| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You could House Rule it to pretty easily, though.If we're at the point where we houserule stuff then 3rd party publishers are probably a better bet honestly.For such a small thing, that's a pretty drastic reaction.
"Well, if Swashbuckler Weapon Training doesn't count as Weapon Training, then I might as well bring third pastry stuff in."
For...what?
Sounds . . . Fattening. Gives new insight to the concept of rules bloat.
You could House Rule it to pretty easily, though.If we're at the point where we houserule stuff then 3rd party publishers are probably a better bet honestly.For such a small thing, that's a pretty drastic reaction.
"Well, if Swashbuckler Weapon Training doesn't count as Weapon Training, then I might as well bring third pastry stuff in."
For...what?Sounds . . . Fattening. Gives new insight to the concept of rules bloat.
You protest now, but after a couple drinks or a nice fat J you'll be all over it.
You could House Rule it to pretty easily, though.If we're at the point where we houserule stuff then 3rd party publishers are probably a better bet honestly.For such a small thing, that's a pretty drastic reaction.
"Well, if Swashbuckler Weapon Training doesn't count as Weapon Training, then I might as well bring third pastry stuff in."
For...what?
Forgot to address this earlier, but it sounds like you have a bias toward third party publications. Is it linked to an interesting story?
I know there are many on this board who have "drastic reactions" like "ohh man, Paizo doesn't have a 1-20 wizard/Rogue hybrid like the Warpriest, I guess I'll bring third pastry stuff in!"
Forgot to address this earlier, but it sounds like you have a bias toward third party publications. Is it linked to an interesting story?
I know this wasn't addressed to me but the majority of games I play don't allow third party publications for various reason that range from not wanting or having time to vet them to wanting to simplify things to just thinking there are too many things already IN the game already without adding extras. For the most part it has little if nothing to do with the quality, usefulness or balance of any particular element but that it's opening a whole new kettle of fish when the game already has a lot of moving parts.
This is off topic, but I don't just use 3PP for class fixes. Those are generally the most boring 3PP since they essentially retread old ground.
The best 3PP introduce completely off the way material or make character concepts possible that never previously existed. Stuff like the Battle Lord from Amora games that creates a powerful commander type that stays extraordinary instead of going full supernatural while being an incredibly simple class to understand.
Or Dragon Tiger Ox from Little Red Goblin Games which offers alternative rules for many skills, unarmed combat, and items to assist the DM and players in creating and playing in a fantasy world not unlike Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon style films.
Yes houserules can work for all that, but sometimes it's cool to open up a book and go "Man, I didn't even know this was possible in d20."
Forgot to address this earlier, but it sounds like you have a bias toward third party publications. Is it linked to an interesting story?I know this wasn't addressed to me but the majority of games I play don't allow third party publications for various reason that range from not wanting or having time to vet them to wanting to simplify things to just thinking there are too many things already IN the game already without adding extras. For the most part it has little if nothing to do with the quality, usefulness or balance of any particular element but that it's opening a whole new kettle of fish when the game already has a lot of moving parts.
I don't agree with a lot of those reasons, but I accept that in most cases that they're at least honestly believed by the person.
New and unknown things are scary, especially when they can cost money. That's why if it sounds like the thing someone is most afraid of relating 3PP is wasting money or broken content the first thing I do is point them to free resources of 3PP content that I know is high quality and balanced. Usually what they read is good enough to evoke a personal interest and research, or at least asking me about what publishers and writers are particularly good.
Also, always remember that Paizo started as a third party company to Wizard and that their presently most talented crunch master was previously a third party writer.
Forgot to address this earlier, but it sounds like you have a bias toward third party publications. Is it linked to an interesting story?I know this wasn't addressed to me but the majority of games I play don't allow third party publications for various reason that range from not wanting or having time to vet them to wanting to simplify things to just thinking there are too many things already IN the game already without adding extras. For the most part it has little if nothing to do with the quality, usefulness or balance of any particular element but that it's opening a whole new kettle of fish when the game already has a lot of moving parts.I don't agree with a lot of those reasons, but I accept that in most cases that they're at least honestly believed by the person.
New and unknown things are scary, especially when they can cost money. That's why if it sounds like the thing someone is most afraid of relating 3PP is wasting money or broken content the first thing I do is point them to free resources of 3PP content that I know is high quality and balanced. Usually what they read is good enough to evoke a personal interest and research, or at least asking me about what publishers and writers are particularly good.
Also, always remember that Paizo started as a third party company to Wizard and that their presently most talented crunch master was previously a third party writer.
Oh it has nothing to do with cash. Very often sites like d20 or nethys are allowed/suggested as sources to look at and they still exclude 3rd party material that can be looked up for free. When/if asked why, the usual reply is similar to my last post. So for the majority of games I'd play in, 3rd party just isn't an option.
I consider "making thrown weapon combat viable" to be basic. Just because previously Paizo locked that behind a wall doesn't mean it's special or valuable.
Imagine if shortbows took a move action to draw, longbows took a standard action, and Rapid Reload required the weapon training class feature.
That's essentially what happened to thrown weapons.
But thrown weapons are often of a very different character than bows.
Lets look at the quintessential thrown weapon- the dagger.
While it might need a specialized build, it can be used as a melee weapon as well. It is much more useful as a melee weapon usually. You can get some great melee builds with daggers.
The thrown property is a side note. It is a set of options to give a bit of instant switch hitting ability at the obvious price of not having your weapon on you anymore.
Bows don't naturally do melee. If something gets up on you (and lets say it has 15' reach for this discussion), you can't attack without eating an AoO- either for doing a ranged attack, or from using a move action so you don't eat like...5 AoOs from your whole full attack. You needed empty quiver style to get the kind of switch hitting that daggers without feats.
The power of switch hitting without dropping your weapon to grab a bow is even more valuable than giving an archer some melee ability. Since the usual, nautral state of switch hitting is 'I gotta drop my weapon', then the fact that you toss your weapon doesn't seem that huge to me. Its great that you have options that prevent that now, but I can understand the need to make investments to get that power.
Basically, I am not as indignant at the state of thrown weapons because I realize how powerful they are with this kind of ability. And it isn't like the feats don't start coming together at around the level when you are consistently expected to have really nice daggers anyway (ie- not using the disposable non magical ones)
I consider "making thrown weapon combat viable" to be basic. Just because previously Paizo locked that behind a wall doesn't mean it's special or valuable.
Imagine if shortbows took a move action to draw, longbows took a standard action, and Rapid Reload required the weapon training class feature.
That's essentially what happened to thrown weapons.
But thrown weapons are often of a very different character than bows.
Lets look at the quintessential thrown weapon- the dagger.
While it might need a specialized build, it can be used as a melee weapon as well. It is much more useful as a melee weapon usually. You can get some great melee builds with daggers.
The thrown property is a side note. It is a set of options to give a bit of instant switch hitting ability at the obvious price of not having your weapon on you anymore.
Bows don't naturally do melee. If something gets up on you (and lets say it has 15' reach for this discussion), you can't attack without eating an AoO- either for doing a ranged attack, or from using a move action so you don't eat like...5 AoOs from your whole full attack. You needed empty quiver style to get the kind of switch hitting that daggers without feats.
The power of switch hitting without dropping your weapon to grab a bow is even more valuable than giving an archer some melee ability. Since the usual, nautral state of switch hitting is 'I gotta drop my weapon', then the fact that you toss your weapon doesn't seem that huge to me. Its great that you have options that prevent that now, but I can understand the need to make investments to get that power.
Basically, I am not as indignant at the state of thrown weapons because I realize how powerful they are with this kind of ability. And it isn't like the feats don't start coming together at around the level when you are consistently expected to have really nice daggers anyway (ie- not using the disposable non magical ones)
That's a pretty good argument.
If it weren't for the existance of certain magic items, feats, and spells I would even agree with you.
Point Blank Master on Fighters, Rangers, Slayers, zen archer monks, eldritch Archer Magus, ect is a single feat to make archery viable in melee.
Richochet shot is a 3 feat chain to make thrown weapons viable for ranged.
Also there is a hand slot magic item that lets you store weapons and swap them as a free action.
The investment vs reward is very heavy in archery's favor compared to thrown even considering the switch hitting aspect.
I think the spell was Shilaleigh or something? There may be others too that can either negate AoOs provoked or better allow switch hitting.
For almost everything the fighter gets in WHB, other classes can get, too. It's just MUCH easier for the fighter -- as it should be.
I know this wasn't addressed to me but the majority of games I play don't allow third party publications for various reason that range from not wanting or having time to vet them to wanting to simplify things to just thinking there are too many things already IN the game already without adding extras. For the most part it has little if nothing to do with the quality, usefulness or balance of any particular element but that it's opening a whole new kettle of fish when the game already has a lot of moving parts.
I have a lot of sympathy for people trying to get 3rd-party content out there, being someone with an interest in 'games industry publishing' (though not PnP stuff in a million years, ever). But it's simply true that for the same reasons, I just don't typically look at much 3rd-party, because the overall sprawl is just too much, and drawing an 'arbitrary' line at official is a simple, straightforward boundary. I'm reasonably active (sometimes) around here, and there's still official stuff I haven't really looked at yet.
|
I know this wasn't addressed to me but the majority of games I play don't allow third party publications for various reason that range from not wanting or having time to vet them to wanting to simplify things to just thinking there are too many things already IN the game already without adding extras. For the most part it has little if nothing to do with the quality, usefulness or balance of any particular element but that it's opening a whole new kettle of fish when the game already has a lot of moving parts.I have a lot of sympathy for people trying to get 3rd-party content out there, being someone with an interest in 'games industry publishing' (though not PnP stuff in a million years, ever). But it's simply true that for the same reasons, I just don't typically look at much 3rd-party, because the overall sprawl is just too much, and drawing an 'arbitrary' line at official is a simple, straightforward boundary. I'm reasonably active (sometimes) around here, and there's still official stuff I haven't really looked at yet.
Yeah, this is basically my reasoning as well. I barely have time to keep up with Paizo's stuff, and that has the added benefit of Golarion fluff (I love Golarion). 3PP stuff, no matter how well balanced, is just too hard to find the time for.
That said, if a player ever actually petitioned for a specific 3PP Class or the like, I'd probably allow it (after looking it over) as long as it didn't require me to learn a new subsystem (sorry Psionics).
Actually, Rangers, Slayers, and Zen Archers can all explicitly ignore the prerequisites of their bonus Feats. This allows them to ignore that requirement.
Heck, even if they didn't, read the Point Blank Master Feat if you don't believe me (remember that Slayers get Ranger Combat Styles wholesale). With the exception of Zen Archers they do need Weapon Focus to do this, so it's a two Feat chain on par with Martial Mastery + Ricochet Shot (the Point Blank Master chain's actually longer than the Ricochet Shot chain for Fighters)...but Quick Draw added on makes it a chore and probably one Feat too many.
I'm seriously considering just making Ricochet Shot's prerequisite Quick Draw (and +5 BAB). That'd better mirror the effective costs of Point Blank Master.
You were still wrong. For Zen Archers it is a class feature, not a feat. And Zen Archers are gross anyways. For Rangers, that's still having to qualify and they aren't exactly a class I would play throwing builds on anyways. For Slayers the prerequisite is Ranger Combat Style (Archery) and Weapon Focus, so you aren't gaining anything there.
If you are a Fighter (or otherwise have Weapon Training), the effective cost IS Quick Draw. It's the same thing as having to be Ranger to get it with combat styles. In fact, it's cheaper and available to more classes. Anyone with Weapon Training can steal it.
Do I think throwing builds are on par with archery? For most classes, (Like Fighter) I would say no. They don't have the support yet. Is Ricochet Toss priced right? In comparison to other feats and class features it is. Unless your name is Zen Archer in which case you are gross and should feel bad.
To the OP's question: no, it didn't. It just gave martials new options and the fighter some tricks he's able to take advantage faster than othr classes. And yes, it gave fighters a few tricks almost unique to their class via Advanced Weapon Training.
Was this "too much"? I don't think so in a million years.
Also note that the fighter as a class wasn't "fixed" by the WMH. As a companion line book, it couldn't be done that way. As things stand, using the WMH the fighter gives away a few options he could have spent for a "power build" and gains others, making the class generally more flexible/more resistant.
To really "fix" the fighter Paizoshould do what it did with the rogue, i.e. publish an unchained version of the class. For some reason this doesn't seem something Paizo wants to do though.
P.S.
As someone pointed out it is quite amusing to note that when the fighter gets ANYTHING even remotely working for itself there's people who don't like it and want the devs to "spread the love". Seriously, what's so "unfair" with the fighter having something it can use better than other classes or even unique for itself? Yes, fighters can cover feat taxes quicker than other clasess, but they don't get to ignore prerequistes as those classes sometimes do. It's basically ONE of the reasons to choose a fighter over something else: SOMETIMES you can access a certain build quicker than you could otherwise do. Considering how outdated and neglected the class has been until WMH I don't think that's unfair in the least.
|
|
You were still wrong. For Zen Archers it is a class feature, not a feat. And Zen Archers are gross anyways.
I wasn't the one you were responding to...so I was not wrong, nor did I use a Zen Archer as an example for anything. You, however, made a factual error that those Classes could not acquire Point Blank Master, so I corrected you. That's all I did.
For Rangers, that's still having to qualify and they aren't exactly a class I would play throwing builds on anyways. For Slayers the prerequisite is Ranger Combat Style (Archery) and Weapon Focus, so you aren't gaining anything there.
Uh...Ranger Combat Style gives you the Feat and you didn't need to buy Weapon Specialization, so it's a two Feat tree rather than 3 (and available at 6th level). That's not nothing.
If you are a Fighter (or otherwise have Weapon Training), the effective cost IS Quick Draw. It's the same thing as having to be Ranger to get it with combat styles. In fact, it's cheaper and available to more classes. Anyone with Weapon Training can steal it.
True to some degree. Weapon Training isn't super common, though. And Quick Draw is way more of a Feat Tax than Weapon Focus. A lot of people take Weapon Focus in its own right. Quick Draw? Not so much.
It's not like I'm suggesting removing all prerequisites, just dropping the Weapon Training one and maybe the BAB one a little.
Do I think throwing builds are on par with archery? For most classes, (Like Fighter) I would say no. They don't have the support yet. Is Ricochet Toss priced right? In comparison to other feats and class features it is. Unless your name is Zen Archer in which case you are gross and should feel bad.
Eh. Range limitations are a thing. As the one who first brought up thrown's advantages over archery, I'm well aware of them, but you probably need Weapon Finesse to take full advantage of them, and you combine that with the Feat taxes to full attack and it's just slightly too high, IMO. By about a Feat.
I wasn't the one you were responding to...so I was not wrong, nor did I use a Zen Archer as an example for anything. You, however, made a factual error that those Classes could not acquire Point Blank Master, so I corrected you. That's all I did.
I'm tired and made an error on the first part. HOWEVER, I did not state they could not acquire Point Blank Master. I was making a making a point about the fact he was wrong on point blank master being one feat.
Uh...Ranger Combat Style gives you the Feat and you didn't need to buy Weapon Specialization, so it's a two Feat tree rather than 3 (and available at 6th level). That's not nothing.
You are still wrong.
...okay, that one is just me being a total git. :p But my rules are you're allowed to be slightly douchey when right.
At 6th level, he may select this talent again and add the 6th-level ranger combat feats from his chosen style to the list.
Not that that is bad by any means, you have other feats you need and this will give them.
True to some degree. Weapon Training isn't super common, though. And Quick Draw is way more of a Feat Tax than Weapon Focus. A lot of people take Weapon Focus in its own right. Quick Draw? Not so much.
It's not like I'm suggesting removing all prerequisites, just dropping the Weapon Training one and maybe the BAB one a little.
Eh. Range limitations are a thing. As the one who first brought up thrown's advantages over archery, I'm well aware of them, but you probably need Weapon Finesse to take full advantage of them, and you combine that with the Feat taxes to full attack and it's just slightly too high, IMO. By about a Feat.
It's convinced me for dagger rogues. (Which was a point I had made early and why my sarcasm was geared towards rogues.) You actually need quick draw to even make use of iteratives at all with thrown weapons so it's not exactly what I call a tax. It's basically half a weapon specialization tax, which I can't consider poor for the very few builds that do stellar with knives. It's 2 feats for range options, I'm okay with that if not blown away.
Though, honestly in my opinion it's not something I would ever consider for most throwing weapons. Startoss makes returning viable and in my opinion I'd rather do that for say a spear.
|
|
I'm tired and made an error on the first part. HOWEVER, I did not state they could not acquire Point Blank Master. I was making a making a point about the fact he was wrong on point blank master being one feat.
That's fair. It's available, though.
You are still wrong.
...okay, that one is just me being a total git. :p But my rules are you're allowed to be slightly douchey when right.
Yeah...I don't think having to take Precise Shot, Rapid Shot or Deadly Aim (all on the archery style list) at some point before 6th level counts as a Feat tax. You'd be taking them anyway.
It's convinced me for dagger rogues. (Which was a point I had made early and why my sarcasm was geared towards rogues.) You actually need quick draw to even make use of iteratives at all with thrown weapons so it's not exactly what I call a tax.
True, but that means we're talking 2 Feats just to make thrown weapons work. That do nothing but that. The third being slightly less than stellar just makes it harder.
It's basically half a weapon specialization tax, which I can't consider poor for the very few builds that do stellar with knives. It's 2 feats for range options, I'm okay with that if not blown away.
Though, honestly in my opinion it's not something I would ever consider for most throwing weapons. Startoss makes returning viable and in my opinion I'd rather do that for say a spear.
Right. Which is why I feel it should be a little better. I'd like it if thrown weapon builds were as viable as archery builds, at least at close ranges.
Fighters should be seen as weapon masters. The character concept of being the best at a weapon should be filled by a fighter.
My thought exactly...
They should have gotten less bonus feats in exchange of actual weapon-related abilities, similar to what the archetypes and the booklet can offer.
Right. Which is why I feel it should be a little better. I'd like it if thrown weapon builds were as viable as archery builds, at least at close ranges.
What it comes down to for me is really I don't think that should be the domain of ricochet toss.
Don't get me wrong, it's a really nice feat, but I don't like the idea of returning, spherewalker, and other similar things-I'm-too-tired-to-remember-but-am-pretty-sure-exist to get shafted. I like the design on Startoss because it makes them viable, and I would really rather future feats to support throwing styles share a similar design of updating rather than replacing.
To me, if ricochet toss was only needing quick draw that would be making any other method of having the weapon come back completely irreverent. Personally, I prefer design that either patches past things, or uses complimentary mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right. Which is why I feel it should be a little better. I'd like it if thrown weapon builds were as viable as archery builds, at least at close ranges.What it comes down to for me is really I don't think that should be the domain of ricochet toss.
Don't get me wrong, it's a really nice feat, but I don't like the idea of returning, spherewalker, and other similar things-I'm-too-tired-to-remember-but-am-pretty-sure-exist to get shafted. I like the design on Startoss because it makes them viable, and I would really rather future feats to support throwing styles share a similar design of updating rather than replacing.
To me, if ricochet toss was only needing quick draw that would be making any other method of having the weapon come back completely irreverent. Personally, I prefer design that either patches past things, or uses complimentary mechanics.
So ... never fix something that's broken, because then you make the broken thing obsolete?
So ... never fix something that's broken, because then you make the broken thing obsolete?
No, either fix what is broken or design new mechanics to fix it.
That's a pretty good argument.
If it weren't for the existance of certain magic items, feats, and spells I would even agree with you.
I'll admit- ricochet style is rather late, but the fact that it requires investment and a feat tax or two seems appropriate, at least. It is the same as that 3 feat chain, or the pointblank master rather specific prereqs to qualify for. In comparison, martial focus is nice since it is better than weapon focus and easier to grab than the prereqs for point blank master. Most would qualify for point blank master and ricochet style at about the same level I believe, so 6 of one scenario.
Not sure how to address the magic stuff other than 'it takes money and crafting, which you might not be allowed to do' or 'it takes a specific spell to be cast, which can be very troublesome action economy wise-the classic bluff dilemma'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a pretty good argument.
If it weren't for the existance of certain magic items, feats, and spells I would even agree with you.
I'll admit- ricochet style is rather late, but the fact that it requires investment and a feat tax or two seems appropriate, at least. It is the same as that 3 feat chain, or the pointblank master rather specific prereqs to qualify for. In comparison, martial focus is nice since it is better than weapon focus and easier to grab than the prereqs for point blank master. Most would qualify for point blank master and ricochet style at about the same level I believe, so 6 of one scenario.
Not sure how to address the magic stuff other than 'it takes money and crafting, which you might not be allowed to do' or 'it takes a specific spell to be cast, which can be very troublesome action economy wise-the classic bluff dilemma'.
We're both faced with the same facts, but have different value outlooks on those facts.
Our tables are likely very different in terms of play, so it's more likely that we're both right in terms of our table.
Arguing further than this on the comparative value of said taxes is going to sound more like explaining why the other player is playing Pathfinder wrong.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll admit- ricochet style is rather late, but the fact that it requires investment and a feat tax or two seems appropriate, at least. It is the same as that 3 feat chain, or the pointblank master rather specific prereqs to qualify for. In comparison, martial focus is nice since it is better than weapon focus and easier to grab than the prereqs for point blank master. Most would qualify for point blank master and ricochet style at about the same level I believe, so 6 of one scenario.
Two problem with your argument: First, Ricochet Toss is way more important than PBM - it's at the same level as Rapid Reload for Crossbows. And second, PBM's prereqs aren't useless. I would be ok with Ricochet Toss requiring Weapon Focus.
All those tax feats (and tax ability scores) are one of the main reason's for the caster/martial disparity. A caster gets multiple new things to do every other level while a martial gets... a feat that doesn't do anything exept letting you do something in the future.
Fighter isn't bad because they don't have enough class features, they are bad because they have to waste most of those class features on total crap. What all those tax feats do is force every single martial to be a one trick pony. Feats shouldn't be there to make your combat style possible, they should be there to make it better (past a single feat to "unlock" the style). You can cast spells without taking metamagic feats, they just make you better at it. You can use Hexes feats like Split Hex, they just make you better at it. Channel Energy and Wildshape need one single feat they need, the rest just makes them better.
When you need multiple feats just to make thrown weapons work, that's like as if a sorcerer would only know one spell per level, yet need levitate and fly to take overland flight (and couldn't replace them). You think a sorcerer with alle the pit and fly spells yet nothing else would be interesting? Because that's what tax feats do to martials.
And that's why the Weapon Master's Handbook fails to deliver: It's chock-full of nonsensical tax feats.
Feats:
- Arm Bind Two-Weapon Defense
- Dual Strike Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, Double Slice
- Elven Battle Style Elven Battle Training
- Illusive Gnome Style Int 13, Combat Expertise
- Orc Fury Style Intimidating Prowess
- Outslug Style Int 13; Combat Expertise
- Outslug Weave Lunge
- Ricochet Toss Quick Draw, BAB+6
Weapon Tricks:
- Hindering Shot Snap Shot (mainly because it prevents Zen Archers from using it)
- Warded Movement Dodge
- Warding Weapon Combat Expertise
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know this wasn't addressed to me but the majority of games I play don't allow third party publications for various reason that range from not wanting or having time to vet them to wanting to simplify things to just thinking there are too many things already IN the game already without adding extras. For the most part it has little if nothing to do with the quality, usefulness or balance of any particular element but that it's opening a whole new kettle of fish when the game already has a lot of moving parts.I have a lot of sympathy for people trying to get 3rd-party content out there, being someone with an interest in 'games industry publishing' (though not PnP stuff in a million years, ever). But it's simply true that for the same reasons, I just don't typically look at much 3rd-party, because the overall sprawl is just too much, and drawing an 'arbitrary' line at official is a simple, straightforward boundary. I'm reasonably active (sometimes) around here, and there's still official stuff I haven't really looked at yet.Yeah, this is basically my reasoning as well. I barely have time to keep up with Paizo's stuff, and that has the added benefit of Golarion fluff (I love Golarion). 3PP stuff, no matter how well balanced, is just too hard to find the time for.
That said, if a player ever actually petitioned for a specific 3PP Class or the like, I'd probably allow it (after looking it over) as long as it didn't require me to learn a new subsystem (sorry Psionics).
That's such a huge shame honestly. Among people who have taken the time to peruse some third party materials it's not an uncommon opinion that the writers have a greater love for the Pathfinder system and role playing than the developers at Paizo.
Well Mark Seifter is the exception. It's obvious just how much he loves RPGs, role playing, writing, and giving to the fans based on how he conducts himself with the playtesters. Writers and developers like Mark, who love the fans and the game dearly, are the kind of people you find in the third party market for Pathfinder.
On a side note there are a large subsection of 3PP who do their best to create only classes that have narrative power and publish feats that are useful instead of merely taxes. Even the non-magical feats/classes.
If you're willing I'll buy you a copy of Ultimate Battle Lord and you can tell me what you think of it. I personally write up at least 2-3 for every campaign for use as NPCs because they fit their role so absolutely perfectly. If you're willing to give it a shot shoot me a PM with your email address to gift it too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone pointed out it is quite amusing to note that when the fighter gets ANYTHING even remotely working for itself there's people who don't like it and want the devs to "spread the love". Seriously, what's so "unfair" with the fighter having something it can use better than other classes or even unique for itself?
Because if you do that (say for Ricochet Toss), then the only way you can play a thrower is to play a fighter. And the fighter is still only any use in a fight, diddly-squat use anywhere else beyond about 8th level, and boring as heck compared to most other classes. If this came in at a lower level such that it would be a valid dip for rogue or magus or paladin, that might be different. But it doesn't.
As someone pointed out it is quite amusing to note that when the fighter gets ANYTHING even remotely working for itself there's people who don't like it and want the devs to "spread the love". Seriously, what's so "unfair" with the fighter having something it can use better than other classes or even unique for itself?Because if you do that (say for Ricochet Toss), then the only way you can play a thrower is to play a fighter. And the fighter is still only any use in a fight, diddly-squat use anywhere else beyond about 8th level, and boring as heck compared to most other classes. If this came in at a lower level such that it would be a valid dip for rogue or magus or paladin, that might be different. But it doesn't.
If Richochet toss was instead a "bounce" mechanic on thrown attacks that was useable on full attacks, you'd be ok with it though wouldn't you?
At that point instead of it being a "basic competency" feat like weapon finesse, it becomes a "unique combat trick" which should be the domain of the fighter.
As someone pointed out it is quite amusing to note that when the fighter gets ANYTHING even remotely working for itself there's people who don't like it and want the devs to "spread the love". Seriously, what's so "unfair" with the fighter having something it can use better than other classes or even unique for itself?Because if you do that (say for Ricochet Toss), then the only way you can play a thrower is to play a fighter. And the fighter is still only any use in a fight, diddly-squat use anywhere else beyond about 8th level, and boring as heck compared to most other classes. If this came in at a lower level such that it would be a valid dip for rogue or magus or paladin, that might be different. But it doesn't.
To me what you are saying basically amounts to:"I don't like fighters, I don't want to wait more than they have to get certain feats so give me their stuff and shut up".
Needless to say, in my book this is not a good reason to give away the fighter's stuff to everyone. On the contrary doing this would make the fighter less appealing which is increasing the problem you seem to have with the class. Also I don't agree new feats like ricochet toss are only playable as a fighter. They are just more efficient with a fighter and that's because you'll get them sooner than with others classes, which is exactly the point of making the fighter class relevant in some niches.
As someone pointed out it is quite amusing to note that when the fighter gets ANYTHING even remotely working for itself there's people who don't like it and want the devs to "spread the love". Seriously, what's so "unfair" with the fighter having something it can use better than other classes or even unique for itself?Because if you do that (say for Ricochet Toss), then the only way you can play a thrower is to play a fighter. And the fighter is still only any use in a fight, diddly-squat use anywhere else beyond about 8th level, and boring as heck compared to most other classes. If this came in at a lower level such that it would be a valid dip for rogue or magus or paladin, that might be different. But it doesn't.To me what you are saying basically amounts to:"I don't like fighters, I don't want to wait more than they have to get certain feats so give me their stuff and shut up".
Needless to say, in my book this is not a good reason to give away the fighter's stuff to everyone. On the contrary doing this would make the fighter less appealing which is increasing the problem you seem to have with the class. Also I don't agree new feats like ricochet toss are only playable as a fighter. They are just more efficient with a fighter and that's because you'll get them sooner than with others classes, which is exactly the point of making the fighter class relevant in some niches.
I didn't realize Fighters ran the market on being effective throwers. I always expected a Roguish type.
If I were to guess Xena's character class my first guess would be Slayer or Rogue, not fighter
To me what you are saying basically amounts to:"I don't like fighters, I don't want to wait more than they have to get certain feats so give me their stuff and shut up".
Er, no. What he said is that minimal functionality for combat styles should be more accessible and not a fighter only/almost fighter only trick.
I'm not sure how you misread him that severely.
If Richochet toss was instead a "bounce" mechanic on thrown attacks that was useable on full attacks, you'd be ok with it though wouldn't you?At that point instead of it being a "basic competency" feat like weapon finesse, it becomes a "unique combat trick" which should be the domain of the fighter.
I personally agree with this completely. Fighters should get cool tricks quicker and have more cool tricks than other martials. That's great.
But being able to use a combat style at all doesn't really fall under the "cool trick" heading. At least in my book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you :)
Well, if nothing else, I'm suddenly much more interested in the WMH from what has been discussed in this thread.
Well, if nothing else, I'm suddenly much more interested in the WMH from what has been discussed in this thread.
You really should be. It's not a perfect fix, but it's the kinda fix I deeply appreciate and goes a long way towards starting to make several other builds viable. I would heavily recommend checking the book out.
Well, if nothing else, I'm suddenly much more interested in the WMH from what has been discussed in this thread.You really should be. It's not a perfect fix, but it's the kinda fix I deeply appreciate and goes a long way towards starting to make several other builds viable. I would heavily recommend checking the book out.
I would also recomend the book for anyone who is in love with the fighter. It has some really good ideas and options, though some of the coolest options err on the side of caution power wise and end up being a bit underwhelming because of it.
If you're the type of group that sticks to paizo releases and is down for some mild house ruling, then it is a really great book! Even if you don't houserule it's still pretty good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think of troll headhunters when I think of a thrown weapon user. Which are best represented as barbarians actually...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I came super close to replying in this thread a few times, but I've refrained. I don't like the tone that people have had in this thread one bit. You can argue all you want, but the fact remains that the best of us freelancers and Third-Party Folk (as well as Paizo designers and developers) balance our rules based on how the game IS, not on how any one specific person wishes it were.
The one thing that I will say, however, is that as Ricochet Toss's designer, anyone who thinks that Quick Draw and a BAB of +6 are a tax for Ricochet Toss is 150% missing the point of the feat and what its supposed to do.