Any anime bros here? What would be the best way to roll Parn from Record Of Lodoss War?
Parn was a fighter. Pretty blatant that. You could possibly multiclass him to Paladin later, but he doestell a goddess to go fuck herself
You use the system the writer of Lodoss used.
>>44240933
Depends on the system, but I'd generally say "not well."
If we're looking at D&D, which is going to be Lodoss' closest equivalent, he's pretty much a straight fighter, is the thing. So if there's a "fighter" or "warrior" class, that's him. Sadly, fighters tend to suck quite badly in the most popular editions. You might do okay with 4e, though.
I'm not sure why you'd want to roll Parn, though. He's pretty unremarkable in the OVA series, at least. He's better in the novels, but those aren't even translated.
>>44240963
He does magnetize pussy pretty well
>>44240953
I figured rolling a fighter. I just was wondering how I should stat him. I've just started the anime.
>>44240963
I'm currently involved in a normal core pathfinder game. I usually play an Orc fighter and do pretty well but I like Parn so I figured I'd play him. I'm currently playing an Orc Bard and have low-ish HP so I'm not sure how long he'll last.
>>44240979
He's an anime MC. There's nothing impressive about that.
>>44240995
>core pathfinder game
There's really no hope for him, then, unless the other players just have literally zero ability to optimize. Even if you make the perfect fighter, unless you get the GM to consolidate all Combat Maneuver feats to make it so you actually get more feats in PF than you do in 3.5 rather than less, you're still kind of fucked.
>>44240933
That entire anime was based off of a D&D campaign the author DM'd. So the answer is obvious.
>>44241053
Fffffffuck.
>>44241067
>consolidate all Combat Maneuver feats
I really need to be more specific about this.
Basically, Fighters get far more bonus feats than they do in 3.5. This would be fabulous and is in line with PF's design assertion that it has buffed every single class to be stronger. This is actually a lie. There are several stealth nerfs that crept in because Paizo is mind-numbingly incompetent and magic-favoring. A prime example is how combat maneuver feats are basically the Improved Trip/Improved Grapple/Improved Bull Rush/etc. feats... except split in two. In other words, to get the full benefit of singular, commonly taken feats from 3.5, you must actually take two feats. Fighters did not actually receive enough extra bonus feats to make this scenario an improvement from 3.5.
So you see, core only fighters are kind of fucked since they're in the same book as Wizards, Clerics, Druids, Bards, Paladins... all of which were objectively better than them in 3.5 and in many cases received buffs since then.
pic related, mfw paizo fuckery
>>44241174
That's actually extremely unfortunate. How have I never noticed that? All fighters I've played/My friends have played haven't gotten buttfucked that badly. Or is it so subtle it slips in there under the guise of being a character you need to work to play?
>>44241208
You're probably playing in a low-op party.
Anyway Parn is specifically a Fighter. Though more of an AD&D version than one of the newer ones.
>>44241208
>All fighters I've played/My friends have played haven't gotten buttfucked that badly.
That's very fortunate to hear. I'm sincerely happy for you.
Well, frankly speaking, that's because this sort of things is only actually a huge problem either accidentally or if at least one player understands how optimization works in the game and, given that, proceeds to not gimp their character. If no one is bothering to get on the Internet and study what character generation choices are most effective, then the chance of a drastic difference in power between characters arising is reduced. After all, most people go into a game thinking it's relatively fair and don't have a full knowledge of the breadth of options available to them, and so end up making sub-optimal choices based on what sounds cool.
A wizard focusing on evocation (fireball, lightning bolt, etc.) spells who puts little investment into making blowing shit up especially effective (such as with the dazing spell metamagic, which allows you to essentially stunlock enemies) is actually quite weak compared to what they could be. Probably about as effective as a fighter, since the two classes have the same goals in such a case - whittling the HP of enemies down.
A well-crafted wizard does not bother targeting HP at all - he instead relies on clever use of utility spells to solve problems in general, battlefield control, and effects that target the saves of multiple enemies to effectively make them suck so bad they automatically lose to any opposition, if not just die immediately.
(cont)
>>44241411
A common conceit of D&D 3e and its derivatives is that spells and mechanics that work like them (psionic powers, maneuvers) are the strongest thing you can have in the game. This is because spells tend to just -do- something fantastical based on their description, and there is no skill check to perform or GM to arbitrate that check's difficulty, not to mention that skills are generally perceived to only apply to mundane exploits. A spell just unarguably does something.
Clerics and druids gain access to their complete spell lists automatically, while wizards have access to their entire spell lists -in potential-, though the arcane spell list is in general stronger than the divine one to begin with. All three classes can pick and choose their options of spells based on their plans for the day. Even better, they can leave anywhere from one to a few spell slots open and either pray, commune with nature, or study their spellbook respectively in the middle of the day for 15 minutes to fill that slot with whatever spell they may need in the moment. This gives them unprecedented versatility compared to... for example, fighters. But also everyone else in general, really.
But it doesn't end there!
(cont)
>>44241540
When a spell does something hostile, the opponent tends to roll a save to defend against it, right?
Think about the defenses you have in D&D: HP is the most basic defense that protects you against being disabled or dead. By comparison, saves are defenses against a host of conditions, as well as a defense for the other defenses, at times, in the case of ability damage and HP loss for blasting spells. AC is a defense against needing to worry about any of the above, but is usually totally ignored by spells.
Because it tends to target saves, magic as a whole has more chances to inflict the conditions of dazed, stunned, paralyzed, confused, dazzled, prone, cursed, charmed, dominated, and even just dead. Conditions fuck you up in D&D. Being dazed or prone in a dangerous situation WILL get you killed. All of this with the only obstacle being the opponent's saves.
It is extraordinarily easy to optimize a spellcaster compared to a martial class (fighter, barbarian, rogue, et al). Casters often only require that you pump the key ability modifier for their casting (int for wizards, cha for sorcerers, wis for clerics and druids) to the limit (either 18 or 20) and then throw things into dexterity for good initiative and constitution for survivability. This is most feasible on wizards and sorcerers due to how good their spells are; clerics CAN do this, but they have a fuckton of options and good builds; druids are best suited to builds that take advantage of how they can shapeshift into a bear or a dire lion or a dinosaur and then beat the shit out of people better than a fighter can while still being able to do a ton of other things because lol summoning.
(cont)
>>44241685
My actual point is that an optimized spellcaster will demand the opponent's saves roll infeasibly high to defend against them unless the spell is targeting that opponent's "good" saves - those its class gives the highest bonuses in. Most classes have a limited number of good saves, so well-played casters select spells that target different saves so they have an answer to every type of opponent. And even if the caster is having difficulty getting over an opponent's saves, as long as they have enough spells to throw, they will eventually get one in, and a single failed save can lead to ruin.
Fighters, by comparison, must focus on their Strength to have good attack and to wear necessary armor, Dexterity to have good initiative, AC, and reflex saves, Constitution to have good HP, Intelligence if they want to have a remotely decent number of skill points to invest at all (if they think skills are even worth it), and Wisdom to get a good Will save (because otherwise they're going to get mindfucked by aforementioned save-targetting enchantment spells and suddenly become a detriment to the team). Charisma they might as well just dump.
This is called being MAD (multi-ability dependent), while casters are usually pretty SAD (single-ability dependent). It is better to be the latter than the former.
Fighters also have a limited number of options to use per turn - basically attacks, combat maneuvers, and using items. Attacks certainly are useful for eventually killing enemies, but on their own they tend to be the less powerful option than casting a spell - the Sleep spell can basically just end combats in the early game, for instance. Combat maneuvers are where most utility comes from for fighters, but most monsters in the PF bestiaries are actually ALSO good at combat maneuvers, putting martial classes at a disadvantage.
(cont)
>>44241853
Fighters could use items, but then they'd generally be resorting to magic items or even just wands, which they're probably bad at due to their low charisma anyway. So why not just play a caster?
And that is my long-ass, fucking pointless ramble on why 3.5 and PF are imbalanced as shit and SKR chokes on a million dicks daily.
Any questions?
>>44241053
>unless you get the GM to consolidate all Combat Maneuver feats
You mean there's PF DMs who don't?
>>44240933
Basing your role playing character on someone else's role playing character is too recursive for me.
>>44241890
Since you seem pretty into D&D/PF what do you think about fighters in 5E?
I've been playing one and though I'm probably later levels going to become less useful as I can't bend reality over, outdamaging the smiting paladin on average and killing 4 things in 1 turn is great.
>>44241904
Yes, it's called not realizing that Paizo blatantly lies about the balance of their game due to a lack of experience with the system and the expectation that a tabletop RPG publisher isn't totally full of shit when they say things.
>>44241890
Jesus Christ. I never noticed how short end of the stick fighters actually are in Pathfinder. I'm actually really glad I stepped out of my normal comfort zone and decided to roll a bard for once. This has actually been quite eye opening and I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me. Thank you.
>>44241967
>Since you seem pretty into D&D/PF what do you think about fighters in 5E?
I don't know shit about 5E to a certainty, frankly, because I have never read that game. I have no great interest in it due to it lacking psions and the fact that if I actually gave enough of a shit to want to play a more balanced game, I'd just use 4E or, better yet, a Fate derived system or something. I've heard it's just a rebalanced 3.5 for the present day, maintaining all of its most notable and obligatory flaws with caster supremacy, but to a less potentially insane extent. Then again, when I first got into PF, I was told it was a better balanced 3.5 and look how that turned out for me. So I can't claim anything I'd tell you on the matter would be worth the time it took for you to read it.
>>44241174
>Fighters get far more bonus feats than they do in 3.5
Actually they only get three more by level 20, which makes it even worse.
>>44242037
Casters have a few balancing factors put onto them in 5e that lessens the severity.
- They have fewer spell slots in general (about half).
- Their spells scale by spell level and not caster level. Many spells can be upgraded (ie. I cast fireball as a 4th level spell) but then you burn a precious higher level spell slot. 3e tried to limit spell power by capping values, 5e forces choices.
- Few save-or-suck spells.
- Concentration required to maintain many spells, which limits how much a caster can do at once.
On the other hand, cantrips are now spammable so that casters aren't useless once they use their best stuff, and you can't interrupt casting, though you can interrupt concentration.
>>44242029
You're quite welcome. It took a lot longer than I expected, but it was kind of cathartic to just throw up a stream of consciousness for where PF and 3.5 goes wrong. That should cover the general environment of the game. It's kind of a shitshow when you really look at it, but nonetheless, remember that up until this moment you played it in relative ignorance and it seemed to work fine. This is because the group you play with and the story they tell together tends to matter a lot more than the quality of the game itself, at the end of the day. Don't feel too discouraged.
If you want a good place to start with understanding 3.5 and PF, uh... game theory, I guess? Look at the tier lists. Here's PF's: http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=11990.0
>>44242052
You are absolutely right, Anon.
On the other hand, imagine three more metamagic feats on a wizard.
>>44242106
Isn't metamagic only the domain of sorcerers now, too?
>>44241967
Fighter is a shit class because they don't get magic and otherwise can't do diddly squat except roll to attack constantly. Shove/trip are barely options. Eldritch Knight is a non-option because it's completely awful. One of the main problems with fighter is that past the first two/three levels you get exceedingly little while the Haves (the casters) continue getting better and better shit.
If you want to be a fighter in 5e, be a bard. If you want to be a skillmonkey in 5e, be a bard. Bards are good.
>>44240958
They started in ad&d and moved on to a custom system that they later published. I'm sure all of the characters have stat blocks in that book.
>>44242140
Yeah. Though that's kind of neutral in terms of power, given wizards get bonus abilities depending on their specialization now.
Metamagic for sorcerers works because they have fewer spells, so allowing them more flexibility fits their theme as instinctive casters.
>>44242140
>This is because the group you play with and the story they tell together tends to matter a lot more than the quality of the game itself, at the end of the day.
Actually, the game quality matters a whole lot because in a better balanced game there's less chance to randomly stumble into making a super powerful wizard, or the aggressively hegemonic ursine swarm, or the cleric who decides to bash things in the face.
Granted, if your group never stumbles onto the mistakes in the first place (or deliberately avoids them), then you're right, it doesn't matter, so we're basically back at square one except with slightly better knowledge of why game balance is desierable.
>>44242150
Bards are a great class, but they're not better fighters than fighters.
Fewer attacks, light armor, fewer hit points, fewer weapon options, fewer weapon-related bonuses, concentration requirements on their buffs, and so on.
>>44242165
Ah, I see.
I also heard the game was just overall more low magic than its predecessors. How did that work out?
>>44242214
I mean, yeah, of course it's better for the game to not be garbage for all the obligatory reasons, but a good group will either know what they're doing or otherwise be too involved with the actual plot and ignorant of the system to get overly bogged down. In the former case, they know not what to avoid. In the latter case, there's an element of positive thinking involved.
Players uninitiated in how breakable the system is tend to blunder through chargen, forming eclectic builds that do not particularly capitalize on the class' overwhelming strengths. I'd say even in these cases it's horrifically easy to create, say, a druid that is objectively stronger than the fighter just by virtue of their animal companion, but no one is actually fully aware of this disparity, so the game isn't played with it in mind, so it doesn't actually have a huge impact.
Well, that's just an excuse at the end of the day. I'm certainly not denying that the system is pretty fucked. Just that the fun he had with his group was real and he's not going to lose that just because the game is borked.
>>44242303
>they know what to avoid
ftfmyself
>>44242303
>I also heard the game was just overall more low magic than its predecessors. How did that work out?
Overall pretty good. A big problem with casters in 2e and 3e were that they had double growth -- your old spells got stronger AND you got new spells which were also appropriately strong. In 5e it's all based on spell levels now, so your 3rd level fireball never gets any better. You still get stronger options as you level, but that's only linear growth, which is much more in line with non-casters.
And since you have much fewer spell slots to burn, even at very high levels (a 20th level wizard gets only one 9th level spell slot), you have to be careful about what to spend your resources on before you get a chance to rest. The concentration mechanic also severely limits how much magic a caster can have going at once, which prevents excessive buffing and such.
This might seem overly harsh, but they also flattened a lot of the numbers in 5e. Like magic items for example only go up to +3, and you shouldn't have many of them.
>>44242389
But casters are still undisputed top tier, nonetheless.
>>44242470
Magic is great, but /tg/ always envisions these idealized scenarios where casters always have the right spells ready, uses them properly, are never low on spells, are never caught unaware, are never hit, and so on. It's easy to say casters are the champions of everything when everything is going well and weaknesses are completely ignored.
My own experiences as GM differs from this quite a bit. I find it easy to stress a caster by forcing some hard choices about when to expend their magic, or just focusing attacks at them. So to say that they are top tier, implying they are above everyone else? I'm not on board. Many will disagree with me.
>>44242389
>so your 3rd level fireball never gets any better.
Which really shits on evocation, while leaving the big powerhouses of spells untouched as they are not there to do direct damage.
No one cares if Charm Person stays a rank 1 slot but burning hands is no fun there.
>>44242269
>fewer attacks
Ha, no.Fighters only get an attack advantage when they get their third attack, before then the bard remains on par.
>light armor, fewer hit points
Not really a problem, just go dex and you're set. As for HP, yeah it's less, but honestly not by much at all. The fighter doesn't have enough to make much of a difference in the rocket tag of 5e anyways.
>weapon options, fewer weapon-related bonuses
As if it matters, and if you really want fighting styles, you can start with two levels of fighter then leave to bard and be much better off than if you stayed fighter. Of course, if the game doesn't allow multiclassing, then just go bard and shrug.
>concentration requirements on their buffs
Warcaster/The Constitution saving throw proficiency. If feats aren't allowed, the fighter is worse off for it and all you have to do is pick your spellcasting battles.
>>44242303
>Well, that's just an excuse at the end of the day. I'm certainly not denying that the system is pretty fucked. Just that the fun he had with his group was real and he's not going to lose that just because the game is borked.
Oh, definitely. I wouldn't dare say the fun OP had with his group was fake, that helps no one and I don't really care for false smug senses of superiority. I'm more interested in just letting OP know that the flaws exist.
>>44242599
>Magic is great, but /tg/ always envisions these idealized scenarios where casters always have the right spells ready, uses them properly, are never low on spells, are never caught unaware, are never hit, and so on.
A high spec caster will never encounter a situation like that though due to stuff like Celerity and Contingency. Even if you get the drop on them they can easily escape to their stronghold and come back later with stuff specifically tailored to ruin your day.
Your super high spec caster doesn't need to make hard choices about expending his magic, he's geared towards approaching every single encounter at full strength and with his abilities tailored to the encounter in question.
>>44242690
Action surge, second attack sooner, extra attacks at higher levels, all things bard miss. Go into dex and you'll sacrifice strength and do even less damage, never mind the loss of fighting style and archetype bonuses. A bard will also be less motivated to have a high con which reduces their tank factor even more. "Put levels into fighter" is a hilarious argument for claiming bards can hold their own as fighters.
Basically you're talking out of your ass. Bards are probably in their strongest form of any edition, but they still can't completely invalidate other classes, sorry.
>>44242786
>>44242786
>Go into dex and you'll sacrifice strength and do even less damage
You can use dex for attack rolls and damage rolls and AC.
>never mind the loss of fighting style
Peanuts. Decent peanuts, but peanuts nonetheless.
>and archetype bonuses
lol what archetype bonuses
>"Put levels into fighter" is a hilarious argument for claiming bards can hold their own as fighters.
It's a thing you can do, and bards can make better use of the levels than fighters can. I never said it was required. That second attack that fighters get is nice, but magic's overall versatility and the agency it provides is much better overall, much more than the third and fourth attack will ever give.
>Bards are probably in their strongest form of any edition
3.5e and 4e disagree.
>>44242599
>idealized scenarios
I can't speak for 5e, but as a consistent player of casters in 3.5 and PF, conditions needn't have been ideal at all.
>always have the right spells ready
You don't pick the exact right spell for the job, you pick the several staple best spells that do a great job in various common situations, then leave a slot or two open just in case so you know what you need more of as the day goes on.
>are never low on spells
Believe it or not, most GMs do not pile on more than three combat encounters a day, sometimes even a session. This leaves plenty of resources for solving problems between battles. If a GM does in fact throw out tons of encounters, most can be decided by a single spell, then leaving your compatriots to clean up the mess. High pressure dungeon crawling tends to lead players to the 15 minute adventuring day mentality.
>are never caught unaware
If no one in the party has maxed spot/listen or perception checks, they deserve to die. Even under the statistically improbable chance they're all caught off guard, a decent GM will never kill a player outright as a result unless they were seriously asking for it. At high levels, this isn't remotely a problem due to celerity and contingency.
>are never hit
Clerics and druids aren't really as concerned by this. For arcane casters, they max initiative and concentration for a reason. Beyond this, there are many popular spells used specifically for defense, most infamous of which is mirror image.
>weaknesses are completely ignored.
Any presumed weakness a caster has can be accounted for and dealt with, is the thing. You also disregard all of their potential PrC options, such as Incantatrix, Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil, Planar Shepherd, etc. which give them even more raw power.
>forcing some hard choices
How conveniently vague.
>focusing attacks at them
Summoning tends to immediately disrupt this strategy.
>Many will disagree with me.
Because you're blatantly wrong.
Okay, there's a lot of Deedlit pictures going on, I'm gonna have to ask for the one with her naked and leaning on the awesome dragon. It's a sin that a nerd like me doesn't have that on his hard drive.
Also uh, Parn's a fighter, friends don't let friends play fighters, so make him something with utility like a brawler or something. They can use swords and shields and stuff..
