Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Rogeif Yharloc

Lemmy's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 6,039 posts (7,395 including aliases). 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists. 9 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,039 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Let's see... A fairly optimized 10th-level Kineticist could have...

Dwarf Aero-Kineticist 10:

Str 7 Dex 18 Con 22 Int 13 Wis 16 Cha 5

His to-hit with an Air Blast is... +7 BAB + 4 Dex + 1 Weapon Focus (if applicable) +1 Bracers of Falcon's Aim +1 Point-blank Shot

That's +14. Damage is 5d6+11.

He needs to suffer 3 points of non-healable damage just to have the same accuracy of a Warrior. Another 2 or 3 if he wants to compensate for his lack of weapon enhancement bonuses.

So... That's 6 non-healable damage per turn. 5 if he uses an move action. To attack once. From 30ft. While provoking AoO.

Am I missing something? Because if this is really underwhelming.


Helcack wrote:
There are a bevy of ways to be immune or resistant to fear in Pathfinder, I actually don't find the emotion component to be too bad.

Immunity to fear doesn't make you immune to being demoralized.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Since all psychic casters are spontaneous, you can use a Logical Spell metamagic and pull a slot of 1 level higher when this comes up. Most of the people who can make you take free action shaken are melee martial characters (Cornugon Smash, Enforcer, etc), who don't otherwise have great options for messing up a psychic caster like they do with somatic casters.

I don't have any problem with martials being able to mess with casters... I just think the current version is somewhat excessive. Actually, the thought/emotion thing is flavorful, but I don't think they are very good, mechanics wise... They are either too difficult to stop (thought) or too easily neutralized (emotion).

Requiring a feat tax (and increased casting time. And higher spell slot.) just to not be royally screwed by a minor condition will just annoy players. Balancing casters by stopping them from casting is not a fun or interesting, it's just boring for the player using the caster. A much better idea is to make sure the spells themselves are balanced.

It's a flavorful mechanic, but if it stays as it is, I'll just ignore it and use verbal/somatic components. That way, at least martials will be able to interrupt my casting without the caster having the risk of being easily shut down by a commoner with ranks Intimidate.


Artanthos wrote:
Kinetic Bracers (...)

I like the idea, but the bracers shouldn't affect spells. Casters are powerful enough as they are. OTOH, they could affect thrown weapons! That way they would not only help the Kineticist, but also make thrown weapon builds more viable!

I don't think it's necessary to limit it to +5, though. Let their enhancements work like a normal weapon. They already have the disadvantage of occupying an item slot (in fact, they could be an slotless item).


Mark Seifter wrote:
@Emotion components, you could carry around a cheap 50 gp potion of remove fear or rely on getaway spells like dimension door to remaneuver. Remember, if it would have a somatic component, it has an emotion component, so you can cast those getaway no-somatic spells to reposition for better tactical position. The good thing that way is that most forms of easy and reliable access to shaken work in a 30 foot range, so if you get farther than that, you're less likely to be in trouble.

That's a lot of investment, effort and actions just to avoid being neutralized/crippled by such a simple and common status (like Shaken)... And while you're spending resources and actions to do that, the enemy can use a standard, swift or even free action to make you Shaken again (and probably also hit you) without spending any resource. Shaken is specially problematic because there are many abilities that cause the condition with no save or on even on a successful save (many spells make the target Shaken on a successful save). By mid levels it's also really easy to succeed on Intimidate checks.

It's really weird for a character to have to treat the Shaken condition as if it were almost as bad as Frightened.

Besides, if there is one thing the game doesn't need, is the addition of even more all-or-nothing mechanics (specially when it's so easy to be forced into the "nothing" half of the equation).


Going to play a Kineticist at levels 7 and 13 this Saturday. Wish me luck. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

Idea about Burn.

What if it functioned so that something like 5x your current number of Burn points is the only non-lethal damage that can't be healed?

For example, a 10th level Kineticist has 5 burn points and 50 points of non-lethal burn damage. He can heal 25 of those 50 points, but the other 25 are permanent until he rests.

This would allow you to burn for longer (without it being so debilitating or not worth the cost) but still retains that element of burns have semi-permanent damage.

Hmmm... What if it could be healed but it was more difficult to do so?

This class seem to suffer with accuracy and low hp, so giving it full BAB and d10 seems to be the obvious solution... Some sort of item that works as weapon enhancement (without occupying the Big 6 slots) would also help... Maybe a Robe of some kind?

Also, how about an ability to bypass energy resistance? Say... Resistance 5 at 7th level, 10 at 11th level, 15 at 15th level and 20 at 19th?

Maybe an ability to use Burn to bypass Energy Resistance/Immunity?


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Grab Cornugon Smash and Hurtful! Those are awesome!


joeyfixit wrote:
Cast a spell without Emotional components? Plan ahead and make sure to have one that's useful? Bring a weapon?

Those are very few. Planning ahead doesn't stop you from being Shaken. Bringing an weapon might not help much when casting spell is either your main thing or required from you to be a good combatant.

But whatever... Guess I'll just ignore that rule if it sticks to the official document.


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
The emotional component isn't so bad. It's definitely a bit trickier than the verbal component (though it has the advantage of already being an optimal social caster), but to think it cripples the class assumes a lot of metagaming. It's very unlikely every enemy you face is going to assume that in the world of magic you are the specific type of caster that is vulnerable to emotional effects. By the time things like scrying come online there are some options to deal with these sorts of effects. Maybe shaken could have 50% failure chance instead, but I still don't think it's all that bad and it's nice flavor.

I don't think it "cripples" the class... Just that it's excessively harsh. There are lots of feats and spells that cause fear effects. Many of them make your character Shaken on a successful save.


Sorry if this is clarified somewhere... But how do the spirits (in their various forms) interact with positive/negative energy and death effects?


Mark Seifter wrote:
If you're shaken, you're not casting an E spell (without the metamagic feat to remove the E anyway). Think of it in some ways as the martial's response to psychics (since tying them up or gagging them won't work)

That seems excessive... It's incredibly easy to force the Shaken condition. Many ways of doing it don't even offer a save. Needing a metamagic feat just to not be neutralized by such a common effect is pretty bad...

A psychic caster should at least have a chance of controlling his emotions without a metamagic feat. Couldn't it it be a spell-failure chance or difficult concentration check?


How much the Emotion component affects the rues? How much of it is just fluff?

e.g.: Can a character that is Shaken or under effect of a Fear spell use spells with a component based on a completely different Emotion (joy, glee, pride, etc) without any problem?


I'm really worried about accuracy...

Blasts don't benefit from weapon enhancements, so right now, they have the same accuracy of a Rogue with no magic weapon (!) and their favored means of boosting to-hit is suffering damage that can't be healed... Yikes!

I'm starting to think this class should have some sort of ki/mana/spirit/whatever pool and save the HP burn for when that pool is depleted. I fear the burn damage will stack up too quickly, forcing the character to choose between not using her class feature or being easily knocked out in combat.

I hate to say it, because it's a really cool concept... But using HP as fuel is starting to seem like a bad idea. Even more so considering it can't be healed by any means (not sure if that restriction is necessary BTW... If the character is willing to use resources to use his class features more often, is that really a problem?)

So... These are my main concerns right now:

- Few skill points and extremely short list of class skills will make Kineticists very limited out of combat.
- The combination of (Medium BAB + no weapon enhancement + d8 + non-healable hp damage to use class features) will make it very fragile and limited in combat... Non-touch Blasts will be mostly worthless at mid/high levels.

Right now, Kineticists are looking like a considerably weaker version of Alchemists...


Honestly... Canny Tumble is one of the worst feats I've ever seen in a Paizo hardcover. I honestly can't see why someone would want to spend a feat on that garbage in the first place.


Is there anything that helps the Kineticist overcome Energy Resistance/Immunity?

Since you can't add weapon enhancements to your blasts and the kineticist has medium BAB, the accuracy of non-touch blasts might be a problem.

Any chance we see an unarmed/unarmored archetype of this class (Preferably one that is simple, not one that trades iconic class)? I would love to make a bender without having to multiclass into Monk.


See Invisibility seems too limited... 1 minute once per day will only affect 1 combat. Why not allow it to work as the spell and last 10min per day? Aasimar get that as an SLA at 1st level.

If that's too long, how about allowing it to be usable a number of minutes per day equal to the Spiritualist's Wis modifier, allowing it to be used in one minute increments, but not necessarily consecutive minutes.

BTW, there is a typo in the description Call Spirit. it says "(...) to use call spirits* as once per day as spell-like ability.". I suppose it was meant to say as an "(...) to use call spirits* as a spell-like ability once per day"


Mark Seifter wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
I'm worried about its saves... As with all Cha-based classes, having only Will as a good save comes dangerously close to having no good save, since Cha doesn't boost Will and can't be used as a dump stat.
As it works out, your spirit bonuses can help a lot in that regard. For instance, a level 9 medium with Big Sky/Cricket has the same Reflex saving throw bonus as if she had a strong Reflex save. That said, as always, I'm open to considering other options. I would say that Fort is the more likely to add than Ref, for the reasons mentioned by rainzax upthread

A good Fort could solve the problem, as that would save up resources for the character to invest in their Will save.

(And a feat allowing the character to replace Wisdom with Cha for Will saves would be greatly appreciated... But I think the ACG made that impossible by introducing 3~4 overly situational ways of adding Cha to Will... -.-')


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm worried about its saves... As with all Cha-based classes, having only Will as a good save comes dangerously close to having no good save, since Cha doesn't boost Will and can't be used as a dump stat.


Mergy wrote:

2. Make the non-touch blasts more accurate, or give them something extra to do. Making them more accurate might be possible by...

(...)

Biggest worry is still the attack boost. I just can't seem to make it work without seriously dumping non-vital stats, and I can't see myself enjoying playing such a character.

That's a good point. it's not like the Kineticist can buy a magic blast weapon either (or is there some item that does that without occupying a vital item slot?).

Non-touch blasts might have a really difficult time hitting their target if they don't get a significant boost to accuracy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

Each element adds some class skills, so it does have some more available than it seems.

As for skill points--every time I make a class that has 2 skill points (and even 4), I always think about adding 2 more skill points. In fact, I brought up that very question for the kineticist when I was writing it. It's at 2 for now due to wisdom that the others had--when you're deciding something like this, the playtest is a good crucible and you're never going to see anyone say "This class was perfect except I wish it had 2 fewer skill points".

Don't worry! :) When I say I'm listening to your feedback, though, it's not boilerplate. I'm really listening, and I'm going to make sure to bring the skill points up at the end of the playtest based on everyone's feedback and playtest results!

I see your point, and I do believe you are listening to feedback (in fact, that's the very reason I decided to even participate in this playtest), but I will point out that if a full caster (or Int-based caster with any spell progression) appeared with 6 skill points per level, I'd certainly point out that it seems excessive.
Investigator is pretty much a 6-level caster with 6+Int skills, I suppose. I don't recall calls to lower its skill points, but I may not remember them.

I think that's because of three reasons: It suffers from the alchemists spell-casting limitations, doesn't have the same variety of spell effects as most other casters and it's basically a Rogue that works, so people wanted it to have many skill points.

Mark Seifter wrote:
I can't say I haven't also had ideas like adding the wood element. I will say that my classes are already massive page hogs, though, and it would take a good dedication in pages to make that a reality.

Pfff... Use "Burn" to suffer damage and use Expand Page Count on your game design SLA!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

Each element adds some class skills, so it does have some more available than it seems.

As for skill points--every time I make a class that has 2 skill points (and even 4), I always think about adding 2 more skill points. In fact, I brought up that very question for the kineticist when I was writing it. It's at 2 for now due to wisdom that the others had--when you're deciding something like this, the playtest is a good crucible and you're never going to see anyone say "This class was perfect except I wish it had 2 fewer skill points".

Don't worry! :) When I say I'm listening to your feedback, though, it's not boilerplate. I'm really listening, and I'm going to make sure to bring the skill points up at the end of the playtest based on everyone's feedback and playtest results!

I see your point, and I do believe you are listening to feedback (in fact, that's the very reason I decided to even participate in this playtest), but I will point out that if a full caster (or Int-based caster with any spell progression) appeared with 6 skill points per level, I'd certainly point out that it seems excessive.

There is also another reason for 4 skill points per level that I forgot to mention in my last post... The SADness of the class is somewhat negated by its greater need of Con, not only because it's its "casting" stat, but also because it takes additional damage due to Burn... So yeah, it's a SAD class, but it needs a really high attribute (even more so than most full casters, who don't need high save DCs to be effective).

Besides... It'd increase character variety without making the class unbalanced, and that's always good.

Anyway... Now after you mentioned Terrakinesis is more about Nature stuff... Any chance you rename it Geokinesis and make Terrakinesis an Wood/Plant-manipulating kineticist? That'd be awesome! I know quite a few characters that use that trick but are otherwise completely different from Druids.

And how about an archetype that lets the kineticist manipulate positive/negative energy instead (or in addition to) elemental energy?


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

Seems like a pretty cool class. I too vote for the Terrakineticist being renamed Geokineticist... Specially because it opens the possibility of Terrakineticist being used for a new element that focus on wood/plant control! (Make it happen, Mark! I know you can! ^^)

The 2 skill points per level and absurdly short list of class skills seem unnecessary, though. Really, no PC other than Int-based full casters should have less than 4 skill points per level... That's the bare minimum you need to be good at anything involving skills. I know it's a SAD class, but the extra points will either go to Str (if the character wants to fight in melee) or Wis (because weak Will saves are incredibly deadly past 7th level). In fact, 2+Int only encourages players to dump Int (I personally never dump Int, but I can see why someone would do it). I honestly don't understand this idea that classes should have as few skill points as possible... All it does is increase the gap between full casters and other classes.

The Kineticist is a "outdoorsy" class. Shouldn't it have more skill points per level than the caster (of equal intelligence) who spends his life in a church or tower, studying prayers and/or arcane tomes? It's not like the Kineticist will be overpowered or overshadow Rangers and Inquisitors just because he has 4 skill points per level. Last but not least... Having only 2 skill points is extremely boring, and depending on point-buy, investing in Int may not be a possibility (specially when your character has a weak Will save and suffers damage for using her class features).

Also, this being an element-based class, shouldn't it have Kn(Planes) and Kn(Nature) as class skills? The first would help them to interact with elemental creatures and the second seems appropriate, as being in tune with the natural world could be a nice background story for how a character got his elemental powers. In fact, add Survival to the list of skills that should be class skill.

And what about Climb, Fly and Swim? Wouldn't those be appropriate for a character that can control earth, air and/or water?


Claxon wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Ultimately, a THF is optimized out the door with 1 feat. TWF takes much greater system mastery to compete with, and thats okay.
If it only took greater system mastery (i.e.: knowledge of the rules), it'd be okay... But it takes more than that. It takes far more investment and even then, it's still inferior to 2-handed weapons most of the time.

I agree that TWF is inferior to THF. I've done the math enough times to know that. However, that doesn't mean it needs to be as good as THF at dealing damage or that THF is too good at what it does. I agree however, that TWF could use some buffing to make it more competitive. But not necessarily at dealing damage. It's okay for it not to deal as much damage, but it should offer things that THF doesn't. Currently the AC bonus, reflex, init are not enough of an offset. But if you made their damage equal to THF then they haven't anything left for their fighting style to do.

As a house rule I've instituted that TWF, ITWF, and GTWF all occupy a single feat slot. The feat grows once you reach the prereqs for it, no spending extra feats on it. However, THF also get two free feats that require power attack as a prereq (upon meeting the reqs). I also did the same thing with Vital Strike, IVS, GVS that I did with TWF. However, you can only choose one of these sets (to get the upgrades for free).

Oh, i don't think 2-handed is too good. I think TWF is too weak. If you check my collection of house rules, you will notice that I made TWF (and a bunch of other feat chains) a scaling feat.


Hmmm... Comparing 2 Fighters at 10th level. Both have Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Improved Critical and Weapon training with their main weapon.

Other than their weapons, their gear is exactly the same.

Notice that Gloves of Dueling are probably not affordable at this level, but I included an extra calculation taking them in consideration anyway.

Target AC is 24 (Average AC for CR 10 creatures).

TWFer With Two +2 Kukris:

Normal: +20/+20/+15/+15; 1d4+12
Average DPR: 67.28
Average DPR with Haste: 92.80

With Power Attack: +17/+17/+12/+12; 1d4+18 & 1d4+15
Average DPR: 88.16
Average DPR with Haste: 123.76

With Gloves of Dueling: +22/+22/+17/+17; 1d4+14
Average DPR: 87.12
Average DPR with Haste: 114.84

With Gloves of Dueling + Power Attack: +19/+19/+14/+14; 1d4+20 & 1d4+17
Average DPR: 90.72
Average DPR with Haste: 119.52

2-Hander With a +3 Falchion:

Normal: +23/+18; 2d4+16
Average DPR: 57.12
Average DPR with Haste: 90,72

With Power Attack: +20/+17; 2d4+25
Average DPR: 74.40
Average DPR with Haste: 122.40

With Gloves of Dueling: +25/+20; 2d4+18
Average DPR: 66.24
Average DPR with Haste: 103.04

With Gloves of Dueling + Power Attack: +22/+26; 2d4+27
Average DPR: 81.84
Average DPR with Haste: 131.44

(All calculations were made with the aid of HeroLab and my Excel DPR calculator, but feel free to double check)

---

So... The TWFer has about +10 damage per turn... Unless someone casts Haste, in which case the difference grows pretty small.

That's with 4 feats of additional investment. The 2-Hander could, for example, get Cornugon Smash, Hurtful and Vital Strike (and still have a 1 feat advantage).

And his weapon bypasses DR silver/cold iron. And his standard action is more powerful.

---

Basically, in the best case scenario... When the TWFer hits on all but a 1, he deals 180% the damage of someone fighting with a single (1-handed) weapon. The 2-Hander deals 150% damage.

So, for an additional 3~4 feat investment, the TWFer will (at best) deal +16.7% more damage than the 2-Hander... But that's before we take 4 big things into consideration:

- Power Attack bonuses
- Difference in Weapon Enhancement
- Difference in Feat Investment
- Damage Reduction


Claxon wrote:
Ultimately, a THF is optimized out the door with 1 feat. TWF takes much greater system mastery to compete with, and thats okay.

If it only took greater system mastery (i.e.: knowledge of the rules), it'd be okay... But it takes more than that. It takes far more investment and even then, it's still inferior to 2-handed weapons most of the time.


Flawed wrote:

You can get iteratives before you actually get iteratives? That seems odd.

Craziness getting your offhand attack before your main hand.

Not an iterative attack. TWF reduces a penalty, but ITWF and GTWF simply give you extra attacks (albeit at -5 and -10 penalty).


Flawed wrote:
(Not sure how your ranger is getting a 5th attack)

He can take GTWf at 10th level.

I didn't bother posting armor/cloak of resistance/etc because they are the same for both builds.


Making a quick comparison...

A Ranger TWFing with Kukris, at 10th level would have an attack routine of +17/+17/+12/+12/+9 (+10 BAB, +6 Str, +2 enhancement, +1 Weapon Focus, -2 TWF)... Luckily for him, he doesn't have to worry about Dex prerequisites and gets GTWF 1 level earlier.

A 2-handed Warriorr with a Falchion would have a +20/+15 full attack... (+10 BAB, +6 Str, +3 enhancement, +1 Weapon Focus)

Both of them have Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. They also have the exact same Str score (16 +2 racial +2 level up +2 belt. Total 22).

The average AC for CR 10 creatures is 24. That gives the TWF Ranger an average DPR of 43.68. The 2-handed Warrior has an average DPR of... 39.44.

I really hope that +4 damage per turn is worth 4 feats... (And that's a Ranger compared to a Warrior!)

Oh, and if they are using Power Attack, the TWFer has an average DPR of... 41.88 (so he actually loses damage). OTOH, the 2-hander's average DPR raises to 47.84.

Assuming the TWFer somehow has two +3 weapons, his DPR is 51.52 (or 47.76 with Power Attack).

So... At best, the TWFer spent 3~4 feats over the 2-hander in order to deal an average of +4 damage per turn...


Mark Seifter wrote:

I'm not sure about the exact wording "land a sneak attack", but "confirm a critical" should be legit. There's even precedence for flaming burst and the like triggering even if the foe is immune to criticals, in case it's relevant whether you can still roll to confirm.

Magic Weapons and Critical Hits wrote:
Some weapon qualities and some specific weapons have an extra effect on a critical hit. This special effect also functions against creatures not normally subject to critical hits. On a successful critical roll, apply the special effect, but do not multiply the weapon's regular damage.

Ah. Thanks.

"Land a Sneak Attack" was just my way of saying "deal Sneak Attack damage" without having to remember what were the proper words. Consequence of playing/watching too many fighting game tournaments. Heh...


Mark Seifter wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Hey, Mark... Just so I can end an argument that spawned at my table.

1- When you make multiple Trip/Disarm/Sunder checks during a full attack, does the CMB bonus lower by -5 with each iterative attack or are they all made at full BAB?

2- If you confirm a critical hit, but the enemy uses an ability to deny the critical, do secondary effects that take place only during a critical hit still work or are they denied as well? (Same goes for Sneak attack).

Thanks in advance.

1) Made with the lower BAB.

2) The jingasa, for instance, would negate those effects, though not all crit negation effects may always be the same. But some effects happen when you confirm a crit, and those would still happen.

1- Thanks. Now I can prove to my fellow players that I was right all along! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

2- Hmm... So, if an ability said something like "Whenever you confirm a critical or land a Sneak Attack, you can use Intimidate to demoralize your opponent as a free action" or something like that, and it occured, but the opponent had something like "Light Fortification" or "undead Anatomy", the damage wouldn't be multiplied, but the attacker would still be able to demoralize the target?


The problem is not that Str builds are too strong, but that other builds are really ineffective (with TWF being possible the weakest one).

Try to do anything other than wield a 2-handed weapon and spam full-attacks with your martial character and the system will force you to spend countless feats to do it, none of which scale with level or BAB... And to make things worse, you'll probably need an unreasonably high secondary (or even tertiary) attribute too; be it Dex for TWF or Int for maneuver feats.

short rant:
I'm currently playing 2 characters that use TWF... It's frustrating how many feats you need just to keep your attack routine relevant... TWF, ITWF, GTWF, Double Slice... Urgh... And that's in addition to the cost of paying for 2 weapons instead of 1 and suffering the -2 to all attacks ¬¬'.

If other combat styles were not so heavily punished by the rules,we'd see a much greater character variety... But as long as we need 3+ feats just to do your job, 2-handed Str builds will be the only real choice for any moderately optimized character...


What is the starting level?

What would be your suggestion for Favored Enemy/Terrain for a Ranger?

Should I bother to keep track of mundane ammo?


Hey, Mark... Just so I can end an argument that spawned at my table.

1- When you make multiple Trip/Disarm/Sunder checks during a full attack, does the CMB bonus lower by -5 with each iterative attack or are they all made at full BAB?

2- If you confirm a critical hit, but the enemy uses an ability to deny the critical, do secondary effects that take place only during a critical hit still work or are they denied as well? (Same goes for Sneak attack).

Thanks in advance.


Arachnofiend wrote:
There's no way any of this is going to be PFS legal, is it...

Of course not! That would allow martials to actually move and attack twice! We can't have any of that!


Well... Most gear resizes to fit. Armor and weapon are a real problem, though. Besides, there ar elots of nerfs that people rightfully complained about and that never stopped Paizo.

This one at least has a reason and is incredibly minor.


It seems to me that reducing the damage from Small-sized weapons is the only solution... I honestly don't think an average of -1 damage is anything to worry about, anyway.


Flawed wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
The problem is that the same thing can be said about any class. Even Warriors.
Then if that's the case the continual argument that the fighter isn't worth picking because it's not good is inherently false and only true in comparison to other classes and only in the cases that the fighter does not excel at such as any feat combination unattainable by any other class including investing 10 feats into non combat and 11 feats into combat.

My point is that saying "this class can contribute, but within its limits" doesn't say anything... You could say the same about a crippled commoner.

I just don't think a Warrior (or a Fighter) is good enough to be an adventurer... Unless the whole adventure is about standing still and beating up a sandbag. In that case, Fighters are awesome. Otherwise, they are a load. They drain too many resources... To the point where at high levels I'd rather be a lonely Wizard than have to share loot with a Fighter.

Flawed wrote:
The fighters combat prowess will only be lacking by not choosing feats well.

If the Fighter is using his general feats to shore up his pitiful defenses, then he doesn't have any feat advantage over any other class... And feats are just not that good.

Flawed wrote:
And I'd rather have lay on hands than any rage power or 4. A scaling swift action cure is pretty sweet.

Pretty sweet, yeah... but not worth 4 Rage Powers. Even more so considering that, unlike feats, Rage Powers actually scale with level.

But I'd trade Weapon Focus/Specialization and their Greater versions for LoH in the blink of an eye (I'm not even including Mercies here).

Flawed wrote:
Fighters have the highest DPR of any class once they hit 20 due to the crit modifier AFAIK.

Once they hit 20th, yeah... During all other 19 levels, Barbarians and Slayers are better... But even if they are not, they are still far more effective, because at 20th level, a full attack will kill anything anyway... It doesn't matter if your full attack deals 300 damage or 300000000000. The result is the same. OTOH, at high levels, the Fighter's lack of options becomes even more crippling compared to other classes.

Rangers are not overpowered. They are one of the best balanced classes in the game (in fact they could use a boost, nothing major, just minor buffs here and there). The fault is in Fighters, who not only are not any better in combat than any other martial class, but are also completely useless in anything that doesn't involve stabbing people in the face.

to make things even worse in order to "reward" Fighters, devs often create unreasonably long feat chains with awful prerequisites... They still fail to realize that those things punish Fighters more than anyone else and basically rob them of their main class feature.

IMO, every martial class should have 2 good saves and at very least, 4 skill points per level. Fighters could even get 6, since they are all about non-magical training. Ever since 3.0 it's been pointed out that Fighters are underpowered, but the solution has always been throwing more numbers at it and hope it works... It's time the devs realize that just raising its numerical bonuses does not work!


Flawed wrote:
I'm not here to contest the power of any other class to the fighter just stating that the fighter in its current incarnation can be made to be a functional and contributing member of an adventuring party providing whatever niche service you design it to be within its limitations.

The problem is that the same thing can be said about any class. Even Warriors.

Flawed wrote:
Even though grabbing those feats are not directly through a class feature the fact that fighters gain 11 combat feats which is more than many other classes can attain alone and then they get their regular 10 normal feats that can be used for whatever the like. As the ones I listed which was more the point as your class feature gives you all the combat prowess you need leaving your standard feats to shore up weaknesses.

Now, bow... Earlier in this thread I did say that getting bonus Combat feats is basically the same as getting bonus general feats if you are going to use them on combat feats anyway... And I stay by that statement.

However, if a Fighter uses only his bonus feats on combat feats, his combat prowess will be far bellow that of other classes (without having extra feats, all Fighters get are numerical bonuses, and as I said, those are useful, but not nearly as important as having actual options)... And he still won't be as versatile as them.

Flawed wrote:
Everyone loves to argue that some other class can take feats too, but not every class can take as many feats and progress through as many different chains of feats as the fighter. Some classes can get bonus feats without prerequisites to further certain builds faster, but there will always be builds that are only attainable through a fighter and the sheer number of feats they get. Sure some other class may perform functionally 'better' with their own class features and arrangements of feats, but never in every facet.

The problem here is that most feats are not nearly as good as real class features. I'd much rather have Lay on Hands than an extra feat or 4.

The only thing that Fighters really excel are as switch-hitters, but even then, Rangers and Slayers are overall a far more effective character, despite the lower DPR.

Fighters have great build versatility, but lack too much character versatility. They very often have to be one or two-trick ponies to stay effective, and in this game, having just one or two tricks is just not good enough.

IMHO, the whole design philosophy for Fighters is flawed. No class can be effective when their whole point "Guy who is good at hitting stuff, therefore must useless at everything else" will never be a good class. Specially when the definition of "good" is "have an extra +2".

EDIT:

Flawed wrote:
EDIT: Any class can take the Alluring trait and qualify for any item crafting feat. Many races come with SLA's which allow fighter's of that race to craft as well. And with the rules on crafting items even lacking the spell prerequisites and having a dumped intelligence you could pull off the DC's.

None of those things are Fighter-specific. Nor are Fighters particularly good at it... In fact, they are worse than literally every other PC class in the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Flawed wrote:
Fighters are what you design them to be. They have 10 feats and 11 bonus combat feats which means you can use your 10 feats for anything you want. Other classes have 10 feats to use for combat AND other stuff.

Problem is... Most feats are not nearly as good as real class features. I'd take a Rage power over a bonus combat feat any day of the week and twice on sunday!

Flawed wrote:
Fighters aren't a great class, but they still accomplish what they're intended to do with some thought.

...By investing far more resources than would be necessary for any other class.

Flawed wrote:

Iron Will

Lightning Reflexes
Great Fortitude
Improved versions of all above
Additional Traits: +1 save traits/class skill traits with +1 bonus, Fate's favored.
Godless Healing
Fast Healing + wands of infernal healing
Fey foundling + wands of healing
Favored class bonus: +1 skill point

Ironically, none of these things can be acquired through Fighter class features... And Fighters are not particularly good or benefit any more from them than any other class. In fact, other classes would either benefit more from these options, not need them as desperately and/or have an easier time using them.

And it accentuates yet another problem with Fighters... While most other classes (save for Rogues, but they are not exactly a good class to use as a standard) can use feats to expand their repertoire, Fighters are forced to use their normal feats to (not really) compensate their weaknesses... And even then, they still aren't as effective as other martial classes...

For example... Let's take a look at Dr.Fighty McCharming here... Look how he is a darn good party face... Even though he is not Human, doesn't use any archetype and has low Cha.

Is it possible to make a versatile Fighter? Sure it is. I know that. But the amount of required investment is stupidly higher than any other class! A Barbarian or Paladin doing the same thing would have a much easier time and/or be better at it!

Taking gear into consideration just exacerbates how ineffective Fighters are compared to other classes. Fighters do not get extra WBL and are really bad at crafting/using magic items. They don't have skill points to assign to craft skills or UMD, they don't have spells to use wands without UMD, Int is a tertiary attribute at best and Cha is their most common dump stat.

If anything, they need more money than any other martial class.

And of course, if they use only their bonus feats to improve their combat prowess, then they lose any advantage they would have over other martial classes, making them even more easily obsoleted.

And yes, multiclassing can help them... But that's not really a good argument for the class is it? "Hey, this class is weak, but if you take levels in another class, your character gets better!". If anything it just goes on to show that Fighters only excel as a dip class.


xavier c wrote:

I just google the word stern and got synonyms severe,grim,unforgiving,unsympathetic,extreme,ruthless,unsparing,draconian

Are you saying she is all these things?

I'm not JJ, of course... But I'd say that while she can be those things at times, in Iomedae's case, the best definition of "stern" would be "strict".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wasted wrote:

Points taken, however, not all of those things are relevant to most kinds of fighters.

*Battlefield navigation, certainly. They should be skilled at getting to the enemy, and getting away as well.

*Not all fighters exist to inspire or guide. Leave that to classes or archetypes designed to do so, like Cavaliers or Guide Rangers.

*Intimidate/Demoralize, absolutely.

*Scouting, is also not the role of all fighters. Not all soldiers are skilled at scouting. This is something best left to Rangers or Fighter archetypes.

*Weapon tricks, undoubtedly. Being superlative with certain weapons is what Fighters do.

*Movement restrictions, agreed again. This ties into battlfield navigation to an extent.

But, these things don't really make a diverse character, and they're mostly still related to combat/improving the ways in which Fighters hit things.

Just because something is not used by all members of that class, doesn't mean it shouldn't part of the class.

e.g.: Not all Fighters use heavy armor, but that doesn't mean they should lose Armor Training.
e.g.: Not all Paladins are diplomats, but that doesn't mean they should lose Diplomacy as class skill.
e.g.: Not all Monks fight unarmed, but that doesn't mean they should lose IUS.

If something is moderately common and expected from a class, it should be part of it.

Not all Fighters need to be inspiring, but the class should be able to do and be good at it that if the player chooses (even if they are not as good as more specialized classes). Same goes for scouting.

See... I don't mind that hitting stuff is their main schtick. My problem is that it's often all that they can do because trying to do something else requires heavy investment and/or is not very effective.

That's why I like feats that give Fighters more options, such as Cornugon Smash, Combat Reflexes, Lunge,maneuver feats (although many of them suffer from "crappy prerequisite" syndrome), etc.

Weapon Focus/Specialization are incredibly boring because they don't expand any of the Fighters options. I've literally seen 12th level Fighters who had exactly the same abilities they had at 1st level, only with higher numbers... And said build was considered "optimized" too! I don't think I've seen that happen with any other class in the game!

Focusing on hitting stuff is cool. Being only able to hit stuff is extremely limited and (IMO) incredibly boring. Even in fighting games, character who only have high damage and lots of hp are far more often than not considered weak. And this is in games where combat is literally the only thing involved, it's (almost) always 1x1 (or some version of tag teams) and stuff like difficult terrain is (almost) never something to worry about!

If those limitations are so severe even in fighting games, imagine how bad they are in a game where literally anything and everything the GM can imagine is possible.


Wasted wrote:
Clerics can be almost anything they want to be. Frontline melee, party face, healer, caster, any mix of these. Let's be careful when we use the term "diversity".

I agree. We don't need more full casters...

That said... Most fantasy "Fighters" are not limited to hit stuff (and many of them are low level too).

Fighters should at very least be able to:

- Navigate the battlefield with ease.
- Identify the weaknesses, strengths and tactics of their opponents
- Inspire/Guide their allies in combat.
- Intimidate/Demoralize their enemies (this can actually be done pretty well. Intimidating Prowess, Cornugon Smash and a few other feats make Intimidate builds really good!)
- Scout ahead (they don't have to be as good as Ranger, but at very least, they should have Perception and Sense Motive)
- Use their weapons in a variety of ways and be really good with all weapons (although not as good as they are with their main weapon)
- Move 10ft without losing most of their effectiveness. (actually, every martial class should have this ability!)

At high level, Fighter should be able to do fantastic feats of strength and skill as well, such as deflecting rays, breaking magic barriers, kill multiple mooks with a single swing of his blade, etc.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wasted wrote:
In other words...yes, you want it to be able to do a bit of everything.

In other words, I don't want to be completely useless just because standing still and full attacking is not an option. Slayers, Barbarians, Rangers and Paladins can all contribute fairly well out of combat, and they are not even close to being capable of "doing everything". And even though they might have lower AC and DPR, they are at least as good as Fighters when it comes to combat.

Wasted wrote:

If you're not hitting (or trying to hit), you're healing (or assisting in combat in other ways).

If you're not healing or hitting, then you're out of combat.
If you're out of combat, then you're socialising.

If you want versatility, you shouldn't be playing a Fighter. Unpopular as an opinion as that may be, the Fighter class has a defined purpose (even though it may not be particularly good at it).

I'll concede that 2+Int skill points is far too low - other than that, why does a Fighter, who for all intents and purposes is the big stick of the party, need a heap of skills?

Literally every other class has more versatility than the Fighter. And most of them are just as good in combat as well. Why is the Fighter the only one that can't do anything other than hit stuff with a pointy stick?

"Having a role" should mean "Having something you're really good at" not "The only thing you can do".

Fighters are not even very good at fighting... They are good at standing still and full attacking, but since combat usually involves more than that, Fighters are at best mediocre at fighting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wasted wrote:
If your party expects your Fighter to do everything (combat, social, healing), you need to find a new group to play with.

No one wants the Fighter do everything. We just want it to eb able to do something when hitting stuff with a sword is not a viable option. All other martial classes are (at least) just as good as Fighters in combat and far more versatile.

Being able to hit things really hard shouldn't require the class to be completely useless at everything else!


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

This is the order I prefer you guys to use:

Attack Roll -> Damage -> Crit Confirmation (if Necessary) -> Extra Damage (if Necessary) ->
Other Rolls Related to Attack #1 (e.g.: Miss chances, Intimidate check granted by Cornugon Smash, etc)

Just use preview/edit post to add the necessary rolls.


I like Furious Focus for characters with medium BAB... Cornugon Smash, Intimidating Prowess and the new Hurtful feat from the Monster Codex are pretty good and have great synergy.

(And I think Defensive Combat Training is really good for full arcane casters).


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Yeah... I always read that as it simply replacing the effect of Dragon Style.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

I always assumed it just added 1.5x Str modifier to all attacks.


Male Human Dungeon Master 10/ Munchkin 10

Cool! Dragon Style/Ferocity just got FAQed/buffed! :D

Now I add twice my Str modifier on my first unarmed strike's damage roll.

1 to 50 of 6,039 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.