Archetypes we would still like to see after UC


Product Discussion

201 to 224 of 224 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Dabbler wrote:
vidmaster wrote:
you know what im tired of every figther archtype being compared to a two handed figther. we get it the 2 handed is dpr god got it check. they give up their ac for it. A finesse figther is easy with feats and with the deulist its not mad if you priotirtize dex instead of str and int so the stats you need are dex int con no biggie there you don't do as much damage as a two hand but you have higher mobility and ac as well as some nifty tricks.

You have lower damage output than the 2HF, lower AC as you are only in light armour, lower hit points because your build is MAD ... and there are no tricks you can pull that the 2HF fighter cannot pull as well.

vidmaster wrote:
oh and rogue duelists are awesome to

Yes, as rogues. Not as fighters, though.

vidmaster wrote:
is the totallity of what is wanted just dex to damage? i don't see it. heck why not dex for hit points to and skill points and will saves why have any other stat at all.....

No. I think you just got a '1' on your perception - Dex-to-damage has long since been debunked as unbalanced, thank you. However, Int to damage has not been, and could help equalise up the swashbuckler types to the grunts quite nicely, especially if you tack on a minimum BAB requirement to hold off those pesky wizards.

vidmaster wrote:
the other thing i saw i didn't like oh my dex based figther concept has to have reflex as its main save that sucks... You want a dex based figther as in reflex based but not with reflex as their high save. just design your own class already pick and choose every ability you want that sounds like where your going anyways.
I think that was somebody pointing out that for the duelist, Reflex only is a bit weak, given the classes other problems.

i don't see how you would have a lower ac if you priortized dex. you also get intlligence to ac as well so two weapon prioritizeing dex third so what 14 16? +3 then armor for 6-9 more duelist 20 dex +5 18-16 int for another 4 so 19 naked. another 4 or so from armor 12 vrs 13. less damage seems fair thats how it should be when compared to a 2 handed weapon figther. int to damage sounds good i approve of that as long as its instead of str not in addition to.

i still don't see the mad. duelist goes dex int con. two handed goes str con dex. so you get moved back a spot i suspose with con but you have a higher dex. plus alot more skill points and the duelist things. more skill points can be helpful

tricks deulist has that 2hw figther doesn't have parry, riposte, improved reaction, percise strike, canny defense, and a few others.


Dragonchess Player wrote:

Re: Swashbuckler Fighters

The Cad, Free Hand Fighter, Mobile Fighter, Two-Weapon Warrior, and Weapon Master archetypes can all work for a fencer/swashbuckler.

... and with a rapier and light armour, none of them address the problems of low AC and low damage output, which are two of the big three things you want out of a melee combatant. Perhaps we should have made clearer that we want a swashbuckler-type fighter (finesse weapons, light armour, smart and fast rather than big and strong) that does not totally suck donkey-balls next to the grunt.


Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Personally, I have no issue with the swashbuckler-type needing Intelligence - I think intelligence has a place in combat; I just wish it counted for more than just a little AC bump (that is why in the old 'should he have a feat that adds dex bonus to damage' thread we ended up plumping for Intelligence to damage instead).
There is precedent for this. There is a feat that allows intelligence to add to damage (in addition to str!) but only for missile weapons at present. Even an alternate class feature for an archetype would be good (maybe better, since it will prevent the abuse possible with a feat)

Which feat is that?


Focused Shot from the Advanced Player's Guide. Only works for bows and crossbows though.


vidmaster wrote:
i still don't see the mad

As the class is written, the duelist at equal Con will have fewer hp than the fighter, since the fighter is getting the favored class bonus on levels the duelist does not. The duelist needs his combined Dex+Int bonus to be 3 higher than the fighter's Dex bonus to have the same AC as a fighter who doesn't use a shield, five higher if the fighter uses a shield (and then there's additional enchantment AC on the shield). And then the duelist needs the same Strength as the fighter to do as much damage as the fighter.

If you want to completely sacrifice Strength to a fourth priority, focusing purely on AC, like you suggested, I'll instead build a sword-and-board fighter, and he can match/exceed the duelist in AC while still keeping up in damage and having more hit points.

The duelist just can't do a fighter's job, and if your priority is skills, you'd go with a real skill-monkey class. The monk pities the duelist.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:

Re: Swashbuckler Fighters

The Cad, Free Hand Fighter, Mobile Fighter, Two-Weapon Warrior, and Weapon Master archetypes can all work for a fencer/swashbuckler.

... and with a rapier and light armour, none of them address the problems of low AC and low damage output, which are two of the big three things you want out of a melee combatant. Perhaps we should have made clearer that we want a swashbuckler-type fighter (finesse weapons, light armour, smart and fast rather than big and strong) that does not totally suck donkey-balls next to the grunt.

The Cad gets Dirty Maneuvers at 2nd level (+1 bonus to perform or resist disarm, dirty trick, and steal manuvers; increases by +1 every four levels after that); knock your opponent's weapon out of their hand or cause the blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or sickened condition for at least 1 round. Very versatile, and with Combat Expertise a prerequisite for Improved Disarm and Improved Dirty Trick, you can boost your AC. Add Agile Maneuvers and Weapon Finesse and you've still only used 5 feats (human 3rd level fighter). At 5th level, the Cad gets Payback (+1 bonus to attack and damage rolls against any opponent that has attacked the Cad since the beginning of the Cad's last turn; increases by +1 for every four levels above 5th). At 7th level, the Cad gains Deadly Surprise (attempt a free dirty trick combat maneuver on hitting an opponent that's denied a Dex bonus to AC against the Cad).

The Free Hand Fighter gains Deceptive Strike at 2nd level (+1 bonus to CMB and CMD on disarm checks and Bluff checks to feint or create a diversion to hide; increases by +1 for every four additional levels). At 3rd level, the Free Hand Fighter gains Elusive (+1 dodge bonus to AC, not useable when wearing medium or heavy armor or carrying a medium or heavy load; increases +1 for every four additional levels). At 5th level the Free Hand Fighter gains Singleton (+1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when wielding a melee weapon in one hand and leaving the other hand free).

The Mobile Fighter retains Armor Training 1 (and Armor Training 2), so they can use normal breastplates as if they were almost effectively mithral (full move speed, increased max. Dex bonus, reduced Armor Check penalty). At 5th level, the Mobile Fighter gains Leaping Attack (+1 bonus on attack and damage rolls if the Mobile Fighter moves at least 5 ft before attacking; increases +1 for every for additional levels). This archetype is really good on reaching 11th level, when Rapid Attack is gained (take a move action and still full attack, losing the highest iterative).

The Two-Weapon Warrior gains Defensive Flurry at 3rd level (+1 dodge bonus when making a full attack both weapons; increases +1 every four additional levels). At 5th level, the Two-Weapon Warrior gains Twin Blades (+1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when making a full attack with both weapons; increases +1 for every four additional levels). At 11th level, the Two-Weapon Warrior gains Improved Balance (the penalty for fighting with two weapons is reduced to -1 if wielding a light weapon in the off hand or to -2 if wielding a one-handed weapon in the off hand).

The Weapon Master gains Weapon Training at 3rd level (+1 on attack and damage rolls with their chosen weapon type; increases +1 for every four additional levels). At 5th level, the Weapon Master gains Reliable Strike (re-roll an attack, critical confirmation, miss chance, or damage roll with their chosen weapon type once per day; gain one additional time per day every five levels after 5th). At 9th level, the Weapon Master gains Mirror Move (gain the weapon training bonus as an insight bonus to AC when attacked by their chosen weapon type; not great, but rapiers are fairly common).

If you want a swashbuckler, play a swashbuckler, not a grunt that's disguised as a swashbuckler. A swashbuckler isn't all about AC and damage, but also maneuvers and taking advantage of openings (that the swashbuckler tries to create if they don't otherwise exist).


Dragonchess Player wrote:
stuff

Sure, you can use pre-exsisting archetypes and class abilities to make a fine swashbuckler. In fact you can use the cleric class to make an oracle character, the fighter class to make a samurai character, the wizard class to make a summoner, and so on... That doesn't mean we shouldn't get a dedicated archetype/class for one of our most popular character tropes(and obviously the rogues 'swashbuckler' archetype does not count). Especially when the trope was already so well done in 3.5. Yes its true that the 3.5 swashbuckler got a lot of mechanics that made him function similarly to a fighter (decent damage, good ac, good hp) but he got a number of special abilities that indeed rewarded him for being and enabled him to be a mobile combatant. And at the end of the day, he didn't feel like a fighter, he felt like a swashbuckler. It was my favorite thing out of 3.5 and I want it back in some form in PF.

That and an artificer.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
{some good points, some bad ones}

The problem with the maneuvers is that against half the things you fight, they do not work. Super-disarmer? Oh whoops, you are up against a dragon. Trip? No, sorry, centaurs have four legs. Grapple? You are up against a giant.

What are you left with? Good old damage, AC and hit points. I'm not saying that you have to be the best, but you have to be decent at least.

Looking at the archetypes, the Cad is relying on maneuvers. The Free Hand Fighter, well, Elusive is good, but Singleton is worse than normal weapon training and lags FAR behind the duelist's precise strike. The mobile fighter likewise has some advantages that are swashbuckler-esque but none of their abilities address the problem of the swashbuckler. Two Weapon Fighter is not what the doctor ordered, and Weapon Master leaves you bleeding from lack of AC - and none of the archetypes address lack of skills appropriate to the swashy.

If you took the Free Hand Fighter, Mobile Fighter and Weapon Master and rolled them all into one class restricted to finesse weapons and light armour, you might have something workable, but the odds are you would still have to go duelist for the Precise Strike and Canny Defence.


Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
Focused Shot from the Advanced Player's Guide. Only works for bows and crossbows though.

That feat is a very very bad one.

Standard action to use? Precision damage? 2 prerequisite feats?
At this point the amount of damage it adds to your damage roll (and it isn't a big one either) simply doesn't matter.


leo1925 wrote:

That feat is a very very bad one.

Standard action to use? Precision damage? 2 prerequisite feats?
At this point the amount of damage it adds to your damage roll (and it isn't a big one either) simply doesn't matter.

Amazingly no one in my gaming group has ever noticed the "standard action to use" part (probably because we never think that anyone would make a feat and then make it terrible to use), but the pre-reqs are considered near-requirements for any dedicated archer character anyways.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
{some good points, some bad ones}
The problem with the maneuvers is that against half the things you fight, they do not work. Super-disarmer? Oh whoops, you are up against a dragon. Trip? No, sorry, centaurs have four legs. Grapple? You are up against a giant.

You're ignoring the dirty trick maneuver. The ability to cause the blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or sickened conditions, more or less at will, is huge. A 7th level Cad with the Greater Dirty Trick feat can pretty much shut down an opponent (blind them so they are denied their Dex bonus to AC and then keep adding more conditions while dealing damage with Deadly Surprise). With Greater Dirty Trick, the victim has to spend a standard action to remove each condition early, which means no attacks for that round; in many ways, this is even more effective than trip-locking (since standing up is a move action).

Only if you have a GM who routinely wants to screw you over will you have problems using dirty trick against the vast majority of opponents. And if you have that sort of GM, then you'll be ineffective no matter what you do.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
{some good points, some bad ones}
The problem with the maneuvers is that against half the things you fight, they do not work. Super-disarmer? Oh whoops, you are up against a dragon. Trip? No, sorry, centaurs have four legs. Grapple? You are up against a giant.

You're ignoring the dirty trick maneuver. The ability to cause the blinded, dazzled, deafened, entangled, shaken, or sickened conditions, more or less at will, is huge. A 7th level Cad with the Greater Dirty Trick feat can pretty much shut down an opponent (blind them so they are denied their Dex bonus to AC and then keep adding more conditions while dealing damage with Deadly Surprise). With Greater Dirty Trick, the victim has to spend a standard action to remove each condition early, which means no attacks for that round; in many ways, this is even more effective than trip-locking (since standing up is a move action).

Only if you have a GM who routinely wants to screw you over will you have problems using dirty trick. And if you have that sort of GM, then you'll be ineffective no matter what you do.

Actually, dirty trick HAS to be GM adjudicated. I would imagine any reasonable GM will make as effective - or not - as any other combat maneuver. Bear in mind, it's situational (you have to be able to explain what you are doing and why it works) and it lasts for one round only.

Kick sand in the face? It's a giant, how does it get that high. Strike weak spot to sicken the foe? It's a dragon, they rather famously don't have many weak spots.

Don't get me wrong, it's good but if it's the best you can offer a swashbuckler, it's not enough - it's nothing that any other combat type who dishes out masses of damage can't do in addition to their masses of damage.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
Only if you have a GM who routinely wants to screw you over will you have problems using dirty trick. And if you have that sort of GM, then you'll be ineffective no matter what you do.

Actually, dirty trick HAS to be GM adjudicated. I would imagine any reasonable GM will make as effective - or not - as any other combat maneuver. Bear in mind, it's situational (you have to be able to explain what you are doing and why it works) and it lasts for one round only.

Kick sand in the face? It's a giant, how does it get that high. Strike weak spot to sicken the foe? It's a dragon, they rather famously don't have many weak spots.

Don't get me wrong, it's good but if it's the best you can offer a swashbuckler, it's not enough - it's nothing that any other combat type who dishes out masses of damage can't do in addition to their masses of damage.

The condition imposed by dirty trick lasts 1 round, plus 1 round for every 5 points by which the maneuver check exceeds the opponent's CMD (Advanced Player's Guide, pg. 321). Greater Dirty Trick increases the duration to 1d4 rounds, plus 1 for every 5 points over the CMD.

Dirty trick requires the player to be imaginative and describe the action (which is why the GM has to adjudicate). If you're imaginative (and again, don't have a GM who routinely tries to screw you over), then you can do things like:

Assuming you are within one size category of the giant (either a large giant or you are under the effects of enlarge person vs. a huge giant), scoop up a handful of sand, punch the giant in the crotch (not hard enough to cause the sickened condition), and throw the sand in the giant's face when they double over for a second. For a dragon, you can pick up a rock and jam it up one of their nostrils (they'll almost definitely be distracted/fighting not to sneeze; a good equivalent of the sickened condition).

Note that "any other combat type" will probably not be as good at it (since they focused more on damage). Specifically in the case of a 7th level Cad, not only will they be better even than other fighters who've taken the Improved and Greater Dirty Trick feats (because of the Dirty Maneuvers archetype feature), but they can make dirty trick attempts at the same time they are doing damage (with the Deadly Surprise archetype feature); any other combatant is limited to doing one or the other (since the dirty trick maneuver is normally a standard action).


two things I would really like to see:

Rogue Archetypes(not alternate classes, like the Ninja) that gave up more than either Trapfinding and Trap Sense OR Uncanny Dodge and Improved UD.

First of all, why not have some archetypes that give up all four?? Or how about adding in Evasion as a feature you swap out?? etc, etc.

What these exact archetypes are is slightly irrelevant, if Paizo makes some good ones that does this and fits a concept I have in mind, perfecto. It just annoys me to no end that no actual archetype for a Rogue exists that does this.

The other thing I'd like to see is a better, more expanded version of the Knife-Master style archetype. It can either be a Rogue one, expanded as I explained above, or a Fighter, or whatever, I just want a badass class that kicks ass with knives, daggers and other small weapons.

Also, I too would like to see a dedicated Swashbuckler archetype. One of my current PCs is supposed to be such, focusing on quickly moving in, delivering a strong, damaging attacking, and then moving away. He was originally a Dawnflower Dervish(Fighter) which worked, but one of the key abilities I wanted(Extra attack) came really late, so I opted to make him a Kensai instead, which actually in this particular PC's case, works much better.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
{more stuff}

Even given all that, does it gel with being, for example, the nobleman-fencer? No. Is there anything about it which means any other kind of fighter cannot do it? No.

You are left with a dirty-trick specialised fighter that cannot do anything else, as opposed to a dirty-trick specialised fighter who can, and that is the root of the problem that is not being addressed, merely sidetracked around.


ok i got one how about a fighter archetype that can use over sized weapons like the barbarian.


northbrb wrote:

honestly i cant disagree more with this concept. i feel very strongly about having an unarmed fighter out there who can hold his own against a martial artist (monk/style user) of equal level in an unarmed fight. i hate the fact that if you want an increasing unarmed damage you have to be a monk, always have always will.

In the past, I have been a vocal proponent of some of the same things you've been saying but... UC has done quite a bit to put my gripes to rest. Light armor is pretty minimal and there's nothing in the Unarmed Fighter arch that forces you to wear a top if you're not into it. The one point you've made that I will +1 is that there should be increased HtH damage by level for the Unarmed archetype but that seems so obvious it may have been an oversight, I'm not sure.

I'd like to see some ninja archetypes. Were they running out of space or something? Off the top of my head, some ninja wore armor, some were geisha that were KNOWN to be assassins but couldn't be turned away from your castle due to loss of face, some were specialists with spears, bows, or heavy weapons. It's not absolutely vital, just seems odd to me that there were samurai archetypes and no ninja archetypes.

As for the "alternate classes don't need archetypes" argument...

Ranger is just an alternate class of fighter. Sorcerer is just an archetype of wizard. Snerksnerksnerk.


Fighters do not need increased die size for unarmed combat. They already get damage bonuses that scale by level. A Fighter deals more damage with his fists per attack than a monk at every level except 1-3, assuming you take the relevant damage feats, and that you take advantage of being significantly less MAD to have a higher Strength than Monks can generally afford.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
{more stuff}

Even given all that, does it gel with being, for example, the nobleman-fencer? No. Is there anything about it which means any other kind of fighter cannot do it? No.

You are left with a dirty-trick specialised fighter that cannot do anything else, as opposed to a dirty-trick specialised fighter who can, and that is the root of the problem that is not being addressed, merely sidetracked around.

Setting up strawmen and false dichotomies does not win arguments.

Not all noblemen are noble in character and I never said that other fighters couldn't use the Dirty Trick manuever. I said that the Cad archetype could perform Dirty Trick maneuvers better than any other character, even other fighters who invested in the Improved and Greater Dirty Trick feats.

You seem to want to claim that by specializing in manuvers, the character can only do maneuvers; they somehow become incapable of effectively performing any other action. This is a false dichotomy. They may not do as much damage as a DPR-focused character, but that doesn't mean they can't do damage (instead of being a DPR king, they do as much DPR as a ranger when not fighting Favored Enemies or a paladin when not using Smite Evil). This is normal in Pathfinder; specializing in one thing makes it more difficult to match a specialist in another thing. Anyway, attacking a blinded (-2 AC, loses Dex bonus, 50% miss chance on all attacks, make a DC 10 Acrobatics check to move faster than half speed or fall prone) opponent helps increase DPR; plus the shaken (-2 on attack rolls, saves, skill checks, and ability checks) and sickened conditions (-2 on attack rolls, damage rolls, saves, skill checks, and ability checks) stack, which effectively adds to AC (among other things); again, the opponent has to spend a standard action to remove a condition early, which means no attacks. Again, as I stated, the 7th level Cad can do damage and perform Dirty Trick maneuvers at the same time. They don't have to wait until 11th level (and take the Sickening Critical feat) to cause the sickened condition with a weapon attack (and they can attempt to cause the condition on every hit, instead of needing to confirm a critical); they don't need to make an Intimidate check as a standard action to cause the shaken condition.

As I stated earlier, if you want a swashbuckler, play a swashbuckler and not a grunt (DPR specialist) diguised as a swashbuckler. If you want to have your cake and eat it too (i.e., be a DPR specialist AND pull off maneuvers as well as a maneuver specialist), you will only be disappointed.


did I mention an arcane version of wildshape with at least a 3/4BAB mechanic if not full

Shadow Lodge

I'd like to see some Cleric Archtypes that get past some of the arbitrary mechanical limits. A Dualist Cleric, a 3E crusader type, a heavy spell caster, spontanious (Wis) spellcaster, a noble-priest, knightly Cleric, etc. . . Things along the lines of the Urban Druid or Ranger which remain partially true to the base, but in a different direction.

I'd also like to see some archtypes that allow classes to join things they normally can not do themselves, or at least not easily. No more Fighter or Rogue Pirates/Ninja's, but instead a Wizard or Cleric, or Paladin Pirate or Ninja concepts.

No more Monk or Bard archtypes. :) (**except for see below)

Some options similar to multiclassing, especially for classes without good mechanical synergy but strong fluff (like the Cleric or Paladin/Rogue -> Shadowbane Stalker or Inquisitor from 3E), a Druid/Cleric.

I'd like to see a Divine Bard, perhaps a Divine trickster type.

I'd like to see a "white" necromancer, Cleric, but also Wizard. Something good aligned that can create or at least use undead, if temporarily.


Give me a few Wizard options that drop Arcane Bond (I don't like either the familiar or the item option) for something without totally twisting the basic Wizard role. Right now I tend to just select familiar and not actually bond with one - at least there is no penalty for not having one unlike with the item.


An Hex Inquisitor, or an Alchemic Magus (on the Hexcrafter's scheme)


an empyreal knight that has the divine bond with a weapon instead of mounted combat

201 to 224 of 224 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Archetypes we would still like to see after UC All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Product Discussion