In what way is it ''far superior''?
Quantum physics. :D
But seriously, I never heard of reach weapons not threatening the second diagonal square before. This is nonsense to me. IF that's not how Pathfinder reach weapons work, then I recommend everyone to use the 3.5 rule for reach weapons.
That's a good tweak, because I think that your archetype would be plain better than the vanilla Magus otherwise..
That being said, I think that Bladesong Style (Ex) might be a little too good. Dex bonus to AC are better than armor bonus, because they raise your touch AC and do not come with armor check penalty and restricted movement. Furthermore, at level 20, the bladesinger's Dex bonus to AC could be 10 points over the vanilla Magus' Dex bonus to AC while the vanilla Magus' armor bonus to AC would be only 5 points (or even only 3 points, if the bladesinger can use a mithral breastplate without penalty) over the bladesinger's armor bonus to AC.
What does Song of Fury (Ex) replace?
Also, maybe you should restrict the Weapon Proficiencies of the bladesinger to blades, since you give him the ability to use a longsword in conjunction with the Weapon Finesse feat (with no drawback).
Overall, it seems like a very good archetype with no real drawback. If I were you I would tone it down a little, unless you want to recreate the power level of the bladesinger found in the Complete Book of Elves from the 2nd edition, but that's your call. :)
Mark Hoover wrote:
The thing is, most monsters have Skill Focus (Perception) or Alertness in their list of feats, which is a serious thorn in the Rogue's side by making non-magical scouting even more deadly. As a GM, I prefer making my encounters more challenging but also more easy to circumvent.
Personally, AoOs are one of my favorite mechanics of the game. It makes big monsters with reach more scary, reach weapons relevant (there's no point of using them if you play without AoOs) and protecting your allies more easy (running past the Fighter to attack the Wizard is risky, thanks to AoOs). It makes trip and disarm more useful. AoOs also give an edge to characters in light armor with a high acrobatics score (Rogues, Monks) when it comes to moving around the battlefield without getting hit. In my experience, AoOs only slow down battles when one or more of the players suffer from analysis paralysis.
If you or your pals don't like playing with AoOs then just don't. Just ban the feats that are related to AoOs and remove them as prerequisite for any other feats.
Strangely enough, after backing Wasteland 2, Shadowrun Returns and Project Eternity, I didn't feel like backing this game. Why? Part because I'm broken right now, but also because they didn't gave as much information on the gameplay as they did for those other games IMO.
What they promised us was fantastic narrative and a Torment-like story. We don't know much about the gameplay and I was never able to get into Torment specifically because of the lackluster gameplay.
I do hope this game will be a blast to play, and if it is, I'll grab it at full price after release, but I'm done with Kickstarter for now. I prefer to see how Wasteland 2 turns out before throwing more money at inXile.
I asked a few questions on their website and the devs quickly and kindly answered all of them, which is very kewl! It seems that CC will include a lot of the elements from D&D 3.X (OGL) while leaving the complicated stuff like grappling and readied actions out of the game, at least for the initial release (they plan to expand the game if it sells well enough).
There will be no Bards, Druids, Monks or Sorcerers in CC, but Wizards won't have to memorize their spells in advance, so they're going to work a lot like Sorcerers. Also, multiclassing will not be possible. Personally, I would have kept the Bard instead of the Ranger, but I'm mostly fine with the core classes included in the game: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian. Again, if the game sells well enough, they will included new classes in DLCs/expansions (the Druid and the Monk are currently on top of their priority list for an expansion).
Couldn't you just hack the door to pieces?
I would still play with ''a'' GM who changes, or even bans, the crafting rules. I even recommended my players not to play crafting focused characters because I would probably just decrease loot value to compensate (but I'm fine with crafting potions, scrolls and wands). However, I would not play with your friend because of all the other issues you mentionned, specifically because of the way he handles loot. It's the player that should choose how to split the loot, not the GM. And remember, the WBL chart is a guideline and not something you should follow blindly.
Even when you to get to the level where you can buy a Celestial Plate, if you follow RAW, it's possible that it won't be avaible for purchase anywhere. You can always burn a feat to create it yourself, but if the campaing you're playing in has some kind of time constraint, you're screwed. And no, a Fighter do not need to buy a Celestial Plate, he just needs a bow and a couple of potions of fly for when the bow won't be enough.
No need for that, you pretty much covered my thoughts about both games. :)
NWN OC was atrocious while NWN2 OC was just bad. Both games expansions were good enough, but, like I said, I played the game in the wrong order and NWN, which I played recently, really shows its age. However, except for SoZ, NWN expansions were more chanlleging than NWN2 expansions (both games OCs were cakewalk), but the story of MotB is far superior to the story of HotU. If you add the online components to the equation, then NWN is clearly the winner, but for someone like me who experienced only the single player portion of both games, NWN2 was more enjoyable.
From someone who played NWN1 and NWN2 in the wrong order and who didn't tried the multiplayer mode, NWN2 left a better impression on me than NWN1.
In 3.5 you could cast with the hand that was carrying a buckler or small shield. In Pathfinder it's buckler only, making the small shield obsolete for spellcasters.
''Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler's AC bonus until your next turn. You can't make a shield bash with a buckler.''
''Shield, Light; Wooden or Steel: You strap a shield to your forearm and grip it with your hand. A light shield's weight lets you carry other items in that hand, although you cannot use weapons with it.''
You see, nothing in the small shield description says that you can use your hand for spellcasting, you can only use it to carry items.
This is what I think too, but they'll probably throw a good amount of their own stuff (homebrew) in the mix too. The devs seem to enjoy houserules when playing D&D and this will surely reflect on the game. I think they are going for a ''facing'' system with the hex-grid where each character has a back and a front: it could potentially help the Rogue class a lot.
Damage taken while raging still need to be healed, which could translate into a higher healing ressources drain. Being 25% (or more, thanks to armor training) more likely to being hit is not something insignificant, even more so if you are fighting multiple opponents. Now, a raging POUNCING Barbarian will probably take less damage than a Fighter over the course of a battle because he will kill his opponents a lot faster. This is how good Pounce really is and this is where I disagree with you: the power creep in Pathfinder is not as slight as you suggest. Is the core Fighter lacking a bit? Yeah, I agree with you, but splatbooks made things much, much worse.
How so? The Ranger does just fine with Medium armor and d10 hit dice, and the Barbarian has always rocked the almighty d12, how in the hell is either of them a Glass Cannon (that is, a character who can dish it out but not take it).
I already explained why the core Barbarian was a glass cannon and drained more healing ressources than the Fighter in a previous post, and that remains true until he can shell out 10K gp and a feat for a mithral full plate. Of course, with splatbooks, this is not true anymore. Also, the ''almighty'' d12 translates into only 1 more hp per level.
The Ranger and Barbarian were glass cannons back then, while the Fighter and Paladin were the real tanks. Only the Paladin was stealing the ''niche'' of the Fighter back then while being more useful outside of combat. Hell, the Paladin was/is even a better tank than the Fighter, because he's more resilient, has more hp, better saves and sometimes better AC than the Fighter. Now, thanks to power creep, every martial classes, and even some non-martial classes (magus, summoner), got away with the Fighter's pie, leaving nothing behing for the poor sucker.
I have to disagree here. It's not true that a baseline Barbarian could get a better AC than a baseline Fighter when raging. It's also not true that a baseline Ranger (thus without instant enemy) could outdamage the baseline Fighter when not fighting one of his favored enemies. And yes, some of the new options added a significant amount of power to either class (beast totem = scaling AC bonus and pounce, extra rage power, spell sunder, instant enemy, etc.)
In other words, the Fighter might have be equal to (or slightly worse than) the Barbarian and the Ranger in core, but splatbooks only made things worse for the Fighter.
I think I'm going to give the Fighter (and only the Fighter) some of the Warblade's class features and the ability to select combat maneuvers from ToB:tBot9S with his bonus feats.
OK, thanks. However, I think you should read this:
Damn that book! I was GMing a D&D 2nd Ed. campaing back in the days and one of the players was playing an elven archer. He decimated all my carefully planned encounters in a matter of seconds.
It could be true for most people, but one of my players used the weapon training class feature to become a better ''switch hitter''. He used his feats to specialize in the longbow and he took weapon training ''heavy blades''.
I filled one entire shelf (and a bit more) of my bookcase with D&D 3.X and Pathfinder books and I told myself: ''that's enough, I don't need more books, I don't even have the space to store more books and I have to stop spending money on RPG books'', but then Ultimate Psionic was announced. Maybe I'll make an exception for you guys. :)
I hear you, but I don't think that those class features are enough to make the Fighter ''considerably'' better than the other martials.
Armor Training - Sure, moving 30ft in heavy armor is kewl, but once the party has a reliable access to the Haste spell (which can be as soon as level 4 with a summoner in the party), movement speed becomes less of an issue. Also, a Barbarian can move at 30 ft when wearing a mithral full plate. However, a mithral full plate cost a sh*t load of money (roughly 10k gp) and heavy armor proeficiency for the Barbarian, which means that the Fighter remains the real ''armor master'' until higher levels where 10k gp becomes trivial.
Weapon Training - Does less damage than Rage, Favored Enemy, Smite Evil and Challenge, but it does last all day and on every opponents that you can hit, which is about as good, but not considerably better, as these other class features.
Feats - Back when I first read the CRB, I thought that the Fighter was considerably better than the Barbarian, since most Rage Powers in the CRB were underwhelming IMO. But with the coming of the APG, it seems that some of the ''new'' Rage Powers totally blow Feats out of the water. Luckily, Rage Powers can only be used when raging, which can't be all day at low-levels. During higher levels, however, the limited number of rounds you can rage per day becomes less of an issue and Rage Powers become almost ''always on'' abilities, just like Feats, but better, because most of them give you scaling bonuses instead of fixed bonuses.
So, his the Fighter considerably better than the other martial classes from level 1-20? I would say no, he's about the same, and he got less skill points than those other classes (except for the Paladin, who's definitely more resilient than the Fighter). I would say the sweet spot for playing a Fighter vs ''other martial classes'' is from level 4 to 10, which turns out to be my personal sweet spot for playing D&D, so I still like the Fighter even if I think that he's a bit lacking compared the the other martial classes.
Agreed, except for one thing. Dodge is a OK prerequisite for Mobility, but Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility and Spring Attack are NOT OK prerequisites for Whirlwind Attack, which doesn't even allow you to move! In other words, Dodge is a ''must have'' if you're planning on maximising your AC, but if that's not your goal, then sure, it's a waste of a feat.
If I was going for damage then there are other classes that are better at it (summoners spring to mind or rangers with instant enemy or barbarians with pounce).
Funny that all those things come from the APG. :)
I'm telling you, the APG is but one part of a greater and sinister plot to kill the Fighter!
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
What you are describing here looks a lot like the Shadow Caster class from the 3.5 era.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
I don't think they hate them, I think they just do not want to upset the more ''conservative'' gamers by changing them too much.
But then it could be argued that the various NPCs ''taking 10'' on perception checks described in past modules couldn't really take 10, since if someone is trying to sneak on them, they're in a ''dangerous situation''. It would also mean that you couldn't take 10 on your climb check when climbing, because it's ''dangerous'' to fall. You couldn't take 10 for your acrobatics (balance) check while crossing a rope bridge either, etc.
The "can't take 10 when in dangerous conditions" can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. To me, it applies when you're in the middle of a fight, when something is attacking you or actively searching for you (because it saw you going into hinding) or when you're taking environmental damage (ex: trying to climb out of an acid pit).
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Plus the distance modifiers! :)