Be that as it may, that's what I was referring to. The class is versatile, allowing you to build almost any type of martial under the sun.
I don't think anyone is disputing that... Although I'd use the word "customizable" instead of versatile, but that's me.
|
The point I was trying to make is the fact that some of you are quick to criticize a fighter because someone has to spend a lot of money on special armor to get the same benefit as a fighter get's through a class ability and yet when someone points out that a class with UMD and some scrolls and wands can take the place of several classes is virtually ignored.
Some of you can deny it all you want but I've seen it happen plenty of times. I use the rogue more because not all classes had UMD back in 3.5 but now in Pathfinder, everyone has access to it. Dangerously Curious + Skill Focus Use Magic Device + 10 ranks and you are good to go if you have a very low charisma.
|
The point I was trying to make is the fact that some of you are quick to criticize a fighter because someone has to spend a lot of money on special armor to get the same benefit as a fighter get's through a class ability and yet when someone points out that a class with UMD and some scrolls and wands can take the place of several classes is virtually ignored.
Some of you can deny it all you want but I've seen it happen plenty of times. I use the rogue more because not all classes had UMD back in 3.5 but now in Pathfinder, everyone has access to it. Dangerously Curious + Skill Focus Use Magic Device + 10 ranks and you are good to go if you have a very low charisma.
The fighter I'm running a game for solo does this. He's just hit 4th level, so he's just gotten his first wand (the ubiquitous CLW) and he doesn't have the skill focus...but his Cha is 11...average...so it's not horrible...
The point I was trying to make is the fact that some of you are quick to criticize a fighter because someone has to spend a lot of money on special armor to get the same benefit as a fighter get's through a class ability and yet when someone points out that a class with UMD and some scrolls and wands can take the place of several classes is virtually ignored.
Some of you can deny it all you want but I've seen it happen plenty of times. I use the rogue more because not all classes had UMD back in 3.5 but now in Pathfinder, everyone has access to it. Dangerously Curious + Skill Focus Use Magic Device + 10 ranks and you are good to go if you have a very low charisma.
Eh... I see your point, but I think you're exagerrating here, shallowsoul. A Mithral full plate costs 9k and you get pretty much all the benefits of armor training... A Celestial Plate costs about 27k (Or something like that... I'm don't remember right now) and gives you all the benefits of armor training unless the Fighter has a incredibly high Dex modifier.
Your Rogue has to spend a lot of her WBL and still not be nearly as effective at spell-casting as a wizard.*shrug*...ok. Pretty much synonymous.Be that as it may, that's what I was referring to. The class is versatile, allowing you to build almost any type of martial under the sun.I don't think anyone is disputing that... Although I'd use the word "customizable" instead of versatile, but that's me.
Indeed. I'm not complaining here or even arguing with you... I'm just saying each of those words make me think of a different concept.
Build versatility is fun. The lack of it is why I think so poorly of clerics. That doesn't make clerics not one of the three most powerful classes in the game, nor does its presence make the fighter not one of the three* worst.
* ninja, samurai, and antipaladin are just archetypes printed long form.
I agree.
I never said build versatility is bad or unfun, quite the contrary, actually. I'm just saying it doesn' help with character versatility unless you can somehow modify your build every day or something...
Hmmm... Now I have an idea for a possible homebrew class/archetype...
IMHO, the measure of the merit of a class are the build the class allow us to make.
Imo, the merit is what people on the same level of optimization and system mastery should be able to do. I can do a lot with a barbarian but they are hard to screw up. I've seen bad wizards, but that doesn't make the wizard a bad class. I can do a lot with any class, but I rarely see myself doing something special with the fighter myself. He doesn't do anything someone else can't. He doesn't have an amazing maneuver or technique that lets him be someone special. When I play a barbarian I jump on rage powers because they're interesting and cool and on occasion do more than more numbers! I actually want to take extra rage power. When I play a rogue I want to take extra rogue talent... but rogue talents are pretty meh. When I look at fighter I don't see someone special. I see something I could do with a barbarian or a ranger. It might be different if feats were different.
The point I was trying to make is the fact that some of you are quick to criticize a fighter because someone has to spend a lot of money on special armor to get the same benefit as a fighter get's through a class ability and yet when someone points out that a class with UMD and some scrolls and wands can take the place of several classes is virtually ignored.
I think its a little ridiculous myself, and theres a good chance you'll spend more on consumables than mithral breastplate or chainmail. Especially if your not refunded. It also a little off topic and definitely not a fighter only gig.
|
|
but then, due to lacking a fly speed, a fighter can never invest in Fly in the first place. and with the exception of mounted fighters, next to none will invest in ride and the only class that really does so is the cavalier/samurai.
outside of a rank to gain the class skill bonuses, most fighters let their high strength and armor training work to carry their climb and swim bonuses to respectable levels
outside of jumping and balancing, few fighters use acrobatics because it just does not scale with level appropriate monster CMD.
escape artist is a skill next to nobody invests in, the classes most screwed by grapple, have a form of reactive "escape grapple free card" except noncasters, who usually use light weapons to get around this. Cestus/Spiked Gauntlet for the win, allows you to deal damage while grappled, even if your primary weapon is a bow, polearm, or greatsword. although it is damage from a lesser secondary weapon, but some damage is better than none.
If only there were a potion that would allow them to fly.
Or mounts they could purchase and use.
Or reasons to jump and balance....
It is almost like you are trying to find reasons to disprove any possible argument rather than state a testable hypothesis.
|
|
Barbarian at 12th level can have Greater Beast Totem. which Fighter cannot get.
Mithril Breastplate Grants +6 Ac, at -1 ACP. the ACP can be negated by the expenditure of a trait. Beast Totem at this level grants +4 AC. Barbarian doesn't need mithril full plate because they have beast totem and mithril breastplate.
in fact, +2 mithril breastplate is cheaper than +0 mithril full plate and +3 mithril breastplate is cheaper than +2 mithril full plate.
barbarian has similar AC higher speed, and pounce. at the cost of -1 ACP.
Beast totem is a natural armor bonus, different type which makes all the difference. Not to mention it is only active when raging. And the fighter can wear the same breastplate without it being mithral with the same effect and spend the 4k elsewhere.
And the Barbarian has basically used all the rage powers and has 7 less feats.
If you want to build comparative builds level by level starting at first, we can do that.
That'd be cool actually. Nicos and I did something similar a while back and while it didn't prove much it was pretty fun. Helped me hone my class building skills a bit, because I'm not all that good at it really.
I suggest starting a new thread though.
|
|
That'd be cool actually. Nicos and I did something similar a while back and while it didn't prove much it was pretty fun. Helped me hone my class building skills a bit, because I'm not all that good at it really.
I suggest starting a new thread though.
You start the thread and we can see how many different people will take up different classes.
Stated goalpost of "Would I want this in my party" seem reasonable?
EDIT: I will say I am personally on EST and have to work tomorrow, so replies will likely have an 8 hour gap soon :)
It is almost like you are trying to find reasons to disprove any possible argument rather than state a testable hypothesis.
I disagree. I think you put too much value into the armor training.
There is a potion that allows you to fly. Fly potion on its own gives a total of 6 bonus. Not being able to put points into it means so long as he isn't in a situation he can take 10, he's always rolling. Even to move. Its a potion of fly, not fly well. I rarely see anyone use flight rules myself however.
|
|
It is almost like you are trying to find reasons to disprove any possible argument rather than state a testable hypothesis.I disagree. I think you put too much value into the armor training.
There is a potion that allows you to fly. Fly potion on its own gives a total of 6 bonus. Not being able to put points into it means so long as he isn't in a situation he can take 10, he's always rolling. Even to move. Its a potion of fly, not fly well. I rarely see anyone use flight rules myself however.
Money where your text is, pick a point buy and whatever other baseline you want and let's see if I can make a fighter than keeps pace with your class of choice in viability.
Barbarian at 12th level can have Greater Beast Totem. which Fighter cannot get.
Mithril Breastplate Grants +6 Ac, at -1 ACP. the ACP can be negated by the expenditure of a trait. Beast Totem at this level grants +4 AC. Barbarian doesn't need mithril full plate because they have beast totem and mithril breastplate.
in fact, +2 mithril breastplate is cheaper than +0 mithril full plate and +3 mithril breastplate is cheaper than +2 mithril full plate.
barbarian has similar AC higher speed, and pounce. at the cost of -1 ACP.
Beast totem is a natural armor bonus, different type which makes all the difference. Not to mention it is only active when raging. And the fighter can wear the same breastplate without it being mithral with the same effect and spend the 4k elsewhere.
And the Barbarian has basically used all the rage powers and has 7 less feats.
If you want to build comparative builds level by level starting at first, we can do that.
there is no reason for me to attempt to build. a full build would fail to show the merits of the class. it would only show the builder's skill in optimizing a character. compared to most of the users on this site, i am lousy at optimization, and tend to overvalue such assets as darkvision or reach. only because i have a DM who uses a Lot of dirty tactics involving darkness, reach, combat reflexes, consumables and archery.
Potions are rather overpriced, IMO... I don't think anyone should rely on them. Maybe carry one or two for emergency or something, but never rely on them.
Also, I'm not saying Fighters can't benefit from consumables/magic items, just that they simply don't do it any better than any other martial class. And they don't have more money left, either... Casters (and Paladins) usually have more money, because they need less gear and/or consumables than most classes.
Alchemists can reuse their potions, and casters can craft them and a lot of other stuff (Wizards get 5 bonus feats, all of which can be used to get Magic Item Creation feats, IIRC), not to mention they get to use lots of wands without ever needing to roll UMD, which is a pretty big deal, IMO.
Unrelated... But I'd like to ask that you guys keep the Build thread 3 just for the builds themselves, and then, if you guys want to run some sort of test, you do it in a different thread. (Maybe with a link to the Build thread)
Beast totem is a natural armor bonus, different type which makes all the difference. Not to mention it is only active when raging. And the fighter can wear the same breastplate without it being mithral with the same effect and spend the 4k elsewhere.
And the Barbarian has basically used all the rage powers and has 7 less feats.
If you want to build comparative builds level by level starting at first, we can do that.
Responding to this one, its similar to what I was told, and I didn't get to already.
Rage powers are move valuable than feats. There isn't a feat that gives a scaling AC bonus. That natural armor bonus stacks with just about everything because its not an enhancement bonus like barkskin or the amulet. The barbarian will have one less rage power than the fighter has feats. The barbarian has access to Reckless abandon and superstitious rage power line, which are beyond the scope of combat feats. He most likely will be raging all the time. I don't care if I have less feats if I traded them out for rage powers. I like to take extra rage power as a general feat because they're good enough I want more. They also get uncanny dodge and evasion, and can get DR/- or resistance or a mount that rages with them and gains their rage powers. These things are, again, better than feats.
Posting 20 or so builds sounds a little insane. I'm not interested in making builds, I have no builder and I spend a good amount of time on mind to ensure I get just what I want. I make them for the character too usually, rather than min maxing.
And then I always say, "If you think the barbarian/ranger/paladin is better, why don't you play that?"
And they always answer "Because the barbarian/ranger/paladin doesn't fit my character concept."So these classes are only better if your concept matches the concept they are built around.
In every other case, you have to go with a fighter.
So people are complaining that characters with set niches or restrictions are better than generalists, and why can't the generalist have all the neat stuff that the niche character has? Maybe the niche character gets more because he's in a niche?
The problem is that making a customizable class doesn't mean making a versatile/effective character. Also, it's not hard to use Rangers or Barbarians to make pretty much any character concept that can be created by Fighters.
Hell, one of my favorite builds nowadays is a Halfling duelist made only with Barbarian levels!Once again, how do you build a class that has to model everything?
Answer that, and maybe you would get something for the fighter.
- Give Fighters more skill points and a better list of class skills (personally, I give them 4 skill points and add Heal, Perception and any 2 other skills of the players choices to their class skill list). This would go a long way to improve Fighters' out of combat utility, but not much to their overall power (skills are nice, but they are a bit underpowered).
- Create better feats that scale with level/BAB with fair/useful prerequisites instead of the way-too-long feat chains with boring/useless prerequisites (I'm looking at you, Combat Expertise!) and diminishing returns (each TWF feat is progressively worse than the one before. Greater Weapon Focus is not any better than Weapon Focus, so you're basically taking the same feat twice!)
And then I always say, "If you think the barbarian/ranger/paladin is better, why don't you play that?"
And they always answer "Because the barbarian/ranger/paladin doesn't fit my character concept."So these classes are only better if your concept matches the concept they are built around.
In every other case, you have to go with a fighter.
So people are complaining that characters with set niches or restrictions are better than generalists, and why can't the generalist have all the neat stuff that the niche character has? Maybe the niche character gets more because he's in a niche?The problem is that making a customizable class doesn't mean making a versatile/effective character. Also, it's not hard to use Rangers or Barbarians to make pretty much any character concept that can be created by Fighters.
Hell, one of my favorite builds nowadays is a Halfling duelist made only with Barbarian levels!Once again, how do you build a class that has to model everything?
Answer that, and maybe you would get something for the fighter.- Give Fighters more skill points and a better list of class skills (personally, I give them 4 skill points and add Heal, Perception and any 2 other skills of the players choices to their class skill list). This would go a long way to improve Fighters' out of combat utility, but not much to their overall power (skills are nice, but they are a bit underpowered).
- Create better feats that scale with level/BAB with fair/useful prerequisites instead of the way-too-long feat chains with boring/useless prerequisites (I'm looking at you, Combat Expertise!) and diminishing returns (each TWF feat is progressively worse than the one before. Greater Weapon Focus is not any better than Weapon Focus, so you're basically taking the same feat twice!)
I believe fighters need a boost, but...
Greater weapon focus is like, my favourite feat. See my thread, A game of inches.
What's the historical/in-have justification for Barbarian having more skill ranks than the Fighter, anyway? Lots of formal training in the filth-ridden savage lifestyle?
What's the historical/in-have justification for Barbarian having more skill ranks than the Fighter, anyway? Lots of formal training in the filth-ridden savage lifestyle?
It's ridiculous isn't it?
I believe fighters need a boost, but...
Greater weapon focus is like, my favourite feat. See my thread, A game of inches.
I did read your thread. But I honestly couldn't disagree more with you.
IMHO, Getting +1s and +2s is boring and does nothing to expand your character's options.
Especially Weapon Focus, that is only useful 5% of the time. (Weapon Specialization at least applies to every attack you land).
I like feats that give you (real) choices and/or cool abilities. Feats that expand your options.
Feats like Lunge, Cornugon Smash, Improved/Greater [Combat Maneuver of choice]. They give you something new, and/or the chance to make a choice. (Combat Reflexes is fun too, because more AoO means more chances to act and more choices to make... Do I attack the enemy with my AoO? Do I trip it?)
A +1 doesn't give you anything new. It simply makes you slightly better at something you can already do. Hell, even Power Attack, which is simply a numerical bonus gives you a choice, use it or not. You have to analyze the situation (in this case, the enemy's AC) and adjust.
Weapon Focus, OTOH, changes absolutely nothing about how a Fighter plays. Its only benefit is that it's a very common prerequisite, which IMO, is more of a problem with feat chains than a advantage of Weapon Focus.
Now, I don't mind the occasional "numerical bonus" feat, (I grab Improved Critical all the time), I just don't particularly care for them, and I hate when they become the standard choice (like Weapon Focus/Specialization has become for Fighters)
IMHO, Options are the most valuable resources you can have. I just can't state it vehemently enough.
What's the historical/in-have justification for Barbarian having more skill ranks than the Fighter, anyway? Lots of formal training in the filth-ridden savage lifestyle?
Life in the wilds would lead to quiet a bit of skill usage and intuition I would think. Formal training with weapons and armor wouldn't lead to learning how to speak with others or knowledge of the world or perception. That would be my guess anyway, though I'm not a fan of anyone but intellect casters getting 2+.
IMHO, Options are the most valuable resources you can have. I just can't state it vehemently enough.
I think its best to have a little bit of both myself. Having too many numbers turns adventuring into going up the down elevator, and options can lead to expectations if you aren't careful.
I believe fighters need a boost, but...
Greater weapon focus is like, my favourite feat. See my thread, A game of inches.
I did read your thread. But I honestly couldn't disagree more with you.
IMHO, Getting +1s and +2s is boring and does nothing to expand your character's options.
Especially Weapon Focus, that is only useful 5% of the time. (Weapon Specialization at least applies to every attack you land).
I like feats that give you (real) choices and/or cool abilities. Feats that expand your options.
Feats like Lunge, Cornugon Smash, Improved/Greater [Combat Maneuver of choice]. They give you something new, and/or the chance to make a choice. (Combat Reflexes is fun too, because more AoO means more chances to act and more choices to make... Do I attack the enemy with my AoO? Do I trip it?)
A +1 doesn't give you anything new. It simply makes you slightly better at something you can already do. Hell, even Power Attack, which is simply a numerical bonus gives you a choice, use it or not. You have to analyze the situation (in this case, the enemy's AC) and adjust.
Weapon Focus, OTOH, changes absolutely nothing about how a Fighter plays. Its only benefit is that it's a very common prerequisite, which IMO, is more of a problem with feat chains than a advantage of Weapon Focus.
Now, I don't mind the occasional "numerical bonus" feat, (I grab Improved Critical all the time), I just don't particularly care for them, and I hate when they become the standard choice (like Weapon Focus/Specialization has become for Fighters)
I totally understand where you're coming from, I just don't think it's the best way to "play the system", objectively speaking.
I haven't taken improved trip or any of the combat maneuvers since 3.5, the last time those tactics were worth investing in imo. CMB/CMD got borked, and so did the spiked chain.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh, The fighter allows other players to be versatile. They don't have to be the tank, because the fighter is there. The casty can do other flashy stuff, because the fighter is there, barbarians can focus on other, cooler rage feats, because the fighter is there.
I order to be better than the fighter at fighting, you have to create an amazingly limited set of builds for other classes. The fighter is good at what he does, while still having versatility enough to try two or more different "builds" in once class. That is the joy of feat overload.
On average, the groups of players I've seen are between 3 - 5 people. When you see those groups without a fighter, people have issues, and scramble for solutions to problems because they are compensating for the lack of fighter.
When the fighter is there, you don't see that.
I rarely see barbarians built to out match the AC and therefore the staying power of a fighter. Yes, there is one or two builds that can, but most players take barbarians for other reasons than high AC.
Yes the paladin can hit high AC and be great, but he's Lawful Good, and to be quite frank, that's a much bigger hindrance than anything the fighter fais to bring to the party.
Rangers can be as good as fighters, but their animal companions get toasted so easily its not funny. To be as good as a fighter, they have to invest a large amount of cash into gear, and they need to be targeting favoured enemies.
Put a fighter in a party and other people relax more about their own builds because they know that the fighter can pretty much cover the kill stuff and not die yourself setting. Nw the other classes get to shine.
I put it to you that other classes shine because of the fighter doing his thing. Without the fighter, other classes are lacklustre and less fun as you have to constantly worry about covering the fighters role.
Cheers
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, Options are the most valuable resources you can have. I just can't state it vehemently enough.I think its best to have a little bit of both myself. Having too many numbers turns adventuring into going up the down elevator, and options can lead to expectations if you aren't careful.
Oh, don't get me wrong, when I say "options", I mean real options.
Complexity is not the same as real choice.If you have 30 different abilities but only 2 or 3 of them are actually viable, then you effectively only have 2 or 3 choices/options.
Just like we have a bazillion feats, trains and spells, but only about 1 in every 10 of them could be considered a real option.
You can have a bunch of different options with a single ability or have a bunch of different abilities and very few choices.
It's the difference between a Sorcerer focused on Summoning and one focused on blasting.
Summon Monster III is a lot more powerful than any number of blasting spells of the same level (and some of higher levels too), because summoning gives you lots of real options, while 10 different versions of Fireball only give you one.
I loved the thread about this subject, unfortunately, it got locked after a while.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh, The fighter allows other players to be versatile. They don't have to be the tank, because the fighter is there. The casty can do other flashy stuff, because the fighter is there, barbarians can focus on other, cooler rage feats, because the fighter is there.
This could be said about any class. Fighters can take cool but ineffective feats because the Barbarian is there to be the tank. Fighters can take cool but ineffective feats because the Rangers there to be the tank.
Fighters can take cool but ineffective feats because the Paladin is there to be the tank.I order to be better than the fighter at fighting, you have to create an amazingly limited set of builds for other classes. The fighter is good at what he does, while still having versatility enough to try two or more different "builds" in once class. That is the joy of feat overload.
Again, a customizable class doesn't make a character versatile. Barbarians are a lot more versatile than Fighters, and probably just as customizable, thanks to Rage Powers and archetypes.
On average, the groups of players I've seen are between 3 - 5 people. When you see those groups without a martial character/tank, people have issues, and scramble for solutions to problems because they are compensating for the lack of martial character/tank.
When the martial character/tank is there, you don't see that.
Fixed that for you.
I rarely see barbarians built to out match the AC and therefore the staying power of a fighter. Yes, there is one or two builds that can, but most players take barbarians for other reasons than high AC.
Probably because the difference is not that high and AC is not that much of an advantage at higher levels, when Armor Training starts to make an actual difference.
Yes the paladin can hit high AC and be great, but he's Lawful Good, and to be quite frank, that's a much bigger hindrance than anything the fighter fails to bring to the party.
This is a fair point, though it says more about the problems of the allignment system and shady/badly-explained paladin codes than about the viability of Fighters.
Rangers can be as good as fighters, but their animal companions get toasted so easily its not funny. To be as good as a fighter, they have to invest a large amount of cash into gear, and they need to be targeting favored enemies.
Rangers could have no Animal Companion and they would still be more versatile/effective than Fighters. And again Higher DPR/AC is not the same as "better at fighting", much less "better at adventuring".
Put a fighter in a party and other people relax more about their own builds because they know that the fighter can pretty much cover the kill stuff and not die yourself setting. Nw the other classes get to shine.
I put it to you that other classes shine because of the fighter doing his thing. Without the fighter, other classes are lacklustre and less fun as you have to constantly worry about covering the fighters role.
Cheers
Again, this could just as easily be said about any martial class. In fact, I'd feel more relaxed with a Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin around than a Fighter.
The other classes shine if they can count on a effective martial character/tank. It has nothing to do with class selection, just with how effective you're at the frontliner/tank role.|
|
Potions are rather overpriced, IMO... I don't think anyone should rely on them. Maybe carry one or two for emergency or something, but never rely on them.
Also, I'm not saying Fighters can't benefit from consumables/magic items, just that they simply don't do it any better than any other martial class. And they don't have more money left, either... Casters (and Paladins) usually have more money, because they need less gear and/or consumables than most classes.
Alchemists can reuse their potions, and casters can craft them and a lot of other stuff (Wizards get 5 bonus feats, all of which can be used to get Magic Item Creation feats, IIRC), not to mention they get to use lots of wands without ever needing to roll UMD, which is a pretty big deal, IMO.
Unrelated... But I'd like to ask that you guys keep the Build thread 3 just for the builds themselves, and then, if you guys want to run some sort of test, you do it in a different thread. (Maybe with a link to the Build thread)
Sure. Why don't you join in Lemmy. Pick a caster build if you like. If we all start at 1st level and move up, the challenge is the same.
If we get enough people we can even have it be "Pick a party of 4"
Sure. Why don't you join in Lemmy. Pick a caster build if you like. If we all start at 1st level and move up, the challenge is the same.
If we get enough people we can even have it be "Pick a party of 4"
Nah. I'm really not interested in running tests for character builds. I have my reasons for that and I don't really care if anyone assumes it's because I'm afraid of the challenge.
On a semi-related note: full casters aren't very fun to build, IMO... I can have fun playing them, but building them is a bit boring because they have so many obvious choices... IMHO the casting class with the greatest build versatility is Inquisitor, although Magi and Bards are a close second.
(I don't consider Rangers casters...)
Really, the only class I don't like is Cavalier. And I don't even dislike them, I just don't care about the class.
I'm really surprised there's no archetype for one.morning :D I'm having fun with the idea of a barbarian archer. How are you Ciretose?
Thog shoot funny people. Funny people make funny noise like "thuk thuk thuk"
There is, it's just called Urban Barbarian.
|
|
I'm really surprised there's no archetype for one.morning :D I'm having fun with the idea of a barbarian archer. How are you Ciretose?
Thog shoot funny people. Funny people make funny noise like "thuk thuk thuk"
There is, it's just called Urban Barbarian.
Doesn't seem very...for example...'Shoanti'... :p
I mean...Amerinds...where are they?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
man don't get caught up in what Paizo has named the dang stuff
|
|
Really, the only class I don't like is Cavalier. And I don't even dislike them, I just don't care about the class.
I like that the Cavalier exists, I just don't see it being practical in a longish campaign, with the exception of the small variety on medium mounts.
I think they are better than people realize, but having so much around a mount creates a limited playabilty in many campaigns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, the only class I don't like is Cavalier. And I don't even dislike them, I just don't care about the class.I like that the Cavalier exists, I just don't see it being practical in a longish campaign, with the exception of the small variety on medium mounts.
I think they are better than people realize, but having so much around a mount creates a limited playabilty in many campaigns.
Mechanically speaking, I think they are about on par with Fighters (Which is not much IMO) but are nowhere near as fun to build.
And as you said, mounted combat can be fun and effective, but it comes with some serious restrictions.
I don't have a problem with their existence... I just really couldn't care less about them.
For me, Cavaliers are just extra bloat. A few more pages to skip.
Tell me if I used the human Racial Favored class bonus right because frankly it seems overpowered to me. (+1 to the superstition bonus for every 3 levels of Barbarian? O.o)
+4 at level 12 if you put every point into it. Adds into ghost rager too! Just remember to round it down and no minimum one. The human favored class bonus for spontaneous casters is also pretty powerful, if you want to take a peak at that one.
|
|
Really, the only class I don't like is Cavalier. And I don't even dislike them, I just don't care about the class.I like that the Cavalier exists, I just don't see it being practical in a longish campaign, with the exception of the small variety on medium mounts.
I think they are better than people realize, but having so much around a mount creates a limited playabilty in many campaigns.
Mechanically speaking, I think they are about on par with Fighters (Which is not much IMO) but are nowhere near as fun to build.
And as you said, mounted combat can be fun and effective, but it comes with some serious restrictions.
I don't have a problem with their existence... I just really couldn't care less about them.
For me, Cavaliers are just extra bloat. A few more pages to skip.
Cavaliers rock! GREAT NPCs. ;)
Cavaliers rock! GREAT NPCs. ;)
Meh... I can't even disagree with you... I haven't seen any of them in actual play nor have I spent any significant time tinkering around with them like I do with all other classes.
I don't know much of an advantage "GREAT NPCs" is, but since I have little information and even less interest on the class, I'll just take your word for it.
I gotta say, though... The coolest "Knight" build I've ever seen was a Ranger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what're we doing again exactly?