Magic >> not-magic is ok, what bothers me is magical classes >> non-magical classes.
Could you elaborate? The above statement is very confusing to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic >> not-magic is ok, what bothers me is magical classes >> non-magical classes.I can even deal with that. It's when magical classes >> non-magical classes and the game pretends they don't. They're presented as equivalent options. There's no indication in the core rules that some are intended to be more powerful than others. When used as enemies, you get the same rewards from beating a fighter as beating a wizard - experience and treasure.
What? No... a King is most defiantly just as challenging to fight as an Adult red Dragon are you suggesting otherwise? /s
A better example is a great Wyrm Red Dragon. Level 19 Sorcerer, which by itself is CR 18, in addition to basically full martial levels (because dragon). And yet it's "only" CR 22, does that mean the entirety of the martial prowess of the dragon only counts for 4 CR?
Magic >> not-magic is ok, what bothers me is magical classes >> non-magical classes.Could you elaborate? The above statement is very confusing to me.
In fiction you can find powerful magic but they tend to have something that balance it. Some risk, some trade-off, or at least the better tricks are not something that can be done just by moving ones fingers or in a every-day basis, there are still room for mundane stuff to shine because magic will not solve everything at everytime you need it.
I'm ok with spider climb being better than climb, with flying being better than jumping. It's when a magic classes can decisively and consistently outperform non-magic classes that I have a problem.
Magic >> not-magic is ok, what bothers me is magical classes >> non-magical classes.Could you elaborate? The above statement is very confusing to me.In fiction you can find powerful magic but they tend to have something that balance it, some risk, some trade-off, or at least the better tricks are not something that can be done just by moving ones fingers or in a every-day basis, there are still room for mundane stuff to shine because magic will not solve everything at everytime you need it.
I'm ok with spider climb being better than climb, with flying being better than jumping. It's when a magic lass can decisively and consistently outperform non-magic classes that I have a problem.
OK Gotcha
Yeah in our parties the caster buff everyone not just themselves. It isn't casters vs fighters its supporting.
Also I also find it interesting that it changes into a casters vs fighters debate as if fighters were the only martials to play.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heck, let's take the whole "vital spot" question off the table entirely. A level 20 Fighter can also stroll right up to a Rhino and, without any assistance, wrestle it bodily to the ground and pin it there, with basically no difficulty at all. Like, literally only fail on a natural 1. Is that something you'd call "still within human capability"?
Just to put some numbers on the table:
* Here is Valeros (at level 12, not 20), a not-very-optimized fighter.
* Here is a rhino (a CR 4 animal).
1) The rhino's +8 attack will not touch Valeros' 29 AC without rolling a 20.
2) Valeros has a +17 CMB and hence needs only roll a 3 to grapple a (CMD 20) rhino (and only a 1 to maintain on subsequent rounds) [ETA at level 13, with no other modifications than the automatic increase in BAB, Valeros will max his ability to grapple the rhino.]
3) The rhino's +10 CMB will not get out of Valeros' CMD 34 grapple without rolling a 20.
4) Valeros is optimized for a longsword, not punching, but will still hit (+17 attack) the rhino's AC 16 on any roll but a 20.
Given the way hit point attrition works, Valeros could literally fall 200' or more, stand up, run over to a rhino and kill it with his bare hands. He's highly likely to be able to run over to rhino after rhino and slaughter them repeatedly.
This is supposed to be Aragorn? Or Madmartigan? Or d'Artagnan?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also I also find it interesting that it changes into a casters vs fighters debate as if fighters were the only martials to play.
"Fighter vs. Wizard" has the advantage of providing one of the starkest contrasts of martial vs. caster while also featuring quite likely the two most iconic classes in this sort of game.
Witch vs. Swashbuckler just doesn't have the same ring to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ALSO, BARBARIAN AM ALWAYS WINNER ANYWAY.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dr. D basically believes it doesn't kick in until 8th level spells at the earliest.
Meanwhile some of us see it rearing its ugly head as early as 2nd level spells.
To some extent it's a factor not only of the spells power which increases significantly each spell level, but also of the quantity of spells casters can use. When all they have are level 1 spells, there is a very real risk of "running out". And trying to buff in advance only makes that risk greater. By the time 2nd level spells roll around, most casters now have some good news toys and some spells to fall back on. They can budget some of their low level spells to buffs more easily.
This issue becomes exacerbated with each new spell level reached. Casters with 5th level spells literally have more spells per day than rounds of combat. By 7th tier spells they can blow multiple spells a round and be in no danger of hitting E. Not to mention their long duration buffs are getting stronger and more numerous since what else are they going to use those slots for?
Limited resources at first level really just encourages full-throttle optimization to avoid being caught out of spells and useless. The save-or-die availability just exacerbates the problem.
For example: I can have a 20 Intelligence 1st level Wizard who specializes in Illusion and carries an Arcane Focus Amulet. I can prepare 4 spells, chosing a mix of Cones of Save-or-Die and Illusionary Walls (with save DC 17). I can have a 5th spell which is spontaneously cast from any spell in my spellbook. When I don't want to burn a spell in combat, I can cast Ray of Blindness up to 8 times per day.
The problem starts at level 1. It changes into a different problem at higher levels, but it's always a problem.
In my opinion, what we really need to address is:
* Summoned Monsters -- Disposable meat shields
* Pets -- The martial class that is one of your class abilities
* Movement -- As a caster, you can fly, burrow, climb, or swim. Flying especially becomes a required movement method.
* Save or Die -- Why is this still a part of the system?
* Skill Replacement -- Charm Person vs Diplomacy. Invisibility vs Stealth.
The numbers could be altered taking into account Valero's Two weapon fighting feats and two weapon rend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The numbers could be altered taking into account Valero's Two weapon fighting feats and two weapon rend.
Wow. Valeros can literally rip a rhinoceros apart with his bare hands.
Given the way hit point attrition works, Valeros could literally fall 200' or more, stand up, run over to a rhino and kill it with his bare hands. He's highly likely to be able to run over to rhino after rhino and slaughter them repeatedly.Actually, without having Improved Unarmed Strike, Valeros will only be doing 1d3+5 points of nonlethal damage with each hit, averaging 7 points of nonlethal damage per hit (which will provoke, but that doesn't really matter). With a BAB of +12, that's going to be three hits per round on a full attack action. Given that a rhino has 42 hit points, that means that Valeros will need two full rounds of punching a rhino to knock it unconscious. After that, if he keeps whacking it, he'll kill it, since the nonlethal damage will be in excess of its full hit points.
As you point out, given Valeros' defenses, his actual attack doesn't matter much. With a +12 BAB and his strength bonus of +5, he can hit more or less at will, while being as immune to the rhino's counterattacks as the game permits. Since the rhino doesn't have DR, it doesn't really matter how much or how little damage he does -- he'll kill it eventually.
Although the fact that he can punch a rhino to death in a little over ten seconds is quite impressive.
But something else I'd like to stress, is that our touchstone fighter is not level 20, but level 12. A level 20 version of Valeros would be able to pick level 12 Valeros up like a rag doll and "puny god" him---he's [literally, at least according to CR] as far above Valeros in capacity as Valeros is above the rhino. (For example, level 20 Valeros will have at least a +27 to hit, which will essentially auto-hit AC 29.)
Valeros doesn't have Power Attack?!?* Here is Valeros (at level 12, not 20), a not-very-optimized fighter.
I did say he wasn't very optimized. I'm sure of that. (Actually, my understanding is that the iconics all suck by design, to encourage people to make their own characters.)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think a Fighter is approximately as useful in a level 20 party as a Wizard? I'm not asking if they're balanced, I'm saying approximately as useful.Yes.
Why? Because the point of a character is for the player to have fun. DPS, narrative control. Those things aren't important.
Do the majority of players who play them care? No. No they don't. A vocal minority of the most hardcore players care.
Level 20 is a level 19 out of 20 players never even legitimately see. There isn't even an AP that goes that high.
I don't need Fighters that are perfectly balanced to Wizards, what I want is for them to not feel redundant and useless. Right now they feel redundant and useless.
Are you opposed to making them unique and useful?
They ARE unique and useful. I've been in a handful of groups who've gotten that high. I enjoyed my Fighter. He was fun.
I was in a second game where we did it (started at 15 though) and Mike, the guy who played a Rogue, enjoyed his character.
Mike, for example, hates characters with too many options. He's a simple guy who has simple fun and be liked stealthing up to this GS and backstabbing them. Then circling mongoosing them for insane damage.
You are conflating "enjoyed the game" with "good design". A person can have a memorable, good time playing Candyland, that doesn't mean that Candyland is a well designed game (it's not). I have played poorly designed games and had a good time.
I'm not the "majority of players". If you want me to agree with you, you have to convince me. If you don't care about me agreeing/disagreeing with you, then don't bother to debate me.
Fighters aren't unique, and their usefulness can be replicated by other classes, and I don't just mean Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger. Wizards/Clerics/Summoners can easily use their magic to replicate anything necessary the Fighter provides. The Fighter isn't unique, because a) those other martials can do the same job, but better... and b) those spellcasters can also do the same job, plus much more, better.
These issues appear before level 20, but they are most visible at 20. I remember one AP, I was playing an Oracle (Battle) and another player was a Fighter. Yes, he did more damage than me, had a few more HP than me and his AC was slightly higher. But I was better at combat maneuvers (and more of them), could heal myself, remove negative conditions, heal others, control large areas of the battle field, buff the entire party, or super buff one person. I also had more ways to influence and control the world around us than he ever had. We both had fun, but it would have been really cool if he had more ways to influence the story via his own abilities, instead of just relying on GM charity.
Basically, your argument that the Fighter is equal is that GM's will be nice to players and favor them. I think that that is poor game design. If that is the solution, we don't need classes/mechanics for anything. Just describe your character and what they do, the GM will adjudicate it. You don't need a list of spells/feats from the book, the GM will tell you what you're capable of. You know that that is bullshit, but yet it is the argument you rely upon.
The Fighter/Wizard disparity is bad game design. You can BS and try to defend it if you want, but it won't change the fact that it's bad design. I playtest for several major RPG publishers and help ENnie winning designers workshop their games. If anyone put these two classes in front of me I would point out their poor design.
Why? Because the point of a character is for the player to have fun. DPS, narrative control. Those things aren't important.
Do the majority of players who play them care? No. No they don't. A vocal minority of the most hardcore players care.
Those things are important insofar as they are required for one's fun (which is the case for a non-zero number of players).
I'd like to bring up a counter question: would balanced classes ruin the fun of those who don't care about "DPS, narrative control...those things"? If so, how? If not, why not support people who want a more even playing field?
Same with "No vancian magic". The most vocal said they don't want vancian magic because it's nothing like how magic is in fantasy... the new system had the exact same issue, meaning they must of only listened to Part of most vocal opinion rather than actually listen to the rest of the sentence.
Roger Zelazny, Terry Pratchett, Lawrence Watt-Evans,Patricia C. Wrede, Diane Duane, Glen Cook and other fantasy greats use Vancian from time to time.
I have never seen "spellpoints' used. Mostly mages just get physically tired.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes.
Why? Because the point of a character is for the player to have fun. DPS, narrative control. Those things aren't important.
Yeah, the part when the fighter player have to check his facebook while the spellcasters are playing worldbuilding have to be tons of fun.
Some guy named Frank Trollman (who's written a lot of homebrew stuff for D&D 3.5 on just this topic) said this:Wow, that's brilliantly put, and encapsulates the inherent cognitive dissonance so well. Particularly so, since the things that the "Mad Martigan 'till 20" crowd want to preserve are... honestly, already lost in the current system when you really look at it. Just... without the actual balance to show for it.
If you play to 20, even in the current system you're no longer playing anything resembling Mad Martigan. Mad Martigan cannot hit a Rhinoceros so hard that it invokes the "chunky-salsa rule" from sheer damage and explodes, after the Rhino spends several rounds futilely trying and utterly failing to do the slightest bit of damage to him as he just stands there. (Much like that first Saitama clip, actually.) kyrt-rider is exactly right. It's a level question, not a class question.
If you really, truly do want to play an actual Mad Martigan or Aragorn through a whole campaign, an E6 campaign is a perfectly viable way to do so. But let's not limit level 20 by trying to have a foot in both worlds, providing a "realism" it--even now--doesn't actually provide.
No, it's a terrible article, and shows he doesnt play much Pathfinder.
Let's look at the martial classe, counting archetypes, etc
Barbarian- has supernatural abilities
Ranger- spells and supernatural abilities
Paladin- spells and supernatural abilities
Monk- spell-like and supernatural abilities
Eldritch Knight- spells and supernatural abilities
Bloodrager- spells and supernatural abilities
Hunters- spells and supernatural abilities
Warpriest- spells and supernatural abilities
Slayer- a few things, with archetypes and talents. Mostly mundane.
inquisitor-spells and supernatural abilities
Gunslinger- mostly mundane, but their guns are crazy powerful
Samuri and Cavalier- a few things, with archetypes and talents. Mostly mundane.
Magus- spells, etc
Yes, that does leave the Fighter- 100% mundane*.
There are like 35 classes in Pathfinder. THIRTYFIVE!! Some few people really want a 100% "mundane class". Ok, then, let them have one. There are 34 other classes, and quite a few martial classes with spells, supernatural abilities and so forth.
and this doesnt even count Mythic. Shatter Spells, Titan's Rage, etc.
So, if there is a "Mad Martigan 'till 20 crowd" then let them have their one class. Why not?
*iirc a couple archetypes have a little
Sorry but I have never encounter such statements in the forums.....
Neither have I. I have read and played with a few guys that really want a 100% mundane class, sure.
But the same guy that loved playing a pure fighter, also played a magus.
Do you think a Fighter is approximately as useful in a level 20 party as a Wizard? I'm not asking if they're balanced, I'm saying approximately as useful.
I don't need Fighters that are perfectly balanced to Wizards, what I want is for them to not feel redundant and useless. Right now they feel redundant and useless.
Are you opposed to making them unique and useful?
Do you think that the players who want a 100% mundane fighter feel redundant and useless? Are they having fun?
How many parties get to 20th level, anyway? Never seen one.
If they wanted a martial with spells and supernatural abilities, there are many such. So, they CHOOSE to play a 100% martial. Why cant they make that choice?
Its not like they didnt know and played for 19 more levels without a chance to change characters. I mean, sure, some parties do get to 20th level, but hardly with the same starting characters. If he felt useless, then he could refuse raise dead or ask the DM to switch out.
When we played thru RotRL, out fighter was the most dangerous member of the party. Buffed up, sure.
Do you think a Fighter is approximately as useful in a level 20 party as a Wizard? I'm not asking if they're balanced, I'm saying approximately as useful.
I don't need Fighters that are perfectly balanced to Wizards, what I want is for them to not feel redundant and useless. Right now they feel redundant and useless.
Are you opposed to making them unique and useful?
Do you think that the players who want a 100% mundane fighter feel redundant and useless? Are they having fun?
How many parties get to 20th level, anyway? Never seen one.
If they wanted a martial with spells and supernatural abilities, there are many such. So, they CHOOSE to play a 100% martial. Why cant they make that choice?
Its not like they didnt know and played for 19 more levels without a chance to change characters. I mean, sure, some parties do get to 20th level, but hardly with the same starting characters. If he felt useless, then he could refuse raise dead or ask the DM to switch out.
When we played thru TotRL, out fighter was the most dangerous member of the party. Buffed up, sure.
None of your arguments actually address any of my complaints. Nor do they counter what I would consider solutions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they wanted a martial with spells and supernatural abilities, there are many such. So, they CHOOSE to play a 100% martial. Why cant they make that choice?
They can, and they do, it's when* they feel disappointed and outclassed by other party members that present a problem, it's not hard to understand.
* And yes, I acknowledge that this doesn't always happen. Party dynamic, play style and the style of the campaign have a lot of influence.
No, it's a terrible article, and shows he doesnt play much Pathfinder.Why would he play it after he was banned from the playtest?
Well, that says a lot. also explains his bitterness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty sure some people got banned for simply giving negative criticism, you shouldn't assume about a person from one bit of trivia.
If they wanted a martial with spells and supernatural abilities, there are many such. So, they CHOOSE to play a 100% martial. Why cant they make that choice?
They can, and they do, it's when* they feel disappointed and outclassed by other party members that present a problem, it's not hard to understand.
* And yes, I acknowledge that this doesn't always happen. Party dynamic, play style and the style of the campaign have a lot of influence.
I have never know one to feel disappointed and outclassed. If they did, they can just switch.
If they wanted a martial with spells and supernatural abilities, there are many such. So, they CHOOSE to play a 100% martial. Why cant they make that choice?
They can, and they do, it's when* they feel disappointed and outclassed by other party members that present a problem, it's not hard to understand.
* And yes, I acknowledge that this doesn't always happen. Party dynamic, play style and the style of the campaign have a lot of influence.
That is part of the process of gaining system mastery. That player realized that probably the Figther isn't for him/her.
None of your arguments actually address any of my complaints. Nor do they counter what I would consider solutions.
Do you think a Fighter is approximately as useful in a level 20 party as a Wizard? I'm not asking if they're balanced, I'm saying approximately as useful.
I don't need Fighters that are perfectly balanced to Wizards, what I want is for them to not feel redundant and useless. Right now they feel redundant and useless.
Are you opposed to making them unique and useful?
Do you think that the players who want a 100% mundane fighter feel redundant and useless? Are they having fun?
How many parties get to 20th level, anyway? Never seen one.
If they wanted a martial with spells and supernatural abilities, there are many such. So, they CHOOSE to play a 100% martial. Why cant they make that choice?
Its not like they didnt know and played for 19 more levels without a chance to change characters. I mean, sure, some parties do get to 20th level, but hardly with the same starting characters. If he felt useless, then he could refuse raise dead or ask the DM to switch out.
When we played thru TotRL, out fighter was the most dangerous member of the party. Buffed up, sure.
which complaints? That you, personally, feel redundant and useless playing a Fighter in a 20th level game? Then, I suggest you play one of the other 34 classes.
What is your solution? Cant we leave one class of 35 for players that want a pure mundane class? What is wrong with that?
Why should they have to switch? The concept of a mundane hero is an awesome one. It's 3.P's execution that is lacking, not the premise.
If they wanted a martial with spells and supernatural abilities, there are many such. So, they CHOOSE to play a 100% martial. Why cant they make that choice?
They can, and they do, it's when* they feel disappointed and outclassed by other party members that present a problem, it's not hard to understand.
* And yes, I acknowledge that this doesn't always happen. Party dynamic, play style and the style of the campaign have a lot of influence.
I have never know one to feel disappointed and outclassed. If they did, they can just switch.
But D&D/Pathfinder is high fantasy/high magic game, so that should no be a surprise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they wanted a martial with spells and supernatural abilities, there are many such. So, they CHOOSE to play a 100% martial. Why cant they make that choice?
They can, and they do, it's when* they feel disappointed and outclassed by other party members that present a problem, it's not hard to understand.
* And yes, I acknowledge that this doesn't always happen. Party dynamic, play style and the style of the campaign have a lot of influence.
I have never know one to feel disappointed and outclassed. If they did, they can just switch.
I believe you if you say that You have never seen one. But I'm sure in all these years you have been in threads where plenty of example from actual play have been given.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why? Because the point of a character is for the player to have fun. DPS, narrative control. Those things aren't important.
Do the majority of players who play them care? No. No they don't. A vocal minority of the most hardcore players care.Those things are important insofar as they are required for one's fun (which is the case for a non-zero number of players).
I'd like to bring up a counter question: would balanced classes ruin the fun of those who don't care about "DPS, narrative control...those things"? If so, how? If not, why not support people who want a more even playing field?
Martial caster disparity has been fixed. It's called 5th ed.
Get rid of full attacks, increase fighters attacks and reduce everyone else's particularly casters. Remove link between skills and intelligence. While at the same time reduce spell slots to 1 per level at higher levels, add concentration to prevent excessive buffs, remove monster summoning and magic item creation, particularly spell scrolls.To be fair you could do all these things now in pathfinder and you'd have a pretty good game still.
Why? Because the point of a character is for the player to have fun. DPS, narrative control. Those things aren't important.
Do the majority of players who play them care? No. No they don't. A vocal minority of the most hardcore players care.Those things are important insofar as they are required for one's fun (which is the case for a non-zero number of players).
I'd like to bring up a counter question: would balanced classes ruin the fun of those who don't care about "DPS, narrative control...those things"? If so, how? If not, why not support people who want a more even playing field?
Martial caster disparity has been fixed. It's called 5th ed.
Get rid of full attacks, increase fighters attacks and reduce everyone else's particularly casters. Remove link between skills and intelligence. While at the same time reduce spell slots to 1 per level at higher levels, add concentration to prevent excessive buffs, remove monster summoning and magic item creation, particularly spell scrolls.To be fair you could do all these things now in pathfinder and you'd have a pretty good game still.
Except for the people who enjoy casters as they are now
Why should they have to switch? The concept of a mundane hero is an awesome one. It's 3.P's execution that is lacking, not the premise.
No, it's not. There are ten martial classes with spells, supernatural abilities and the like.
There is one class out of 35 that's pretty much 100% mundane.
Why cant we let those who want a 100% mundane class have one, just ONE, out of 35?
And, in AD&D and OD&D the spellcasting classes beat out the fighter at very high levels too.
Saitama or Furinji Hayato fit right into Pathfinder at the appropriate levels.
I have the theory that Saitama's abilities come from something he ate, so I'm not sure how much mundane that can be considered. I have only watched One Punch anime so no spoilers please.