|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I played with the idea of a feat that allowed you to increase your critical threshold with finesse weapons in lieu of straight damage bonuses. It seemed like a more thematic way to approach dex to damage, but I would have to run numbers to figure out how critting most of the time instead of having straight damage bonuses would play out. If you had a +5-7 modifier in strength at end game, but got a critical threat on every swing that was likely to hit your opponent, it would emulate that sort of savvy combatant that everyone is trying to make.
Thats perhaps a touch hyperbolic. I think that the fighter is still pretty much boned with all of the feats you mentioned due to action economy and poor saving throws. The elephant in the room is clearly the arcane and divine full caster that just ruins your day, you get a shot at taking one of them out. Not a fantastic shot, but its there.
Pretty sure that special ability is a waste of ink, as you can't wield something that's not in your hands. The designers have stated that wielding requires you to attack with the tool in question to be considered wielding.
This is a great example of someone adding something to a description that isn't their, thanks LazarX. There is nothing in the description that states any of this.
Diego... please stop. You have to literally ignore how English works to come to the conclusion you are coming to. A special charge is defined by the feat, but it doesn't matter if its not defined really because you can eliminate the prefix "special" and still have a working sentence. If you take charge out of the sentence, it ceases to be a sentence altogether.
Coincidentally, this is probably the first post you've posted that I fully agree with.:P
I'm aware, I was just pointing out how rediculous that statement was.
Brain in a Jar wrote:
That's interesting but kind of not the point I was trying to make, which is that creating new classes with narrow spell lists actually makes for fewer characters and worse game balance over time.
Cap. Darling wrote:
Since ditent is latin, I imagine you meant didn't.
@Stabbity - The point is still well made and totally valid. Martial caster hybrids are always pushed into narrow spell lists which heavily limits the sort of characters you can make with any one of them. If, for example, the bard chassis allowed you to choose spells from the wizard list and additionally allowed you to specialize in one school so that you could cast those spells at one level lower, it wouldn't break anything and would make a thousand different characters viable. Not only that, but you wouldn't need to create a tonne of different spell lists.
I would suggest turning the spell failure to five percent at first and give more for every two levels thereafter. It frees up design space and its really not that important later on.
Also, if your going to give them shield access, just give it to them up front because you can't really build for something you don't have access to until really late. In essence, if you give them proficiency that late you may as well not offer it in the first place.
Your straight jacketed into being an enchanter.
I suppose it depends on how necessary other feats are to your build. In a lot of cases prerequisite feats are kind of taxes which impact upon the efficacy of your whole build.
So, perhaps not required for entry, but definitely important.
Holy molly, did you just say that Valeros is the epic fighter build?
I think I just slipped a disk when I hit the floor....
The Magus loses three levels of spellcasting omnipotence for its class abilities. The paired down spell list is to emphasize the evoker theme. Its the same with the bard and other partial casters. If you want to do something a little different in the spell department? Well too bad I guess. -_-