Is pathfinder becoming unbalanced?


Advice

151 to 200 of 633 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:


The fighter also can continue to fight at full capacity well after the wizard has cast all his spells. the wizard is only as powerful as his spell list is prepared to be, and after a dozen or so spells, 12 rounds or 2 minutes of casting, the wizard is significantly weaker and has less options to accomplish his goal while a fighter can keep going at full strength for 8 hours without issue, that's 4,800 rounds, the wizard would run out of spells well before that if casting spells every round, he would have about 45-50 spells in total which the vast majority of them being level 1-4 spells which at high levels are almost useless in combat situations

Several huge flaws to that argument.

1. Ignores that the fighter would die after fighting for 8 hours against anything which is at all a challenge.

2. Falsely assumes that all wizard spells only last 1 round.

3. Falsely assumes that any game would have more than 50 rounds of combat in a single day outside of extreme cases.

4. Falsely claims that level 1-4 spells are useless in high level combat. (Haste is useless? Mirror Image is useless? Image spells are useless? >.<)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
yes the casters will have more in the strengths column but the rogue will have some skill or abilities that the casters did not have.
in a 1v1, yes the rogue would beat a fair number of classes at some skill or another, but, like you said, it's a team game, and if we already have a talker, a know it all, and a scouter, a rogue that kinda does all of those just brings weaknesses to the party.
And its the game or systems fault for you wanting to play a role that is already filled?

Why is the role already filled? And why would the party not be better off with another Wizard?


1) you're not fighting continuously, but you have a fight at 8am, at noon, at 4pm, and at 8pm.

The fighter won't be disadvantaged by that fight schedule, the wizard will be.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
For instance, pit a fighter and a wizard against a golem, the fighter has a significantly easier time fighting the golem.

The wizard has too many SR:No spells that cripple golems and most golems hit far harder than fighters, making this incorrect.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:


There's nothing a fighter can do that a wizard can't. The fighter has a few skills and hits things. That's it, from lv1 to lv20, those are the fighter's options. The wizard can do both of those at all levels as well. And if you're wanting to compare pure DPR, my money is that a wizard built to do non-spell DPR would beat the fighter at it as well.
Correct me if im wrong but are you trying to tell me you believe a sword wielding wizard not using spells is going to out DPR a sword wielding fighter.
That's not actually what he said. He said non-spell DPR. While a wizard couldn't do that at lower levels, at high levels with some buff & polymorph spells, he could likely out-DPR a fighter.

Ok, so we are taking a wizard who has all the time in the world to buff himself with spells and poly morph himself into a badass fighting machine.

With Shape change that is a total of 200 rounds you can be polymorphed, i do not know of a stronger or longer lasting polymorph spell. You still have 4,600 rounds left in the day. sure you could use lower level poly morph to get another 20 round here and there but you are not going to be better then the fighter for even an entire 8 hours with just buffs and polymorph, a few fights sure, but you would have to spend numerous rounds buffing and alot of your spells on one fight.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
Trogdar wrote:


Arguing from bad faith.

Honestly do not know what you mean by that or are getting at.

i sated how i read his post so that if i did misinterpret what he said i want him to correct me.

either add something to the discussion or don't comment.

The first paragraph of your last post is preposterous on its face. Literally no one on these forums would come to that conclusion because to get there, you have to know nothing about the games mechanics.

You can't missenterpret on that scale by accident. Therefore, your arguing in bad faith.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
That's not actually what he said. He said non-spell DPR. While a wizard couldn't do that at lower levels, at high levels with some buff & polymorph spells, he could likely out-DPR a fighter.

Just how many buffs? Giant Form II (Wind Yai) + Fiery Body + Fluid Form + Transformation sure make for a nasty combo. Only Giant Form II is a polymorph effect so they should stack, IIRC.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:


There's nothing a fighter can do that a wizard can't. The fighter has a few skills and hits things. That's it, from lv1 to lv20, those are the fighter's options. The wizard can do both of those at all levels as well. And if you're wanting to compare pure DPR, my money is that a wizard built to do non-spell DPR would beat the fighter at it as well.
Correct me if im wrong but are you trying to tell me you believe a sword wielding wizard not using spells is going to out DPR a sword wielding fighter.

Ah, some of the iconic responses to the problem.

I'm saying that a wizard is capable of swinging a sword, which is what the fighter is doing. Can he swing the sword as well as the fighter with no magic? Of course not. But we might as well be asking if the fighter can swing it as well as the wizard if we ignored the fighters BAB and weapon training.

If we're caring about doing HP damage, and damaging spells like fireball don't count, I believe the wizard would out DPR the fighter. With all the spells at a wizards command, they can make good melee combatants.

Shadowlords wrote:
While i disagree with you on the fundamental level of that statement i will agree and said this in my last post, the wizard does out match the fighter in almost every way, but the fighter will still be able to do things the wizard can not. For instance, pit a fighter and a wizard against a golem, the fighter has a significantly easier time fighting the golem.

See, to me this shows you've never really seen a good wizard. Reason being that a golem is a super trivial fight for a good wizard and is far more deadly for the fighter. The fighter needs to get past the golem's AC, which is usually pretty good. Get past and hardness or DR the golem has. Deal enough HP damage to defeat the golem which tends to have decent HP pool. And not die in the process to the golem that usually has a pretty good slam attack, one that is likely to hit the fighter and do some good damage.

The wizard casts a pit or two and the golem is stuck in a hole and the wizard continues on his way. The wizard casts invisibility and the golem never sees the wizard. There are quite a few threads and people much more qualified that I to expound the other ways for a wizard to trivialize a golem. Moral of the story, wizards have various ways to "win" a fight. Fighters usually have only 1.

Shadowlords wrote:
The fighter also can continue to fight at full capacity well after the wizard has cast all his spells. the wizard is only as powerful as his spell list is prepared to be, and after a dozen or so spells, 12 rounds or 2 minutes of casting, the wizard is significantly weaker and has less options to accomplish his goal while a fighter can keep going at full strength for 8 hours without issue, that's 4,800 rounds, the wizard would run out of spells well before that if casting spells every round, he would have about 45-50 spells in total which the vast majority of them being level 1-4 spells which at high levels are almost useless in combat situations

See, here's another thing you're forgetting about, HP damage. Sure the fighter has no limit on how often they can swing their sword but lets check some things.

How often are you NEEDING to continue adventuring after the wizard has used all their spells for the day?
Is the wizard a good wizard and not wasting spells by using unneeded spells in fights? A good wizard know that a 3 round fight can be one with one good opening spell.
Due to the way that spells scale up in DC as the wizard gains int, and how poor saves work, a low level spell can be quite combat effective at higher levels.
Now back to the biggest flaw, HP. How much HP damage would a fighter take in a fight? should we assume 20% per average fight and 4 average fights per day? That pretty standard and pretty close to the guideline of CR. So that means that a fighter has a max of 5 average fights a day he can do and be at 0 HP. Then how long does the fighter take to heal? He either spends a lot of money to heal himself or many days resting to get back to full HP. If you have a caster then you can drain their resources to go a little longer until they run out of healing.
So while the fighter "can do his thing all day" a good wizard will outlast, or at least be no worse off than, the fighter in being useful in a day.


Shadowlords wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
yes the casters will have more in the strengths column but the rogue will have some skill or abilities that the casters did not have.
in a 1v1, yes the rogue would beat a fair number of classes at some skill or another, but, like you said, it's a team game, and if we already have a talker, a know it all, and a scouter, a rogue that kinda does all of those just brings weaknesses to the party.
And its the game or systems fault for you wanting to play a role that is already filled?

It is when other classes can do your role AND theirs without going out of their way to do so.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:

Since when did the game need to be balanced....[...]

if [...] one person is taking the spot light it is your job as the DM to "balance" the game.

Under what other circumstances is this kind of nonsense acceptable?

If I go to the dentist and he drills the wrong tooth, it's not my job to fill the cavities he missed.

If I go to the mechanic and he forgets to re-attach the cylinder head, it's not my job to put it back on.

If I go to a restaurant and get served raw chicken, it's not my job to go back into the kitchen and cook it all the way through.

If I get onto an airplane and the pilot doesn't know how to find San Bernadino, it's not my job to navigate.

If I hire a carpenter and he forgets the fourth leg of my table, it's not my job to work the lathe.

1. No matter who your dentist is, he is more likely to find cavities if you point out where you are having tooth pain. If you do NOT point out where you may be having tooth pain, and he misses it because you said nothing...I think you would be to blame.

2. If you have a car problem and don't explain or describe it to the mechanic, if they fix something, but it isn't what was what you saw as the car trouble...I think you would be to blame.

3. If you go to the restaurant, but don't tell them what you want to eat, if you don't get any food, it's probably your fault.

4. If you go to get on an airplane, but don't check to see where it is going, or where it is headed, or if it is multi-stop and don't get off at your stop, I'd say you are to blame if you don't end up where you are supposed to.

5. If you hire a carpenter and don't really explain what you want...who's fault is it if you get a chair instead of a table in the first place. Of course, you might not have to pay him for it in that case...

In all those situations, with all those occupations, your own personal responsibility is not done away with simply because they are professionals.

They can't read minds, nor tailor things to your liking without your input.

The DM can, but only with your input. The writers are not...however...your DM.

Not that this matters anyways...as the conversation in this topic has gone more towards power levels and everything else.

Of course, if you start talking about ridiculous things like wizards flying as high as they can with magically miniaturized lava balls to try to hit a target (with the wizards BAB of all things) at long range on an Anti-Magic Shell/field to try to by pass it...

Well...then we already know the conversation was won by the guys with the AMF in the first place...because once again...you are getting into ridiculous territory when you allow a wizard that much leeway that they can cast all those spells and do all that stuff while everyone waits for the spellcaster to do that.

Luckily we aren't to THAT point yet, though.

I do think there is some imbalance in Pathfinder.

Personally, I LIKE the imbalance in that light. At lower levels, wizards are very easily killed. At higher levels, they are powers that no one else really can match. I like it like that.

However, for party balance...I actually think that's the DM's job as well. The players responsibility is to play nice and well with each other (there is no I in team).

It would stink being a wizard and only being able to do 7d8 damage and move your opponent 2 squares (4e reference) at 20th level.

I LIKE the wizard being super powerful. Despite how much I disagree with a lot of Anzyr's ideas at times (where the wizard is the DM's favorite and gets all the time in the world to plan things out and knows exactly what spell to have when type ideas of theory spellcasting)...I DO actually agree with him on one major point...at least past level 5. (and perhaps Anzyr would be surprised by this).

Spellcasters and wizards DO rule the game power wise, and wizards are extremely versatile if you want them to be.

Frankly, I like that in Pathfinder. I enjoy that wizards can be all that a wizard should be...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
I dont think paizo ever promised us a balanced Table top RPG. they provided a high fantasy magic rpg were magic is powerful. if you do not like the way they...

Actually, they present Pathfinder as a system where a fight against a 10th-level classed NPC is a CR 9 encounter regardless of whether the NPC is a fighter, rogue, cleric, or wizard. That's the Pathfinder promise.

Want to know what the Pathfinder reality is?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Trogdar wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
Trogdar wrote:


Arguing from bad faith.

Honestly do not know what you mean by that or are getting at.

i sated how i read his post so that if i did misinterpret what he said i want him to correct me.

either add something to the discussion or don't comment.

The first paragraph of your last post is preposterous on its face. Literally no one on these forums would come to that conclusion because to get there, you have to know nothing about the games mechanics.

You can't missenterpret on that scale by accident. Therefore, your arguing in bad faith.

Quite the opposite, i got there quite logically, He said non-spell DPR i took that to mean the wizard is casting no spells at all to increase or deal damage. i stated what i thought he meant clearly and voiced my thoughts on the matter, when presented with an alternative to what he said i then also voiced my thoughts on that matter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
yes the casters will have more in the strengths column but the rogue will have some skill or abilities that the casters did not have.
in a 1v1, yes the rogue would beat a fair number of classes at some skill or another, but, like you said, it's a team game, and if we already have a talker, a know it all, and a scouter, a rogue that kinda does all of those just brings weaknesses to the party.
And its the game or systems fault for you wanting to play a role that is already filled?

What role is there left for the rogue to fill? If there is no role for the rogue to fill, yes it's the systems fault, I'm wanting to play the rogue class, and if there's no role for the rogue class to fill then they shouldn't offer it as a class that fills a role of the party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
I dont think paizo ever promised us a balanced Table top RPG. they provided a high fantasy magic rpg were magic is powerful. if you do not like the way they...

Actually, they present Pathfinder as a system where a fight against a 10th-level classed NPC is a CR 9 encounter regardless of whether the NPC is a fighter, rogue, cleric, or wizard. That's the Pathfinder promise.

Want to know what the Pathfinder reality is?

Extremely situationally dependent?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:

Since when did the game need to be balanced....[...]

if [...] one person is taking the spot light it is your job as the DM to "balance" the game.

Under what other circumstances is this kind of nonsense acceptable?

If I go to the dentist and he drills the wrong tooth, it's not my job to fill the cavities he missed.

If I go to the mechanic and he forgets to re-attach the cylinder head, it's not my job to put it back on.

If I go to a restaurant and get served raw chicken, it's not my job to go back into the kitchen and cook it all the way through.

If I get onto an airplane and the pilot doesn't know how to find San Bernadino, it's not my job to navigate.

If I hire a carpenter and he forgets the fourth leg of my table, it's not my job to work the lathe.

1. No matter who your dentist is, he is more likely to find cavities if you point out where you are having tooth pain. If you do NOT point out where you may be having tooth pain, and he misses it because you said nothing...I think you would be to blame.

2. If you have a car problem and don't explain or describe it to the mechanic, if they fix something, but it isn't what was what you saw as the car trouble...I think you would be to blame.

3. If you go to the restaurant, but don't tell them what you want to eat, if you don't get any food, it's probably your fault.

4. If you go to get on an airplane, but don't check to see where it is going, or where it is headed, or if it is multi-stop and don't get off at your stop, I'd say you are to blame if you don't end up where you are supposed to.

5. If you hire a carpenter and don't really explain what you want...who's fault is it if you get a chair instead of a table in the first place. Of course, you might not have to pay him for it in that case...

In all those situations, with all those occupations, your own personal responsibility is not done away with simply because they are
...

And again, the GM is the dentist, not the patient

The GM is the Mechanic, not the owner of the car
The GM is the chef, not the diner
The gm is the pilot, not the passenger
The gm is the carpenter, not the customer.

The gm is the one taking the raw materials (pathfinder) and turning it into the finished product (their campaign) If you keep serving raw chicken, maybe its time to tamper with your cook times or the level of heat you're applying.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
yes the casters will have more in the strengths column but the rogue will have some skill or abilities that the casters did not have.
in a 1v1, yes the rogue would beat a fair number of classes at some skill or another, but, like you said, it's a team game, and if we already have a talker, a know it all, and a scouter, a rogue that kinda does all of those just brings weaknesses to the party.
And its the game or systems fault for you wanting to play a role that is already filled?
What role is there left for the rogue to fill? If there is no role for the rogue to fill, yes it's the systems fault, I'm wanting to play the rogue class, and if there's no role for the rogue class to fill then they shouldn't offer it as a class that fills a role of the party.

If you have 1 class that is able to completely cover your role plus theirs without issue then there is a problem,

when you have 3 classes that are able to overlap their abilities cover the majority if not all your roles that you want to fill that is not a system issue.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
Trogdar wrote:


Arguing from bad faith.

Honestly do not know what you mean by that or are getting at.

i sated how i read his post so that if i did misinterpret what he said i want him to correct me.

either add something to the discussion or don't comment.

The first paragraph of your last post is preposterous on its face. Literally no one on these forums would come to that conclusion because to get there, you have to know nothing about the games mechanics.

You can't missenterpret on that scale by accident. Therefore, your arguing in bad faith.

Quite the opposite, i got there quite logically, He said non-spell DPR i took that to mean the wizard is casting no spells at all to increase or deal damage. i stated what i thought he meant clearly and voiced my thoughts on the matter, when presented with an alternative to what he said i then also voiced my thoughts on that matter.

When you argue in good faith, you interpret arguments in the best possible light. You already know that a wizard can't fight in melee without using spells. If you are arguing in good faith, then you discard that interpretation and move to the actual argument being made.

Just trying to keep the rhetoric on track.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
In all honesty what is the point of this?
You can't change a culture without exposing the problems you see in it.

It's not exactly an obscure issue. How many martial vs caster disparity threads are there? How often has anyone actually changed the mind of someone? Not to mention, at least on the "Disparity is bad and a serious problem" side, its always the same group of people

50 million caster vs martial threads really won't change a thing at all. The only things that will are to support solutions that reduce this issue and games where it is less apparent, or encouraging boycott of classes in PFS. If PFS reports that no one plays fighters, than fighters will probably get addressed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:

If you have 1 class that is able to completely cover your role plus theirs without issue then there is a problem,

when you have 3 classes that are able to overlap their abilities cover the majority if not all your roles that you want to fill that is not a system issue.

And we have several classes that are able to completely cover the roles of other classes plus theirs without issue. That is what we are saying. -.-

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Trogdar wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
Trogdar wrote:


Arguing from bad faith.

Honestly do not know what you mean by that or are getting at.

i sated how i read his post so that if i did misinterpret what he said i want him to correct me.

either add something to the discussion or don't comment.

The first paragraph of your last post is preposterous on its face. Literally no one on these forums would come to that conclusion because to get there, you have to know nothing about the games mechanics.

You can't missenterpret on that scale by accident. Therefore, your arguing in bad faith.

Quite the opposite, i got there quite logically, He said non-spell DPR i took that to mean the wizard is casting no spells at all to increase or deal damage. i stated what i thought he meant clearly and voiced my thoughts on the matter, when presented with an alternative to what he said i then also voiced my thoughts on that matter.

When you argue in good faith, you interpret arguments in the best possible light. You already know that a wizard can't fight in melee without using spells. If you are arguing in good faith, then you discard that interpretation and move to the actual argument being made.

Just trying to keep the rhetoric on track.

Ah ok cool, i actually didn't know what arguing in good faith or bad faith actually meant, thank you for clarifying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sure, an oracle or druid can do a lot of what the rogue does. But what if I don't want to play an oracle or a druid? I don't know. Can't I just play a rogue, then? If I'm worried about being overshadowed or whatever, can't I just do something else, or talk to my fellow players and see if we can work it out? I've never had these problems with groups. There've always been opportunities for everyone. Sounds like the problems aren't with the characters so much as the players and/or GM.

That doesn't mean the game isn't broken, of course, but a lot of these complaints seem totally situational and completely ignore roleplaying concerns in favor solely of the numbers. I'm kind of naive about it, I guess.

Does Unchained help matters any? I've heard people rave about the rogue especially in that book, but I never have picked it up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marvin Ghey wrote:
Sure, an oracle or druid can do a lot of what the rogue does. But what if I don't want to play an oracle or a druid? I don't know. Can't I just play a rogue, then? If I'm worried about being overshadowed or whatever, can't I just do something else, or talk to my fellow players and see if we can work it out? I've never had these problems with groups. There've always been opportunities for everyone. Sounds like the problems aren't with the characters so much as the players and/or GM.

This argument can be made with the commoner class.

Quote:
That doesn't mean the game isn't broken, of course, but a lot of these complaints seem totally situational and completely ignore roleplaying concerns in favor solely of the numbers. I'm kind of naive about it, I guess.

In my experience it's often actually people who want to roleplay classes like rogues, but are disappointed at how useless they are if they end up playing on compared to a class like slayer/inquisitor/investigator.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marvin Ghey wrote:

Sure, an oracle or druid can do a lot of what the rogue does. But what if I don't want to play an oracle or a druid? I don't know. Can't I just play a rogue, then? If I'm worried about being overshadowed or whatever, can't I just do something else, or talk to my fellow players and see if we can work it out? I've never had these problems with groups. There've always been opportunities for everyone. Sounds like the problems aren't with the characters so much as the players and/or GM.

That doesn't mean the game isn't broken, of course, but a lot of these complaints seem totally situational and completely ignore roleplaying concerns in favor solely of the numbers. I'm kind of naive about it, I guess.

Does Unchained help matters any? I've heard people rave about the rogue especially in that book, but I never have picked it up.

You can work anything out through discourse, but if you need large quantities of the rare metal handwavium, then why have rules at all?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:


The fighter also can continue to fight at full capacity well after the wizard has cast all his spells. the wizard is only as powerful as his spell list is prepared to be, and after a dozen or so spells, 12 rounds or 2 minutes of casting, the wizard is significantly weaker and has less options to accomplish his goal while a fighter can keep going at full strength for 8 hours without issue, that's 4,800 rounds, the wizard would run out of spells well before that if casting spells every round, he would have about 45-50 spells in total which the vast majority of them being level 1-4 spells which at high levels are almost useless in combat situations

Several huge flaws to that argument.

1. Ignores that the fighter would die after fighting for 8 hours against anything which is at all a challenge.

2. Falsely assumes that all wizard spells only last 1 round.

3. Falsely assumes that any game would have more than 50 rounds of combat in a single day outside of extreme cases.

4. Falsely claims that level 1-4 spells are useless in high level combat. (Haste is useless? Mirror Image is useless? Image spells are useless? >.<)

Everyone forgets that even martial characters have a very specific finite resource that gets used up by virtue of engaging in combat - hit points. Yes, technically the fighter and the rogue can do their things all day, but only until the HP count reaches zero.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
Marvin Ghey wrote:
Sure, an oracle or druid can do a lot of what the rogue does. But what if I don't want to play an oracle or a druid? I don't know. Can't I just play a rogue, then? If I'm worried about being overshadowed or whatever, can't I just do something else, or talk to my fellow players and see if we can work it out? I've never had these problems with groups. There've always been opportunities for everyone. Sounds like the problems aren't with the characters so much as the players and/or GM.

This argument can be made with the commoner class.

Quote:
That doesn't mean the game isn't broken, of course, but a lot of these complaints seem totally situational and completely ignore roleplaying concerns in favor solely of the numbers. I'm kind of naive about it, I guess.
In my experience it's often actually people who want to roleplay classes like rogues, but are disappointed at how useless they are if they end up playing on compared to a class like slayer/inquisitor/investigator.

But the commoner class is actually made to be a weak class. and not a class made for a player character, Hence why it is called and NPC class...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
yes the casters will have more in the strengths column but the rogue will have some skill or abilities that the casters did not have.
in a 1v1, yes the rogue would beat a fair number of classes at some skill or another, but, like you said, it's a team game, and if we already have a talker, a know it all, and a scouter, a rogue that kinda does all of those just brings weaknesses to the party.
And its the game or systems fault for you wanting to play a role that is already filled?
What role is there left for the rogue to fill? If there is no role for the rogue to fill, yes it's the systems fault, I'm wanting to play the rogue class, and if there's no role for the rogue class to fill then they shouldn't offer it as a class that fills a role of the party.

If you have 1 class that is able to completely cover your role plus theirs without issue then there is a problem,

when you have 3 classes that are able to overlap their abilities cover the majority if not all your roles that you want to fill that is not a system issue.

Archeologist bard, Bard, alchemist, Crypt Breaker alchemist, Trap Breaker alchemist, investigator, ranger, Trapper ranger, Urban Ranger, slayer, Seeker oracle, Seeker sorcerer, Sanctified Slayer Inqisitor, Wizard, Arcanist, Occultist, witch.

Depending on what you're wanting from a rogue these classes have you covered. Many can do everything you could want from a rouge, plus more. Some cover most of what you'd want, but provide a lot more in other areas.

Guess you now believe there is a problem right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
But the commoner class is actually made to be a weak class. and not a class made for a player character, Hence why it is called and NPC class...

That's my point.

If your justification for a class being a valid PC class applies equally to the worst NPC class, your justification is rather poor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Marvin Ghey wrote:
Sure, an oracle or druid can do a lot of what the rogue does. But what if I don't want to play an oracle or a druid? I don't know. Can't I just play a rogue, then? If I'm worried about being overshadowed or whatever, can't I just do something else, or talk to my fellow players and see if we can work it out? I've never had these problems with groups. There've always been opportunities for everyone. Sounds like the problems aren't with the characters so much as the players and/or GM.

This argument can be made with the commoner class.

Quote:
That doesn't mean the game isn't broken, of course, but a lot of these complaints seem totally situational and completely ignore roleplaying concerns in favor solely of the numbers. I'm kind of naive about it, I guess.
In my experience it's often actually people who want to roleplay classes like rogues, but are disappointed at how useless they are if they end up playing on compared to a class like slayer/inquisitor/investigator.
But the commoner class is actually made to be a weak class. and not a class made for a player character, Hence why it is called and NPC class...

And there was a thread a few months ago where some people decided that an NPC adept class or Warrior class would be more useful to a party than a rogue would be.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Chess Pwn wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
yes the casters will have more in the strengths column but the rogue will have some skill or abilities that the casters did not have.
in a 1v1, yes the rogue would beat a fair number of classes at some skill or another, but, like you said, it's a team game, and if we already have a talker, a know it all, and a scouter, a rogue that kinda does all of those just brings weaknesses to the party.
And its the game or systems fault for you wanting to play a role that is already filled?
What role is there left for the rogue to fill? If there is no role for the rogue to fill, yes it's the systems fault, I'm wanting to play the rogue class, and if there's no role for the rogue class to fill then they shouldn't offer it as a class that fills a role of the party.

If you have 1 class that is able to completely cover your role plus theirs without issue then there is a problem,

when you have 3 classes that are able to overlap their abilities cover the majority if not all your roles that you want to fill that is not a system issue.

Archeologist bard, Bard, alchemist, Crypt Breaker alchemist, Trap Breaker alchemist, investigator, ranger, Trapper ranger, Urban Ranger, slayer, Seeker oracle, Seeker sorcerer, Sanctified Slayer Inqisitor, Wizard, Arcanist, Occultist, witch.

Depending on what you're wanting from a rogue these classes have you covered. Many can do everything you could want from a rouge, plus more. Some cover most of what you'd want, but provide a lot more in other areas.

Guess you now believe there is a problem right?

1v1 these classes may cover alot of the aspects of the rogue but not a single one covers every aspect of the rogue, I should clarify right now, I am comparing Unchained rogue as that is the latest iteration of the rogue. the only ones i actually have experience playing from this list is the Archeologist bard, rogue and ranger.

The A.bard covered alot of the skills the rogue would in are party since we were missing a rogue and also did cover some spellcasting since we were missing an arcane caster for half the game, but the A.bard sucked at combat, a rogue would have been significantly better at combat then the A.bard. and i couldnt even use anything to boost my allies like a normal bard, he was purely only useful outside of combat. the cleric, and eventual wizard never could match my knowledge checks or skill checks on anything but would continuously outdo me in combat.

The ranger better at combat and tracking but not as good at stealth or have the skill versatility of a rogue. the ranger could cast divine spells from a limited list and use scrolls and wands without skill checks which is nice but the rogue could spec to become a better damage dealer with dervish dance, TWF, Imp feint ect to get more sneak attacks and the debuffs from sneak attacks will help allies more then the ranger could debuff with spells or abilities.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder LO Special Edition, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
But the commoner class is actually made to be a weak class. and not a class made for a player character, Hence why it is called and NPC class...

That's my point.

If your justification for a class being a valid PC class applies equally to the worst NPC class, your justification is rather poor.

What?

The NPC class was intentionally made weak, it is in all aspects weaker then a base class.

The commoner brings absolutely nothing to the table, it has the BaB of a wizard and the worst saves in the game. without adding anything to make up for it like spell casting or combat prowess.

do you want the NPC clases to be on par to base classes or do you want the base classes to be on par with the NPC classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Shadowlords wrote:
But the commoner class is actually made to be a weak class. and not a class made for a player character, Hence why it is called and NPC class...

That's my point.

If your justification for a class being a valid PC class applies equally to the worst NPC class, your justification is rather poor.

What?

The NPC class was intentionally made weak, it is in all aspects weaker then a base class.

The commoner brings absolutely nothing to the table, it has the BaB of a wizard and the worst saves in the game. without adding anything to make up for it like spell casting or combat prowess.

do you want the NPC clases to be on par to base classes or do you want the base classes to be on par with the NPC classes.

Someone said that the rogue was fine, you just had to talk to the rest of the party and the GM to make sure that you weren't overshadowed or killed.

That was compared to you being able to do the same thing and replace commoner with rogue.
And that if the only way to play a rogue is to have everyone else not overshadow it then it's weaker that all the other base classes and should be considered an NPC class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowlords wrote:
1v1 these classes may cover alot of the aspects of the rogue but not a single one covers every aspect of the rogue, I should clarify right now, I am comparing Unchained rogue as that is the latest iteration of the rogue. the only ones i actually have experience playing from this list is the Archeologist bard, rogue and ranger.

So, I'm glad you said you were comparing to the URogue. I was not, so that was good that you clarified that when you were saying Rogue you really mean URogue. Now I'll continue on comparing to the URogue since that's what you were thinking of. But, the fact that Rogue is in Core, still presented as a legit class, it really should be able to stand up on it's own too.

But the URogue is a much better combatant than the Rogue is and a completely viable class. While I feel the Urogue is still weak, it at least has a reason to exist.

Shadowlords wrote:
The A.bard covered alot of the skills the rogue would in are party since we were missing a rogue and also did cover some spellcasting since we were missing an arcane caster for half the game, but the A.bard sucked at combat, a rogue would have been significantly better at combat then the A.bard. and i couldnt even use anything to boost my allies like a normal bard, he was purely only useful outside of combat. the cleric, and eventual wizard never could match my knowledge checks or skill checks on anything but would continuously outdo me in combat.

To me, if you feel the the Archeologist is a worse combatant than a rogue would have been you obviously built the guy to suck at combat on purpose. Let me guess, you had low str and super high int and cha? Yeah, those aren't needed. archeologist with a trait is getting +2 to attack and damage and saves as a swift action. Go for an 18 str and you have a +6 to hit for 1d8+8~12.5 at lv1. the rogue is doing +4 for 1d8+0 or 1 and maybe 1d6~9.

lv5, bard is now at least +11 for 1d8+9~13.5 to the rogue that is +8 for 1d8+6~10.5 to 1d8+6+3d6~21. So DPR is ~6 for rogue, ~10 for bard, and ~12 for sneak attack rogue. So average case our bard is out DPR the rogue, and is better at all the rogue skills than the rogue.

Shadowlords wrote:
The ranger better at combat and tracking but not as good at stealth or have the skill versatility of a rogue. the ranger could cast divine spells from a limited list and use scrolls and wands without skill checks which is nice but the rogue could spec to become a better damage dealer with dervish dance, TWF, Imp feint ect to get more sneak attacks and the debuffs from sneak attacks will help allies more then the ranger could debuff with spells or abilities.

Um... A ranger is far better than a rogue at skills. stealth? Rogue has 0 bonuses, rangers have bonuses in their favored terrain. So if the ranger is trying, he'd be better at all the dex skills than the rogue, again while being better at combat.

The only thing that the URogue really has going for it is it's dex to damage and Debilitating strike. As I said above URogue is a viable class and puts up a much better contest against some classes. But the investigator, especially an empiricist, has it completely beat still. Yes it still doesn't have debilitating strike, but being able to kill things super quick is the best help.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*twitches*


Grey Lensman wrote:
Everyone forgets that even martial characters have a very specific finite resource that gets used up by virtue of engaging in combat - hit points. Yes, technically the fighter and the rogue can do their things all day, but only until the HP count reaches zero.

It's much, much easier and cheaper to restore HP between combats compared to spell slots.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well I knew this thread was going to turn to nonsense. Who cares about balance? Balance is not on the top ten list of things that make a game great. People can choose any class they want; when you have a ton of classes, some of them will stop shining. Doesn't mean you can't build a fun rogue-like character with another class nor does it mean you can't play a rogue.

It's all a matter of party composition. A rogue might feel useless if the party is composed of a slayer, bard, and ranger; but correspondingly more useful with a wizard, fighter, and cleric. The key to balance is just making certain you're contributing to the party. There is no need to balance the classes, it wouldn't even be comprehensible to do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
_Ozy_ wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Everyone forgets that even martial characters have a very specific finite resource that gets used up by virtue of engaging in combat - hit points. Yes, technically the fighter and the rogue can do their things all day, but only until the HP count reaches zero.
It's much, much easier and cheaper to restore HP between combats compared to spell slots.

Ability Damage, Disease, Poison, Curses and getting banished to another plane of existance is somewhat more difficult however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marvin Ghey wrote:

Sure, an oracle or druid can do a lot of what the rogue does. But what if I don't want to play an oracle or a druid? I don't know. Can't I just play a rogue, then? If I'm worried about being overshadowed or whatever, can't I just do something else, or talk to my fellow players and see if we can work it out? I've never had these problems with groups. There've always been opportunities for everyone. Sounds like the problems aren't with the characters so much as the players and/or GM.

That doesn't mean the game isn't broken, of course, but a lot of these complaints seem totally situational and completely ignore roleplaying concerns in favor solely of the numbers. I'm kind of naive about it, I guess.

Does Unchained help matters any? I've heard people rave about the rogue especially in that book, but I never have picked it up.

No, see, this is exactly why the disparity matters. I hate playing casters! Especially full casters are the complete antithesis of my aesthetic. I want to play the big scary orc lady that smashes stuff with her hammer, or the suave swashbuckling half-elf that'll steal your purse as she seduces your wife.

The problem is that, outside of a very small number of cases (just the Barbarian, really) doing what I want to do and actually being good at what I want to do are not both possible at the same time. If you don't like spellcasting like me, you're resigning yourself to being a weak link on the team. That's bull s*~+. People who like spellcasting don't have to worry about that.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Marvin Ghey wrote:

Sure, an oracle or druid can do a lot of what the rogue does. But what if I don't want to play an oracle or a druid? I don't know. Can't I just play a rogue, then? If I'm worried about being overshadowed or whatever, can't I just do something else, or talk to my fellow players and see if we can work it out? I've never had these problems with groups. There've always been opportunities for everyone. Sounds like the problems aren't with the characters so much as the players and/or GM.

That doesn't mean the game isn't broken, of course, but a lot of these complaints seem totally situational and completely ignore roleplaying concerns in favor solely of the numbers. I'm kind of naive about it, I guess.

Does Unchained help matters any? I've heard people rave about the rogue especially in that book, but I never have picked it up.

No, see, this is exactly why the disparity matters. I hate playing casters! Especially full casters are the complete antithesis of my aesthetic. I want to play the big scary orc lady that smashes stuff with her hammer, or the suave swashbuckling half-elf that'll steal your purse as she seduces your wife.

The problem is that, outside of a very small number of cases (just the Barbarian, really) doing what I want to do and actually being good at what I want to do are not both possible at the same time. If you don't like spellcasting like me, you're resigning yourself to being a weak link on the team. That's bull s@+#. People who like spellcasting don't have to worry about that.

I guess I just don't get it, as that simply hasn't been my experience with the game. As someone who plays rogues and fighters. Sorry.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Well I knew this thread was going to turn to nonsense. Who cares about balance? Balance is not on the top ten list of things that make a game great. People can choose any class they want; when you have a ton of classes, some of them will stop shining. Doesn't mean you can't build a fun rogue-like character with another class nor does it mean you can't play a rogue.

It's all a matter of party composition. A rogue might feel useless if the party is composed of a slayer, bard, and ranger; but correspondingly more useful with a wizard, fighter, and cleric. The key to balance is just making certain you're contributing to the party. There is no need to balance the classes, it wouldn't even be comprehensible to do so.

A rogue is just as likely to feel useless in the second party than the first unless the group is trying to build stereotypes on purpose. Slayer, bard, and ranger may all do rogue things at least as well as a rogue does - but the party would at least all be rogue-like and can act together. In the second party suddenly the wizard is with the rogue in any scouting, and still marginalizing the fighter even without meaning to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why would the wizard waste spells on traps, invisibility and silence if there is a rogue in the party. It is a waste of resources.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
Why would the wizard waste spells on traps, invisibility and silence if there is a rogue in the party. It is a waste of resources.

A lot of balance complaints between classes stem from a position of the party being in competition with one another. While its certainly something that DOES happen, I'm relatively sure that the game wasn't created with the idea that one member of the party would go out of their way to beat others at their own niche when that niche was covered.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

So I woke up and found 100+ extra posts on this thread.

Arachnofiend wrote:

I had an experience recently (that I've brought up before, but will bring up again because it's a really good example) where my Rogue's investment in stealth was completely and utterly invalidated by an Alarm spell because there is no mundane way to detect it.

So here I am, trying to play a Rogue and believing that I had done a good job at covering all my bases and finally making a Rogue properly work. But no, the game had to remind me that casting is always dominant and if you don't have it you're cursed to suck. And I don't want to hear anything about my GM "intentionally screwing me over", this was a published AP and Alarm is a first level spell while our party was in the span where 4th level is readily available.

We ran several campaigns where the premise (set in Eberron) was the PCs were covert operatives for the Brelish Citadel. In the first, we made characters with splashed rogue or ranger levels and lots of ranks in Stealth and chewed glass getting through the module (Red Hand of Doom, which I own and find somewhat overrated). In the second we ditched the concept of doing rogue-like characters and instead went for a mostly caster party and obliterated the module (Eyes of the Lich Queen - A horrible module that I sincerely recommend never to spend money or time upon).

Stealth is irrelevant next to a combo of fly, animal growth, invisibility sphere and zone of silence. Especially if someone is playing a druid whose animal companion took Int for their stat boosts to break the normal limit of 2 and become able to have ranks in any skill. The huge magical stealth bomber wolf pretty much trumps anything a rogue could ever dream of achieving.

Skills are supposed to be a method for characters to interact meaningfully with the world outside of combat, and in 3.5/Pathfinder core, Magic trumps Skill.

Combat Balance: Consumes a lot of time at the table. Even social-heavy games still tend to include combat, and more dungeon-crawl games are mostly combat. So if such a huge proportion of everyone's time is spent fighting things, it is pretty logical for everyone to want to contribute meaningfully, yes?

Most classes (i.e. not the rogue) are capable of dealing decent damage in combat - the issue Fighters (in particular) have isn't raw DPR, but rather the lack of options and flexibility as you have to specialize to be competent, whereas casters do not, especially prepared casters.

The Unchained Rogue:
Is... better, but still inflexible, immobile and... bad. To capitalize on Sneak Attack you pretty much must go the TWF route, and while that does give you reasonable damage on paper if you hit, you get diddly squat to actually give you a decent attack roll - and that is actually where the rogue is most lacking. Dex-to-damage is nice, but unnecessary, what they need is more attack roll bonuses, which most other martials get (Weapon Training, Rage, Reckless Abandon, Smite, Favored Enemy etc) but rogues - the only one still with a lower BAB - do not.

Add to that the rogue, who stylistically is supposed to be a mobile and agile combatant, is among the most crippled by not being able to full attack, and it's a bit harsh.

Noncombat: This is where the martials wear thin, as the Skills are heavily restricted in what they can achieve, whereas spells are not.

Want to help defend a town? Well, let's see...

  • The Wizard can fabricate siege engines, build fortifications with wall of stone or transmute rock to mud, or on the day lay down wall of fire to break up the enemy attack.
  • The cleric can create water at-will to help endure siege, remove disease, purify contaminated food or water sources, interrogate insurgents or spies with zone of truth, cure the injured, lesser restoration the weary, and never forget laying down blade barrier to obliterate entire regiments.
  • The Fighter, the consummate man-at-arms and soldier can... Erm.... Fight?

Okay, theoretically the fighter could train (via the Retraining rules) commoners into fighters. But so could any fighter of 1st level or higher, as long as they had the cash to fuel it (which a wizard or cleric could supply, if so inclined), so it really isn't a point either way.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Nohwear wrote:
I do have to wonder, is Pathfinder's balance issue, however big or small it may be, the result of trying to be so customizable? Is this really an innate problem with trying to offer people a lot of options to customize their game? Rather Paizo could do better is still a matter of debate to me.
No, 99% of the problem is backwards compatibility. Pathfinder's problem are largely carried over from 3.5, and it has taken YEARS for Paizo to feel comfortable raising the power level beyond that of the Core Fighter. People are too quick to call "power creep" on options that are better than existing options that suck, and that's why Fighters can't have nice things.

Bingo.

The majority of the "Magic Trumps Physics" spells are in the Core Rulebook because they are grandfathered in from earlier editions.

The thing is... in earlier editions the game wasn't intended to be played past 10th-12th level, and most races had level caps to actually stop characters progressing past that point. 6th-9th level spells were mostly expensive devices you found as scrolls, not spells that were intended to be cast by PCs. It's why you go from trivial amounts of healing (seriously, 2d8 healing was a 3rd level spell for a cleric) to "heal to full" as a 6th level spell.

But when 3rd edition was released, despite ditching the old THAC0 system, introducing the concept of full-attack actions, iterative attack penalties (didn't exist in 2nd ed), completely changing how Attribute modifiers worked, completely reworking the old percentile skill system and increasing all weapon damage by an order of magnitude (yes, really)... all the old favourite spells from 2nd edition were kept largely as-is, or simply adapted to the new mechanics.

Pathfinder cleaned a lot of the more blatant offenders up somewhat, but at its heart, the spellcasting system remains something of a disjointed mess... and fixing it isn't easy.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Marvin Ghey wrote:

Sure, an oracle or druid can do a lot of what the rogue does. But what if I don't want to play an oracle or a druid? I don't know. Can't I just play a rogue, then? If I'm worried about being overshadowed or whatever, can't I just do something else, or talk to my fellow players and see if we can work it out? I've never had these problems with groups. There've always been opportunities for everyone. Sounds like the problems aren't with the characters so much as the players and/or GM.

That doesn't mean the game isn't broken, of course, but a lot of these complaints seem totally situational and completely ignore roleplaying concerns in favor solely of the numbers. I'm kind of naive about it, I guess.

Does Unchained help matters any? I've heard people rave about the rogue especially in that book, but I never have picked it up.

No, see, this is exactly why the disparity matters. I hate playing casters! Especially full casters are the complete antithesis of my aesthetic. I want to play the big scary orc lady that smashes stuff with her hammer, or the suave swashbuckling half-elf that'll steal your purse as she seduces your wife.

Seconded.

As an aside:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The problem is that, outside of a very small number of cases (just the Barbarian, really) doing what I want to do and actually being good at what I want to do are not both possible at the same time. If you don't like spellcasting like me, you're resigning yourself to being a weak link on the team. That's bull s*%&. People who like spellcasting don't have to worry about that.

After dabbling in 5th edition (okay, so running 2 full APs in it, playing in 2 APs and running the latter section of a high-level homebrew game might count as more than dabbling...), and getting somewhat frustrated with the ideology of the system clashing heavily with my own GMing style, I'm looking at trying running a Pathfinder + Path of War + 25pt gen, but with virtually no spellcasters (PC or NPC). At all.

There's a couple of issues to overcome, but I don't think it's actually that hard:

  • Cheap(ish) healing tonics/balms to replace wand-spam
  • Automatic progression from Unchained to replace the magic item christmas tree
  • Ditch the base value and spellcasting services from settlements
  • Remove the immunity to weapons for swarms - replace immunity with "suffers 1/4 normal damage"
  • Include consumables that can remove negative levels, ability drain, ability damage etc.

I'm not sure to what degree this has been tried before. Mostly I've seen responses to the topic of non-caster Pathfinder focus on; "Don't, because you need a cleric to fix damage/disease/drain/conditions/etc"... but I don't think it's actually that difficult to provide methods of fixing ailments that aren't a party spellcaster.

But at this point I'm rambling, so will leave it there.


Raynulf wrote:

So I woke up and found 100+ extra posts on this thread.

Arachnofiend wrote:

I had an experience recently (that I've brought up before, but will bring up again because it's a really good example) where my Rogue's investment in stealth was completely and utterly invalidated by an Alarm spell because there is no mundane way to detect it.

So here I am, trying to play a Rogue and believing that I had done a good job at covering all my bases and finally making a Rogue properly work. But no, the game had to remind me that casting is always dominant and if you don't have it you're cursed to suck. And I don't want to hear anything about my GM "intentionally screwing me over", this was a published AP and Alarm is a first level spell while our party was in the span where 4th level is readily available.

We ran several campaigns where the premise (set in Eberron) was the PCs were covert operatives for the Brelish Citadel. In the first, we made characters with splashed rogue or ranger levels and lots of ranks in Stealth and chewed glass getting through the module (Red Hand of Doom, which I own and find somewhat overrated). In the second we ditched the concept of doing rogue-like characters and instead went for a mostly caster party and obliterated the module (Eyes of the Lich Queen - A horrible module that I sincerely recommend never to spend money or time upon).

Stealth is irrelevant next to a combo of fly, animal growth, invisibility sphere and zone of silence. Especially if someone is playing a druid whose animal companion took Int for their stat boosts to break the normal limit of 2 and become able to have ranks in any skill. The huge magical stealth bomber wolf pretty much trumps anything a rogue could ever dream of achieving.

Skills are supposed to be a method for characters to interact meaningfully with the world outside of combat, and in 3.5/Pathfinder core, Magic trumps Skill.

Combat Balance: Consumes a lot of time at the table....

Woof long post, for your "no caster" thing, consider chirurgeon Alchemists existing as an NPC option pruning their spell list to mostly heals and "enhancement drugs" and having them have to use them as part of "long term care" heal skill rolls.


I'm in a game with no divine or arcane casters.

An alchemist is our healer and the rest of us beatstick it up. It's certainly challenging and we just got a Psion for a little extra healing through the 1d10 heal power.

So far so good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The main balance issue in Pathfinder is the difference between the way magic and combat are managed.
To cast a spell, you need only a standard action, whatever level it is and with the right feat, you can even cast a second one in a swift action (level limited but very low levels spells exist).
To make a full attack, a melee character need a complex action, with a standard action, it can make only one attack, or initiate some specials movements (cleave, charge, vital strike...), in order to have an additionnal attack, it have to sacrifice some accuracy (Rapid Shot, TWF..) but only as a full attack, and in order to have an additionnal attack as a swift action he must first affect a target with a specific status (Hurtful)...
this means that a caster can move, cast a 1 to 5 level spell as a swift action, cast a spell as a standard action when a melee must only make a 5' step to have his full power in the same time...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Balance is generally not a huge issue from table to table because yeah, a GM can adjudicate things and houserule and change things around.

Where balance is important is when setting up a game. If my friends want to play a high op game with all sorts of crazy caster tricks.. I can't play a fighter, period. Or my friends have to play their characters downward and support more heavily in order to accommodate my character. There's a fundamental clash of styles the rules as written can't compensate for. Balance is important there because it ends up being a big limiting factor on what we can do.

Balance is probably also a good thing for tables where there isn't as much planning or organizaion. Society play can get pretty messy when someone brings a sword and board fighter and someone else brings a wizard loaded up with BFC and SoL. PFS generally deals with this by making encounters easy enough that the power gaps tend to matter less, but it can still suck being the guy who's only good at combat and getting overshadowed in combat by your party face and your knowledge guy etc.


Scavion wrote:

I'm in a game with no divine or arcane casters.

An alchemist is our healer and the rest of us beatstick it up. It's certainly challenging and we just got a Psion for a little extra healing through the 1d10 heal power.

So far so good.

I really really like the Alchemist as a class. In fact I'm working up a campaign based on the Lies of Locke Lamora series of novels that will be similarly low powered with the only real arcane casters being arcanists, who belong to this hypercontrolling guild or are murdered, and alchemists. Holy people being more like any of the spelless paladin archetypes, and a heavy focus on swashbuckler/fighter/rogue play.


Yondu wrote:

The main balance issue in Pathfinder is the difference between the way magic and combat are managed.

To cast a spell, you need only a standard action, whatever level it is and with the right feat, you can even cast a second one in a swift action (level limited but very low levels spells exist).
To make a full attack, a melee character need a complex action, with a standard action, it can make only one attack, or initiate some specials movements (cleave, charge, vital strike...), in order to have an additionnal attack, it have to sacrifice some accuracy (Rapid Shot, TWF..) but only as a full attack, and in order to have an additionnal attack as a swift action he must first affect a target with a specific status (Hurtful)...
this means that a caster can move, cast a 1 to 5 level spell as a swift action, cast a spell as a standard action when a melee must only make a 5' step to have his full power in the same time...

I must admit, 5th editions change to combat actions and attacks of opportunity is one I seriously approve of, as it turns combat from the static full-attack sequences of 3.5 to something much more fluid and mobile.

Whether it would be game breaking to allow movement and full attacks in Pathfinder is something that would require actual playtesting to determine. My guess (given Kirthfinder has something like this) would be not.


Raynulf wrote:
Yondu wrote:

The main balance issue in Pathfinder is the difference between the way magic and combat are managed.

To cast a spell, you need only a standard action, whatever level it is and with the right feat, you can even cast a second one in a swift action (level limited but very low levels spells exist).
To make a full attack, a melee character need a complex action, with a standard action, it can make only one attack, or initiate some specials movements (cleave, charge, vital strike...), in order to have an additionnal attack, it have to sacrifice some accuracy (Rapid Shot, TWF..) but only as a full attack, and in order to have an additionnal attack as a swift action he must first affect a target with a specific status (Hurtful)...
this means that a caster can move, cast a 1 to 5 level spell as a swift action, cast a spell as a standard action when a melee must only make a 5' step to have his full power in the same time...

I must admit, 5th editions change to combat actions and attacks of opportunity is one I seriously approve of, as it turns combat from the static full-attack sequences of 3.5 to something much more fluid and mobile.

Whether it would be game breaking to allow movement and full attacks in Pathfinder is something that would require actual playtesting to determine. My guess (given Kirthfinder has something like this) would be not.

I'd really like to see pounce more readily available.


The Sword wrote:
Why would the wizard waste spells on traps, invisibility and silence if there is a rogue in the party. It is a waste of resources.

Depending on the players at the table, it could well be to demonstrate that the rogue player should create a non-rogue character who is more useful to the party. Or it could simply be "because they can". I've gamed with people who do things like that. A lot.

I've also gamed with GMs who don't believe in pulling punches and with players who have no qualms with letting 1-2 characters bear the burden of surviving combat (literally, I've seen PCs run away from combat and hide until the worst was over). Thus, I've had a desire to see the other members of the party able and willing to pitch in meaningfully drilled into me over the years.

Honestly though, Rogue is a class you dip into to get the Trapfinding class feature and/or Evasion at best. Their 8+Int skill ranks isn't overly impressive when an Inquisitor or Ranger gets 6+Int skills and class abilities that are actually worth having.

151 to 200 of 633 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Is pathfinder becoming unbalanced? All Messageboards