What are you doing, Rhedyn? That would make the feat not garbage for martials. You know that's not acceptable. Spoiler: Now that I've gotten the snark out, that is actually a much better option without being hilariously too strong or hilariously too weak. Good thinking!
Don't look at me. I'm not in charge of what Paizo does. If I had it my way, Path of War/Ultimate Psionics/Spheres of Power would replace 100% of Paizo's classes. Everybody would have fun and effective class features, with minimal stupid full spellcaster shenanigans, and nobody would be hilariously inept outside of their single only-sometimes-useful niche.
Unless he's Dex-based! Then he's not even a pack mule unless he gets Muleback Cords (instead of the Cloak of Resistance he needs to not get turned against the party!) or one of the casters keeps Ant Haul on him all the time. But this is all off-topic, so I'll shut up now.
Yeah, the Fighter isn't even close to being the best at fighting. He's the most consistent, which has its perks, but an optimized Ranger, Paladin or Barbarian played by someone who knows what he's doing will always be able to edge the fighter out. And, in addition to that, those classes have FAR more effective tools for solving problems that aren't "hit the bad guy." And that's not even going into stuff like the Bloodrager and the numerous amazingly well-designed T3 martial classes. Who are also roughly around the fighter's level (not generally stronger, but are definitely pulling their weight) but are wildly more effective at things other than fighting. And THAT is not going into the fact that this game isn't 100% combat. There is no use for a class that can't contribute AT ALL to certain parts of the game, especially when it was done BY DESIGN.
I have literally never seen anyone ask for the Fighter to be "basically a wizard but instead of spells he has "moves" or something that allows him to perform "magic in all but name,"". This is more of that ridiculous and false "4th Edition fallacy" nonsense. You are aware that Paizo released the Kineticist as amazingly mediocre as it is simply because it's entirely based around the same kind of at-will special attack deal, right? They'd never build a legitimate initiator-knock-off type thing for Fighters, because they hilariously overvalue being able to do things an unlimited number of times a day. There is almost zero chance that they'd go anywhere near those kinds of class features, without making the classes that have them even worse in return. Spoiler: Also I'm informed that while the CRB was really bad for it, later 4e classes were lots of fun and quite varied in their abilities.
For games other than Pathfinder, sure. But your 20+ years don't mean squat in the context of Pathfinder. The fact that you're arguing that the Fighter, Rogue and Monk (because they came first!) should be stronger than every other class that came after them is pretty clear evidence of that.
Seniority in getting written is also not a good reason to determine power rankings, either. It also doesn't change the fact that Divine Protection was ridiculously strong for the low cost of a couple skill points and a single feat slot for anyone who could benefit from it. It should have never been written in the first place.
That might be a little extreme, Kirth. The general rule should be "don't make your friends at the table feel like they're only there to catalog how awesome of a wizard you are," which doesn't outright prevent the spellcaster from doing anything but buffing others and occasionally throwing a fireball. Everybody should be having fun in the game, even the dirty stinking wizard. :)
Running the first combat of Rise of the Runelords for my buddies. One Fighter, one Rogue, one Cleric, one Sorcerer and one Witch. Fighter, Rogue and Cleric spend EIGHT rounds whiffing madly at the goblins' AC. Sorcerer knocks at least 3 goblins unconscious with Color Spray and then murders them with Ray of Frost while they're out. Witch spams Evil Eye on the Goblins to make them pretty much incapable of not being wrecked by Color Spray and to try and help the beatsticks do their job. The Witch's familiar also goes around Coup de Gracing all the unconscious enemies. The Cleric doesn't use any of his spells or channeling because nobody took meaningful damage, and he didn't want to risk healing the goblins back up to full health. The fight was the inspiration for this edit of one of Oglaf's comics. Adrana and Koru (SFW). Note the dwarf fighter missing wildly in the background. This is a real thing that happened. The spellcasters solved the fight, while the people who couldn't cast spells were effectively useless. This was their first exposure to PF, and of that group, only one person still plays PF because their introduction to it was so painful. Martial/Caster Disparity isn't a thing? Yeah, nah.
No one with any sense is saying anything about making the Fighter better at hitting things (and he's not even the best Paizo class at the role. Hi, Barbarian!). We are saying that he needs to be better at things other than hitting things. And let's be clear, it takes a METRIC TON of system mastery to actually build a decent Fighter. There are so many trap feats that you can completely ruin any chance you have of being an effective damage-dealer with just one or two bad choices. The Wizard is no slouch in the DPR department, but you don't seem intent on stripping away a good 90% or so of his out-of-combat utility and versatility to make up for that. Why can't the Fighter be not completely useless when it comes to things that don't involve hitting things? Why should the Wizard be able to play in all parts of the cooperative game while the Fighter can only contribute to one? I, personally don't have any problems with pretending either Fighters or Wizards don't exist. I am more than happy to continue playing with zero Paizo content. But that doesn't mean that I don't think that Ivery Tower design shouldn't rot in hell.
Yeah, very few people are saying "I want Wizards to be completely unplayable!" but there are people who will loudly decry any attempt to make the Fighter not garbage outside his single field of combat. Making the Fighter better doesn't ruin the game for anyone. Bringing everybody between low T2 and high T4 reduces game-breaking shenanigans and makes sure everyone has options*. This is nothing but good for the game as a whole. *: Which is why I strongly suggest PoW/Psionics/SoP-only games to anyone who doesn't like the current dynamic of Wizards and Fighters in the same group.
I know what I'm about, son. Spoiler: Yes, I am saying that those kind of supernatural abilities should be exceedingly common amongst mundane martials. There's really no way for a completely mundane character to keep up in this game past a certain point, and he'll be so heavily loaded down with magic items by then that he wouldn't really be mundane anymore, anyway.
While I agree, leaving the Fighter (and most martials) the way they are is really not a good plan. That "I full attack!" stuff wears on even the most ardent of people who like martial characters. Everybody should be able to have fun and effective options for interacting with the game at the whole, and the problem is that there are a number of classes who are just barely competent in ONE role, and that's with assistance. That's not fair or fun for a lot of people.
I rather enjoy running a campaign where everybody is T2 myself. Which is fine, but that's not going to change my opinion. ;)
Right, Chengar. That is exactly the point. The difference is that unless he has spent lots of character resources and wealth on trying to mimic a spellcaster, the barbarian can't really do terribly much more than beat folks up. The Barbarian suffers less in this regard than most martials (4+Int skill points and a solid skill list, with rage powers on top of that) but he'll never keep up with a even decently played wizard in sheer versatility and breadth of problem solving options.
Martials (read: mostly the Fighter) needs better things because damage is not only the easiest thing to be good at in PF, it's also the least useful solution in the game. Even in a 100% combat game, there are spells and class features that allow you to not need to do a single point of actual HP damage. And the martials don't have any easy access to any of that. That said, the blaster spellcaster is what Pathfinder spellcasters are designed around, balance-wise, but it turns out there are plenty of non-damage spells for spellcasters which are faaaaaar more powerful and effective. And that's why there's a problem. If the Wizard didn't have access to Summon Monster, Color Spray, Glitterdust and the like (and were pretty much limited to blasting and utility spells) they'd STILL be more powerful than the Fighter, but at least they wouldn't make him effectively obsolete.
You're still trying to claim that the game is balanced because you can have combats with 1+ enemies focusing specifically on the spellcaster, and using a bunch of annoying and/or obscure rules to make that spellcaster's life harder, just so that he doesn't ruin everything for everyone else? Because if you didn't stack all of those efforts and rules together (which, by the by, pretty much allow the rest of the party to freely cleave through the enemy as they're so focused in preventing the spellcaster(s) from doing their thing) they'd break encounters over their boney wizard knees. Well if that isn't proof that spellcasters in PF are too strong, I don't know what is.
Yeah, tossing out Paizo classes and spells in favor of PoW/Psionics/SoP has significantly improved my Pathfinder experience. The spellcasters aren't wildly more powerful than their mundane counterparts, everyone has their niches, and everybody is happy. But nope, too anime. Because that's a valid argument. One type of nerds getting hissy at another type of nerds isn't a hilariously hypocritical thing at all. Nope! Can I stop sarcasming now? My eyes are going to roll right out of my head.
Haha, that's cute. It's like you think those things are actual roadblocks, considering the Wizard has ways to work around all of them. No armor? Funny, Mage Armor, Bracers of Armor and the LAUNDRY LIST of defensive spells they get that are actually BETTER than just having high AC seem to disagree.
And before you bring up the BUT THEY CAN'T DO EVERYTHING ALL DAY that you inevitably will, I shall point out that while the Fighter was spending his money to actually be able to do his thing all day, the Wizard was, too. Buying wands, scrolls, potions and such that let him work well past when his own spells would run out. Assuming he even feels it necessary to use all of them.
I've been told that the original Fighting Man was hardly the "basic model" compared to everyone else when it came to fighting. He was the only one who got multiple attacks (and could move his full speed to take those attacks), had the most HP, was practically impervious to magic, and eventually earned his own castle full of soldiers. He really WAS the King of Fighting. But in the name of making other classes more fun to play (especially the Cleric, I'm told), they took all the Fighting Man's toys and gave them to everybody else in 3.X. So now the Fighter is neither particularly good at fighting, and very much IS the basic model for fighting... which is terrible design, because he doesn't have anything OTHER than fighting.
Spheres of Power. A really good book with really atrocious art. It's an alternate magic system that makes some pretty fundamental changes to how magic is cast (such as making CL like BAB, so that 3/4 CL and 1/2 CL classes exist alongside full CL classes) and making it so you only get a few magic talents, which you can invest into spheres to grab abilities. As such, you don't have access to everything on your class' spell list, just the spheres and talents you have invested in. It makes you less strong overall, but you can invest heavily into one or more themes, which generally feels a lot better. And yes, the Destruction Sphere is pretty much I'M A WARLOCK! You can use your Destructive Blast at-will all day long (1d6 dmg/2 levels), or spend a spell point when you cast it to make it the equivalent to a Wizard blast spell (1d6/level). With talent expenditure, you can make the blast into a fireball, a cone, a burst, do fire damage, negative energy damage, etc.
Just throwing it out there my group just finished up Wrath of the Righteous and hands down the fighter was the most powerful character in the group. Two handed fighter build with champion path was hitting for 900 a swing by the last part of the game. Things like the path ability always a chance and build ability devastating blow and him having something like a +40 to hit. I can say casting spells is only great if you need to wipe out a lot of smaller things. Great, he did a lot of damage. How much did he contribute to social situations, knowledge checks (such as identifying monsters), circumventing perils without a spellcaster's assistance, etc? Damage is largely unimportant in PF, especially in the hilarious rocket tag that is high level Mythic stuff. The Fighter does 900 damage? That means an Inquisitor would probably be doing no less than 500 under the absolutely worst conditions, and that's still enough to murder most things in the bestiary in one round. Like, 90% of everything. And he's WAY better than the Fighter in literally every way. Oh, and I'm probably markedly underselling him, because between Judgments, buffs and other things, he's likely not that far behind the Fighter when it comes to damage, either. Stop trying to imply the Fighter is okay because he does a lot of damage. Damage doesn't get the King to allow you to pass through the kingdom, damage doesn't help get everyone across the 500ft. wide canyon, damage doesn't do anything but kill bad guys.
It's actually not hard to play CN/Evil characters that don't ruin games. You just have to not do things that would ruin games, with the intention of blaming it on "It's what my character would do." It's also good fun, because you have the option of approaching problems in a way that you might never think of while playing a Good character. Only the most insane of CE characters go out of their way to purposefully sabotage the people they're working with. It's completely doable to play an Evil character who doesn't lie, cheat and steal, or at least doesn't do those things to his compatriots who are likely keeping him around for a reason. Are you playing GTA incorrectly? Hell if I know. But robbing banks, stealing cars and murdering police officers, are these really okay as long as you try not to run over pedestrians? That's actually much closer to what a good Evil campaign should be like, anyway. The group shouldn't be full of chaotic murdering nutcases, but rather bad folk who will do bad things for a cause they think is "good", or at least in their best interests. Whether that cause is bringing down the Church of Mitra and releasing Talingarde from their stranglehold, or robbing a bank to get enough money to feed your wife and kids.
I disparage the Fighter because he can't perform outside of a fighter because everyone else can fight, too, and often just as well or better than the fighter. He has no real reason to exist. Bravery is a joke. Armor and Weapon Training are minor boosts, at best, and neither is defining or actually helps the Fighter do things anyone else couldn't do. The Fighter's class features only help him fight, but Pathfinder is not a miniature wargame. So much of the game is outside of combat that a class that can do nothing but combat is a waste of ink. Even in a game that is 100% combat, the Fighter doesn't bring anything meaningful to the table: a Barbarian wearing a Breastplate is moving just as fast as a Fighter wearing one (if not moving faster!) and is better both in and out of combat, to boot. And that's just comparing to his mundane cousin, and not to any of the various other ones who replace him. Like I said, if you like twiddling your thumbs while the party handles everything that isn't combat, the Fighter is probably fine for you. But that sound so unbelievably boring that it makes me wonder why you'd even want to be there in the first place. So, to get back on topic, Ex abilities may not say they can break the rules of physics, but they should be able to. Because putting that restriction on the already-beleaguered mundane martials is just making things worse for them.
Raltus, it's been fifteen years since 3.0 came out. If they haven't fixed Fighters and Rogues since then, it can't be done. It's long past the time to bury both classes and just let them rest, already. Now that the Unchained Rogue, the Slayer and the Investigator exist, there's really no reason for the CRB Rogue to still be a thing. The Fighter never had a real niche, either mechanically or fluff-wise, so removing it wholesale would change exactly nothing. There is no short, simple answer to this problem other than "Don't play Pathfinder." It's too cooked into the base assumptions of the game: that spellcasters can do whatever the hell they want, and martials are lucky if they can do things other than whacking things with their weapons.
You know, I wouldn't be surprised if Gandalf COULD teleport, but was not allowed to because nonintervention nonsense. That's neither here nor there, though. Really, spells give wildly more narrative power than mundane solutions do. They're versatile, can be used for numerous things, and can even be used to do things they're not specifically designed to do. They are limited by uses a day, yes, but that doesn't really stay a problem for very long. But when people try and deny the fact that there IS a disparity, that's just willful ignorance. You're seriously telling me that your level 1 Fighter is every bit as effective and versatile as the level 1 Wizard? And that it doesn't get worse at every level past that point? Because I have multiple friends who started 3.X games as Fighters and Rogues and spent the entire time wondering why they're even here, when their jobs were rendered completely moot by the party spellcaster(s). ACCIDENTALLY. WITH NO ILL WILL INTENDED. Just using their class features, and not even optimally.
...It's perfectly analogous. Nobody's actually thinking "I should go butcher some small children and feed them to the demon lord Axtholupis, unhallowed be his name!" when they decide to sacrifice some townsfolk in an evil game. It's just the actions of your character, just like it's just the actions of the actor's character. They might even have a damn good in-character reason for it, too! And that's ignoring the fact that Sir Charles the White, the level 6 Human Paladin, and his band of merry Good-aligned companions has probably put a half dozen goblin villages to the flame already. And don't tell me they haven't, because nearly every Good-centered campaign has a scapegoat race of demi- or sub-humans that get painted as the bad guys and then slaughtered outright, for the good of humanity. Orcs, trolls, goblins, kobolds, etc. Sometimes it's fun to have the tables turned, to BE the orcs or goblins or trolls, and wreaking havoc upon the human society that would see you purged from existence.
If that's how you feel, boss, I don't mind. It's supposed to be fun for all of us, and if your RL is going to prevent you from really enjoying it, then it's okay to stop.
One thing to add; I've seen Spheres of Power thrown around including when I did it. Is replacing magic wholesale a solution? All things considered it doesn't seem that hard to do in regards to Spheres of Power and its pretty brief and intuitive and far more theme-reaching in fewer pages. Also most of the views on spheres is that its more balanced, does that mean magic is not the problem but how magic works is? It's absolutely how magic works that makes it a ridiculous solution to every problem. A point-based system like Psionics or Spheres of Power, where you need to invest in your spells to get them to be as strong as they can be helps lower the number of huge spell effects you can throw around in day. Especially since using your lower-level utility powers can reduce that amount, instead of leaving it completely untouched. SoP is (whether through design or a happy accident) roughly T3, and Psionics pushes into T2 (though is still mostly T3). Using either option to replace normal spellcasters brings the general level of "I've got a spell for that!" problem-solving down a good bit.
No. But the armor spikes aren't on your hands. They're on your chest, shoulders, arms, legs, etc. Unless you are implying that you need to unscrew the armor spikes and stab someone with them like a dagger (hint: you don't), in which case I don't have any reason to reply to you willfully misinterpreting the rules. Armor spikes are not on your hands. Thus, you don't need a physical hand to use them. You need a metaphorical hand to use them for Two Weapon Fighting (in which case you need a 1H weapon to pair with them) but Attacks of Opportunity share exactly zero rules overlap with Two Weapon Fighting.
A Wizard/Warder is either not wearing armor or is using nothing but spells without Somatic components. Neither is even remotely a great plan. Tarov is a frontliner, group buffer (originally through Golden Lion boosts, but now through Inspiring Voice and soon through Inspire Courage which he generally doesn't use since it takes a precious standard action to start right now) and secondary healer who helps keep the group on their feet. He was never designed to be some kind of turbo optimized monster, just a character that was fun to play. Huh... my problem with PoW is the *lack* of flexibility—classes so generally overpowered that it's hard to justify not playing them, which generally pigeonhole you into having a small number of things you can do in a round, most of them only once/combat, while a decent fighter can pull off dozens of interesting things each turn. Please, name 4. Individual combat maneuvers are not separate "interesting things", nor can the Fighter even use them most of the time when enemies are huge/not humanoid/flying/etc.
PoW turns things that shouldn't have been 3-4 separate feats into the first place into maneuvers and such. The fact that the Fighter needs to burn twelve feats to be good at one thing is stupid design. The sooner you realize that the Fighter is a terrible reference for what martial characters should be able to do (the Paladin, Barbarian, Slayer and Bloodrager are all FAR better examples) the sooner PoW starts to seem less ridiculous.
To be fair, Hercules and Cu are demigods, not mundane folk.Stuff.The thing is that there is literally no mythology where there isn't a least a handful of mundane folk who have simply transcended being mundane shmucks. Hercules, Cu Chulainn, Beowolf, etc. are noted European/Mediterranean examples. I'm sure there are African, South American and other examples, too! At level 12+, everybody is so ridiculously past the point of being superhuman in their actions that they might as well already be demigods. Or at least they should be, but only spellcasters are in PF. Despite the fact that this is a level-based game, and if the levels don't mean that things of the same level are roughly similar in power, then the levels are meaningless. Most of us are just sick of NPC classes being advertised as PC classes. If the Fighter is, by design, supposed to be absolutely terrible at solving problems, but a Wizard of the same level is supposed to be able to do everything the Fighter can and have a thousand options on top of that, don't say they're both PC classes. PoW solves this, too, by letting mundanes do superhuman things, and giving them options besides. Even outside initiating abilities, they have at least 4+Int skill points a level AND good skill lists, which means they can contribute much more, even if it's not magic.
So what you're saying is "if the party is all spellcasters, I have to nerf them." How exactly is that saying that party makeup doesn't matter? Let's get real. A party of Paladin/Bard/Druid/Sorcerer is hilariously more effective than a party of Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard, because the first group is full of people who can contribute all the time. The second group has more powerful spellcasters, yes, but half the group is effectively just there to soak hits and solve problems in the least effective and efficient way possible.
Can you have a Longspear and Armor Spikes and threaten both 5 and 10 feet? Absolutely. You're not TWF'ing with them, you're simply wielding both.Does that work for you with spiked Gauntlet and Long Spear? No. But the armor spikes aren't on your hands. They're on your chest, shoulders, arms, legs, etc. Unless you are implying that you need to unscrew the armor spikes and stab someone with them like a dagger (hint: you don't), in which case I don't have any reason to reply to you willfully misinterpreting the rules.
Stuff. The thing is that there is literally no mythology where there isn't a least a handful of mundane folk who have simply transcended being mundane shmucks. Hercules, Cu Chulainn, Beowolf, etc. are noted European/Mediterranean examples. I'm sure there are African, South American and other examples, too! The concept of the dude who doesn't wield magic but is capable of doing things so far beyond the realm of his mortal ken is probably the most common thing in history, far more so than the finger-wiggling wizard. Path of War is a strong answer to letting martials do nice things, but it doesn't really go far enough. It brings the beatsticks up to where they're useful and effective, but it doesn't stop the Wizards and Druids and Clerics and Shamans of the world from ruining everything with their "I'VE GOT A SPELL FOR THAT" shenanigans. Which is why you replace them with refluffed Psionics or Spheres of Power. Now everybody is roughly around the same level, nobody can ruin the game with a single well-placed spell, and you can really tell fantasy tales without part of the group being relegated to packmule and Coup de Grace machine.
No, it isn't. Armor spikes do not require the use of your hands. They require the use of one of your 'metaphorical hands', and this is only in regards to Two Weapon Fighting. Any weapon you can make an attack with, you may take Attacks of Opportunity with. Can you Armor Spikes/Claw/Claw? Yes. Armor Spikes would be at Full BAB, both claws would be at -5, as they'd become secondary natural attacks. Can you Gauntlet/Claw/Claw? No. The gauntlet is on one of the hands that has the claw, which means one of the claws and the gauntlet share the same metaphorical hand of effort. Can you have a Longspear and Armor Spikes and threaten both 5 and 10 feet? Absolutely. You're not TWF'ing with them, you're simply wielding both.
It's less "martials never get nice things" and more "martials sometimes get nice things, as a footnote to the 50 nice things spellcasters got in each and every supplement that comes out." I do absolutely agree that everyone can and should have access to magic. I don't mean that through UMD, potions and wands, though. Master Craftsman is such a hilarious trap feat that I can't even begin to explain my problem with it. At least I have PoW and Psionics to feed all my effective martial concepts. The sooner folk stop restricting themselves to Paizo's ineffectual mundane martials, the happier they'll be.
EVERYBODY with any sense thinks differently. Every class should be balanced around the Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor and Warpriest. They're the effective all-rounders that every other class should be compared to, NOT the hugely powerful Cleric and Druid or the hilariously inept Fighter. |
