Jim Groves wrote:
I'd like to ask your advice on which console to buy. Let me tell you about myself so you can best understand my needs and interests.
I'm going to agree with Uzzy.
Alot of the game types you list are often available on the PC as well as the XBox and Playstation. Unless you have a specific game in mind, I'd suggest using your PC for it.
You can get a fantastic wired Razer 360 controller (works better than official 360 controller if you don't mind that it's wired, and you can plug it into a PC) It'll run you like $40.
If you get a game that doesn't support the controller that you want to use the controller with, or you want to be able to do macros and other neat things with the controller, like mapping things using multiple profiles or button combos to achieve an in game effect (allowing you to play games that require more buttons than the controller has, while still using the controller), buy a license for XPadder online, it's about $10-15, and includes all updates forever. XPadder will let you use the controller for any game that supports keyboard or mouse controls.
Then its just a matter of tracking down the games you want to play. Mark of the Ninja and Shank 1 & 2 are both on the PC, so far as I remember.
And last time I tried, I was able to get Epsxe to run my Playstation games on my PC from the original discs, in higher resolution with better graphics than the actual PSOne could support.
I'm also not a big fan of shooters (there are only a couple I've enjoyed). I like Western RPGs (They're better on PC), Tactical Turn Based RPGs (Often PS Exclusives), Sonic (Generally Cross Platform), Megaman (Depends, but usually Nintendo or Playstation), and 2d Capcom Fighters (And I prefer the ones with sprites to SF4 style) which generally means consoles, but it doesn't usually matter which console. I do also like Tekken though and it's usually on both consoles.
Scott Betts wrote:
Speaking as someone who has gone through multiple consoles, this is the way it already works (even with the 360, there is a straightforward way to handle a rights transfer to a new machine). You can expect that it will continue to work this way with new consoles, and that signing into your account will give you access to your content no matter where you are.
You misunderstand me.
I have a 360. My Roommates have a 360 in the living room for the household.
Games on Disc I can play on both machines, without needing to transfer licenses back and forth several times.
XBLA games I have to take my 360 and hook it up in another room to play it, or have to wait periods of time (as in I can't just play it in the living room, and then 2h later play it in my bedroom).
It's one of the more annoying parts of XBLA.
It was revealed yesterday that both the Xbox One and PS4 will require a paid subscription to their online service in order to play multiplayer games, so it's likely that you'd have a subscription anyway. If you never play multiplayer games, then yes, you'd end up paying a fee to use Netflix. But if you do play multiplayer games, you'll already have a subscription; using the Netflix app will be part of that.
The odds I would play online multiplayer games on a console (instead of just local multiplayer games with whomever is in my living room) is very low. The odds of me paying more than $5 a month to do so, given how often it would come up? even lower.
Everything I heard said the PS4 wouldn't be charging for online multiplayer. If it also charges for online multiplayer, then I will consider netflix to be a service I can't do with it, which will factor into my decision making process, but not remove it as an option.
I read that the Kinect is always on, "for purposes of seeing if you're watching the ads". I'm just not okay with that.
As for 4k TVs, I want one. More Specifically, I want a 4K Monitor. I can't see a reason I would ever buy a TV again. However, for it to be worthwhile, it needs to be either really close to your face, or really big. And I would want it for one of those two purposes.
If you have a 4k 24 inch screen, that's 6 feet away, it's serving absolutely no purpose.
Whether I care about the game being attached to something depends on whether it's attached to my account or my console. If I could eventually get a second XBox One for my bedroom while not having to pay for my own games again would be the deciding factor there.
And if there is a chance the account could be banned and I could lose access to all the games I paid for because I got bored trying to unlock characters and used cheat codes to not have to do achievements for all the characters or something (I generally don't online multiplayer - though if I did it would be for Street Fighter Alpha and Street Fighter 3 and MvC 2, Maybe Guilty Gear or Blaz Blue), then I would also be hesitant to buy it.
The idea of the Kinect constantly watching the contents of my living room when the XBOX is on creeps me out too much for me to tolerate having one in my house. I might accidentally walk through the living room while it's on and sending pictures of my living room to microsoft. While they PROBABLY won't do much underhanded with it, it makes me quite uncomfortable. Too r#pey for me.
And it would cost me $70 per month to watch Netflix before my internet provider fees - which is absolutely outrageous and unacceptable to me.
I will either PS4 or I will skip this gen of consoles.
Hmm. MPL's approach would also work.
He's right. His approach to arrays won't really make your character more powerful in what your class does, just make you suck less at the things you're not innately good at.
However, in his approach, Single attribute classes get a bunch of points they can choose to spread around for background skills, and MAD Classes don't get to choose where they go without hindering themselves.
My approach, with 3 tiers of arrays which you determine which one they get access to based on need, will result in MAD classes being on the same playing field for their class abilities as non MAD, but they will be marginally better at skills and saves than single-stat classes.
You could totally take MPL's approach though, and do it with lower maximums. You want a lower-powered game? Make the maximums 16, and give appropriately lower points.
MPL Listed this, which I feel would be fine in a typical game, where players are trying to have an 18 in their prime stat, It may make them overly competent though.
Personally, I think having one stat below 10 isn't a bad thing, and I think it's worth having a bit lower stats if you want to avoid it.
16 14 14 13 12 10 (25)
It's a little closer to the point buy you wanted, if you want them all to have the same point buy, I would base it on the 25 point buy I mentioned above. Capping them at 16 should keep the power level from getting too high.
You asked about these arrays being too generous:
15, 15, 14, 14, 11, 08 (23)
I think of the arrays you gave, I would take the second array for everything. The bottom two are so minmaxed I couldn't deal with that many glaring weaknesses. The top one has no scores above a +2.
If you're dead set on a 23 point array, and think 25 is too much, and you want them to have the same point buy cost (I don't think that's necessary, as mentioned above, I'd be okay with tiered arrays for different builds), I'd try something like this:
16 15 14 13 10 08 (23)
I would outright cap the ability scores at 16 and a single 8 if you want to avoid minmaxing, at which point you would safely give them point buy, or give them some decent arrays.
I would advise 25 point buy-based arrays though, with a minimum of 8 (and only 1 of those) and a maximum of 16. As MDL pointed out, if you can't raise your primary stat further, you're not upping the power level at all, just allowing the character to be more rounded without punishing them for it. If you cap the attributes at 16 before racials, you can give them more rounded characters with lower point totals, without one of the players feeling like they're lagging behind the others because they tried not to minmax.
As people have mentioned, while things were "designed" for 15 point buy, Paizo does officially champion 20 point buy. 15 Point buy basically demands some serious minmaxing in my opinion.
Assuming you want a max of 16 before racials, I would consider this:
Multi Ability Dependent Classes have a hard time in comparison to Single Ability Dependent or Dual Ability Dependent Classes.
What I would do to determine if the arrays are good, is set up the standard array for a single ability dependent class, like wizard.
But assuming you're using 15 Point buy as your starting point:
So let's say for SAD Classes. You could come up with a two of those that you're okay with, with about that much specialization; but use these restrictions: Same number of points, no more than one 16, no more than one 8. 16 13 12 12 10 8 (15 Points)
For your Dual-Ability Dependent Classes Give them a bit better for arrays or point-buys. 16 15 13 12 10 8 (or 20 Points)
And for your Multi-Ability Dependent Classes (Like Monks) give them the best point-buy for their arrays. 16 16 14 12 10 8 (25 points)
Which list of arrays they can choose from would depend on which class they pick at level 1. If they multiclass later, and become more MAD, you can bump up their array to match the MAD players, and I don't think it would become unfair.
You will want to have 3 lists of classes, which tell you which array to give them.
Then you either decide on a build-by build or class by class basis which tier the character belongs in. A wizard who uses int for pretty much everything is Single-Ability Dependent build, a Wizard who is all about ranged touch attacks int+dex is arguably Dual-Ability Dependent. Monks are always Multi-Ability Dependent.
A fighter is dual (Str+Dex or Str+Con). A Ranger is probably Multi: Str, Dex, Wis.
That should give you a pretty effective, switch-hitting, ranged death machine, who is also a fast sneaky scout, and can disarm traps.
If you want a bonus to your stealth, you can consider having the wizard cast silence on one of your mount's horseshoes, or some other item it's wearing.
If the enemy casters try to dispel the horse, they pick the wrong target.
I think this build should be way more fun than a stock rogue.
Hmm. one route you could do is you give a flat number of bonuses, ignoring the actual scores, kindof like True20 does, and assume they all get even numbers.
You could give a different number of roll bonus points based on who is more MAD, (Monks would get the most points, wizards, less.) and then you just cap the maximum bonus they can give to one ability score at +4.
I suppose this is a more flexible way of doing arrays, but still having them be arrays.
taking mplindustries arrays as examples:
16, 16, 16, 14, 12, 10 would give (+12) Bonus Spread throughout 6 stats.
I would probably give smaller bonus pools overall.
+10 for non-MAD classes, +11 for MAD classes, and then let them bump any two attributes (not the 18) up to the odd number, and let them take one stat at -1 to get an extra +1 to put in another stat. Only one stat can be at +4, and at least three(for the MAD classes, 4 for non-MAD) of them have to start at +2 or less
So they could (non-MAD) get at most minmaxed:
and for MAD Classes
That to me seems reasonable as a point-buy system, and flexible, though you could restrict it further, or randomize what bonuses they get to put where.
I think the important part to get down is that you want to have more points for MAD classes, and less points for non-mad classes.
For your sneaky character, I'd go with a ranger.
For which Archetype, I would suggest an Urban Ranger (it gives you rogue stuff - no sneak attack, but your regular damage and better bonus to hit more than make up for that). If you don't feel like Naturey Spellcasting, Add Skirmisher to the List. You're probably better off with the spells though.
And here's the Archery Ranger guide, if you want to go archer.
For bringing your horse (you want a horse as your animal companion if possible - read the guide for why) through ladders and ropes and stuff, and spaces small enough that you need to squeeze through, get a real big bag of holding or portable hole or something of the sort. Do the math to figure out what size you need. The horse can breathe inside for like 10 minutes, and you don't have to close it all the way.
It lets you carry the horse (or party members, or what have you) without them being noticed, as a bonus. Put the fighter inside and he won't have to make stealth checks. Leave the bag open and you can drop it as a free action, and he can climb out once the fight starts.
If you can't get a horse cohort, an intelligent set of armor with the Fly power could be useful for positioning, but it won't give you the speed a horse would. However, it moves on its own, so so long as you get armor that likes you (Call him Jarvis), you get to have a full attack and a 30 foot move in any direction including up. You could also consider the leadership feat if your charisma isn't crap - I rarely make a build that doesn't take leadership at the first opportunity, and it might be the thing I would change from the guide. If you're going to go with the leadership route, you could swap your animal companion for the other bonus if you like.
Intelligent flying armor is cheaper than a flying carpet and you don't need to put points in fly, but as mentioned, it's not that fast.
If you take a mount and it doesn't have any proficiency, it can still wear armor, but will take a penalty to its attacks. If you're not using it offensively very often, the extra armor might well be worth it.
Maybe relevant, maybe not, but you might find it an interesting alternative.
I use a Card-Based System to let players generate their own array. For instance...
You shuffle and have them draw. If you total all of their stats they add up to 78, no matter what you draw. They'll have no stats below 8, and no stats above 18.
You get characters whose average stat is 13 though. So a bit higher powered than 15 point-buy, to be sure.
I've also played with giving less high cards and more low cards, having them generate a couple arrays and pick one, and putting in a joker (Joker doubles whatever it's drawn with)
The game with the Joker had something like this for cards:
which gives you 65 + a joker, giving you a slightly uneven, but still close in power level: 69-74 points, and average stats of 11.5 - 12.3.
If you want them even, you simply don't include the joker, and put them all in actual numbers.
I like that it can be tailored to a specific campaign power level while still being random. It's not balanced the same way that the point buy system is, because it doesn't assign exponentially higher value to higher stats. +1dex adds 1 to your total, regardless of how high it is, and you can determine your maximums and minimums just by changing which cards you let them draw.
I personally prefer it to point buy.
Honestly I think the caster-martial disparity should be dealt by acknowledging the class-tiers and picking classes with close power levels.
If I were to move the power level, I would boost the martial classes instead of trying to nerf the casters. Martial classes can be pretty dull, and don't have nearly enough versatility - so expanding the things they can do seems like a good plan.
The post in question was in response to a post that the Fighter was mechanically superior to the Barbarian. He proved that poster wrong using the math and a listing of very easy to obtain class abilities for the Barbarian. Preference is fine, but it does not undercut the facts that the math is capable of producing.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
I was merely responding to a post that the barbarian was inferior to the fighter on a mechanical level.
As the person who was shown that Barbarians are mechanically better than I thought (though I'm still not convinced they are on the same power level as Rangers / Paladins, or that they're necessarily better than fighters, but they're at least competitive with fighters, which is better than what I thought); he was responding to something I said about the mechanics, and classes I wouldn't play because of mechanical reasons. No amount of roleplay will make the commoner as good as the wizard. That doesn't mean everything needs to be hyper optimized either, but I am someone who puts a minimum usefulness on character options, and Rogues and Monks generally don't make the cut, I would rather play another class. A highly optimized rogue or monk might, however.
I retract my statement about Barbarians. I haven't played one / seen one played in a while (pre APG), and it seems they're better than I had thought.
I'm pretty sure they didn't used to be.
And while they get more skill points, I remember their skill list being terrible, and their class features and rage powers underwhelming. Perhaps that's a thing of the past.
Good to know they're better now.
Any time I've seen anyone track performance, a Greatsword Fighter outdoes the Greatsword Barbarian. The barbarian doesn't always have rage. The fighter almost always has his favored weapon, and even with rage on, the fighter out-DPR's him.
Pounce is pretty useful though.
But even if you're right, and the Barbarian can keep up to a fighter in melee, he's is way less useful out of melee. He has way less class features than pretty much any class, and he is very much a 1-trick-pony
I would enjoy giving those classes decent and compatible archetypes for being Unarmored, Unarmed, Asian Weapons-Themed, and Combat Maneuver Specialized, Ideally in ways where you could mix and match any or all of the above. Maybe the Paladin Archetype could also have a variant on the paladin code that's more ascetic monk feeling. Then throw in "Masterwork Clothing" which can take on Armor Enhancements, and you've got perfect asian-themed martial characters.
I might give a barbarian a chance in a low powered game. But he really just doesn't have enough class features.
Serious or humor?
Cause if you're concerned about the thing going under your foot and cutting you, I don't see it happening with your sock and shoe holding it in place, but you could easily have a pocket either sewn to the inside of your sock or on a harness on your foot under your sock. It would be trivial to hire a tailor to do such a thing, and since you don't care what the thing looks like, you could likely craft it yourself with a crazy low DC (realistically anyone who understands how a needle and thread work - even having never used one themselves - could accomplish it given a couple hours).
Hide one in your sock, and wear one on your belt. Keep the one in your sock for emergencies and use the other one the rest of the time.
Whereas I mentioned an Adamantine Arrow for non-consumeable purposes - though normally it would be consumeable. - Because it's an affordable adamantine item that you will have taking up space roughly the size of two coins, in your sock.
A bolt would work too.
Gives you a tiny adamantine blade (which is useful outside combat) for 60 gold and either 1 silver or 5 copper, depending if you went bolt or arrow.
If you go with a weapon that doesn't count as ammunition, it'll be +3000 gold. I suppose you'll have it for in combat too (Whereas an arrow with a 1.5 inch shaft and no fletching isn't very useful for shooting) - but having some adamantine blades for outside combat is still crazy useful, and my option is affordable at level 1.
That's an interesting little piece of information; and while I believe it would be difficult to provide evidence of such a claim - the accuracy or inaccuracy of that claim is irrelevant to this discussion.
Even if you're right about the medieval terminology, a tiny little boot knife is not represented as a dagger in D&D/Pathfinder. It's simply too small. Dagger stats would be excessively strong for it.
In medieval times they didn't categorize swords into short swords, long swords, bastard swords, and greatswords. Instead you had people just refer to it as a sword. Or a one handed sword vs two handed sword. Or if you were talking to an expert, by one of dozens of names for various subcategories of sword - often divided by the culture that designed them. In D&D however, that's how things are broken down. By size and functionality.
And none of that changes the fact that if you look up bootknife, you get a little knife like the one I put up a picture of.
tl;dr - The term bootknife has well established meaning. I said what it was and linked a picture from the first page of google searches of bootknife. Also, D&D (and therefore pathfinder) doesn't use the same categories as used in the real world (which are endlessly complex and many experts can argue about them for hours), they divided it up by size and functionality, which is quite useful for a game.
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
@Darkholme: sorry in Pathfinder it is called the Blade Boot.
Yeah, when you said bootknife, I thought you meant bootknife, which is a small knife designed to be small enough that you can holster it in your boot. There are sheathes for them that fit in the side of a boot, as well.
Your option is not great for fine manipulation, though useful in combat. I would still want the arrowhead for cutting through manacles.
I acknowledge that would be also cool, but I have been wanting specialty priests since 3e came out; and I'm convinced that having clerics that only cast spells that make sense for their gods would be way more believable than all the clerics using healing and harm spells.
It could be archetypes for the cleric and oracle that trade the spell-lists for other spell-lists and some new features instead of a new class - if necessary. Perhaps make a less martial oracle/cleric as well, and make it so you can take both archetypes.
@Threeshades: I agree, but most people don't see it that way.
People get weirded out when I say I'm building a rogue, and I don't take a single level in rogue - instead using ranger or bard - possibly plus prestige classes. Likewise when I make a 'monk' and it's all ranger, paladin, or fighter, built for unarmed combat (or monk weapons) and mobility.
Arrowheads are easier to hide. You can slip it in your sock without hurting yourself, you can make a sheathe for it inside the lining of your boot, you could put it in the sole of the boot if youre clever about it.
If you go with the boot knife, the handle makes it harder to conceal.
Aside from that, I'm almost certain the arrow is cheaper.
You mean like Green Ronin's d20 Mutants and Masterminds, the very popular d20 supers game that spun off of D&D 3.0?
I'm not sure supers for PFRPG would offer anything substantially different from M&M to make it worth choosing over the very well established and supported product.
One thing I'd love to see:
Ideally, with whole spell-lists for each domain - and getting 3 or 4 domains from the god's list, along with domain powers.
No ever buy magic arrows though.
You should always buy one adamantine arrow-even if you don't have a bow.
Break off the shaft, and keep the arrowhead in your shoe. If you're ever captured, you pull it out and use it to dig out of your cell/break out of your chains/cut open the door. Adamantine Ignores hardness. You can get out in just a few minutes.
Of the wizard, sorcerer, or several other classes? Yes, there are a handful of options for them but they pretty much rely on the divine classes too.
Wizard has infernal healing.
Sorcerer has infernal healing. And they can get up to cure critical wounds at the same level as a cleric (or any other divine spell level 1-4 at the same level that class gets them) using a ring of spell knowledge - though yes, you can only wear two of them at a time due to ring slots. Bards can take the Rings of Spell Knowledge too.
Fighters can pull their own weight much more than a barbarian, rogue, or monk, but that doesn't put them at the same level as rangers and paladins.
In my experience, Paladins tend to ruin the fun of other players more than contribute to a party. This isn't because the players running them are dicks or the GM is being one, it just tends to limit a large amount of creative approaches to dealing with situations. When your players spend time at the table trying to work around another players alignment issues, it detracts from everyone's fun.
This too. I'm a firm believer that the Paladin is a better class than a fighter, and yet I don't play them and often disallow them due to experiences of them getting in the way of the rest of the party having fun. Fighters are in the same ballpark as a Paladin or Ranger in terms of power (and they're better than barbarians), but the Ranger and Paladin also have huge amounts of versatility the fighter just doesn't doesn't have.
The problem with the fighter isn't that he's too weak in comparison to the other melee characters. He's about as strong as the paladin, and a bit stronger than a ranger. Unfortunately, he's not much stronger, and the ranger and paladin are both better at a bunch of other stuff, and the fighter is only really good at the one thing you build him for.
I disagree with you.
Yes, luck, and quality of player tactics aren't things that can be easily taken into account, however, you can standardize them to compare the other elements, and in doing so, you can quantitatively state whether one class is objectively better than another or not, assuming you account for the other variables. It's not as simple as just calculating DPR, and it would actually involve alot of data entry and calculation. Perhaps spreadsheets, or an application would be needed to make it manageable in a reasonable amount of time, with any degree of useful evidence. But it can be done.
Sure, a more experienced player may be able to make them more effective than a less experienced player. Sure it's possible for a fantastic character of the most powerful class to roll nothing higher than a 3 for an entire evening. But neither of those things invalidates the above paragraph, as those things can happen to all the classes.
By that rationale, while all the Player Character Classes can handle encounters better than the Commoner NPC Class, that doesn't mean they're better than a Commoner. I think that is just blatantly false.
[http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p4z9?Ring-of-Spell-Storing-Unintended-Effects#5]Ring of Spell Knowledge Unintended Effects[/url]
I noticed that RAW, Rings of Spell Knowledge allow for an arcane spontaneous caster (like a Sorcerer) to add divine spells to his spells known at the same level as in-class spells, but out of class arcane spells are at +1 level.
Yeah, similar names; and I typed spell-storing instead of spell-knowledge.
I agree with you about the intent not being that it's easier to learn divine spells from another class than arcane spells. It seems unlikely that they would do that on purpose.
I do like the idea of being able to add divine spells, but I would expect them to also be at +1 spell level.
However, it appears, RAW, If I want my sorcerer to learn druid spells, that's easier than having him learn bard spells.
But then, if I had written it, it would have been built to work for Oracles as well.
Humphrey Boggard wrote:
There's some contention about which classes would go in which tier, such as the Cavalier (which has a bit of a hard time in enclosed spaces, and no option to get rid of the mount for other stuff.)
But Basically I would suggest (from my tiers) cutting down on the number of tiers you use. The bigger the gap, the more noticeable it will be.
If you have Tiers 1-6 in a party, it really shows, and the tier 4-6 guys might feel like they make much less important contributions to the party, unless your 1-3 guys are going out of their way to make them feel useful. If you only use tiers 1-3 it should be a bit closer, for instance. The power jump is more from 2-3; and the jump from 1-2 is more about flexibility. Tier 1 characters are more flexible than tier 2, but the power level is pretty similar. Tier 3 is a bit weaker than 2&1, but generally alot more flexible (but similar powered) than tier 4. Tier 4 are close in power to tier 3, but their schtick is useful less often. 5 and 6 are kindof pathetic.
And I would say (as a general rule): don't let anyone play rogues or monks or unless your top tier is 4 (in which case you need to keep that in mind when designing your adventures).
If you're going to have low tier characters be played, it helps to have very proficient players playing and building them.
I'd advise against letting new players make rogues or monks unless you're running a really weak tiered game; or it's a really experienced player making the monk or rogue (and even then, I would want to avoid the tier 1&2 characters).
If someone wants to build a rogue, try steering them to rogue-like archetypes of a higher tiered class like a ranger or a bard.
For monks, steer them toward more useful martial classes. An eastern skinned magus could work quite well, for instance. With a little work, again, ranger could do it (afterall, flurry of blows is just a crappier two weapon fighting). And maybe even paladin could do it with the right options.
So your argument basically boils down to "I like playing Evil and possibly distruptive characters, thus I render your argument invalid" or something similar? Sorry to break the news to you dude, but that does not make the Paladin any less an option as a class. All you did was prove that a DM should ensure the party can work together instead of being a bunch of jerks to one another. It's also why I usually do not allow Chaotic Stupid of the "I am Chaotic Evil but I'll tell the DM I'm Chaotic Neutral instead" variety that piss me off to no end.
In my experience, characters like those listed above make for a very interesting campaign, and not all of those characters would qualify as evil. Some could easily called neutral.
And as for disruptive, I have to say those characters are less disruptive than the majority of paladins I have seen in games.
For instance: Detecting Evil and then smiting random townsfolk without evidence of any wrongdoing.
I'm of the opinion that Paladins are better than Rangers and Fighters, but I often disallow them because they frequently turn out to be more disruptive than a CN Rogue constantly robbing the party.
I will note that I don't assume a good aligned party - I assume the party will include neutral characters, and it *May* include good and/or evil characters as well.
"Arcane spells that do not appear on the wearer’s class list are treated as one level higher for all purposes (storage and casting)."
So far as I can tell, there's no stipulation that the spells put in the ring be arcane spells.
So it seems RAW: Class spells, and divine spells from any class list can all be learned at the regular level, and Arcane spells that aren't on your list are at +1 Spell Level.
Am I wrong?
If not, Sorcerer with some of those nifty cleric spells could be awesome. Perhaps Inquisitor, Druid, Ranger, or Paladin too.
A Sorcerer with Cure Light wounds as a 1st level spell could be handy in some cases, for sure.
A wizard who goes nova in the first combat of the day and then complains would get no sympathy from anyone I've ever gamed with. There's a reasonable understanding that their power pendulum swings a lot more than anyone elses.
Yeah, I gotta say; Casters who expect a 15 minute adventuring day are going to have problems when they don't get it, but I've only ever played with a group who would tolerate that stuff once. And it only works in a dungeon, without time-sensitive plot. (Basically with no plot at all, just the dungeon).
If you rest a dozen times on the way up the wizard's 3 story tower? Well, you likely missed the fight with the BBEG, and maybe you find a little note taunting you for your failure.
I dunno about the rings. I don't see any mention of the ability to empty the ring so you can put another spell in it. You sure you're not stuck with the first spell you teach it?
So it's because he could have a hard time in small hallways?Anywhere you have to climb or swim to, hallways, bedrooms, kitchens, the local pub, the King's court, anywhere a horse isn't welcome...
I like to store my mount in a bag of holding when I need to do those things. Just long enough to climb, or swim, or what have you. And if combat happens I can let him jump out.
Yes, and the small cavalier is my favorite way to build one, just for that reason. However, once you start making a small melee character, you'll have to give up 4 points on STR, which is a really bad start on a melee build. (-2 for the racial penalty of both Halfling and Gnome, and -2 you would have generally added from Human, Half-orc, or Half-elf.)
You could use Ranged Weapons... lol.
"Good support character" is a way to say "Bad lead character". Don't get me wrong - I love playing characters that aid their companions with buffs, debuffs, cures, etc. In fact, I wish more character types had access to party-helping tools. (e.g. really good ways for melee characters to use shields to benefit adjacent allies, or melee induced debuffs that lower saving throws.) But if a fair number of a characters combat actions aren't spent adversely effecting the enemy, you're probably not contributing very much.
I would argue that giving the rest of the party +your level to hit and damage (I think that's what it is, off the top of my head) to all their attacks is likely a pretty good contribution, especially if you do it once and it lasts a while after that.
I would rate Cavalier as equal to the other melee classes if I knew the campaign would allow use of the mount 90% of the time. But even in Kingmaker, the most outdoor campaign I've ever played, you're not going to hit anything like 90%. I'm playing a level 11 Paladin with a bonded mount in Kingmaker right now. I'd say mount access is around 50/50...
Hmm. I want to play a Drow Cavalier with one of those Drow Cave mounts (Giant Spiders or Giant Lizards, both of which can stick to walls).
Yeah, I figured the houndmaster wouldn't count, but I haven't really played or seen anyone else play a stock Cavalier. Most of the GMs I've played with (and myself) allow pretty much anything that's in the later rounds of RPG superstar, or made by people who got to the later rounds of RPG superstar; as it's all been accepted or rejected by Paizo (unless something looks really OP).
So it's because he could have a hard time in small hallways?
He COULD dismount, there's nothing stopping him from having the horse trample people, or you could play one that's a small creature if you're in a dungeon crawl.
IME the Teamwork feats and the non-mount based Cavalier abilities make him a decent melee combatant, as well as a good support character, like a bard or a cleric/wizard focused on party buffs.
Out of Curiosity, would you rate the Cavalier higher in a non-dungeon crawl game (Largely wilderness and cities)? - Many Paizo APs and many people's campaigns are mostly outdoors.
It's a bit dated, but this is how Treantmonk ranked them a while back, and he was my go to guy for guides for a while.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
Hey Darkholme, just thought i would mention you can't ask an opinion based question and then tell people they are wrong.
I'm pretty sure that's not what happened.
Gorbacz seemed to misunderstand the initially proposed rating scale. So I asked him to clarify. Turns out he did not misunderstand.
I commented that the people who were giving no detail and the people who were not answering the question at all, or were saying all classes are of the same powerlevel were not helping with figuring out the tiers (for the rest of us who believe not all the classes are equally good).
It's kindof like when you see a thread about "Monk Fixes" and instead of helping the poster who clearly sees something he'd like to see addressed, you just get like 30 messages saying "Monk is great, one of the best classes, stop complaining". Not very helpful.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
I would say that is also an opinion. For instance, I would have a hard time deciding between Monk and Warrior (assuming no funky Archetypes) - which says to me that Monk is likely on par with the NPC classes.
Blueluck's & Minoritarian's Posts about two hours ago were fantastic; and gave all the sorts of information I was looking for.
Minoritarian's Link wrote:
@Blueluck - Why would you arrange them that way instead of as per the guide Minoritarian posted?
How does the Paragon Surge thing work? From what I can tell, you can only pick spells that are on your class list, not any arcane spell. (though it's still pretty neat).
You just said the wizard is as weak as the commoner, and no class is as good as the monk.
I believe you meant
Also, even if I agreed with that (monk is as good as commoner, wizard is the best), that doesn't say anything about where any of the other classes fit in.
Thank you! This is the sort of detail I was looking for.How big is the gap between each step? How much better is a 9 level caster than an alchemist? How much better is a Full-BAB non-caster(barbarian) than a Monk or Rogue?
Excellent. I'll look this up.
I knew that 9 level casters (druid particularly) and summoners were somewhere at the top, and that Monks and Rogues near the bottom, but I had no idea where the other things fit in.
Looking it up, I can't find a decent version of the list for Pathfinder, just 3.5. If someone can link me a version of JaronK's Tier system that's geared at pathfinder, let me know. In the meantime, I'll be looking for it on google.
If one were to rank (based on performance/power) all of the base classes (stock, not using archetypes) 1-20, with 1 being Commoner, and 20 being either Druid or Summoner whichever is 'better performing', how would you rate the other classes?
Classes can have the same number if they are the same overall power/performance.
Curious to see how people rank them.
Arguments or links to why you rank things a certain way are welcome.
There was a 5-level Grave Digger base class in a 3.0 book called Legends & Lairs: Darkness & Dread. It was geared at running a horror game. Similar in concept to Heroes of Horror.
It included a Gravedigger class as well as a few others. I believe one of them was Beggar.
It was kindof neat - but I think it would make a pretty underwhelming 20 level class. They only had 5 levels for a reason.
Hmm. That would be a terrible trade.
I would think if you're getting rid of the Animal Companion completely, you should be getting most of the evolution points a Summoner gets for the Eidolon, and you should have them all the time, not just the brief period while shapeshifted Druid shifting is nowhere near as awesome as what a synthesist does. If it's time limited as per wildshape, I could see an argument for allowing ALL the evolution points a summoner would get. You're giving up the biggest class feature besides spellcasting.
But yeah. That's the basic idea. Trade some druid class feature, for the ability to be better in the animal forms, and use evolution points to determine the guidelines for how good the things you turn into can be on top of normal shifting.
Wildshape a bit closer to what it was in 3.x, but with a check on the character powerlevels.
Yeah. I know a straight up swap of Animal Companion for Eidolon wouldn't work, just like a straight up swap of Familiar for Eidolon. I was thinking the trick would be less points, or counting as a lower level summoner, or something.
It also occurred to me that there might be cool things which could be done involving Evolution points and shapeshifting druid style (building a couple different forms you can change into or something).