Grace
Terrain is flat, combat is unexpected. Fighter is half-elf.
So it is ok some classes are 2nd class citizens?
I think this is where a lot of misunderstanding and discontent lays. From what I've seen out of Paizo's responses here, they're not supposed to be equivalent. They're supposed bring something different to the game while remaining in their approximate design space, and that's it.
If this means not having cookie-cutter classes, absolutely. It doesn't matter what mechanical hoops you want to build up around abilities. If each character gets a 50 damage ability at level x then that's not uniqueness.
It also does matter to have different classes so you can tell different stories. If all classes have the same core concepts but simply expressed differently, you're stuck with the same things with merely different representations.
It also supports different tastes for different groups. If Pathfinder had 5E's modularity, maybe you could have both worlds. But, as it is, and since people obviously hate the concept of a v2, you can't.
Unfortunately they fail at that in most respects. Rarely do they bring anything different, most fail to fill the design space.
In your opinion. Paizo's clearly differs or simply considers it to be more wide than yours does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what would probably solve a huge deal of the PvP problem? If you lost your move action (as in you are moving and must stop) if you are hit by an AoO.
1) It makes AoO's a much more legit threat to worry about. And limits the ability to just "take one" so you can totally run past a warrior (basically leaving your back open to them) so you can attack a mage.
and
2) Makes investing against AoO's much more worthwhile.
Like, Pillars of Eternity is a GREAT combat system, in this regard. When you are engaged by a creature, you cannot just willy nilly step back (like with the Withdraw action). First of all you got slowed down (so no running straight past an enemy) and second of all it opened you up to getting hurt from AoOs.
Basically, fighters and other classes should have a "zone" they control, where you can't just ignore them (unless you have some other way of bypassing them like flying or teleporting, which isn't too uncommon).
Now for the million dollar question.Why?
I've thought about this. It boils down to the fact that having all classes equal, in the context of 3.x, means either:
A) Martials are brought up to the power level of full casters.
B) Full casters are brought down to levels where they are equivalent to martials.
Either solution, as I can conceive of them, will ruin the flavor and aesthetic of what I want from a (roughly) medieval-themed fantasy RPG. In such a setting, I want wizards and their equivalents (sorcerers, witches, etc.) to be able to count themselves among the most powerful beings in the world. Hell, the homebrew world in which I run my games is pretty much based on this very fact.
Or to put it all another way, that fighters are weaker than wizards in Pathfinder isn't a bug, it's a feature.
So, if people are so intent on certain classes being better than others and this being a good thing, perhaps there should be a FAQ stating exactly which tier each class is in, and maybe a different CR and XP system for each tier while we're at it?
Even if you don't believe class balance is a good thing, surely transparency regarding class disparity is still desirable?
This wouldn't be bad. However, Paizo sees no disparity, actually. Until they do, we'll never get something like that.
|
I've thought about this. It boils down to the fact that having all classes equal, in the context of 3.x, means either:
A) Martials are brought up to the power level of full casters.
B) Full casters are brought down to levels where they are equivalent to martials.
Either solution, as I can conceive of them, will ruin the flavor and aesthetic of what I want from a (roughly) medieval-themed fantasy RPG. In such a setting, I want wizards and their equivalents (sorcerers, witches, etc.) to be able to count themselves among the most powerful beings in the world. Hell, the homebrew world in which I run my games is pretty much based on this very fact.
False premises.
1. That fighters are somehow much more common than wizards. PC classes in general are inherently rare.
2. That there aren't better solutions which you don't conceive. (you seem to lack creativity on that front) The best theories I've seen to bring casters down don't get rid of their power (besides banning a few outlier spells which virtually everyone agrees on anyway) - they give them weaknesses such as full round casting times etc. Also - I'd get rid of self-only buff spells entirely.
Alrighty because my brain is in that mode right now. Let's show you my arcane might.
Like, the conjurer is funny. But it's not funny.
Like here's a stat line for you.
Half Orc
Str:19
Dex:14
Con:14
Int:14
Wis: 7
Cha: 7
Hilarious right?
So we get oen feat.
Ima take Improved Initiative because I can.
Than I'm going to take Compy familiar because I can.
So a +10 to initiative without even trying very hard.. I can hit +12 or even +14 easily.
But what school?
Enhancement is funny because I could enhance myself and force the fighter to run into my lognspear.
But, I'm feeling hilarious and grabbing Transmutation because 20 strength for free is too amusing to go without.
Okay then so we go with Protector archetype on familiar.
as for the rest? Eh, I don't care anymore at this point.If the fighter is an archer I can vanish and run right up to him and sunder his bow outside of his reach. If not I can take my time and get my ac up to 22, get 15 foot reach. Whatever floats my boat.
Point being is this kind of thing is always incredibly silly.
This guy could buy or conjure a mount, a lance, and just run over the fighter probably.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately they fail at that in most respects. Rarely do they bring anything different, most fail to fill the design space.In your opinion. Paizo's clearly differs or simply considers it to be more wide than yours does.
Yes. In my opinion. I can give reasoning for this opinion (something I haven't seen Paizo do). For example, you can replace every instance of "Fighter" with "Warior NPC class of equal CR" and the warrior actually has more going on for it.
It's not even niche protection. There is no niche.
False premises.1. That fighters are somehow much more common than wizards. PC classes in general are inherently rare.
2. That there aren't better solutions which you don't conceive. (you seem to lack creativity on that front) The best theories I've seen to bring casters down don't get rid of their power (besides banning a few outlier spells which virtually everyone agrees on anyway) - they give them weaknesses such as full round casting times etc. Also - I'd get rid of self-only buff spells entirely.
RE: 1) This is a false statement. If you encounter anyone in an AP who is anymore than a peasant, they likely have non-NPC class levels. This has only become more true as more material gets developed. So, if you consider the 30-40% of the population who actually holds power in some way rare, only then is it true. I don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sphere's of Power looks good. I got it today.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
False premises.
I'm not making an argument here, so I don't have any premises, you dig? I was expressing my opinion, which isn't up to debate. You can no more logic me into changing my aesthetic preferences than you can use logic to prove that green is a more aesthetically pleasing color than blue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what would probably solve a huge deal of the PvP problem? If you lost your move action (as in you are moving and must stop) if you are hit by an AoO.
That's kind of what the feat Stand Still used to do, back in 3.5 where it allowed you to convert damage into movement stopping power. Now it's just a bad CMB check which makes it rather meh. :|
That said, I don't think the PvP nature of the game is a bad thing. It's one of my favorite aspects about combat in Pathfinder. It stays fresh and exciting.
I've thought about this. It boils down to the fact that having all classes equal, in the context of 3.x, means either:
A) Martials are brought up to the power level of full casters.
B) Full casters are brought down to levels where they are equivalent to martials.
Either solution, as I can conceive of them, will ruin the flavor and aesthetic of what I want from a (roughly) medieval-themed fantasy RPG. In such a setting, I want wizards and their equivalents (sorcerers, witches, etc.) to be able to count themselves among the most powerful beings in the world. Hell, the homebrew world in which I run my games is pretty much based on this very fact.
Or to put it all another way, that fighters are weaker than wizards in Pathfinder isn't a bug, it's a feature.
I personally don't think it's necessary to do either of those things in the absolute sense. You just need to have martials that can do things that matter and have ways of reacting to things and having level-appropriate abilities. There is no need for making warriors that do things like turn dragons into statues or bring people back from the dead (though Paladins do this already) or summon monsters and stuff, but it does mean that you'd need to have ways of reacting to things like how barbarians can become very magic resistant, break magic, remove buffs, or spank spells back by striking them with your sword or shield (which are probably magical themselves).
Sphere's of Power looks good. I got it today.
I actually really like Spheres. I didn't at first, but it's grown on me.
So you wouldn't mind this being labelled in the book then, as a warning? It would be less confusing for new players when the book presents each option as reasonably equal
I really don't care one way or another, so if you really feel it's that important, than sure. Though I do find all this concern-trolling of "what about teh poor innocent new players?!?!" to be farcical, as if nearly every new player isn't introduced to the game by more experienced players who will show them the ropes.
False premises.I'm not making an argument here, so I don't have any premises, you dig? I was expressing my opinion, which isn't up to debate. You can no more logic me into changing my aesthetic preferences than you can use logic to prove that green is a more aesthetically pleasing color than blue.
Which I respect.
I simply don't think that aesthetic is the correct mindset to go in with in a game where a certain level of cooperation is expected.
Being more or less powerful than the characters is a matter of NPC's not a cooperative group expected to band together and defeat these challenges.
I personally don't think it's necessary to do either of those things in the absolute sense. You just need to have martials that can do things that matter and have ways of reacting to things and having level-appropriate abilities. There is no need for making warriors that do things like turn dragons into statues or bring people back from the dead (though Paladins do this already) or summon monsters and stuff, but it does mean that you'd need to have ways of reacting to things like how barbarians can become very magic resistant, break magic, remove buffs, or spank spells back by striking them with your sword or shield (which are probably magical themselves).
Sure? I guess this stuff just isn't that important to me. But, I know that if the Fighter gets too far away from its mundane roots I would not like it as much. As a GM I use fighters a lot in my game for the reason that they are mundane.