^^
"If you fail by 10 or more, you suffer a mishap"
"f you ever roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail, then you can't try to activate that item again for 24 hours."If that isn't a penalty for failure, I don't know what is.
Duex, my point was that you applied that to the "take 10" section, when it is under the "take 20" section.
^ I don't follow you. I said those two lines make take 20 (which reading your post was my only conclusion of what you were suggesting) impossible.
If a DM runs a game that requires players to fly just to participate, purposefully gimping the martial classes, the problem isn't with the player.
So if a GM picks a random CR appropriate monster and winds up with something with flight (VERY possible, more and more so as it goes up in CR), the GM is supposed to play the monster as an idiot, keeping itself low to the ground enough to get hit, even when it's mental scores are above average? Is the GM not supposed to use a huge chunk of the monsters in game because the party has a Fighter?
Monsters being used as written against a CR appropriate party is hardly a matter of how the GM runs his or her game. Unless you are asserting EVERY monster with flight is under CRed (mind you, flight is part of the CR calculation)
I consider Flight to be just like Terrain, or Incorporeal, or any other random circumstance you can throw at a party to make things challenging. They are great when used every now and then. If it happens every fight it becomes cheesy and unfair. Meeting a flying foe or two every now and then is a great way to make your party change tactics. Used every fight it can just become an annoying hindrance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^ I don't follow you. I said those two lines make take 20 (which reading your post was my only conclusion of what you were suggesting) impossible.
If a DM runs a game that requires players to fly just to participate, purposefully gimping the martial classes, the problem isn't with the player.
So if a GM picks a random CR appropriate monster and winds up with something with flight (VERY possible, more and more so as it goes up in CR), the GM is supposed to play the monster as an idiot, keeping itself low to the ground enough to get hit, even when it's mental scores are above average and "stay out of reach of melee" is something even 1-2 int flying animals in the real world know to do, so the fighter doesn't suck horribly at its one supposed talent? Is the GM not supposed to use a huge chunk of the monsters in game because the party has a Fighter?
Monsters being used as written against a CR appropriate party is hardly a matter of how the GM runs his or her game. Unless you are asserting EVERY monster with flight is under CRed (mind you, flight is part of the CR calculation)
Again . . . why the heck is "My fighter pulls out a bow and shoots the thing" not valid. I get you are talking about melee combat, and you even talked about the ways some other classes can engage in melee combat with a flying enemy. But honestly, if you are dealing with flying enemies, I would take a fighter (one optimized for melee combat) using a bow over having the wizard fly up and engage in melee with the enemy. The fighter's ranged combat there is far better than the wizard's melee.
Also, if you are really stuck on fighting the creature in melee, and you have a party with any cohesion, the fighter's option is to say "Hey Wizard, give me flight so I can smack that guy for you.". 9 times out of 10 the wizard would rather give the fighter flight to engage in melee than to do so himself.
^ I don't follow you. I said those two lines make take 20 (which reading your post was my only conclusion of what you were suggesting) impossible.
If a DM runs a game that requires players to fly just to participate, purposefully gimping the martial classes, the problem isn't with the player.
So if a GM picks a random CR appropriate monster and winds up with something with flight (VERY possible, more and more so as it goes up in CR), the GM is supposed to play the monster as an idiot, keeping itself low to the ground enough to get hit, even when it's mental scores are above average and "stay out of reach of melee" is something even 1-2 int flying animals in the real world know to do, so the fighter doesn't suck horribly at its one supposed talent? Is the GM not supposed to use a huge chunk of the monsters in game because the party has a Fighter?
Monsters being used as written against a CR appropriate party is hardly a matter of how the GM runs his or her game. Unless you are asserting EVERY monster with flight is under CRed (mind you, flight is part of the CR calculation)
You said a monk can't take 10 because of the penalty for failure. My counterpoint is that the take 10 section does not bar you from taking 10 due to failure. In short you referenced the wrong section of the rules.
The take 20 section does bar you from taking 20 if bad things will happen.
I will put it another way-->The rules do not prevent you from taking 10 due to a penalty for failure unless the specific skill says otherwise. The general rules do prevent you from taking 20 in such cases.
Is anyone else having trouble following this?
So if a GM picks a random CR appropriate monster and winds up with something with flight (VERY possible, more and more so as it goes up in CR), the GM is supposed to play the monster as an idiot, keeping itself low to the ground enough to get hit, even when it's mental scores are above average and "stay out of reach of melee" is something even 1-2 int flying animals in the real world know to do, so the fighter doesn't suck horribly at its one supposed talent? Is the GM not supposed to use a huge chunk of the monsters in game because the party has a Fighter?Monsters being used as written against a CR appropriate party is hardly a matter of how the GM runs his or her game. Unless you are asserting EVERY monster with flight is under CRed (mind you, flight is part of the CR calculation)
That is not what is being suggested. He is only saying that if the game is full of situation X just to spite class Y then the GM is the issue. Nobody is saying play the monster in idiot mode.
Favorable terrain for the enemy is supposed to boost CR though.
I can accept "Too many monsters can fly" as a potentially legitimate balance problem, though it doesn't really help the Fighter.
The point here is that the problem is the GM, and not the fighter, but if a player knows the GM likes flyers he would be more likely to build his fighter to take out flyers than he would under a GM would had more variety in his encounters.
As an example I like grapple based monsters. My players know it so they plan accordingly.
With that aside even if you are built for X(melee) in this case it is quiet silly to use X if Y(ranged attacks) are a better solution. As an example rangers, paladins, and so on might be able to get into melee with a flyer easier than a fighter, but that does not mean it is the better option. In an actual game you do what works. Trying to force your main tactic to work all the time is just a sign of a bad tactic, but as we have already demonstrated if someone is that determined to go into melee all the time they do have options.
Another example:You have a dex based fighter who has ranks in disable device, and the party comes to a locked door.
A:He and use his weapon to break the door in.
B:He can pick the lock.
Picking the lock does not make him less of a fighter.
^ Blame the bestiary writers, not any hypothetical GM, then. Of the untemplated CR9s on the SRD, well over half have flight (even excluding the many dragons there it is a pretty high precent), and a large chunk of the ones that don't burrow or are aquatic.
I will try this again. If the GM chooses to spite you then he won't need a variety of monsters to use. He only needs a very small number, and he can keep using them over and over again. So in short it still falls back to the GM. Is CR 9 the only CR level with this issue(if want to call it an issue)?
PS:Just to be clear when I said "if the game is full of situation X just to spite class Y then the GM is the issue." I was not talking about the game of Pathfinder as a whole, but the GM's campaign or adventure.
|
Excellent retort!
The Fighter's "unique" abilities are
1: Do +1 damage and get +1 to hit every 4 levels (and it isn't even universal, it requires a specific weapon) in a system where enemy HP rises by at LEAST 8 points per level on any credible melee threat
You are drastically underestimating the value of +1 to hit.
4: Some extra feats. EVERYONE gets feats, and in PF they get even more feats. Unlike the new Ranger or Monk, the Fighter can't ignore requirements (chiefly character level and ability score ones), and is either stuck with multiple trees, or options that are subpar for the heavy feat investment needed (hello TWF). Fighter exclusive feats are also fairly subpar, and not really that fighter exclusive anymore, and many of the feat chains were nerfed to the point they aren't worth bothering with.
You're also drastically underestimating Fighter-only feats. Greater Weapon Focus is very good (again, you don't realize how good +1 to hit is), Spellbreaker is excellent, Critical Mastery can be quite strong with the right support, and Penetrating Strike/Greater Penetrating Strike are both excellent. And that's just in the Core Rulebook.
Say what you will, but if you say that Fighters can't fight better than anyone else, you're just flat-out wrong. Fighters consistently have the highest attack bonus, and attack bonus translates more directly to damage than any +damage class feature on any other class. A 10th level Fighter's +4 to hit (weapon training 2, weapon focus, greater weapon focus) over a 10th level Cavalier, for example, more than makes up for dealing 6 less damage (cavalier +10 vs fighter weapon training 2 and weapon specialization) to 4 enemies per day. And note that even with those three feats assumed, the Fighter still has 2 unused bonus feats from a better list of bonus feats than the cavalier's 1 unused bonus feat.
Fighters' problems don't involve killing things. They're the undisputed masters at killing whatever arbitrary monsters your DM throws at you (Paladins are better at killing their specific subset of monsters, Rangers theirs, etc, but if the DM throws a Marut at you, chances are the Fighter's going to be in the best situation to kill it of all martial characters). The problem Fighters face is that killing is pretty much all they can do.
As for Synthesists, as others in the thread have said, they're actually significantly weaker than normal Summoners. Normal Summoners have just as many effective hit points, don't have to be on the front lines so their AC doesn't matter as much, have identically-strong Eidolons, and get to cast spells in addition to have their Eidolon attack. The only advantage Synthesists have is that their AC can get pretty monstrous and they're a half-decent 2-to-4 level dip class for a non-spellcaster.
A legal Synthesist isn't going to outdamage a similarly-optimized Fighter. They might out-tank a similarly-optimized Fighter, although a defensively-oriented Fighter can still get crazy good AC. But day-in, day-out, arbitrary opponent damage? No one beats the fighter. Except perhaps AM BARBARIAN, but he's cool about it and we're not a mage, so it's no big.
I was countering your incorrect statement which follows.
To UMD is a DC 20 (for a wand, even higher for scrolls) you can't take ten on with penalties for failure.
Once again there is no general rule saying you can't take 10 due to penalties for failure. The only reason you can't do it with UMD is because UMD specifically says you can't.
Flight is potentially VERY powerful, even for characters with ranged weapons. I once fought a creature who would use flyby attack and a vicious ray attack to great effect. It would fly out from behind a massive central pillar and zap the characters, before flying back behind said pillar for total cover.
Ranged attackers were forced to ready actions, which brought their DPR down to nil. We even spread out around the pillar, so the creature couldn't use it as cover. We soon discovered that, that was even worse as only one PC has line of sight to the beast at any given time.
The monster was ripping us apart.
It wasn't until a fighter climbed the pillar while another PC distracted the monster, before luring it around to the fighter's side of the pillar in order to feed it a flying tackle sandwich that brought it low for everyone else to deal with together.
How is it a matter of GM taste when picking a random monsters will more likely than not produce a flyer? If anything is a matter of GM taste, it's purposefully avoiding using monsters with flight.
I am saying that if over the course of an entire game most encounters have flyers, and there are not enough of them to justify it then it is a GM issue. Most creatures in the game can not fly. I am not saying that if the party is at a certain level where situation X is prevelant that it is a GM issue. As an example if the CR 9 monster list is 85% flyers that is not a GM issue. The 85% is just an example, and I have not check to see what the actual percentage is. At the same time if the party is at a level where only 10% of the monsters can fly, but the GM keeps picking flyers or anything that gives class X trouble the issue is the GM. For example if the GM keeps choosing monster immune to sneak attack then that is on the GM, if the party rogue is shut down. If he keeps picking monsters immune to magic, and it shuts the wizard down that is a GM issue.
When did I say these monsters were picked before they were common?
I was just providing context since another poster mentioned it upthread, but since a fighter can fly instead of shoot arrows if he is that determined to enter melee I think the "fighter sucks in melee" part of the discussion is over anyway.
Synthesist more powerful than Fighter?
Here's the club membership pin.
AFTER he wastes a round and enough money to feed a family of 4 the best food out there for a year he can.
If the player's concept is to use melee all the time, no matter what, I don't see an issue with it.
The other classes also need a standard action to gain flight in most situations. I don't see the issue. If he does not like the potion idea he could craft celestial armor or he could buy the winged boots. Of course he could also get his UMD high enough to handle scrolls. I am sure there are other options out there. The fact that he has to spend money does not change the fact that it can be done. If he crafts the armor he can do it for half price, along with improving his weapons, and some of the rest of the party's gear. This idea is actually starting to look better than I first realized.
When did I say these monsters were picked before they were common?
Not to mention SA immune monsters ARE (Not as much as it used to be mind you) regarded as a reason the rogue has a lot to be desired as a damage dealer, but at least when that fails the Rogue can still claim his skill functions work.
(Also nothing is "immune" to magic. Some things have infinite spell resistance, but a lot of spells don't offer SR anyways and they aren't immune to that)
What does your skills comment have to do with anything? My only point was that if a GM is shutting down a class feature intentionally the issue is the GM. I am not here to pick on the rogue. I just named a class, and picked an example for it. I was never trying to say that SA-immune monsters are common.
I also know nothing is "immune" to magic, but the term is used with certain monsters, even though it only applies to SR.
Air Walk is 10 mins level, Overland Flight is hour/level, Wildshape is hour/level too, so no, they really don't need to spend a standard action in combat.
Celestial Armor or Winged Boots is hardly a fix either, being a standard action 1/day or standard action 3/day (remember the rules say quite clearly you are expected to have 4 encounters a day) that each last minutes a level.
You are assuming the encounter will occur within that time frame so yeah a standard action is not out of the question. It is only less likely to happen. You are also assuming that all 4 battles will involve aerial combat.
I like how the goalpost have moved to the fighter can't use melee in the air to "it cost money", to "it is limited to a per day basis".What if the fighter just buys a mount that can fly or takes leadership to get a flying mount? What will you come up with next?
PS:The classes I named don't have access to anything you just named. Paladins have mounts, but most people go for the weapon, and since the mount is easier to kill that takes care of the paladins flying option. I have no idea how a ranger is flying. The rogue has to depend on the same options as the fighter. The barbarian has to spend a rage power on flight assuming one exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of the core classes, Fighters are the ONLY ones without a built in method (Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid and Cleric have spells, Paladin, Ranger and Druid can have flying mounts, Barbarian can fly as a Rage Power, Rogue and Bard have UMD and Monk has... High jump and Abundant Step... the Monk's methods are terrible and the Rogue's UMD is not the most reliable either, but they still better than the Fighter's by virtue of existing) of getting at a flying foe to engage in melee without spending 54,000 gp.
Really the only classes that can engage in melee without either building for it via archetypes, Rage Powers, or animal companion choices, or without UMD (which fighters can be pretty good at since they are swimming in feats for Skill Focus and Additional Traits) are:
- Wizard/Sorcerer - Why? Unless you are multiclassing, this is a poor choice, which you admitted
- Druid - Hooray Wildshape. No argument here, Druids are the masters of aerial melee combat
- Cleric - Not bad, but not all clerics are melee machines.
- Monk - Barely counts, jump+punch is not really a good option
If you want to add Barbarians, Paladins, Rangers, Bards and Rogues to that list, I see no reason why Fighter should not be added as well. With little investment on their part, they can get UMD high enough to be good enough to regularly use a wand to fly like the Bard and Rogue.
Given that most of the other classes, unless they build for handling flying creatures, are in the same boat as the fighter, and the fighter may well do more damage than the cleric's melee combat with that bow he keeps around just in case. I find your arguments less than compelling. This is not to negate the powers of flight, because it is extremely useful to be able to fly.
I think at the very least there is no argument that assuming they can get into melee, fighters are probably the best at melee combat. However, in most cases you are expecting a class to build for/buy stuff to/want to engage in melee with flying enemies. In your average party, it is likely that those that could engage in melee would much prefer enabling the Fighter to do so, which renders the entire comparative argument moot (Wizard who can but doesn't want to + Fighter who can't but wants to = Happy Wizard, Happy Fighter, sad monster).
I will also add that since this is a "team game" the wizard/sorcerer/etc casting fly on the fighter is a legit option. It is not like the fighter is asking the wizard to go into melee. A little cooperation goes a long way.
In an actual game the fighter can get to the flyer which is all that really matters. Like I keep saying it is not like the method of flight makes the bad guy any less dead.
|
|
Golems are immune to magic, at least 99% of it.
@deux: Missed the point. As a DM, the point is to make the game fun for all of your players. If the DM is selecting monsters (it doesn't matter if they're specific or random selections) that frequently make a character feel utterly and completely useless (barring bad rolls), you've failed as a DM. A fighter doesn't need to fly just like a wizard doesn't need to engage in melee combat, just like a rogue doesn't need to "tank". Again, it's good to have encounters every once in a while that have the odds completely stacked against your players, but doing this every time is just poor form.
If I came here saying "Wizards suck compared to Fighters because Wizards are useless against golems", you'd think I was crazy, and rightfully so. It doesn't matter if 90% of the monsters have flying. The DM makes the combat, and if he decides to make your character worthless, he fails as a DM.
Actually your original point was that fighters suck in melee. When asked why you said they could not melee flying creatures. We then pointed out ways to get to flying creatures that are possible in a real game.
Leadership is not often banned. It is often modified so that you only get the cohort, and not all of the followers however.
At best you can say the fighter might take an extra round to get there. The option of a flying broom is also there. I would suggest a fighter burn the feats to craft it, along with any other(wondrous) items they want. Once again it is a non-issue, and the broom is usable for up to 9 hours a day. He can also buy scrolls, for the part casters to use. I am sure they would rather save their own spells let the fighter deal with the threat anyway. It is a win-win.
PS:I still can't see anything that give the barbarian flight without a standard action. Once again in an actual game the fighter should not have any issues because at worst he enters combat a round later than he would like.
Dragon Totem Wings (Su): When a barbarian selects this rage power, the Fly (Dex) skill becomes a class skill for her. While raging and wearing medium or lighter armor, the barbarian can spend a standard action to manifest a pair of spiritual dragon wings that grant her a fly speed equal to her base speed (average maneuverability). She can expend 2 rounds of her rage to instead spend an immediate action to gain this fly speed. She can end her fly speed at any time, even when it is not her turn. Each round she spends raging and flying counts as 2 rounds of rage. Her ability to fly ends automatically when she ceases raging. A barbarian must have the dragon totem and dragon totem resilience rage powers, and she must be at least 10th level before selecting this rage power.
Not bad at all. I like that one. The rage power before it also stacks well with invulnerable rager.
Unless you are attacking with a manufactured weapon also, claws are not secondary.
|
All I can say is blarrrgggg... I like Gunslingers more than Summoners and that's saying something because I ain't a fan of Gun n' Fantasy.
And what is an Eidolon anyways? What is affiliated with? How do summoners make them manifest? Why do they have free will? Does it coalesce from the energy of the universe through the summoners sheer force of will? Why can't other arcane caster have Eidolons then? What is the plane that they recede to when they die/are dismissed? Can they do anything when being dismissed? Is that where they originally come from? What is the implication of each Eidolon being an individual entity with no defined racial identity, or do they have a defined racial identity? Apparently Eidolons exist before being contacted by the summoner that bonds with them, but what is their purpose? Why do they have such varying alignments? If Eidolons can basically appear as anything why must they always appear as some sort of fantastical creature, why can't one just look like a human? Why do they have evolution points? How are they evolving? Why are they evolving? What is the meaning of existence? Why did the girl at subway put olives on my sandwhich when I said no olives? Why is this ridiculous paragraph more concise and focused than any summoner lore? So basically it's like a childhood imaginary friend, but real?
I've never understood why the whole Summoner base class couldn't have been designed around allowing for unique permanent bonds or pacts be formed with already existing creatures within the fiction, rather than with some weird point buy non-entity.
I mean they're perfectly functional in terms of rules, I just don't grasp how they slot into the fiction of a traditional D&D setting like The Forgotten Realms or Golarion.
I get that pathfinder is basically just a bunch of positive numbers designed to be subtracted from the other positive numbers till they're in the negatives, and can be looted for more positive numbers, but in my mind summoners are some of the most poorly explain positive numbers of them all.
Actions, actions, actions, actions, WBL, WBL, situational and WBL.
Every action spent allowing the fighter to fly, is someone not spending their action to kill the target.
Unless you think 36 damage at best is worth a Feeblemind (drop int and charisma to 1, making it instantly KOed if any other source of ability damage/drain is applied, stoping spells and), or even the "outdated" slow (reduce to a single action, at worst halfing offense, lots of stats penalties)
excuses.....
PS:It is common knowledge that the best casters make it easier for the bad guys to die. They don't do the killing themselves. Read treantmonk guides to wizards if you have not already done so.
Fireball or cast fly so the fighter can do a lot more damage. The choice is easy.