|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Well, I have to say I've never read anything about the combat schools of Golarion that included study of magic or bringing in the sorcerer to train against magical effect. And aside from that, the monk has been the martial with the best saves for quite some time now, and even though I think the fighter needs a bit of a boost, there's no reason to step on other classes toes to do it. But if you like the high will save, I'll digress.
The high Will Save (along with Fearless and Indomitable Will) is to represent bravery and stubbornness more than anti-magic training. Spell Defense, meanwhile, can represent anti-magic training, but can just as easily represent being sorta inherently anti-magical, as only makes sense for the most 'mundane' class.
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Also I was thinking of the student of war PrC when I thought of that, but I've never liked how they were tied to a successful knowledge check. For one, I don't think making the distinction between a zombie, a ghoul and a wight should make a big difference to how effective your attacks are. And second I hate how if you make a knowledge check versus an enemy, you can't know what a second enemy is, otherwise you lose your bonus versus your first enemy. I don't know if you're supposed to be willfully ignoring what other enemies look like or what in the meantime, but I just can't understand how you could have one skeleton come at you and know it's a skeleton, and not know the skeleton right behind it, who looks nearly identical, is also a skeleton.
I can see where you're coming from, but the whole basic idea just doesn't sit well with me thematically on the core fighter anyway, so it's a bit off topic.
Deighton Thrane wrote:
I have to say most of this looks pretty good, but the good will save and spell defense are probably a little too much. Fighter's aren't really the iconic schooled to defend themselves from magic class, however boosts to resist enchantment, and possibly a boost to ongoing saves might be more typical for the class.
Aren't they? I'd imagine learning how to fight would involve precisely that sort of thing in a world with magic. Also, it harkens back to their 1st and 2nd Ed. roots, where they had the best saves in the game, which I rather enjoy.
Deighton Thrane wrote:
And he could use some more utility as well. Maybe something to make use of either Int or Wis, based around tactics or battle intuition? Or something else that doesn't need to be done in combat, because that's not really the problem with the Fighter right now, it's trying to fight something to do when the fighting stops, other than carrying everbody's stuff.
I'm not against adding a bit more out-of-combat stuff or utility, but I'm still bouncing around on what exactly I can come up with that is both effective, balanced, and thematically appropriate.
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Maybe a swift action ability to study an enemy and get an insight bonus equal to their Int or Wis bonus versus the next attack by the studied creature. I know it seems like everybody and their dog are getting study the enemy actions these days, but I can't really think of much that fits at the moment, especially any abilities that work out of combat, I chime back in if I do.
Lore Wardens get this already, and are certainly an available option.
And yeah, I've been trying to think of thematically appropriate skill bonuses and/or out of combat abilities as well.
You've replaced Bravery with a decent class feature, and then correctly added in other class features at every level bravery used to occupy.
Yep, that was the plan. :)
Now, you need to add something at levels 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 17.
Not inherently. Weapon Training and Armor Training up at 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17. That leaves 8, 12, and 16 only, and even at those levels they get a Feat...and a Feat's not nothing. Though I'm not averse to adding a little more at a few of those levels under the right circumstances.
Eh. I'm okay with the capstones as they are, mostly. Adding one made me happy, but the existing ones are quite good enough already in many ways.
Neither do most Classes. Paladins are, in fact, the only Full BAB Class with any meaningful options in these regards. Okay, Rangers can use a Wand of CLW, but I don't consider that a very big advantage (sinc someone in the party can almost always do this).
You have no movement options.
Neither do any non-casters (well, some people get a small movement boost). Unless you count Pounce, and I've actually added a Feat for that which is available to everyone (though with Mobility as a prerequisite, it's most useful for people with some Feats to burn).
You have no skill increases.
Nope. Fighter isn't a skill Class and I wasn't really trying to turn it into one. I might yet add an ability or two to help them out with skills, but beyond putting them on par with other non-spell casters at 4+Int skill points, that's not precisely the primary design goal here.
You have no out of combat utility/contribution other then increasing the skill points.
This is true, and again not especially atypical of existing Classes.
He's worse at using feats then most classes that get bonus feats.
The mere fact that he gets a lot more of them actually does make up for something on this front. Also, Kudaku has convinced me that they need Martial Mastery as a Class Ability, which will in fact make many Feats notably better for them than anyone else.
He has no ability to buff his companions, lead on a battlefield, or acquire followers.
Again, this is not something all Classes actually possess. Many spell casters do, but Barbarians, Slayers, that kind of Class? Not so much.
You did increase his saves and defenses to a degree. Defensively, its a much better fighter. Now you need to consider utility and versatility.
I am considering utility and versatility to some degree. I added skill points, after all. Should I add more in that vein? Maybe, I'm certainly considering it. But Barbarians and Cavaliers don't have much more out-of combat utility than Fighters do in even this iteration...but Rangers definitely do. The question becomes whether they're closer to on par with the former or the latter in combat.
Using Cha for Will saves is decent. If you go 4E, int/dex for Reflex, Str or COn for Fort and Wis/Cha for Wis were interchangeable and made sense.
Str and Int are useful enough without such an option in Pathfinder, IMO....while Cha is not. My making only Will Saves have a set of options for what stat to use is thus a game balance issue.
You should post your generic house rules then, because they affect the build.
They're linked in the first post. I have a 10 page document of them, only 4 of which are other Classes. So...more than 5 pages of House Rules. Including all of them here seems rather distracting from the basic point of the thread (which should be port-able with minimal changes top games that don't use my House Rules).
More detailed response to the rest of your posts to follow.
Right off the bat I like it. I really appreciate that you've managed to improve it without making it incompatible with archetypes.
Thanks, I tried hard. :)
I'd consider adding Acrobatics (for lightly armored fighters) and Diplomacy (for officers and leaders) to the class list.
I have no objection to modifying the Class list somewhat, but adding too many skills can be problematic. Other 4 Skill Point Classes have 10-13 almost universally, with only Gunslingers and Swashbucklers going over that (at 15 and 16 respectively). My revised list puts the Fighter at 13 precisely, so I'm leery of adding more. Also, see below.
A pet peeve of mine is that fighters get weapon training (look how awesome I am with this huge list of weapons), but the iconic fighter-specific feats such as weapon specialization are all about focusing on one weapon. I'd consider adding Martial Mastery as a class feature, and a hell of a lot earlier than level 16.
This is a very interesting idea, and one I'm now definitely considering adding. Though I'm not sure at what level...maybe level 4? That's not a very full level...or maybe 8th, so it's after he actually gets Weapon Training. Hmmm...yeah, I'm gonna add this, just let me think on how.
Well, first, I was hoping Good Will Save Progression would make this way less necessary. Wizards certainly don't feel the need to invest heavily in Wisdom, after all. Nor Bards. And Fighters actually do better than they do on Will Saves due to Spell Defense.
Second, this is running right into my general House Rules for everyone. Because I allow anyone who wants to use Charisma for Will Saves instead of Wisdom. As a side note, I also allow people to swap out up to two Class skills for other skills as well (which helps with the skill problem above, as well as helping make a Charisma heavy Fighter if you want).
Frankly, this problem just doesn't strike me as Fighter specific, it's true of all Classes to some degree. That said, if you wanted to add it 4th level seems about the right level of empty. That'd bump Martial Mastery to 8th, but like I said, I might do that anyway.
Help me out. Throw your best Unchained Rogues at me. I don't understand the class, need to see builds.
It's exclusive to people with Evasion. And probably only worth it on low-Fort Save Classes. So it's primarily useful to Rogues, Archaeoogist Bards, and maybe high level Swashbucklers (assuming you let them count for prerequisites).
Also, and for the record, I didn't come up with that, I just found it on this Forum. It's pretty amazing, though.
And the Unchained Rogue is what makes the build I just listed have an AC equivalent of 37, and a +20/+20/+15/+15 attack routine once he gets going (the later gives him a DPR a bit north of 100 when he's Sneak Attacking on all four attacks, and goes up over 130 with Haste).
But it's not. He actually built a Fighter with an equivalent level of optimization and his Monk does better than said Fighter.
Now, IMO, that's a rather low level of optimization, but as long as it's the same level, it's a valid comparison.
Help me out. Throw your best Unchained Rogues at me. I don't understand the class, need to see builds.
Basic TWF Build:
Human Rogue (Scout, Knife Master) 10
So, he charges into melee, sneak attacks at +18 (via scout and the charge bonus), applies penalties and then either gets flanking or uses Two-Weapon Feint to unload full actions of sneak attack (which are effectively at +20/+15 to hit once the penalties kick in). His Bluff is a tad low, but he can grab Skill Focus next level to help with that.
5 times a day he can use Shield for the +4 AC for 10 minutes. Also, 5 times a day, he can use his Reflex Save instead of his Fortitude Save at no penalty (Twist Away + Ring of Ferocious Action is a very good combination).
Change shape is a supernatural ability. Do a search on supernatural abilities and detect magic and you get... a lot of debate as it seems an undefined area in the rules. I'd personally say no, su abilities don't produce magic auras.
I'd be inclined to say they do, but not one detectable as any particular sort of magic.
Another thing to keep in mind: All polymorphing does is give a circumstance bonus to your disguise check. Anyone rolling a high enough perception can see through it. It's a decent bonus, but high perception characters could certainly have a chance to see through to the creatures true form.
That does give the succubus a +29, and if she's been trapped a while, she could've taken 20 on her Disguise check. So...DC 49 to see through is pretty reasonable. And almost impossible to see through for most parties who encounter a baseline succubus (ie: level 8 or so at most).
If you're gonna go ranged, don't bother with the Oracle level. It'll net you, what, +2 AC at most? That's not worth a caster level.
And grab some Silken Ceremonial Armor at least. It's very in-theme for a geisha, and gives +1 AC at no meaningful cost. Honestly, I'd go Chain Shirt and wear it under your clothes. Nobody will ever know, and once you've go a mithral one it's even completely comfy. Sleeves of Many Garments are also cheap and will help disguise the armor.
I'd go with the following stats for what you seem to want:
Str 10 Dex 16 Con 12 Int 12 Wis 9 Cha 18
Possibly with the 9 in Str instead, depending on your priorities.
I'm really amused that this thread has descended into arguments about the plausibility of Asgardian technology and culture.
And for the record, yeah, I find it fairly plausible. They have plenty of vehicle-mounted ranged weapons, swords that shoot energy, etc. They're clearly just enjoying both their pseudo-medieval aesthetic and the advantages they have in hand-to-hand combat (which are immense). They're generally tough enough to survive getting into melee (especially while wearing armor), and they kill everything once they're there.
I just re-watched the scene in the throne room in Thor 2, and firstly, leading up to that, the Asgardians were doing really well with anti-aircraft guns and ship-to-ship combat (they killed something like 90% of the attacking ships), especially considering it was a surprise attack. Heck, even if they suck in man-to-man combat, maybe that's why nobody messes with them. Maybe they're a naval power. That was certainly true to some extent for vikings.
Secondly even once we're talking man-to-man fighting, the grenades were what did a lot of the damage, not the standard ranged weapons (which, as mentioned, were blockable by their shields...they were just a bit out of practice having not fought these foes in some thousands of years). It's pretty reasonable to assume that their armor stops the vast majority of energy weapons, and thus vs. most foes the tactics shown there would've worked fine...the Dark Elves just happen to be equipped with more powerful man-portable energy weapons than just about anyone else.
And, actually, melee tactics make a lot of sense with the naval power theory, and their soldiers primarily serving as marines. If you're boarding crippled (or surrendered) enemy space ships and doing corridor-to-corridor fighting...you probably don't want to to be throwing around energy blasts and blowing holes in things (especially if you're trying to capture or loot them), and melee tactics are very valid in that environment.
So...yeah, that actually makes even more sense, now that I've thought about it.
Laurela Oakensong wrote:
I realized I can take one level of oracle and extra revelation feat for lore keeper and sidestep secret.
You could. It's probably not worth it as a casting focused Bard though. A melee Bard maybe...
Laurela Oakensong wrote:
As a bard do i need to put a skill point in perform to be able to do my bardic performance? I assume i need to starting at level 1.
You do not need to do this for Bardic Performance to work. That said, you probably want to do it, because it helps enable Versatile Performance at 2nd level, which is awesome.
I don't believe there's ever been an official ruling on that.
That said, TWF Rogues aren't actually that Feat starved (you need the basic TFW line, which you grab at 1st, 9th, and 15th, plus Twist Away, and Iron Will, possibly Combat Expertise and Two-Weapon Feint at some point, and that's basically it...and you can grab extra Feats with Rogue Talents), so you can afford Double Slice if it's ruled you need it (and you choose to so invest).
Because I can has pdf.
So can I. :)
Uh...given that Sunder Enchantment has Spell Sunder as a prerequisite, these statements are mutually incompatible. You can't use Sunder Enchantment unaltered if Spell Sunder doesn't exist. It's like having Weapon Specialization on a similar list of Feats while Weapon Focus isn't...it just doesn't work.
Which is why I'm saying it's likely an error of some sort.
Raise Animal Companion specifically notes that it 'functions as raise dead but only affects an animal companion, familiar, or paladin’s bonded mount'.
I think the clear intent is that at 16th level you replace Raise Dead in that sentence with Resurrection, but it otherwise remains unchanged (ie: only effecting the targets listed).
Upon what do you base this conclusion?
I'm curious if anyone can simply list the biggest perceived reductions/losses under the new AE system? Slayer studied target as a swift vs rage as a free is one. Others?
Pretty much any Swift Action self-buff was designed with not impacting the number of attacks you make in mind, and will need similar treatment. Arcane Strike, an Investigator's Studied Combat (if you take Quick Study), Warpriest's Fervor Ability, and do on and so forth.
Making them Free Actions is also problematic since they're not generally intended to stack with each other, though. Personally, I'd just advise adding back in a Swift Action per turn. Two different action types is pretty simple to remember.
The problem with this idea is that a Young Blue Dragon is already weak defensively for it's CR and only manages to be CR appropriate due to its high damage, which goes down from standard for a CR 12 to standard for a CR 3 by being Staggered.
I'd peg it at CR 6 Saves, CR 3 damage, CR 8 AC and HP, and CR 7 attack bonus. That averages out around CR 6...but is gonna be a really boring fight since it's a long slog of taking minimal damage while hacking away at the dragon.
To quote the OP: "Up to this point in my games I have never had to consider how to utilize this mechanic"
Now, clearly, the intent wasn't to make it a mechanics question, and I certainly tried to be helpful after that was clear, but the mistake is understandable.
So... my House Rules include a Fighter Fix, which I feel is fun and useful, while maintaining archetype compatability. In many ways it's more like errata than a new Class, so I'm not gonna do a whole document. Here it is:
The Fighter Class:
The Fighter receives 4 + Intelligence modifier skill points per level. They receive Knowledge (Local), Perception, and Sense Motive as additional class skills as well as a Good Will Save. They do not possess the Bravery Class Feature, receiving the following features in exchange:
Spell Defense (Ex): At 2nd level, a Fighter receives a +2 bonus on all saves vs. spells or spell-like abilities.
Archetypes that replace Bravery, replace the Spell Defense Class Feature instead. If they replace it with a scaling bonus, instead of scaling they simply gain it at the full +5 bonus (or whatever other maximum the ability hits) at 2nd level. The Viking’s ‘Fearsome’ ability is an exception, only receiving its normal progression.
The Unbreakable Fighter simply doesn’t replace Spell Defenses, and gains Improved Resilience on Fortitude Saves at 13th, as Resilience stacks with Stalwart.
Lore Wardens replace all instances of Armor Training with their listed Maneuver Mastery progression. They replace Spell Defense with Expertise, Fearless with Know Thy Enemy (which they receive at 6th level), Resilience with Hair’s Breadth (which they receive at 10th), and Indomitable Will with Swift Lore.
The Two-Weapon Warrior does not receive Doublestrike, however his Twin Blades ability applies even when making a standard action attack with two weapons (and replaces both Weapon Training 1 and 2). Defensive Flurry still only applies on Full Attacks, though.
Other Relevant House Rules:
Two Weapon Fighting: Unlike other multiple attack effects, this Feat may be used even when attacking as a Standard Action, though Improved and Greater Two Weapon Fighting still require the full attack action.
I have a question regarding the Unchained Barbarian, actually. What's up with Spell Sunder?
It's not on the list of new Rage Powers, nor the list of allowed ones from other sources...but Sunder Enchantment is on the second despite having Spell Sunder as a prerequisite.
So...is it intended to be on that list, get revised, or what? Or is Sunder Enchantment now free of prerequisites?
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Was one of the big fears people had when they announced the Barbarian was getting working-over in Unchained. After all, Paizo couldn't have a powerful non-spellcasting character.
It's not true, though. At least not in this regard. The only 'powerful combination' that existed before this book you give up is Reckless Abandon + Come And Get Me which was always way too much emphasis on offense and thus a bad call.
More worrying is the absence of Spell Sunder, but given Sunder Enchantment's continued presence, that appears to be a typo.
VM mercenario wrote:
In that case there is no reason to use the unchained barbarian. It's a straight downgrade to a balanced class. Just houserule it and give the upgraded talents and most of of the stance talents to the regular barbarian.
Eh. Superstition + Beast Totem eats up most of your Rage Powers anyway, you don't really need an additional stance beyond Taunting Stance unless you really want.
That's a thematic issue, not a mechanical one.
As for how to solve it, make it not merely a matter of money, but of the favor of the God whose Cleric you petition. Make the PCs go on some sort of quest, either to find a major temple the Cleric's own deity or to earn the favor of another.
Or have their god raise them spontaneously with some vision of a quest he needs them to accomplish.
What you're running into here M.M. is the bias many people in this game have against constant abilities. Its the exact same reason Full Casters are so overpowered, because much of this hobby wants 'limited use' stuff to be way better than simple always on stuff.
Not really. Most of my objections have little or nothing to do with this (indeed, the only one that has anything to do with it is Weapon Training from level 1), and I agree that 'unlimited use' is vastly overrated in many cases.
But 'always on' is notably better than 'as a move action'. An 'always on' is way better than 'once per day'. Now, it's only marginally better than 3 or 4 times a day...but once isn't enough to use it even every other fight. The game is predicated on 4 fights a day, once you can get through those, whether your effect is 'always on' doesn't matter, but it matters if you don't have enough uses to get through the day.
So...Barbarians get to Rage maybe 2 fights a day at 1st, and Paladins get to smite one foe. Slayers have to spend a Move Action to get their bonus (which hurts even low-level action economy), and Brawlers don't get a bonus to hit or damage at all. The Fighter version I was commenting on gets all their bonuses all the time from level 1.
Now, sure, by 7th level, all of these folks have all their bonuses close enough to all the time as makes no difference, but that's by seventh level and almost half way through most games. Powering up Fighters offense from levels 1-6 does not seem like something that's actually all that necessary, it's later stuff (plus defenses and mobility) that they need help with.
More detailed analysis later.
with viable I mean will it be as good in a fight as a H2 rogue or will it be worse. Will it be as good in combat as other classes that are not strait fighter types.
With the increase in accuracy and ability to lock people down from escaping your flanking (and eventually both at once), plus Dex-to-damage, TWF is definitely the correct choice for an Unchained Rogue.
Knife Master is actually an excellent idea. And Scout remains one as well.
And yeah, with getting Dex to damage (which Rogues all get automatically now), it definitely works.
Saves are a bit of a problem (though Twist Away + a Ring of Ferocious Action really helps there, and can be had pretty early), but it's as solid as most martial characters.
On p.13, under the 'Unmodified Rage Powers' section, in addition to the Ultimate Combat section being labeled Ultimate Campaign (which got mentioned previously), it lists Sunder Enchantment as a power that may be used unaltered. Sunder Enchantment has Spell Sunder as a prerequisite...and Spell Sunder is not listed either among the unmodified or new Rage Powers.
So...either Spell Sunder should be on the list, or there should be a note that powers on the list with prerequisites not on it don't need them.
Yeah, and with fewer once per Rage powers, a lot of the incentive to do it is gone.
It's still a nice trick, but way less of a must-have.
Christopher Dudley wrote:
I'm looking at that now. OK, physically, I suppose it fits the flavor text of taking on an animal shape, which WAS what I asked. So I look at how it fits if I convert over to the PU version. Now, laying on hands has nothing at all to do with my character concept, and electricity resistance/immunity makes little sense. Also, I'm more than one alignment step away from NG. While I admit that those are nice abilities to have, they aren't for this character.
What alignment? And what's the concept? I'm pretty sure something can be figured out.