Rasmus Wagner's page

Zardnaar wrote:

IN D&D/PF offense is always better than defense and has been since 1st and second ed.

Not true. There are defensive builds even a pure fighter cannot hit with less than a natural 20. The problem is, if people actually use them the rage fueled screams of NERF by the DPR builds are deafening.

I have a build I am currently using that can hit 80 AC, lowest save caps at 50, has evasion, and can Greater Invis + Mind Blank.

stats or it didn't happen.

There's a Ranger archetype I like, because I like shouty leader-type fighting men.

With this archetype, I can give my allies a combat bonus against a designated target, instead of having favored enemy. And instead of having Hunter's Bond, I can give my allies extra bonus when flanking. Also, at level 7, I lose a minor ability I don't care about in exchange for another minor ability I don't care about, but I'm not taking the 7th level of Ranger anyway.

This is all the archetype does. so, I'm making my gruff shouty ranger-sergeant. He likes game meat, dark beer and soft beds. He dislikes crackers, rum and hammocks.

The name of the archetype? Freebooter. It's from Pirates of Golarion. Mechanically, it's a perfect fit for my shouty ranger-sergeant (who is not, never was, never will be, a pirate).

Is this bad roleplaying? Not only do I not think so, I don't even think it's a matter of taste, I think it's a matter of not being a f%!*ing idiot.

I'm not saying roll a generic character. You can easily play a swashbuckling fighter pirate with a dash of magic using one or two books. Generally if you're using a book to pick out a single feat, and you do this multiple times, you're guilty of over-optimizing.

And if you listen to both Eric Clapton AND Turisas, you're a bad person.

If you wear both cotton AND nylon, you're a bad person (that one is in the bible, btw).

If all your playing is hack & slash then by all means: dump your int and cha down to 7 and just "forget" to roleplay it.

Jesus f$&*, this Real Roleplayer(tm) b$#+!~## is tiresome.

A gm running this style of game at home is probably never going to require individual players to take a test vs mental stats anyways.

Tests vs mental stats are really not a thing in 3.X games. What are some situations where you would call for a test vs. a mental stat?

There's a big difference between a +10 total skill modifier and a +6, but no difference at all between +2 and -2.

And I will roleplay my character based on what he can and cannot do, not based on your interpretation of what ability score levels mean, thank you very much.

Everybody has Combat Expertise. There, done!

Check this out. Bard with the Buccaneer archetype gets this little beauty:

Knock Out (Ex)

At 5th level, a buccaneer may focus his blows in an attempt to knock out an opponent. Once per day as a swift action, the buccaneer can choose one target to attempt to knock out. The buccaneer adds his Charisma bonus (if any) on his attack roll and adds his buccaneer level on any nonlethal damage rolls made against the target. The bonus lasts until the buccaneer deals nonlethal damage to his target or until the buccaneer chooses a new target to attempt to knock out. He can use this ability one additional time per day for every six levels he possesses beyond 5th, to a maximum of three times per day at 17th level.

This ability replaces lore master.

Cha to hit, level to non-lethal damage, ends when you deal non-lethal damage to the target. Nothing keeps you from doing lethal damage, getting your Cha to attack rolls.

it's evil to torture an innocent human bystander because they did nothing to deserve the pain. but it's good to torture an intellegent undead because they did everything in thier power to deserve it. slaying legions of human lives, feasting on humanity, creating more of thier tainted kin. undead shouldn't have rights because they became evil abominations who prey on men. nor should demons, devils or aberrations. all of which deserve the same suffering as an undead.

Wait, my arguments are being slaughtered because I was speaking out of my ass (and I watch too much Fox)? Lol, I wuz just trolling yoo guiz. Trusty face-saving defense to the rescue!

In fact, I never even read the class skills and abilities...

"I have no idea what I'm talking about! And I'm PROUD of that!"

1-A martial arts style typically oriental type of class has no place whatsoever in a typical western meieval-based role-playing game, in my opinion at least

Sure. But this is D&D/PF, not LotR or Robin Hood & his Faerie Men.

In my opinion the fighting-monk priest kit from 2nd Ed was sooo popular that that is why they added the monk as an individual class in 3rd ed and up.

Beetch please. The Mystic class was introduced way back in the BECMI days.

If the DM uses a lot of weaker enemies instead of fewer strong ones, yes. Make it an endurance run rather than strength test, and the MT's greater number of spells is more important than the spell level hit.

Lets take level 11 as an example. That's lvl 5 MT for a standard Wiz/Cle.

For the single-classed caster (wizard or cleric), it's 6*1 6*2 6*3 5*4 4*5 3*6.

That's 94 spell levels for the MT. And that's assuming that the value of different level spells is linear, which is really not the case. For the single classed caster....it's also 94 spell levels. The MT has the edge in raw number of spells (40 vs 30, not a *big* edge), but you really don't cast 30 significant spells in a day. Lets say that 3rd level spells matter at level 11; The MT has 18, a real caster has 18. But you're trading Wall of Iron and Heal for Wall of Fire and Restoration.

MT is a trap.

The Aristocrat class is b&@*~+~# and nobody should ever use it for anything.

In response to the OP:

Well, you got kicked out. Unless you have a solid reason to believe that they're cliqueish, drama-loving douchenozzles - reasons more solid than your own butthurt - then yeah, the very fact that you were asked to leave means you were a terrible guest. The vast majority of people, even (especially!) in our somewhat dysfunctional tribe, don't do that lightly.

The bottom line here is you need to understand that Pathfinder/D&D is a team game. Cures are there for everyone, most buffs are for everyone and a fighter accepting a buff does not mean he sucks. The buffs are there for a reason. Fighter's don't heal, they were never intended to be a class than can and you can't hold that against it. Yes Paladin's hell but so do clerics and druids but you can't sit there and say they are better than anyone else who can't heal.

Some classes do rely on a heal, big freaking deal? Does a fighter need a wand of cure light wounds? No they don't, that is what teammates are for but a fighter with a wand can get into the mix while the cleric or wizard can throw him some buffs while they make sure other players are healed.

Stop with the whole "fighters a p*#^!y unless he fights naked."

I could say that the fighter is a boss because he doesn't have to rely on powers.

But the premise of the thread is the myth of Fighter Endurance: That the Fighter can keep on fighting all day, because he doesn't rely on spells. Which is obviously b%@##%*# if you've ever actually played the game.

We comment on the solo Fighter because that's what the OP started with.

So, I'm running Serpent's Skull, and I just started book 5. I decide to check out the pregens in book 6, to see what the Paizo idea of a level 15 party is.

The wizard has 2 8th level spells memorized. Iron Body, and Polar Ray. Whisky. Tango. Foxtrot. This is not sandbagging, this is stuffing rabid badgers don your pants.

Let's take Polar Ray first, as it's merely very bad. One ray, ranged touch, 15d6 cold damage and 1d4 Dex drain. The Dex drain is a terrible debuff, he will never be able to drop an enemy with it and it's one, maybe two points of AC and reflex. Also, 15d6 to one target after an attack roll is super dork lame. He's got a +6 ranged touch attack; the first 3 monsters I find in the book are touch AC 17, touch AC 13 but randomly immune to cold, and touch ac 17 again. That's 11+; a 50% chance for his highest level spell to do nothing, even assuming optimal conditions (cover, firing into melee etc).

The guy could seriously be casting Quickened, Empowered scorching ray for swift action 3*6d6 instead, out of the same spell slot. And that would be bad too, but straight up better by a mile.

Now, the other spell. Iron Body. It's a transformation spell, personal range, 1 minute per level. Right off the bat, it gives him a 35% arcane spell failure chance. And he doesn't have any bypass for that, so let's assume that he intends to melee after casting it. He even has Arcane trike to buff his melee attacks. And hey, he has Bulls strength and shield memorized, let's assume he's pre-buffed with those too.

Now, he has an AC of 18, DR 15/adamantine, 89 HP. He has a speed of 15' (and doesn't fly), and a full-attack routine of....+10/+5, 1d6+8.

The rest of his spell selection is merely bad, but these two are jaw-droppingly terrible.

Because, rules-wise, longswords suck. That is all.

Ultimate Magic mentions "other domain-using nature-focussed classes" as potential users of Animal and Terrain domains. The sRD lists them as options for Clerics and Inquisitors. Are they legal for any Clerics or Inquisitors in Organized Play?

Can't be that difficult, surely. A Pathfinder Monk could do it.

I'm trying to cover the party's traps, and I dont want to have any spellcasting, as I've played too many spellcasters lately. Student of War seems to be pretty good. was planning on taking some levels in Lore Warden to get free Combat expertise, and some levels in Trapper ranger. Half elf should take care of Skill focus without wasting a feat. What do you guys think of the class? It appears to be pretty good. Fighter BAB, good will, good skills, and some good abilities, and bonus feats.

IMO, it's a trap. Take MOAR LORE WARDEN!!, or some Maneuver Master Monk instead.

A player in one of my groups played a zen archer (he was hoping for something like 3.5's order of the bow), and he was just able to deal so much damage (so. many. arrows.), from so far away (before the rest of the party can have their fun), and was so hard to hit (great saves, great AC)

So he was hoping to suck a lot, and found himself being effective instead??

On the fly, case-by-case is the best way to go. If it's old BECMI or 2E material, "save negates UNLESS it´s already save half/partial" is probably closest to original intent.

If you want to blow 7k of your wealth every day go for it.

Y U NO read before you post?

Let's say I'm a level 8 alchemist (with 33k gold according to the wealth tables).

Can I buy:
- 1 potion of Magic Vestment CL 20 (3000 gold)
- 1 potion of Heroism CL 20 (2000 gold)
- 1 potion of Barkskin CL 20 (2000 gold)

And use Alchemical allocation with it ?

Did I get something wrong ?

You forgot to have the level 20 Summoner craft you a potion of Stoneskin. Other than that, provided you can GET lvl 20 potions, you're good to go.

Monks are utility fighters. They have more tricks than a standard Fighter does, and at times, more than a Paladin, Barbarian, Cavalier, or Ranger does too. More tricks = slightly lower BAB. Same rule rings true for spell-casting classes.

They sure have a lot of class ability text. However, MOST OF IT IS S!$~. And are you seriously comparing Monk class abilities to full (or even 2/3) spellcasting? For real?

Simple Solution: Play a class for flavor, not numbers. This is a Role-Playing Game, after all....Bottom line, just play a class you enjoy, not because they could solo a tarrasque by level X with build Y.

"Real Roleplayers" was merely wrong and stupid in 1982, it's downright insulting today. Stormwind Fallacy aside, I came to play a kung fu badass, why are you giving me Chris Farley in Beverly Hills Ninja?

...If the rolls go well, a monk can easily out perform a fighter. Heck, a wizard with a quarterstaff could out perform a fighter too if his rolls are good, I've seen it happen.

Seriously? That's one your arguments? "Monks don't suck if they roll all 20ies" is your defense of the Monk class?

Non-associated classes is such a cheap trick. I'm sure you guys can do better.

Well its no different than the practiced caster of 3.5 the way i read it.Your damage output is the same as a 8th level caster ..Your Theurge should still only be casting level 3 spells.It could be read either way I grant you.However if you do it my way its far less overpowering and just means your spells have the same punch as a level 8 caster.I believe both Magical knack and esoteric training are meant to be replacements for the 3.5 knack and so should work exactly like that feat.

It can't, it's very clear. And ridiculously overpowered. Getting Practised spellcaster lookalikes for free is not that bad, but progressing your casting for free is balls-out crazy overpowered.

Derp.

They didn't even fix it before they "fixed" it.

collect evidence in the hopes of determining whether or not the new (old?) ruling is a retcon, or simply something that was overlooked by nearly everyone.

Evidence: Every monk printed, ever.

Facing a mountain of criticism over the price of AoMF, the designers decided to double down on the stupid and nerf the Monk even more.

I like the idea of a full bab class with a familiar. Would it be possible to take the Improved Familiar feat in that case? I would think not since it's dependent on caster levels, but maybe you could still use your character level -2 like with the Eldritch Heritage feat. For instance, is it possible to have a 9th-level Fighter with a Silvanshee familiar this way?

I've been thinking about that. Anyone with a Spell-like ability has a caster level, usually full HD. That's gnomes and elves right there, with the right racial traits. The various races from Bestiary 2 should be covered too.

Considering both feats use the exact same wording and format, it would be silly to interpret their timing differently as you have.

They both use the "Whenever [a specific event happens], that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity." Being tripped and falling prone are both specific events that happen at the exact same time. By definition, one can not happen after the other as you seem to indicate.

Exact same wording? That's not an honest argument from an informed position.

"Whenever you successfully trip an opponent, that opponent provokes attacks of opportunity."
"Whenever an opponent falls prone adjacent to you, that opponent provokes an attack of opportunity from you."

Different trigger, different effect. Note that Greater Trip causes the target to provoke AoOs from everybody. But given that there are plenty of situations that would trigger one but not the other, it's fairly clear that they have different TRIGGERS. Which is what the AoO rules interact with.

Nobody in their right mind would buy it. The absolute optimum corner case for splint mail is low level, no dex bonus, and no more than 249 gp (including trade-in value) and NOTHING better to spend it on.

Even then...save the money for proper armor or buy a trained dog to help you stay alive until you have the cash.

Druids are not all vegan pacifists.

LOL!!! What experience and who's experience are you talking about here? You say that experience shows but you have yet to post any data that actually backs you up. Experience from someone who doesn't know how to play a fighter is not experience I would really count on or listen to.

Magic Items: You do realize that all PC's rely on gear and that magic items are assumed when playing the game so why is this even relevant? Your claims aren't making any sense to be honest.

Experience. Mine and others. Accumulated over years of playing. Disdain for the Fighter is a well-known fact. Writing up various scenarios where Fighters fail to contribute is hardly the point of this thread. But, short list, they can't meaningfully engage enemies, they are easy to lock down, they fall easily to save-or-lose, they contribute nothing outside combat, they lose fights they should be winning. Specialized fighter builds can solve exactly one of these problems.

Here's how this thread, and every thread like it goes:
1: Fighter sucks at X, Y and Z
2: Fighter can be mediocre at X by devoting ALMOST ALL HIS RESOURCES to the task.
3: Fighter can be mediocre at Y by devoting ALMOST ALL HIS RESOURCES to the task.
4: Fighter can be mediocre at Z by devoting ALMOST ALL HIS RESOURCES to the task.
4B: Therefore, Fighters do not suck at X, Y and Z.
5: Argument from House Rules (That usually don't fix a g!* d#!n thing, because they don't adress what's actually wrong, and don't go anywhere near far enough)
6: Argument from pandering
7: Argument from fluff

Fighter needs magic items more than anybody else, because he doesn't have any relevant class abilities. He cant deal with a single problem that can't be solved by swinging a sword or shooting an arrow, he needs magic items or caster help for EVERYTHING. Some of us consider that a problem, because we like competent characters who contribute to problem-solving.

What I'm seeing here is not a problem with the fighter at all but people trying to put the fighter into situations to try and make the fighter look bad in order to justify their argument. I can come up with situations to make each and every class look bad but that doesn't mean there is a problem with the class. Not every class can handle each and every situation and there are times when it takes everyone helping each other in order to get through an encounter or a situation.

The basic premise is that the fighter sucks at two things: Combat, and non-combat. We say this, not because we hate fighters, not because we're pencil-necked dweebs who hate jocks, but because it's true. Experience shows that fighters just don't pull their weight in a group, starting somewhere between level 1 and 11 depending on group and optimization.

The arguments for the fighter NOT sucking are as follows:
*Endurance. Which is b+!@#%$!, because he relies on casters to resupply HP.
*Flavor (My dude used to run an inn! How awesome is that?!). B@$*#%!@, because flavor applies to any character regardless of class. Besides, Fighter is s$~@ for flavor, because he gets 2 skill points and has an Int of either 7 or 13.
*House rules. That's the Oberoni Fallacy, look it up if you don't know it.
*Pandering. I can build scenarios around the Fighter and give him extra-sweet loot. How cute. That's actually an admission that Fighter sucks, not an argument that he doesn't.
*I can build him to do X: Congratulations, you're now mediocre at X, and suck even harder at everything else. And you can't change your build.
*Magic items. I can cover weakness X with item Y. I can solve problem Z with item Omega. The first one usually ends in cherrypicking. After the flying, the teleportation, the interaction and the counter-illusion items, poor fight-dude doesn't have the cash for weapons, defense and strength-boosters. Meanwhile, other classes either don't have the weakness in question or can cover it with class abilities. And THEN they can get magic items that actually synergize. As for specific problem solving, it's often a case of Fighter fans not understanding rules - see the Amulet of Non-Detection from the recent Paladin vs. Wizard thread. Magic items can often provide a mediocre solution at the modest cost of all your money; casters get to apply their CL and casting stat, for free.

"Doing damage without expending spell slots" is a valid contribution to a party. But Clerics, Druids and Bards (And Inquisitors, Alchemists, Magi, Oracles, even Rangers and Paladins) just do it better. Not because they bring bigger numbers, but because it's not their ONLY contribution. Every single non-combat contribution from a Fighter can be done at least as well by a Commoner.

The fighter can deal with fighting without a lot of investment in magic items, if he's built that way.

He can't, really, and that's the problem. Protection from big grapplers, flight ability and protection from mind-affecting low level fightstoppers are just the first few things that come to mind that the Fighter needs magic items for.

It seems like you're arguing from an older edition, where save v. spells was fairly rare, and Fighting Man had excellent saves. Now, Will Save or Lose happens all the time, and Fighters have bad Will saves and Wisdom as a dump stat (a position they share with the other pure martials, Rogues and Barbarians - both of which have the option to shore up this weakness with class abilities).

The casters are also very gear dependent, regardless of what some people want to claim. Even Tark mentioned that the wizard should have a bunch of scrolls. That's gear. In order to get their DCs up for their spells, they will need more gear.

Caster gear makes the caster better. Fighter gear is absolutely required to be allowed to play.

I would love to see what a wizard restricted to mundane items would do against a fighter restricted to mundane items. It would be interesting. The easiest way to do this would be to use PFS rules so that the wizard doesn't also have scribe scroll. It would be unfair to take away a class feature if someone wanted to do this.

Levitate, Invisibility, Protection from Arrows, and those are just the 1. and 2. level spells.