Fighter vs Barbarian, by the numbers.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

The problem with Rogue concept is in its execution... "Skilled guy who can contribute in combat" ended up becoming "Not the most skilled of guys. Can't contribute in combat... Or survive past 9th level.".

Fighter's idea of "Guy who hits really hard. Useless at everything else." is flawed from its very conception.

No class should be that helpless in such a variety of situations.

Paladins aren't exactly skill monkeys, either... But they aren't nearly as incompetent as Fighters in out-of-combat situations. They are terrible at stealth and infiltration, of course, but other than that, they can contribute to pretty much every other non-combat situation.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:


Pit fiend can still widdle the CR 20 or CR 999999 barbar to death just by staying out of reach with fireballs.

That works if the fight is in a wide open area, but not so much in an enclosed area which is where most fights take place in the game. When the pit fiend/balor/etc is used as the boss they are normally not fighting to be fighting. They are fighting to guard something. Maybe there is a mcguffin that will cause a planar invasion so if they teleport away the PC's win. Many outsiders would just teleport and use at will SLA's if they did not have a reason to engage a full bab character, and if they started to lose they could just leave to attack the party later on, if they had no reason to fight to the death.


Bard on the other hand gets handed "being amazing at pretty much every skill" on a silver platter. Turn your 1 skill into 2 skills? Sure. Turn Bluff into every INT skill ever and tack on a +4 bonus? Hey it's a Bard, why not? It's not like its a Rogue or anything.


AndIMustMask wrote:
(rage talents largely surpass every other class' 'equivalent' while we're at it--magus arcana, most revelations, rogue talents, etc.)

Disagreement here. Magus Arcana allows them to full attack against Touch AC for a couple of their points. That's pretty ridiculous. By the level it comes online they'll basically never miss with that up.

As for revelations, a single revelation can completely replace dexterity (or very nearly) with their casting stat. Another gives Cha to saves. Being able to pump defenses while just jumping your casting stat is pretty ridiculous. Imagine it on a kobold who can replace con entirely with Cha as well.

Just need to look for the good ones. The rogue ones just suck in comparison to everyone else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Imagine it on a kobold who can replace con entirely with Cha as well.

But you're still a Kobold.

Some of us have standards, Mr. Long.

Scarab Sages

Athaleon wrote:
Which ones are those? I'm genuinely curious, because this could actually be useful.

I am partial to the figurines of wonderous power and the clockwork steeds from the Beastiary 4. The obsidian steed if very useful for a neutral aligned character, while the marble elephant is more combat orientated. The ivory goats fall between the two, offering a variety of benefits for a shorter duration.

The clockwork steed is more durable in the short term. Mounts obtained via figurines of wonderous power are more durable over the long term and can be made into animal companions via Companion Figurine. Companion Figurine does not require the animal companion class feature as a prereq.


Artanthos wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Which ones are those? I'm genuinely curious, because this could actually be useful.

I am partial to the figurines of wonderous power and the clockwork steeds from the Beastiary 4. The obsidian steed if very useful for a neutral aligned character, while the marble elephant is more combat orientated. The ivory goats fall between the two, offering a variety of benefits for a shorter duration.

The clockwork steed is more durable in the short term. Mounts obtained via figurines of wonderous power are more durable over the long term and can be made into animal companions via Companion Figurine. Companion Figurine does not require the animal companion class feature as a prereq.

Ok... They may not be prerequisites, but in order for that feat to do anything you need to have an Animal Companion or Familiar class feature. I find it deeply amusing that this helps the Ranger and Paladin, but not the Fighter. Carry on.

Scarab Sages

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Disagreement here. Magus Arcana allows them to full attack against Touch AC for a couple of their points. That's pretty ridiculous. By the level it comes online they'll basically never miss with that up.

Compares Barbarians hit chance to AC by CR chart: yep barbarian will hit on 2+ with at least his first two attacks. All day long.

Accurate Strike wrote:


The magus can expend 2 points from his arcane pool as a swift action to resolve all of his melee weapon attacks until the end of his turn as melee touch attacks.
Arcane Pool wrote:


At 1st level, the magus gains a reservoir of mystical arcane energy that he can draw upon to fuel his powers and enhance his weapon. This arcane pool has a number of points equal to 1/2 his magus level (minimum 1) + his Intelligence modifier. The pool refreshes once per day when the magus prepares his spells.

Emphasis mine.

Yep: the magus will be using Arcane Accuracy every round, every fight. Never mind other magus class features, such as spell recall or enhancing their weapons requiring the same resource.

Arcane Accuracy is a tool used by the magus to overcome being 3/4 BAB when it really counts. It is not something used every round, or even every fight.

Scarab Sages

Anzyr wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Which ones are those? I'm genuinely curious, because this could actually be useful.

I am partial to the figurines of wonderous power and the clockwork steeds from the Beastiary 4. The obsidian steed if very useful for a neutral aligned character, while the marble elephant is more combat orientated. The ivory goats fall between the two, offering a variety of benefits for a shorter duration.

The clockwork steed is more durable in the short term. Mounts obtained via figurines of wonderous power are more durable over the long term and can be made into animal companions via Companion Figurine. Companion Figurine does not require the animal companion class feature as a prereq.

Ok... They may not be prerequisites, but in order for that feat to do anything you need to have an Animal Companion or Familiar class feature. I find it deeply amusing that this helps the Ranger and Paladin, but not the Fighter. Carry on.

Read the feat.

It doubles the uses of the figurine. The function has nothing to do with the animal companion class feature.


Nicos wrote:

My problem with barbarian is that their actual options are so limited. For whatever reason you take away superstition and the barbarian power fall massively.

Must have are bad.

Must have are bad.

If the standard superstitious + yo know the other stuffs is at the right power level then paizo shoudl release more rage power chains at the same power level to have more diversity.

The main issue is that spells are BONKERS.

Dominate person lasts DAYS per level. WHAT???

If spells were not so insanely broken and basically any good one being a save or die or save or be crippled, superstition would not be a must have. It is a must have because of how powerful spells are


Artanthos wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Which ones are those? I'm genuinely curious, because this could actually be useful.

I am partial to the figurines of wonderous power and the clockwork steeds from the Beastiary 4. The obsidian steed if very useful for a neutral aligned character, while the marble elephant is more combat orientated. The ivory goats fall between the two, offering a variety of benefits for a shorter duration.

The clockwork steed is more durable in the short term. Mounts obtained via figurines of wonderous power are more durable over the long term and can be made into animal companions via Companion Figurine. Companion Figurine does not require the animal companion class feature as a prereq.

Ok... They may not be prerequisites, but in order for that feat to do anything you need to have an Animal Companion or Familiar class feature. I find it deeply amusing that this helps the Ranger and Paladin, but not the Fighter. Carry on.

Read the feat.

It doubles the uses of the figurine. The function has nothing to do with the animal companion class feature.

Ok... except the Figurines are trash mounts past say... level 10. So it still doubles your uses... yay? It does nothing to make them more survivable, which is the problem with mounts at high level, not uses. The question asked was "What mounts are useful" and Figurines of Wondrous Power even with more uses per day is not an adequate response. Especially since that costs a feat. And is better for Rangers and Paladins than Fighters.

Scarab Sages

Anzyr wrote:
Bard on the other hand gets handed "being amazing at pretty much every skill" on a silver platter. Turn your 1 skill into 2 skills? Sure. Turn Bluff into every INT skill ever and tack on a +4 bonus? Hey it's a Bard, why not? It's not like its a Rogue or anything.

You may be awful disappointed if you show up to a PFS table and try that little trick.

A strict reading of the feat restricts its usage to "convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement." It does not mean you can suddenly decipher ancient languages, identify obscure monsters or appraise the true value of goods.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No it isn't. Copying my post from the other thread:

The clarity is fine. Lets break it down:

Effect: By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement.

Part 1 describes the benefit of this feat. By taking this feat you will be able to convince others of breeding, eloquence and refinement. this is purely descriptive, and has no rules effects.

For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check. The subtle changes in your movements also confer a +4 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to appear to be someone of a higher station (an aristocrat, merchant prince, or even a queen).

Part 2 tells us what the feat actually does. Note that it starts with "For the duration of this effect..." before going to describe what it actually does.

Super clear. No need to interpret.


CWheezy wrote:
Nicos wrote:

My problem with barbarian is that their actual options are so limited. For whatever reason you take away superstition and the barbarian power fall massively.

Must have are bad.

Must have are bad.

If the standard superstitious + yo know the other stuffs is at the right power level then paizo shoudl release more rage power chains at the same power level to have more diversity.

The main issue is that spells are BONKERS.

Dominate person lasts DAYS per level. WHAT???

If spells were not so insanely broken and basically any good one being a save or die or save or be crippled, superstition would not be a must have. It is a must have because of how powerful spells are

I...agree.

Scarab Sages

Anzyr wrote:
Ok... except the Figurines are trash mounts past say... level 10. So it still doubles your uses... yay? It does nothing to make them more survivable, which is the problem with mounts at high level, not uses. The question asked was "What mounts are useful" and Figurines of Wondrous Power even with more uses per day is not an adequate response. Especially since that costs a feat. And is better for Rangers and Paladins than Fighters.

Reread both the feat and the rules text for wonderous figurines.

Killing a figuring in animal form does not destroy the figurine, and some of those figurines have quite a few hit points. Certainly enough to soak one or two AoE's.


Ok. And? Recheck the action cost?

Scarab Sages

Anzyr wrote:

No it isn't. Copying my post from the other thread:

The clarity is fine. Lets break it down:

Effect: By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement.

Part 1 describes the benefit of this feat. By taking this feat you will be able to convince others of breeding, eloquence and refinement. this is purely descriptive, and has no rules effects.

For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check. The subtle changes in your movements also confer a +4 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to appear to be someone of a higher station (an aristocrat, merchant prince, or even a queen).

Part 2 tells us what the feat actually does. Note that it starts with "For the duration of this effect..." before going to describe what it actually does.

Super clear. No need to interpret.

And the consensus from most of the PFS DM's in that thread would leave you standing there with an ability that does not work the way you claim.

A strict reading means your complaint about an overpowered ability has already been resolved.


Artanthos wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

No it isn't. Copying my post from the other thread:

The clarity is fine. Lets break it down:

Effect: By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement.

Part 1 describes the benefit of this feat. By taking this feat you will be able to convince others of breeding, eloquence and refinement. this is purely descriptive, and has no rules effects.

For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check. The subtle changes in your movements also confer a +4 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to appear to be someone of a higher station (an aristocrat, merchant prince, or even a queen).

Part 2 tells us what the feat actually does. Note that it starts with "For the duration of this effect..." before going to describe what it actually does.

Super clear. No need to interpret.

And the consensus from most of the PFS DM's would leave you standing there with an ability that does not work the way you claim.

I would like to see this consensus, but even if they do have a consensus it is only a consensus that are wrong about the RAW of the Masterpiece. And even then I'm sure the consensus of PFS GM's who aren't in that thread is that it totally works exactly the way I said... because it does.

Scarab Sages

Anzyr wrote:
And the consensus from most of the PFS DM's would leave you standing there with an ability that does not work the way you claim.
I would like to see this consensus, but even if they do have a consensus it is only a consensus that are wrong about the RAW of the Masterpiece. And even then I'm sure the consensus of PFS GM's who aren't in that thread is that it totally works exactly the way I said... because it does.
Pageant of the Peacock wrote:


Effect:By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement.

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Read the first sentence to see the abilities scope. The rest of the text is mechanics used to bring this about.


The mechanics listed do bring that about. Because you can use Bluff to get correct information, you come off as extremely well-read and knowledgeable. Thus the mechanics *do* match that description, just not in the way you and others like you would prefer.

Scarab Sages

Anzyr wrote:
The mechanics listed do bring that about. Because you can use Bluff to get correct information, you come off as extremely well-read. It's very simple.

Wrong: you cannot bluff to get accurate information. Nowhere in that feat does it say your bluff provides true information.

In truth, you have no idea what that ancient manuscript says, or what that unusual monster can do, or what that wizard is casting.

You can convince others that you know, at least until proven otherwise. That is the full scope of the ability, written in plain English in the very first sentence.


No, you do. Because you make the Bluff check *in place of* an Intelligence based check. So instead of rolling Spellcraft to get correct information on a spell, you roll Bluff to get correct information on a spell. Why does this work? Because it works for Ulysses Everett McGill in Brother Where Art Thou? and that's good enough for reality.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

No it isn't. Copying my post from the other thread:

The clarity is fine. Lets break it down:

Effect: By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement.

Part 1 describes the benefit of this feat. By taking this feat you will be able to convince others of breeding, eloquence and refinement. this is purely descriptive, and has no rules effects.

For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check. The subtle changes in your movements also confer a +4 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to appear to be someone of a higher station (an aristocrat, merchant prince, or even a queen).

Part 2 tells us what the feat actually does. Note that it starts with "For the duration of this effect..." before going to describe what it actually does.

Super clear. No need to interpret.

And the consensus from most of the PFS DM's in that thread would leave you standing there with an ability that does not work the way you claim.

A strict reading means your complaint about an overpowered ability has already been resolved.

PFS GMs have repeatedly proven to be massive whiners who don't care how an ability works, they just don't want to deal with it at the table.

By your logic a "strict reading" of many things makes them either entirely worthless, or massively overpowered, because you are confusing the fluff text with rules text.

Weapon Specialization: "You are skilled at dealing damage with one weapon. Choose one type of weapon (including unarmed strike or grapple) for which you have already selected the Weapon Focus feat. You deal extra damage when using this weapon."

A "strict reading" of Weapon Specialization means that it only applies to one weapon. So if you're Two-Weapon Fighting, or the weapon you were skilled at dealing damage with gets lost, the Feat is now useless.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

No it isn't. Copying my post from the other thread:

The clarity is fine. Lets break it down:

Effect: By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement.

Part 1 describes the benefit of this feat. By taking this feat you will be able to convince others of breeding, eloquence and refinement. this is purely descriptive, and has no rules effects.

For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check. The subtle changes in your movements also confer a +4 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to appear to be someone of a higher station (an aristocrat, merchant prince, or even a queen).

Part 2 tells us what the feat actually does. Note that it starts with "For the duration of this effect..." before going to describe what it actually does.

Super clear. No need to interpret.

And the consensus from most of the PFS DM's in that thread would leave you standing there with an ability that does not work the way you claim.

A strict reading means your complaint about an overpowered ability has already been resolved.

PFS GMs have repeatedly proven to be massive whiners who don't care how an ability works, they just don't want to deal with it at the table.

By your logic a "strict reading" of many things makes them either entirely worthless, or massively overpowered, because you are confusing the fluff text with rules text.

Weapon Specialization: "You are skilled at dealing damage with one weapon. Choose one type of weapon (including unarmed strike or grapple) for which you have already selected the Weapon Focus feat. You deal extra damage when using this weapon."

A "strict reading" of Weapon Specialization means that it only applies to one weapon. So if you're Two-Weapon Fighting, or the weapon you were skilled at dealing damage with...

+1. Seriously, I hate when people twist really clear rules. Good to see them getting a taste of their own medicine.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, oh... My turn!

Acrobatic: You are skilled at leaping, jumping, and flying.

Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Acrobatics and Fly skill checks. If you have 10 or more ranks in one of these skills, the bonus increases to +4 for that skill.

Obviously it doesn't apply to any skill checks that aren't leaping, jumping or flying. Wanna move without provoking AoO or balance on a rope? Too bad! That's not leaping, jumping or flying... The feat doesn't apply!

Iron Will: You are more resistant to mental effects.

Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Will saving throws.

Obviously, it only applies against mind-affecting effects.

...Or my favorite:

Power Attack:

Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.

An strict reading means you can choose to use the feat, but it doesn't say you can actually use it.

Just like I can choose to be rich, but my bank account is still not seeing any extra money.


Lemmy wrote:

Oh, oh... My turn!

Acrobatic: You are skilled at leaping, jumping, and flying.

Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Acrobatics and Fly skill checks. If you have 10 or more ranks in one of these skills, the bonus increases to +4 for that skill.

Obviously it doesn't apply to any skill checks that aren't leaping, jumping or flying. Wanna move without provoking AoO or balance on a rope? Too bad! That's not leaping, jumping or flying... The feat doesn't apply!

Iron Will: You are more resistant to mental effects.

Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Will saving throws.

Obviously, it only applies against mind-affecting effects.

Or my favorite!

Power Attack: Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.

An strict reading means you can choose to use the feat, but it doesn't say you can actually use it.

Just I can choose to be rich, but my bank account is still not seeing any extra money.

... this made me unreasonably happy. Unreasonably. Happy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Anzyr wrote:

No it isn't. Copying my post from the other thread:

The clarity is fine. Lets break it down:

Effect: By gracefully weaving your body through subtle forms and postures you can convince others of your breeding, eloquence, and refinement.

Part 1 describes the benefit of this feat. By taking this feat you will be able to convince others of breeding, eloquence and refinement. this is purely descriptive, and has no rules effects.

For the duration of the effect, you gain a +4 circumstance bonus on Bluff checks, and may attempt a Bluff check in place of an Intelligence check or Intelligence-based skill check. The subtle changes in your movements also confer a +4 circumstance bonus on Disguise checks to appear to be someone of a higher station (an aristocrat, merchant prince, or even a queen).

Part 2 tells us what the feat actually does. Note that it starts with "For the duration of this effect..." before going to describe what it actually does.

Super clear. No need to interpret.

And the consensus from most of the PFS DM's in that thread would leave you standing there with an ability that does not work the way you claim.

A strict reading means your complaint about an overpowered ability has already been resolved.

PFS GMs have repeatedly proven to be massive whiners who don't care how an ability works, they just don't want to deal with it at the table.

By your logic a "strict reading" of many things makes them either entirely worthless, or massively overpowered, because you are confusing the fluff text with rules text.

Weapon Specialization: "You are skilled at dealing damage with one weapon. Choose one type of weapon (including unarmed strike or grapple) for which you have already selected the Weapon Focus feat. You deal extra damage when using this weapon."

A "strict reading" of Weapon Specialization means that it only applies to one weapon. So if you're Two-Weapon Fighting, or the weapon you were skilled at dealing damage with...

The flavor text also specifies ONE weapon. Meaning you get the benefits for one and only one weapon not a weapon type.

Of course that requires ignoring the rest of the feats wording, much like that Pageant of the Peacock interpretation that is base on only the first sentence.

The more I hear about PFS the less I want to be apart of it. If the majority of PFS GMs only read one sentence of every ability, then that would make for one hectic table and game. (Also doesn't have psionics :P)


Artanthos wrote:
Combat Patrol wrote:


You may move as part of these attacks, provided your total movement before your next turn does not exceed your speed.
If you provoke, I get to move on your turn, hit you, and full attack on my turn. I do not need a straight line, charge lanes, or anything else. Pin Down means even taking a 5' step or withdraw action provokes.

So you still are not moving and full attacking on your turn. What you are doing is wasting your entire round setting up combat patrol and then hoping the enemy actually provokes an opportunity attack allowing you to get into their face and then full attack on your next go. What exactly do you do if instead of walking into your version obvious preparation they attack you with a ranged attack, acrobatics past you, fly over you, teleport behind you, cast a spell or do basically any of the things which mid to high level enemies are more than capable of.

Quote:
Look for better mounts. I'm sure you can find options if you actually try instead of standing around saying "I don't want to acknowledge that option."

Good luck with finding those better mounts. You mention the figurines later on, lets have a look at them shall we:

Bronze Griffin: 10k so probably not viable until about level 10, usable twice per week for 6 hours, what were you planning on doing for the other 5 days? Is a CR4 creature with 42hp, AC17 and 7/6/4 for saves so likely toast to the first aoe.

Ebony Fly: Also 10k, 3 times per week for 12 hours, works as a CR3 Pegasus, even weaker than the Griffon.

Goat of Travail: useable once per month! Works as a Nightmare which is still only CR5 with a meagre 51hp. 21k so good luck seeing it much before 12th.

Marble Elephant: 17k so probably no earlier than 11th level, 4/month so basically worthless for adventuring, works like a CR7 elephant which is a liability at 11, is huge so will be extremely inconvenient to use

Obsidian Steed: 28500 gp so not likely to be seen before 13th, a CR5 nightmare is terrible at this point and it can only be used once per week.

So no, your fighter isn't likely to make much use of such mounts, not unless he wants to waste a bunch of feats mounted combat and drag around a lot of animal corpses.


Artanthos wrote:
And the consensus from most of the PFS DM's in that thread would leave you standing there with an ability that does not work the way you claim.

I am not sure I would count two or three people as providing a consensus for anything. I have played with plenty of PFS GM's who recognise what it does and live with it, some happily, others less so. Personally I think it is an idiotic ability which could do with being hit by the nerf bat but that is still no justification for intentionally misreading it because you don't happen to like what it does.

Lantern Lodge

Anzyr wrote:
No, you do. Because you make the Bluff check *in place of* an Intelligence based check. So instead of rolling Spellcraft to get correct information on a spell, you roll Bluff to get correct information on a spell. Why does this work? Because it works for Ulysses Everett McGill in Brother Where Art Thou? and that's good enough for reality.

Anzyr, it hurts me to watch you waste your breath bro. Those who are convinced that fluff = mechanics, or fluff > mechanics, aren't going to be swayed with further logic man.

I do not believe that Pageant of the Peacock makes a single lick of sense in terms of real world logic, but the mechanics of the ability are crystal clear to me as well: Bluff = any and all Int check or Int-based ability check while the ability is activated.

Good luck with the disbelievers!


Isn't there a couple of feats that give you an animal companion?

Leadership can also give a mount (and if you run it the non-broke way it is one of the better uses for the feat)

Non broke way to run leadership:
Leadership only allows you to attract cohorts and followers not create them. So you can only get what the GM offers (not every NPC will even be a cohort or follower that can be attracted). That generally means a non-mount is just a low-point buy, low gear NPC the GM optimized knowing the party could have him/her. A mount is a pretty decent use for the feat.

The other ways I've seen people say they would run the feat is generally followed by it being banned in their games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lormyr wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
No, you do. Because you make the Bluff check *in place of* an Intelligence based check. So instead of rolling Spellcraft to get correct information on a spell, you roll Bluff to get correct information on a spell. Why does this work? Because it works for Ulysses Everett McGill in Brother Where Art Thou? and that's good enough for reality.

Anzyr, it hurts me to watch you waste your breath bro. Those who are convinced that fluff = mechanics, or fluff > mechanics, aren't going to be swayed with further logic man.

I do not believe that Pageant of the Peacock makes a single lick of sense in terms of real world logic, but the mechanics of the ability are crystal clear to me as well: Bluff = any and all Int check or Int-based ability check while the ability is activated.

Good luck with the disbelievers!

It only makes sense if you use acting for bluff


Really tempted to get in on the Pageant of the Peacock debate that spilled over but instead i am going to ask people to take it outside... or over to the over topic or wherever things go when they arent bashing on Fighters. Stay on target people!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am laughing at the fact that artanthos thinks that "Any int based check" does not mean any int based check, it only means, uhm, I am not sure


Torbyne wrote:
Really tempted to get in on the Pageant of the Peacock debate that spilled over but instead i am going to ask people to take it outside... or over to the over topic or wherever things go when they arent bashing on Fighters. Stay on target people!

I should note that there really isn't much to talk about. The numbers have been crunched. It ends badly for the Fighter. Let us hope that Pathfinder Unchained gets rid of "Bonus Combat Feats" for Fighters and instead gives "Martial Techniques" or something, which have lots of useful abilities that scale well and allow for high powered martials. And 4+INT skill points... seriously the only 2+INT skill point people should be people who have a reason to pump INT.


Anzyr wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
Really tempted to get in on the Pageant of the Peacock debate that spilled over but instead i am going to ask people to take it outside... or over to the over topic or wherever things go when they arent bashing on Fighters. Stay on target people!
I should note that there really isn't much to talk about. The numbers have been crunched. It ends badly for the Fighter. Let us hope that Pathfinder Unchained gets rid of "Bonus Combat Feats" for Fighters and instead gives "Martial Techniques" or something, which have lots of useful abilities that scale well and allow for high powered martials. And 4+INT skill points... seriously the only 2+INT skill point people should be people who have a reason to pump INT.

From what I heard, fighter is not getting a rework. The ones I've heard were barbarian, summoners, sorcerers(explains arcanist :P), and rogues.

If they rework feats in unchained that will more or less fix the fighter if done well.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Isn't there a couple of feats that give you an animal companion?

I am fairly sure it takes three. You need Natures Soul, Animal Ally and Boon Companion to get a full strength animal companion. Even then you have to pick from a limited number of choices from which only the camel, pony or wolf are capable of carrying a rider. They are pretty weak as options go.

Even if you do chose to make such an investment you then need to start devoting some of your limited skill points into Handle Animal as well if you want any chance of making much use of it in combat. You will also probably need a lot of ride or expect it to get murdered pretty hard.


Anzyr wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
Really tempted to get in on the Pageant of the Peacock debate that spilled over but instead i am going to ask people to take it outside... or over to the over topic or wherever things go when they arent bashing on Fighters. Stay on target people!
I should note that there really isn't much to talk about. The numbers have been crunched. It ends badly for the Fighter. Let us hope that Pathfinder Unchained gets rid of "Bonus Combat Feats" for Fighters and instead gives "Martial Techniques" or something, which have lots of useful abilities that scale well and allow for high powered martials. And 4+INT skill points... seriously the only 2+INT skill point people should be people who have a reason to pump INT.

I agree completely, but its fun to bash on Fighters and thats much closer to what this thread is for. BTW, hoping for Fighter unique weapon options in the new book at all? Sword-chucks yo!

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Technically, you'd have to take Boon Companion to get a viable mount (= to a Ranger's), OR take Leadership and use it on an Awakened Animal so it could gain class levels.

But no, no standard mount is going to suffice for a high level character's steed at higher levels. Plus, to keep it alive and use it in a fight, you're going to need Mounted Combat, Mounted Archery, and Spirited Charge, in addition to full ranks in Ride to neutralize hits.

heckuva cost to pay for something to ride around on. Although that Ebony Fly with the 120' fly speed looked sweet. And it advances just like a horse!

==Aelryinth


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
Really tempted to get in on the Pageant of the Peacock debate that spilled over but instead i am going to ask people to take it outside... or over to the over topic or wherever things go when they arent bashing on Fighters. Stay on target people!
I should note that there really isn't much to talk about. The numbers have been crunched. It ends badly for the Fighter. Let us hope that Pathfinder Unchained gets rid of "Bonus Combat Feats" for Fighters and instead gives "Martial Techniques" or something, which have lots of useful abilities that scale well and allow for high powered martials. And 4+INT skill points... seriously the only 2+INT skill point people should be people who have a reason to pump INT.

From what I heard, fighter is not getting a rework. The ones I've heard were barbarian, summoners, sorcerers(explains arcanist :P), and rogues.

If they rework feats in unchained that will more or less fix the fighter if done well.

I honestly don't understand why they decided to... ahem... "fix" Barbarians but leave Fighters out of it.

Maybe Paizo really doesn't like martial classes having nice things and wants to bring every one of them down to match Fighters' incompetence.


Aelryinth wrote:

Technically, you'd have to take Boon Companion to get a viable mount (= to a Ranger's), OR take Leadership and use it on an Awakened Animal so it could gain class levels.

But no, no standard mount is going to suffice for a high level character's steed at higher levels. Plus, to keep it alive and use it in a fight, you're going to need Mounted Combat, Mounted Archery, and Spirited Charge, in addition to full ranks in Ride to neutralize hits.

heckuva cost to pay for something to ride around on. Although that Ebony Fly with the 120' fly speed looked sweet. And it advances just like a horse!

==Aelryinth

Your Ranger/Paladins will love it. Honestly, thanks for pointing out that feat Artanthos. I didn't know about it and it will be useful at some point for a Ranger/Paladin/Caster build.


Yeah I am looking for barbarians to get nerfed pretty hard, along with summoners


Any class in Unchained that is "nerfed hard" will probably never see any use. They definitely won't be at my table, since I see no reason to purchase or even look over content that doesn't add something to the game rather than taking it away.

Nerfing classes defeats the purpose of a book about making ALTERNATE VERSIONS of a class. These aren't replacements, they're alternates.

So if one alternate is better, and better designed...


Lemmy wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
Really tempted to get in on the Pageant of the Peacock debate that spilled over but instead i am going to ask people to take it outside... or over to the over topic or wherever things go when they arent bashing on Fighters. Stay on target people!
I should note that there really isn't much to talk about. The numbers have been crunched. It ends badly for the Fighter. Let us hope that Pathfinder Unchained gets rid of "Bonus Combat Feats" for Fighters and instead gives "Martial Techniques" or something, which have lots of useful abilities that scale well and allow for high powered martials. And 4+INT skill points... seriously the only 2+INT skill point people should be people who have a reason to pump INT.

From what I heard, fighter is not getting a rework. The ones I've heard were barbarian, summoners, sorcerers(explains arcanist :P), and rogues.

If they rework feats in unchained that will more or less fix the fighter if done well.

I honestly don't understand why they decided to... ahem... "fix" Barbarians but leave Fighters out of it.

Maybe Paizo really doesn't like martial classes having nice things and wants to bring every one of them down to match Fighters' incompetence.

I believe barbarians fall under the summoner side of rework. They are unbalanced. Some rage power are the best features in the game, while others look like they should be rogue talents.

The barbarian works, but only by completely negating magic, super DR, and more attacks per round than a dragon with the dual initiative mythic ability. They are completely broken, and yet still pale in comparison to most casters when they decide to unleash. Which tells you something about martials, you can full attack every round, hit all your attacks, use up all your AOOs, take reduced damage from physical attacks, have high AC, have high touch AC, pass all saves, and sunder magic like tissue paper. You can be the pinnacle of all things martial and it only allows you to look a caster in the eye and have him not regard you as merely a permanent summon that talks a lot.

Every other martial that compares to the barbarian does so through non-martial means. I think "Unchained" is going to try and address the fundamental martial problem.


Rynjin wrote:

Any class in Unchained that is "nerfed hard" will probably never see any use. They definitely won't be at my table, since I see no reason to purchase or even look over content that doesn't add something to the game rather than taking it away.

Nerfing classes defeats the purpose of a book about making ALTERNATE VERSIONS of a class. These aren't replacements, they're alternates.

So if one alternate is better, and better designed...

After seeing what DSP did with Psionics, I think summoners and barbarians will simply be "rebalanced" not nerfed. They will lose some stuff and gain others(stream line mechanics), much like Psions.

DSP showed me what competent devs can do when they are less worried about maintaining sacred 3.5 cows.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Having good saves doesn't mean "completely negating magic". Any caster worth his salt has multiple ways to deal with Barbarians. Including stuff with no save.

Barbarians are not broken. At most, they are good dealing with casters, which is good, since nothing else is.

Superstition bonus might be too high, but that's it. Stuff like good touch AC, spell-sundering and pounce are stuff most martial should have in one form or another.

The problem lies not with Barbarians, but with Paizo's obvious double standard when it comes to designing stuff for casters and martials. Caster get stuff like Sacred Geometry and Dazing Spell.

Martials can't move 10ft without losing most of their effectiveness and have whatever few cool toys they get taken away or Crane Winged into uselessness because "realism".


Lemmy wrote:
Barbarians are not broken.

We can agree to disagree on that. Plenty of other "martials" are able to be effective without resorting to the barbar answer of "+20 to dice roll". Paladins work pretty well with a hand-waved code, Rangers do well, gunslingers, magi, inquisitors, alchemist, battle clerics, battle druids. Heck I think even cavaliers/samurai do OK provided they find a way to get their mount flying.

The barbar has his answer for making martials work, but it is one of the more ham-fisted approaches (gunslinger just go the crazy DPR route).

From DSP see: Aegis, Soulkife, Marksman,and Psychic Warrior


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ham-fisted is the barbarian MO, to be fair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ranger's get a not insignificant buff to hit (against everyone with Instant Enemy), Gunslingers target touch AC which is better then having a high + to hit in many cases, Inquisitors also gets *huge* buffs to hit and damage (though admittedly they have farther to catch up BAB wise), Alchemists can also give themselves an impressive suit of buffs, same with battle clerics and battle druids. Compared to most of those classes, Barbarian is not only not broken, but downright weak. (I'd take the half and full casters over it any day).

I mean Barbarian might seem overpowered to you and is probably overpowered compared to the Fighter, but I don't think you want to match the Barbarian up against say the Druid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
I mean Barbarian might seem overpowered to you and is probably overpowered compared to the Fighter, but I don't think you want to match the Barbarian up against say the Druid.

When did I say overpowered? I called them broken. These are different things.

301 to 350 of 401 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Fighter vs Barbarian, by the numbers. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.