HumbleGamer wrote: Malk_Content wrote: Well even if we change what they meant to be an even more specific issue, they are still wrong. A ranger with a bow feels different than one with a crossbow. The choice of which animal companion along with your own choices will feel different (horse is way different to ape.)
I have never felt I've played a game with more actual gameplay variation at level 1 (excepting more obviously free-form games) than pf2.
Well, a ranger with a crossbow is similar to any other ranger with a crossbow.
At higher level they might get class feats that differentiate the two of them, but at early levels it's quite difficult ( it depends the class though ).
I mentioned the fighter before it's a class that by lvl 4 could have up to 4/5 different attack pattern ( Strike + lvl 1 feat + lvl 2 feat + lvl 4 feat + natural ambition ). Other classes are not so lucky to have that big variety in terms of attacks and customization. I mean, you have already made a class choice. A "subclass choice". And a main weapon choice.
Isn't it getting kinda "whatever" if we start saying that 2 things are the same AFTER we did at least 3 choices to reach that point?
And even then you will still have differences if one is a goblin with stealth ancestry feats and the other is an orc that will go for switch hitter later on.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
The way the character play on the board is the same, if not for very little differences.
A goblin aasimar ranger with a crossbow is going to play the same as a orc half elf ranger with a crossbow.
What may change at early level?
A goblin may get scuttle, while the orc "orc ferocity".
A slow progression is not meant to be an issue, but it's understandable it's something some of us like while other dont.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Okay, let's dial it back around.
There's a finite number of choices that you can make in this game. Granted. Choices accumulate as you go up in levels, meaning that higher-level characters are going to tend to show more gameplay differences than lower-level characters. Granted. On the combat side, at first level, roughly speaking, the average non-caster class is probably only going to see about 10 builds per class that are meaningfully distinct from each other from a tactical standpoint - not including the particularly weird builds. (Spellcasters get spell selection, which is its own thing.) Granted. I'm seriously ballparking it here, but 10 sounds about right. Some will have more. Some will have less.
So, first, I gotta ask... in what world is "5-10 meaningfully distinct builds per class at level 1 for non-casters" low? I mean, the 5e barbarian basically has one. The PF1 Shifter...? You basically get your pick of a minor buff that you can apply for a few minutes per day. PF1 Gunslinger gets to pick their firearm of choice, and gets one of three deeds... none of which changes things all that much. Crank those standards up too high, and everybody drops out.
Second... not actually all that pertinent to the issue at hand. What we're looking at is the question of whether it should be possible for someone to build their character concept around the tentacle gun (or whatever). This is an item that won't even be available until partway through the campaign. As it is now, the things are awesome if you get them a level or two early, and then they're mostly okay at level, and then they rapidly become useless and you have to drop them and look for something else. Should we support the build of someone who winds up looting a tentacle gun, and decides that what they want more than anything else in the world is to keep doing that forever? Should there be some way for them, having hit lvl 20, to fire tentacles at Treerazer and have the guy care? Do we want to support that playstyle?
Here, I'd say yes. The argument against (as initially presented) was that there weren't very many options anyway, so if you wanted options you should go elsewhere, so don't even bother to try to make it work... or something? I may not have understood its subtleties. @Garulo, you were the one posting this initially. Regardless, my assertion is that not only are the premises here incorrect (as I've argued elsewhere) but even if they were correct, even if the options were relatively few on the ground, that's no reason to not expand them (as long as we can do so without breaking game balance).
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote: Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
The way the character play on the board is the same, if not for very little differences.
A goblin aasimar ranger with a crossbow is going to play the same as a orc half elf ranger with a crossbow.
What may change at early level?
A goblin may get scuttle, while the orc "orc ferocity".
A slow progression is not meant to be an issue, but it's understandable it's something some of us like while other dont.
One could play with a focus on stealth, using his actions to avoid damage and get flat footed bonuses, while the other doesn't care about a few hits here or there due to higher hp and ferocity, so he stands his ground and uses his actions differently.
Another possible majorly different approach:
One may use a repeating xbow with Flurry edge while the other may use a normal xbow with precision.
And this is ignoring the elephant in the room:
You already made 3 choices before reaching "ranger with a crossbow".
If the complain was on the 1st choice (class), I would be 100% behind it ("all rangers play the same"). If it was behind 2nd choice maybe... ("all precision edge rangers play the same").
But here we are talking 3 choices in already. ("all rangers, that have chosen precision edge, and have chosen to specialise in xbow, play the same").
And that's at most like until level 4 or so, since dedications open wide limitless options.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Every character can have stealth.
The fact you have 1d8 precision or -4 rather than -5 on your prey changes nothing.
You simply strike your target.
If t were a melee, he'd try to flank to get better bonuses as anybody, eventually making a good use of twin takedown + some extra attack if flurry ranger.
And so on.
There's barely a glimpse of difference between all that have been posted.
The more the characters proceed, the more they can get exclusive perks because of choices ( limited number of class, general and skill feats ).
Some classes will get this earlier, while others will start getting enhancing stuff later in game.
But apart from that low level player customization is not a thing.
Not sure when it would kick in with the FA rule, but it's for sure it will be sooner than without it.
There's really no point in telling me "dude, your 2 characters are different" if it's a fact I have the same toolset to play with until higher levels.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Sanityfaerie wrote: Okay, let's dial it back around.
There's a finite number of choices that you can make in this game. Granted. Choices accumulate as you go up in levels, meaning that higher-level characters are going to tend to show more gameplay differences than lower-level characters. Granted. On the combat side, at first level, roughly speaking, the average non-caster class is probably only going to see about 10 builds per class that are meaningfully distinct from each other from a tactical standpoint -
Not seeing you having 10 different builds per class that play SIGNIFICANTLY different due to the skill/ancestry feat choices. Take your human sword and board fighter who will spend 90% of their time "raise shield, move attack (be it strike, trip, etc). You will have maybe 4 meaningfully different fighter builds based upon your class feat choice. Also not seeing the "billions" of significantly different class builds from just the CRB.
Also the billions of choices do not "... change(s) things all that much."
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
HumbleGamer wrote: Every character can have stealth.
So because someone could build one way, they always build that way for comparisons sake? This is serious Schrodinger character right here. Yes of course you non nailed down example can pick the thing to match every counter example. They've then given up the option to do a different thing. But I suppose if we bring up investing in Charisma and using those skills in combat we can just expect "well anyone could get Intimidate!"
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Garulo wrote: Sanityfaerie wrote: "raise shield, move attack (be it strike, trip, etc).
I mean yeah if you reduce all actions with the Attack trait to being the same thing, of course the game will feel flat. But then everygame I have ever played is flat by such broad net casting. Ah all you do in Hordes is move and attack (with spells, strikes, or maneuvers.) In Chess you just pick a piece and move it (they are all pretty much the same.)
Malk_Content wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: Every character can have stealth.
So because someone could build one way, they always build that way for comparisons sake? This is serious Schrodinger character right here. Yes of course you non nailed down example can pick the thing to match every counter example. They've then given up the option to do a different thing. But I suppose if we bring up investing in Charisma and using those skills in combat we can just expect "well anyone could get Intimidate!" Actually, the point is pretty easy to get.
Don't use skills as a scapegoat trying to address that there's diversity and it's just some people who don't want to see it ( or I fear the next I am going to see is "It differs in terms of roleplay" ).
But since you want to talk about skills, well, anybody can use intimidate as well as stealth ( follow the expert anyone? ) even at early levels.
What he can do at higher levels is to "enhance" what every single character can do by default.
A deep STR ranger character may also specialize in intimidate as main skill, and athletics as secondary skill.
Intimidating Prowess, BattleCry, Intimidating Glare, Terrifying retrat are just some of the improvement a character can decide to get.
Getting these specific ones means that a character has to trade for something else. Like being able to quick jump, waterwalk, wall climb and so on.
Leaving apart ranks, which will greately enhance the character chances of success ( it's different from being lvl 1 trained in many skills ).
There's no trade off at earlier levels just because there are not enough choices to be made.
Easy fix for both problems.
Count weapon/armor unique functions as unique runes, let's everyone have fun with things.
Increase item DCs with level, this makes it so they keep the same proficiency tier and thus very slowly fall behind to encourage getting an upgrade but not making them useless.
So far playing this way has greatly enhanced our groups interest in new items.
OrochiFuror wrote: Easy fix for both problems.
Count weapon/armor unique functions as unique runes, let's everyone have fun with things.
Increase item DCs with level, this makes it so they keep the same proficiency tier and thus very slowly fall behind to encourage getting an upgrade but not making them useless.
So far playing this way has greatly enhanced our groups interest in new items.
Wouldn't that meant to entirely lose the difference between "crafted items" and "unique magic items"?
Also, what does it mean increase the item DC with level?
That given a lvl 7 "specific magic sword" with DC 20, it's DC is going to increase by 1 past every level after the 7?
HumbleGamer wrote: Every character can have stealth.
The fact you have 1d8 precision or -4 rather than -5 on your prey changes nothing.
You simply strike your target.
If t were a melee, he'd try to flank to get better bonuses as anybody, eventually making a good use of twin takedown + some extra attack if flurry ranger.
And so on.
There's barely a glimpse of difference between all that have been posted.
The more the characters proceed, the more they can get exclusive perks because of choices ( limited number of class, general and skill feats ).
Some classes will get this earlier, while others will start getting enhancing stuff later in game.
But apart from that low level player customization is not a thing.
Not sure when it would kick in with the FA rule, but it's for sure it will be sooner than without it.
There's really no point in telling me "dude, your 2 characters are different" if it's a fact I have the same toolset to play with until higher levels.
wait...
so now we are comparing the charactrers ALSO having the same skills?
this is getting ridiculous...
yes:
if you pick the same class
pick the same subclass
with the same feats
the same skills
the same equipment
the same stats
then... you have two same characters... dunduindun.... also, the sky is blue.
if you are not seeing how someone moving straight up in the face of an ememy and someone sneaking away towards the back is significantly different playstyle, i cannot help you.
shroudb wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: Every character can have stealth.
The fact you have 1d8 precision or -4 rather than -5 on your prey changes nothing.
You simply strike your target.
If t were a melee, he'd try to flank to get better bonuses as anybody, eventually making a good use of twin takedown + some extra attack if flurry ranger.
And so on.
There's barely a glimpse of difference between all that have been posted.
The more the characters proceed, the more they can get exclusive perks because of choices ( limited number of class, general and skill feats ).
Some classes will get this earlier, while others will start getting enhancing stuff later in game.
But apart from that low level player customization is not a thing.
Not sure when it would kick in with the FA rule, but it's for sure it will be sooner than without it.
There's really no point in telling me "dude, your 2 characters are different" if it's a fact I have the same toolset to play with until higher levels.
wait...
so now we are comparing the charactrers ALSO having the same skills?
this is getting ridiculous...
yes:
if you pick the same class
pick the same subclass
with the same feats
the same skills
the same equipment
the same stats
then... you have two same characters... dunduindun.... also, the sky is blue.
if you are not seeing how someone moving straight up in the face of an ememy and someone sneaking away towards the back is significantly different playstyle, i cannot help you. No need to troll there.
The point has always been "it takes some levels before a character is able to properly differentiate from another of the same class".
Calling out skills is here is mirror climbing of legendary proportions.
Taking two character of the same class at lvl 1, then take the same characters after 8/10/12 levels ( it was argued during the past months in this forum too what was the level good enough to allow a player to "recreate" its own character, but there have been different points of view, so it's something up to the player ) would properly show what does this mean.
And please keep in mind we are talking about classes, so no basic mechanics which Any single character could get by lvl 1 ( even without and extra +3 from proficiency ).
Anybody can strike, stride and step.
Any combatant with shield block can shieldblock, regardless the fact they are using a 2h weapon or not.
Any combatant can go with either DEX or STR weapons.
Any combatant can use ranged weapons as well as melee ones.
If it can be of some help for you, feel free to take 2 characters of the same class using the same weapon ( or the same tradition ). Then tell me how should I play them in a different way.
But maybe it's just that somebody consider a huge difference to be trained in crafting rather than occultism, while some other find this not relevant at all, since the gameplay remains the same.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
No you don't get to ignore "basic mechanics every character gets." Thats insane, those systems change how you might use your class abilities. Throwing away half the customization the game gives you and then complaining about the lack of customization is insane.
Malk_Content wrote: No you don't get to ignore "basic mechanics every character gets." Thats insane, those systems change how you might use your class abilities. Throwing away half the customization the game gives you and then complaining about the lack of customization is insane. It has never been about "lack of customization".
It has been about recognizing that a character startw to really be different from another one of the same class/build starting from a higher level ( midgame, more or less ).
The difference, as others pointed out, are small and not significant.
And, in some circumstances, there's nothing that enhances your gameplay duringn a combat encounter ( until you unlock enough feats to provide a proper diversification ).
We can rather discuss what level characters start to differentiate from each other, but if the answer here is "even from level 1 characters are pretty different from each other" then I think there's not even room for a discussion.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Garulo wrote: Not seeing you having 10 different builds per class that play SIGNIFICANTLY different due to the skill/ancestry feat choices. Take your human sword and board fighter who will spend 90% of their time "raise shield, move attack (be it strike, trip, etc). You will have maybe 4 meaningfully different fighter builds based upon your class feat choice. Also not seeing the "billions" of significantly different class builds from just the CRB.
Also the billions of choices do not "... change(s) things all that much."
Well, let's look at fighter, then, if you'd like to challenge there.
- Two-hander with power attack: sinks 2 actions a round into hitting very hard, but more limited on mobility options and defenses. This is in many ways functionally equivalent to going two weapons with double slice, except for how it interacts with other options.
- Everstand stance: double-handing their shield. Will generally want to raise shield every turn, or at least most turns. Defense is very good (as long a you can play the "when to shield block" game properly), but lacks in ability to deal damage.
- Sword-and-board: probably wants to take Reactive Shield, and likely uses their reaction there for the most part, only raising shield when they have spare actions for it and/or expect that they'll have a strong desire to shield block.
- Weapon and bare hand, Snagging Strike: sets up for an athletics-based build - leaving a hand open for trips, grapples, and so forth.
- Archer build with point-blank shot
Then there are subtypes
- Taking a weapon with reach (either a polearm for a two-hander, or a bladed scarf/flickmace/etc for one-handers)
- Taking a weapon that permits grappling/tripping/etc so that you can get easy access to some (but not all) of the athletics maneuvers, for those that have that option and don't have a free hand.
- For sword-and-board, going human allows you to take double slice and run two-weapon with your shield boss/spike.
- For archer, gong crossbow or firearm means that you're dealing with weapon loading.
...and that's off of gross weapon selection and initial feat. There are also ancestry effects, some of which are meaningful. Getting a pertinent cantrip, for example, can certainly change things. A hobgoblin intimidate build with Remorseless Lash (combos well with double slice styles) is going to play somewhat differently... and yes, the ability to goblin scuttle also matters (though it's not *that* big a deal, and it doesn't combo particularly well with shield).
So somewhere in that mess, yeah, I'd say that I can claim 10... and that's with one of the classes that doesn't have a built-in subclass set, which is the kind of thing that rapidly differentiates further.
"human sword and board" is just one of the options under "fighter". There are others.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote:
If it can be of some help for you, feel free to take 2 characters of the same class using the same weapon ( or the same tradition ). Then tell me how should I play them in a different way.
Sure.
Level 1 bastard sword flurry ranger using Athletics for an advantage. Sometimes tripping and attacking, sometimes grappling and attacking, sometimes just using the twohand mode for damage.
Level 1 bastard sword precision ranger with an animal companion for flanking and more precision.
Level 1 bastard sword outwit ranger using Deception, Intimidate, and Stealth.
Done.
That's right for the fighter class.
But also, Fighter is not the best example ( even when it doesn't come up to DPS ), since ( I also mentioned it before I wouldn't have taken it as example ) it gives the player the possibility to choose between a the largest number of combat feats ( leaving apart a possible dedication ), resulting in an excellent mix of maneuvers and strikes.
It's something not all the classes have ( with the fighter being easily be the best among them ).
Cyouni wrote: HumbleGamer wrote:
If it can be of some help for you, feel free to take 2 characters of the same class using the same weapon ( or the same tradition ). Then tell me how should I play them in a different way.
Sure.
Level 1 bastard sword flurry ranger using Athletics for an advantage. Sometimes tripping and attacking, sometimes grappling and attacking, sometimes just using the twohand mode for damage.
Level 1 bastard sword precision ranger with an animal companion for flanking and more precision.
Level 1 bastard sword outwit ranger using Deception, Intimidate, and Stealth.
Done. I can do animal companion with any ranger regardless the specialization, as well as any damaging maneuvers, tactics and skills ( not being proficient would result into a -3 at lvl 1 ) you suggested.
Try again.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
So you're saying they take the same feats, skills, weapon, class, and stat bonuses.
You want to move the goalposts any more there?
Cyouni wrote: So you're saying they take the same feats, skills, weapon, class, and stat bonuses.
You want to move the goalposts any more there?
I am saying that if I were a bastard sword ranger, regardless the specialization I chose, I'd be able to properly do anything you mentioned.
One could have a companion, one could opt for twin takedown ( and flank with an ally ).
Is it enough difference for you to call it out "there's real difference between 10 character of the same class"?
Not to me.
Things start to be different some level past lvl 1.
Ravingdork wrote: With BILLIONS of unique character combinations possible with just the Core Rulebook I find the idea that there isn't enough variety to be a spurious claim at best. Ah yes, the rich textural difference between:
Half-Orc Barbarian with Club
Half-Orc Barbarian with Morning Star
Half-Orc Barbarian with (Other Simple Melee Weapon 1)
Half-Orc Barbarian with (Other Simple Melee Weapon 2)
Half-Orc Barbarian with Longsword
Half-Orc Barbarian with Great Axe
Half-Orc Barbarian with (Other Martial Melee Weapon 1)
Half-Orc Barbarian with (Other Martial Melee Weapon 2)
These really help make each of those builds feel unique!
Plus, don't forget all the builds that are technically legal but that don't make sense and will never see actual play. Those are my favorite!
For example, the outwit ranger has an Deception/Intimidate mod of +8 compared to the others' +0.
For example, the precision ranger deals an extra d8 when hitting the prey.
For example, the flurry ranger only has an effective penalty of -1 after succeeding on a Trip and then attacking.
I can throw down other builds and keep going.
HumbleGamer wrote:
Wouldn't that meant to entirely lose the difference between "crafted items" and "unique magic items"?
Also, what does it mean increase the item DC with level?
That given a lvl 7 "specific magic sword" with DC 20, it's DC is going to increase by 1 past every level after the 7?
Just telling you how to make items you find more enjoyable for the group, easy ways to make things fit into what your already using. Especially good for APs, otherwise might be better off just making your own gear customized for the player that finds it.
Also if you limit items to one unique effect I think it still keeps the flavor of the item while letting people fit it into the types of items they like using. Also making it so you can't buy those runes might help keeping the fantasy of crafting and looting. Like with many things, scale to your groups preferences.
Yes, a level 7 -14 item would be set to have master DC and items 15+ would be legendary, while still keeping up with level. So higher level versions you would be paying to upgrade the proficiency level on the DC. I think that's a good compromise between not scaling and using your DC, just requires a bit of book work keeping track and figuring out the leveled up DC of items.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HumbleGamer wrote: That's right for the fighter class.
But also, Fighter is not the best example ( even when it doesn't come up to DPS ), since ( I also mentioned it before I wouldn't have taken it as example ) it gives the player the possibility to choose between a the largest number of combat feats ( leaving apart a possible dedication ), resulting in an excellent mix of maneuvers and strikes.
It's something not all the classes have ( with the fighter being easily be the best among them ).
So. There are literally two of you arguing this. (Verdyn is also over there being sarcastic, but I don't actually disagree with the essence of the one point he made, so I'm not including him.) The other guy brought up Fighter, so I answered for Fighter. You bring your challenger. What class do you want to challenge, and say "there's not nearly enough options here"?
Still, I've answered one, so I'm going to take one out of the running. You can't pick "Alchemist". We all know that that one has issues that effectively funnel it to a single viable playstyle, in spite of the attempts made to the contrary. Other than that? Let's get concrete. Pick one. Challenge me.
Let's just compare PF1 core only to PF2 core only because that's really what this debate is about.
PF1 had 7 ancesteries, 11 core classes, 25 skills, plus feats and spells. Importantly it also had true multiclassing and prestige classes and you knew that more core and many more prestige classes were coming just as fast as they could be written and/or converted.
Over the next two years we added 10 base classes, archetypes, and a handful more prestige classes on top of the expected feats, spells, and optional rules.
PF2 had at launch 6 ancesteries, 12 core classes, 17 skills, 30 backgrounds, plus feats and spells. I also discount taking an archetype as it is very far from proper multiclassing.
Over the next two years we've gain 5 new base classes, feats, and spells.
PF2 is simply far thinner on the ground that PF1 was at the same stage and hasn't had PF1's ability to crib from 3.5 for easily converted material. I don't think there is any contest between the two systems for which allowed more character customization.
Sanityfaerie wrote: So. There are literally two of you arguing this. (Verdyn is also over there being sarcastic, but I don't actually disagree with the essence of the one point he made, so I'm not including him.) The other guy brought up Fighter, so I answered for Fighter. You bring your challenger. What class do you want to challenge, and say "there's not nearly enough options here"?
Still, I've answered one, so I'm going to take one out of the running. You can't pick "Alchemist". We all know that that one has issues that effectively funnel it to a single viable playstyle, in spite of the attempts made to the contrary. Other than that? Let's get concrete. Pick one. Challenge me.
I'd pick Wizard as it's also constrained for viable builds until around level 7 or so. If you want more of a 1-20 build that has issues making each sub-class stand out, I'd say Gunslinger. If you want a class that is often just vanilla good stuff, I'd go for Rogue.
This isn't saying that there isn't anything you can do to spice up these classes and their builds it's more saying that they're among the least interesting in terms of options for diversification than we'd like.
HumbleGamer wrote: Cyouni wrote: HumbleGamer wrote:
If it can be of some help for you, feel free to take 2 characters of the same class using the same weapon ( or the same tradition ). Then tell me how should I play them in a different way.
Sure.
Level 1 bastard sword flurry ranger using Athletics for an advantage. Sometimes tripping and attacking, sometimes grappling and attacking, sometimes just using the twohand mode for damage.
Level 1 bastard sword precision ranger with an animal companion for flanking and more precision.
Level 1 bastard sword outwit ranger using Deception, Intimidate, and Stealth.
Done. I can do animal companion with any ranger regardless the specialization, as well as any damaging maneuvers, tactics and skills ( not being proficient would result into a -3 at lvl 1 ) you suggested.
Try again. But you CANT do all of those builds simultaneously.
"try again"
that's the whole point.
You can BUILD a character to do something, that doesnt automatically make every character build this way jeez.
your whole argument is "well if X can pick that, then Y can also pick it!"
but that's the whole point:
when you have options X, Y, Z, F, D, whatever, and you can only pick 1-2 of them, then BY DEFINITION not every character is the same.
One precision ranger may get animal companion, the other may get a different level 1 feat.
this feat selection AT LEVEL 1 changes how the character is played.
One CAN pick a two handed weapon the other CAN use a weapon with the two-handed trait to enable maneuvers.
both are "preciosions rangers" yet they have different options.
---
at this point you are arguing just to argue.
you have even forgotten what was your initial points and just strawmanning left and right.
To recap:
not every ranger has an AC, even if they are using the same weapon.
not every ranger has the same skills, even if they are using the same weapon
not every ranger has the same combat options, even if they are using the same weapon
CAN THEY? Sure, that's the whole point of customisation: OPTIONS.
shroudb wrote: One precision ranger may get animal companion, the other may get a different level 1 feat.
this feat selection AT LEVEL 1 changes how the character is played.
One CAN pick a two handed weapon the other CAN use a weapon with the two-handed trait to enable maneuvers.
both are "preciosions rangers" yet they have different options.
From a PF1 perspective, all rangers should have a fighting style, animal companions (or at least the ability to give them up for meaningful upgrades), and minor spellcasting. PF2 cut out casting entirely and then cut off the animal companion and is selling it back to you as a competing option with other feats. Thus this much-vaunted 'choice' is really which cup of watered-down soda do I want to drink this time.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Sanityfaerie wrote: HumbleGamer wrote: That's right for the fighter class.
But also, Fighter is not the best example ( even when it doesn't come up to DPS ), since ( I also mentioned it before I wouldn't have taken it as example ) it gives the player the possibility to choose between a the largest number of combat feats ( leaving apart a possible dedication ), resulting in an excellent mix of maneuvers and strikes.
It's something not all the classes have ( with the fighter being easily be the best among them ).
So. There are literally two of you arguing this. (Verdyn is also over there being sarcastic, but I don't actually disagree with the essence of the one point he made, so I'm not including him.) The other guy brought up Fighter, so I answered for Fighter. You bring your challenger. What class do you want to challenge, and say "there's not nearly enough options here"?
Still, I've answered one, so I'm going to take one out of the running. You can't pick "Alchemist". We all know that that one has issues that effectively funnel it to a single viable playstyle, in spite of the attempts made to the contrary. Other than that? Let's get concrete. Pick one. Challenge me. Uh?
I just said I agree with you, but also that the fighter is in a very nice spot ( If you check my previous posts, I already mentioned how the fighter is good when it comes down to customization in confront with a champion. I chose the champ because i consider it somehow the extreme ).
Verdyn wrote:
I'd pick Wizard as it's also constrained for viable builds until around level 7 or so. If you want more of a 1-20 build that has issues making each sub-class stand out, I'd say Gunslinger. If you want a class that is often just vanilla good stuff, I'd go for Rogue.
This isn't saying that there isn't anything you can do to spice up these classes and their builds it's more saying that they're among the least interesting in terms of options for diversification than we'd like.
To me it's not about "viable builds" because given how this 2e works every single class is viable ( some party compositions might be better, indeed ), but rather not feeling any difference between a lvl 1 ranger and another one.
Things improve little by little the more the character levels, until at some point we can really play a different ( or specialized ) character.
But apart from that I never found a class not viable enough ( even the alchemist did his job properly ).
ps: all of this knowing that even if possibilities are given, some players would still continue with their normal "combat routine" over and over, because it's more efficient ( not their fault here, but the system ). For example, a Double Slice fighter will probably continue using it over and over, and rather than investing into different attacks he may work on passive perks ( a stance, blind-fight, reflexive shield, shielded stride, etc... ).
HumbleGamer wrote: To me it's not about "viable builds" because given how this 2e works every single class is viable ( some party compositions might be better, indeed ), but rather not feeling any difference between a lvl 1 ranger and another one.
Things improve little by little the more the character levels, until at some point we can really play a different ( or specialized ) character.
But apart from that I never found a class not viable enough ( even the alchemist did his job properly ).
ps: all of this knowing that even if possibilities are given, some players would still continue with their normal "combat routine" over and over, because it's more efficient ( not their fault here, but the system ). For example, a Double Slice fighter will probably continue using it over and over, and rather than investing into different attacks he may work on passive perks ( a stance, blind-fight, reflexive shield, shielded stride, etc... ).
When I say viable, what I'm saying is that a build will work at any table with any GM. This means that a build needs to work at a table with a 'killer' GM that loves level+3 encounters and uses foes that do things like ordering their minions to finish off downed PCs, for me to call it viable. A build that only works at easy tables isn't a build worth using IMO.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Verdyn wrote: When I say viable, what I'm saying is that a build will work at any table with any GM. This means that a build needs to work at a table with a 'killer' GM that loves level+3 encounters and uses foes that do things like ordering their minions to finish off downed PCs, for me to call it viable. A build that only works at easy tables isn't a build worth using IMO. I was mostly referring to AP, but I can see your point.
Something like "some adventures are meant for elite characters", which have to provide the best they can ( more like a high level dungeon premade from any MMO, when you don't just walk in but look for the perfect party to play with, yourself included ).
Finishing downed character is something I may consider to do depends the enemies ( though if I had to aoe the players, I'd also include downed players ).
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
