Tiers?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 340 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Frosty Ace wrote:

...

As for the rest of the comments... most complaints can be made of many martials. Even a ranger is just better stats with spells easily reproduced with wands. There are feats to get a full level animal companion as well.

I dunno, the idea that "a commoner can do it with every feat dedicated to one option and near infinite wealth" is poor in my opinion.

Just as well, you're really selling short a lot of abilities. You say cut/smash the air and ricochet toss aren't that great, but I'm fairly certain people love that a Barbarian can eat magic, and a Startoss, switch hitting fighter is all the rage right now.

@Jiggy. Yeah, I bring up a lot of recent options, but I think that's still a valid argument. The same way core monk compared to current/Unchained monk is night and day, so is the fighter.

So you have a couple problems. First, "easily reproduced with wands" is wrong. Wands are a consumable resource. A ranger's spells are a daily resource. Those are two very different things. This is more obvious with things like Mind Blank. A wizard gets one free every day. Someone using a scroll blows a huge wad of gold every day. If they want to keep the spell up as a daily spell, one of those two people is going bankrupt and it's not the wizard.

Second, no items and no general feats is because this is about classes. Every character gets those. If the obstacles can be bypassed by certain magic items or feats, then literally every class can bypass all the obstacles. However, and this is very important, if items are part of the class in some way (Bladebound, Pathfinder Chronicler) then they are counted for the purpose of discussion.

In all honesty, the actually decent fighter only feats (weapon and armor mastery stuff) are fairly new. Before that was Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Focus. That being said, none of the stuff you bring up seems to change anything about their tier. Cut/Smash from the Air only make you slightly better defensively... against ranged attacks or spells that use ranged touch rolls (there's a few nasty ones, but most don't have any roll). Deflect Arrows already did that to a certain extent. Snake Style too. Barbarians "eating magic" works off of saves, which is far more common (and generally more problematic than the ranged touch spells). Ricochet Shot and Startoss Style make you better at using thrown weapons. That's it. More attacks and damage was never the fighter's problem.

If you would like to argue for the fighter, bring up stuff like this:

Armor Mastery wrote:
Master Armorer (Ex): The fighter can use his base attack bonus in place of his ranks in the Craft (armor) skill. The fighter need not be wearing armor or using a shield to use this option. The fighter substitutes his total base attack bonus (including his base attack bonus gained through levels in other classes) for his ranks in this skill, but adds the skill’s usual ability score modifier and any other bonuses or penalties that would modify that skill. Additionally the fighter is treated as having the Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Master Craftsman feats, but only for the purpose of making magic armor. The fighter does not need to meet these feats’ prerequisites.
Weapon Mastery wrote:

Armed Bravery (Ex) The fighter applies his bonus from bravery to Will saving throws. In addition, the DC of Intimidate checks to demoralize him increases by an amount equal to twice his bonus from bravery. The fighter must have the bravery class feature in order to select this option.

Item Mastery: The fighter gains an item mastery feat as a bonus feat, which functions with any magic weapon he wields, even if the magic weapon does not meet the feat's normal requirements. He must meet all of the feat's prerequisites. Source: PPC:MTT
Versatile Training (Ex) The fighter can use his base attack bonus in place of his ranks in two skills of his choice that are associated with the fighter weapon group he has chosen with this option (see below). The fighter need not be wielding an associated weapon to use this option. When using versatile training, the fighter substitutes his total base attack bonus (including his base attack bonus gained through levels in other classes) for his ranks in these skills, but adds the skill's usual ability score modifier and any other bonuses or penalties that would modify those skills. Once the skills have been selected, they cannot be changed and the fighter can immediately retrain all of his skill ranks in the selected skills at no additional cost in money or time. In addition, the fighter adds all skills chosen with this option to his list of class skills. A fighter can choose this option up to two times. The Bluff and Intimidate skills are associated with all fighter weapon groups. The various fighter weapon groups also have the following associated skills: axes (Climb, Survival), bows (Knowledge [engineering], Perception), close (Sense Motive, Stealth), crossbows (Perception, Stealth), double (Acrobatics, Sense Motive), firearms (Perception, Sleight of Hand), flails (Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand), hammers (Diplomacy, Ride), heavy blades (Diplomacy, Ride), light blades (Diplomacy, Sleight of Hand), monk (Acrobatics, Escape Artist), natural (Climb, Fly, Swim), polearms (Diplomacy, Sense Motive), siege engines (Disable Device, Profession [driver]), spears (Handle Animal, Ride), and thrown (Acrobatics, Perception).

These all have the potential to make the fighter more useful and less useless.


I know how wands work lol. I was more pointing out that that more money discounts a fighter's advantages is the same as saying more money (Wands) discounts a ranger's advantages.

I disagree about feats not helping a fighter in the tier ranking (Or whatever the hell this is about now). The biggest class feature of a fighter IS feats, so the better they are, the more options they provide, the stronger they are, the more appealing the fighter is (Relative to other martials). Yes, any class can take feats, but I seriously doubt any classes can make use of as many feats and options as a Fighter when it comes to feats. I brought up Startoss style as an example of good feats for a fighter, but I see it more useful for combat versatility. The same was I brought up a boomerang great sword. Yes, the latter is silly, but can made very effective with a number or feats (Which, again, is essentially a class feature).

And I'm well aware of Advanced Armor and Weapon Training. I was simply discussing one class feature rather than another. This is all without even discussing archetypes as well.


Startoss Style is literally just a damage bonus. Startoss Comet lets you make two ranged attacks as a standard action (the first target has to be within one range increment of the second), possibly adding Vital Strike to the first. It's Cleave, basically. Startoss Shower extends how many attacks you can do (but you can never target the same target more than once). How is "5 attacks at full BAB, but only against 5 enemies no more than one range increment apart" more versatile? You could already split your attacks on a full attack (and since you're using a ranged weapon, your full attack range is huge). Minions aren't a thing in Pathfinder, if a single attack is actually a threat to them you probably didn't need full BAB to hit. If a single attack is not a threat, why would you divide your attacks rather than just full attacking one target?

Ricochet Toss is actually useful, in that it saves you money and a slot on a Blinkback Belt. But, again, all it does is make throwing weapons not suck. It doesn't do anything in a game you couldn't already do with, say, a bow and arrow.

Feats are not a fighter class feature. Combat feats are. They're taken into account in the comparison. You can argue that the free combat feats allow them to take different general feats, but every attempt at that I've seen actively sacrifices the only thing the fighter is good at. A fighter who's bad at fighting but mediocre at whatever (skills, usually) is exactly the same as a fighter who's mediocre at fighting and bad at everything else. If you think you know how to do it, please, by all means share.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Frosty Ace wrote:
I was more pointing out that that more money discounts a fighter's advantages is the same as saying more money (Wands) discounts a ranger's advantages.

I think the point being made is that giving a wand to the fighter doesn't let them cast spells like a spellcaster. For example:

A level 2 ranger gets hurt, he used a wand of cure light wounds to heal himself.

A level 2 fighter gets hurt, he pulls out a wand of cure light wounds and...nothing because he has terrible use magic device skill.

Then you have the problem of how much wands cost. You are going to have to spend a LOT of gold to have access to a wand for every spell on a ranger's spell list.

Frosty Ace wrote:
I disagree about feats not helping a fighter in the tier ranking (Or whatever the hell this is about now). The biggest class feature of a fighter IS feats, so the better they are, the more options they provide, the stronger they are, the more appealing the fighter is (Relative to other martials).

Alright! I"m with you, preach on brother.

Frosty Ace wrote:
Yes, any class can take feats, but I seriously doubt any classes can make use of as many feats and options as a Fighter when it comes to feats. I brought up Startoss style as an example of good feats for a fighter, but I see it more useful for combat versatility. The same was I brought up a boomerang great sword. Yes, the latter is silly, but can made very effective with a number or feats (Which, again, is essentially a class feature).

Now you lost me. The problem is exactly what you said, that a fighter's strength lies in having access to good feats that provide options. And there really aren't any. When you talk about the versatility provided by feats like Startoss style, you are talking about combat versatility, and even then your still only targeting AC and making damage number increase. The fighter does not have a problem hitting AC for lots of damage. The fighter is tier 5 because there's little else he can do beyond that.

1.) There's a canyon 200 feet across. Where's the feat that lets a fighter get over that?

2.) The PC needs to infiltrate court to find the traitor planning to kill the king. Where's the feat that lets a fighter do great at social encounters?

3.) A fighter needs to sneak through a king's court without being seen. Where's the feat that let's him turn invisible?

4.) A fighter uncovers an ancient tablet that holds the key to stopping an ancient monster. Where's the feat that let's him understand the hidden message?

5.) A fighter comes across a wounded traveler about to die. What feat gives him the ability to heal him?

6.) The evil wizard teleports away to attack again another day. What feat let's the fighter chase after him and continue the fight?

7.) The fighter investigates a murder. What feat let's him cast speak with dead or otherwise easily find the murderer?

Now after you figure out which combination of feats might make the fighter somewhat able to do one of those things, put together a fighter build that makes the fighter able to do ALL of those things AND still be great at combat.

That's the problem with fighter's and their feats. However, there is hope.

And that hope is archetypes. Lately Paizo has apparently decided to help out the fighter a little by making some nice archetypes that help the fighter outside of combat, Martial Master and Mutagen warrior, which bump up the fighter to tier 4. I'm hoping this trend continues and spills over into some new fighter only feats that give them some strong options outside of combat.


Well not being planted in one spot for an entire encounter, thus making your standard action that much more useful, I would say offers you options in combat. This biggest appeal to the style is the option of switch hitting, good range on a full round attack, and making a standard action that much more useful when you inevitably have to take one. It'd be nice if in combat you could just stand in place and full round all the time, but if that were the case, pounce wouldn't be so coveted nor would this style have been so thoroughly theory crafted. If you just want to stand in place then go for twf.

Ricochet Toss makes the aforementioned fighting style that much more manageable (Specifically switch hitting). As previously stated, the strength of Startoss style is that a lot of thrown weapons are melee weapons. It also works great with twf throwers.

Not really sure what you're arguing here anymore, or even why this started in the first place. If we're talking tiers, the fighter is now easily comparable to other martials. I dare say she ends up being better in combat than most, maybe almost all save for niche cases (Favored enemy, smite, etc...) You yourself pointed out options that give the fighter the ability to meaningfully contribute to the party and narrative via class features. What's the issue here? That they have less skill points than a Barbarian? Versatile Trainings fix that. Pretty sure everyone loves an armor crafter, and if anything, the character can meaningfully live up to its name sake. That's why I kept mentioning versatility I guess. They're not so easily pigeonholed into on style of fighting.

If anything, just go classic Greatsword Greg and take Master Armorer, and the versatile Trainings for soldier and heavy blades. Plenty of room for weapon focus and everything gated behind it, as well as some weapons tricks or things for AC/DR/Saves. There. Simple and easy.

@Thaine You bring up very interesting points. As is, the fighter can't do anything about those, but at the same time I'm not sure they should, if that makes any sense. They can't do it all. But aside from Schrödinger's wizard, at best a PC can handle two of those as a random encounter. That's why there's a party. But this goes into C/MD now, and how magic can so easily overtake everything, from solving crimes to combat. Most notably combat. I know in 5E, a fighter is always welcome. It helps ease the party's mind that there is someone really, really hard to kill that can absolutely melt a threat at a moment's notice. There just so much magic can do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Fighter is strictly worse than the Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin. Even the non-smiting Paladin. The problem is survivability. Being great at dealing damage doesn't mean anything if the first stiff breeze kills you. Or (as I recently had to point out to someone), a creature 4 CR below you has a 50% chance of totally taking you out of combat because Will saves will kill you.

Let's look at the challenges you're completely glossing over for the Paladin, Ranger, and Barbarian.

Obstacles wrote:

1.) There's a canyon 200 feet across. Where's the feat that lets a fighter get over that?

2.) The PC needs to infiltrate court to find the traitor planning to kill the king. Where's the feat that lets a fighter do great at social encounters?

3.) A fighter needs to sneak through a king's court without being seen. Where's the feat that let's him turn invisible?

4.) A fighter uncovers an ancient tablet that holds the key to stopping an ancient monster. Where's the feat that let's him understand the hidden message?

5.) A fighter comes across a wounded traveler about to die. What feat gives him the ability to heal him?

6.) The evil wizard teleports away to attack again another day. What feat let's the fighter chase after him and continue the fight?

7.) The fighter investigates a murder. What feat let's him cast speak with dead or otherwise easily find the murderer?

1. Paladin can fly. Ranger can fly. Barbarian can fly.

2. Paladins have a way with words. Rangers aren't great with people but they have an alternative information stream. Barbarians are out of luck here.

3. Paladin is out of luck here. Rangers get HiPS and Camouflage (and can do it earlier with Blend). Barbarian is also out of luck.

4. ...okay, this one is just too vague.

5. Lay on Hands, Cure Light Wounds, hahaha no.

6. Don't let them escape in the first place, hunt them down regardless, eh I got nothing.

7. I don't know, ask the birds, rats, or grass, don't know.

This was a very cursory skim. I'm sure others can come up with better.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Frosty Ace wrote:
@Thaine You bring up very interesting points. As is, the fighter can't do anything about those, but at the same time I'm not

I think we're on the same page. I agree, he shouldn't be able to do all of them. I don't want any more tier 1 classes. The less challenges like that a class can overcome the lower down the tier list they go. I think Tier 3 classes (investigator, alchemist, etc.) which can solve maybe half those challenges is the sweet spot for class design.

I just don't like the idea of a class designed so that it's like; "Go stand in a corner while we handle the social interaction, sneaking around, information gathering, mystery solving, and other out of combat challenges. We'll come get you when your class features become useful again."

I would like for the fighter to be able to handle like, 2 or 3 things on that list without having to sacrifice a lot of combat ability. Other martials like the paladin or ranger or barbarian can handle some items on that list while still being great at combat. Why not the fighter?

And like I said before, thankfully it looks paizo might finally be doing that...albeit very slowly.


Thaine wrote:


1.) There's a canyon 200 feet across. Where's the feat that lets a fighter get over that?
2.) The PC needs to infiltrate court to find the traitor planning to kill the king. Where's the feat that lets a fighter do great at social encounters?
3.) A fighter needs to sneak through a king's court without being seen. Where's the feat that let's him turn invisible?
4.) A fighter uncovers an ancient tablet that holds the key to stopping an ancient monster. Where's the feat that let's him understand the hidden message?
5.) A fighter comes across a wounded traveler about to die. What feat gives him the ability to heal him?
6.) The evil wizard teleports away to attack again another day. What feat let's the fighter chase after him and continue the fight?
7.) The fighter investigates a murder. What feat let's him cast speak with dead or otherwise easily find the murderer?

An Expert or Adept can deal with almost all of this, honestly. Canyon falls prey to a grappling arrow, while 2,4 and 5 are just skill uses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klara Meison wrote:
Thaine wrote:


1.) There's a canyon 200 feet across. Where's the feat that lets a fighter get over that?
2.) The PC needs to infiltrate court to find the traitor planning to kill the king. Where's the feat that lets a fighter do great at social encounters?
3.) A fighter needs to sneak through a king's court without being seen. Where's the feat that let's him turn invisible?
4.) A fighter uncovers an ancient tablet that holds the key to stopping an ancient monster. Where's the feat that let's him understand the hidden message?
5.) A fighter comes across a wounded traveler about to die. What feat gives him the ability to heal him?
6.) The evil wizard teleports away to attack again another day. What feat let's the fighter chase after him and continue the fight?
7.) The fighter investigates a murder. What feat let's him cast speak with dead or otherwise easily find the murderer?
An Expert or Adept can deal with almost all of this, honestly. Canyon falls prey to a grappling arrow, while 2,4 and 5 are just skill uses.

The fun bit is that with 2 skills per level, the fighter really can't. For social he would want at least 3 skills, diplomacy, bluff and sense motive. For 4 he also needs linguistics. And 5 he needs the heal skill and days to wait for the guy to recover properly.

A tier 1 class can handle all of them, quickly, and easily.
1:fly.
2:any charm, or just having the skill points to out in the right skills.
3: invisibility
4: comprehend languages or skill points.
5: any cure, channel
6: lots of options
7: any divination.

People always seem to say "the fighter can do it with this item so his tier should go up." The wizard could do it with that item too if he wanted, and still have the spells to mess around with. Fighters are cash strapped for weapons and such. The wizard can spend the money on niche case magic items and not sacrifice anything. The comparison actually starts looking worse if you include items


>The comparison actually starts looking worse if you include items

Wanna make it even worse? Compare what a fighter brings to the table to what a wizard could bring to the table if he was just given all that WBL fighter has to play around with. You could make a sweeeeet melee construct out of those 880 k.


Well now we're more complaining about magic and its infinite use more than the fighter. And while will saves are pretty awful, it doesn't take long to shore up defenses enough to not care about most of them. Hell, if a Fighter has Mobile Bulwark Style, anything that depends on seeing a valid opponent is stopped with am immediate action, and the same applies for anyone behind you. Let alone being a half-orc with sacred tattoo+that one really good trait that escapes me, or being a dwarf, armed bravery, iron will (Yes, it uses feats, but as noted before, unless shooting for multiple styles, you'll have the space). There's also a few archetypes that help to address this that are legit in their own right. This is by no means perfect, but it's not hard to have the good defense on all fronts along with good offense.

I didn't gloss over the issues. I clearly acknowledged them and even said that several PCs can handle them at random, which you've just illustrated. I even mention everybody favorite: the wizard.


Frosty Ace wrote:

Well now we're more complaining about magic and its infinite use more than the fighter. And while will saves are pretty awful, it doesn't take long to shore up defenses enough to not care about most of them. Hell, if a Fighter has Mobile Bulwark Style, anything that depends on seeing a valid opponent is stopped with am immediate action, and the same applies for anyone behind you. Let alone being a half-orc with sacred tattoo+that one really good trait that escapes me, or being a dwarf, armed bravery, iron will (Yes, it uses feats, but as noted before, unless shooting for multiple styles, you'll have the space). There's also a few archetypes that help to address this that are legit in their own right. This is by no means perfect, but it's not hard to have the good defense on all fronts along with good offense.

I didn't gloss over the issues. I clearly acknowledged them and even said that several PCs can handle them at random, which you've just illustrated. I even mention everybody favorite: the wizard.

You are the one complaining. I am just saying that as far as tier power is concerned, fighter is weaker and less versatile than his own WBL. In fact, arguably, fighter+WBL is weaker than pure WBL.


Not sure what I complained about. Pretty sure I just pointed out the obvious. Sorry if my word choice upset you.

What do you mean pure WBL? Like, instead of a class... more money? As in a party would be better off of one if a player never rolled a fighter in the first place?


Frosty Ace wrote:

Not sure what I complained about. Pretty sure I just pointed out the obvious. Sorry if my word choice upset you.

What do you mean pure WBL? Like, instead of a class... more money? As in a party would be better off of one if a player never rolled a fighter in the first place?

I'm not sure what Klara meant, but I think I'd prefer having a fighter giving the rest of the party his WBL equivalent (and then staying home) rather than having him spending his money kitting himself up and then coming with us.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Frosty Ace wrote:

Not sure what I complained about. Pretty sure I just pointed out the obvious. Sorry if my word choice upset you.

What do you mean pure WBL? Like, instead of a class... more money? As in a party would be better off of one if a player never rolled a fighter in the first place?

I'm not sure what Klara meant, but I think I'd prefer having a fighter giving the rest of the party his WBL equivalent (and then staying home) rather than having him spending his money kitting himself up and then coming with us.

That was exactly what I meant. If the wizard in the party is nice, he will spend some of that WBL making a melee construct that the fighter's player can then play as. Everybody wins.


Hmm...

Orfamay Quest wrote:

I'm not sure what Klara meant, but I think I'd prefer having a fighter giving the rest of the party his WBL equivalent (and then staying home) rather than having him spending his money kitting himself up and then coming with us.

Marc Radle wrote:

I must admit - whenever I see someone bring up the whole Tier thing, I start to twitch. Thankfully, you don't see it come up nearly as often anymore.

There is just no such thing as a rigid, accurate categorization for classes and I really would love to see the whole Tier quasi theory just fade away once and for all. It's such an over-simplistic, completely arbitrary and, frankly, meaningless attempt at trying to quantify something that just doesn't need quantifying.

The very fact that the people who subscribe to the Tier quasi theory can never seem to agree on which classes go into each tier is a good indication of how meaningless it really is.

As pointed out above, the one thing it IS good for is starting pointless arguments ...

Yeah. With this. I think I'll just bow out.


You might want to mention that by Mobile Bulwark Style you specifically mean Mobile Stronghold (the last in the chain), since the tower shield (because paizo hates martials) can't actually be used to block magic normally. And I think there's still some debate on whether Mobile Stronghold can do that either, as the way it's written is incredibly broad (and therefore useful) and those tend to be first on the errata chopping block.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Bob Bob wrote:
You might want to mention that by Mobile Bulwark Style you specifically mean Mobile Stronghold (the last in the chain), since the tower shield (because paizo hates martials) can't actually be used to block magic normally. And I think there's still some debate on whether Mobile Stronghold can do that either, as the way it's written is incredibly broad (and therefore useful) and those tend to be first on the errata chopping block.

Thankfully, player companion books are rarely as prone to being attacked by the iniquitous "It's too good for PFS!" erratas.

Frankly, if an encounter becomes impossible to lose because a player can stop a single melee attack per round, it probably wasn't a very well thought-out encounter to begin with.


In my game I remove the caster level preq off that one feat that lets you substitute your craft skill for caster level to make magic items to fit under that craft. so that way anyone that has a good enough craft skill can make magic items. i like it for the whole old ancient blacksmith best in the land and he can ... make you a masterwork weapon like the one you all already have instead the old dwarven blacksmith can make you a + etc

cuz why should casters be the only ones to make magic weapons like really why would a caster make a magic sword or armor...ever...


Vidmaster7 wrote:

In my game I remove the caster level preq off that one feat that lets you substitute your craft skill for caster level to make magic items to fit under that craft. so that way anyone that has a good enough craft skill can make magic items. i like it for the whole old ancient blacksmith best in the land and he can ... make you a masterwork weapon like the one you all already have instead the old dwarven blacksmith can make you a + etc

cuz why should casters be the only ones to make magic weapons like really why would a caster make a magic sword or armor...ever...

You mean Master Craftsman feat?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final

It doesn't have a caster level requirement, only craft (X) 5 ranks.


Tiers? Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yup and then straight after, get to the chopper!


Dryad Knotwood wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

In my game I remove the caster level preq off that one feat that lets you substitute your craft skill for caster level to make magic items to fit under that craft. so that way anyone that has a good enough craft skill can make magic items. i like it for the whole old ancient blacksmith best in the land and he can ... make you a masterwork weapon like the one you all already have instead the old dwarven blacksmith can make you a + etc

cuz why should casters be the only ones to make magic weapons like really why would a caster make a magic sword or armor...ever...

You mean Master Craftsman feat?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final

It doesn't have a caster level requirement, only craft (X) 5 ranks.

huh was that changed or errated?

Sovereign Court

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Dryad Knotwood wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

In my game I remove the caster level preq off that one feat that lets you substitute your craft skill for caster level to make magic items to fit under that craft. so that way anyone that has a good enough craft skill can make magic items. i like it for the whole old ancient blacksmith best in the land and he can ... make you a masterwork weapon like the one you all already have instead the old dwarven blacksmith can make you a + etc

cuz why should casters be the only ones to make magic weapons like really why would a caster make a magic sword or armor...ever...

You mean Master Craftsman feat?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/master-craftsman---final

It doesn't have a caster level requirement, only craft (X) 5 ranks.

huh was that changed or errated?

Nope; always been the case.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah... Master Craftsman... Such great design... You spend 2 feat slots for the benefits of half a feat! What an amazing deal!

/sarcasm

Sovereign Court

Lemmy wrote:

Ah... Master Craftsman... Such great design... You spend 2 feat slots for the benefits of half a feat! What an amazing deal!

/sarcasm

I don't think that it was ever meant to be a PC feat. It was to allow the badass NPC blacksmith create magical gear within the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's no more of a "NPC option" than the normal magic item creation feats. It's just poorly designed and needlessly restrictive... You know... Like most non-caster options that involve anything other than hitting things with a pointy stick.


I don't see the big deal with Master Craftsman. You're most likely not a caster with that feat. You can't cast the needed spells to craft items. You get with a feat and skill ranks what takes other characters whole levels to do.

That's a pretty good return on investment if you want to make magic items. That you need two feats seems rather OK.

I'll admit splitting the crafting up among the various craft skills is a bit annoying but that's more balanced than Craft Wondrous single-handedly letting you make the vast majority of the magic items in the game at level 3.

Liberty's Edge

Paradozen wrote:

We are creating a vacuum in which we evaluate only class skills, features and 20 point buy stats; no race, no general level feats or general level bonuses, no money, no equipment. All class features are from the base class only. We'll level the PC's in question to level 10, so we can look at class features.

The we make a bunch of challenges:
1.) fly over or bypass a lake of lava with no rim
2.) go unseen through a crowded plaza in broad daylight
3.) defeat a CR 10 monster in combat (yes this is not APL for a single 10th level PC)
4.) defeat a lethal trap
5.) Deduce a series of skill based binary answers
6.) detect several hidden things
7.) detect several magically hidden things
8.) defeat a horde of minions
9.) cure or avoid 10 random inflictions of CR -2 to +2, delivered 1 per minute.
10.) heal or negate 100 points of hp damage dealt 1 a round for 100 rounds. the damage is untyped.
11.) Travel across 100 miles in 8 hours.
Then we ask the question: Who can do all 11 at 10th level with just their class skills, stats and abilities. Then we ask who can do all of them without foreknowledge and in 2 days. Finally in 1 day and the encounters are random.
Finally, we ask if you can do 5 of the 10 better than the class designed to do the thing without magic.
You are a well built tier 1 or the best classes in the game if you can blindly, randomly bypass these challenges back to back.
You are tier 1 if you can do all 10 in 2 days without foreknowledge and you did 5 out of 10 better than the specialized class (or are the specialized class).
You are tier 2 if you can do all 10 with foreknowledge and 5 out of 10 better than the specialized class.
Initial thoughts:
remember, no gear, no feats, no race.

Interesting. A Telekineticist (get one extra utility power at lvl 7) with kinetic healer , telekinetic finesse, telekinetic invis, Self telekinesis, touchsight, and reactive touchsight seems to do fairly well here.

They can also min-max stats in point buy, only concentrating on dex and con, making them very robust. And keep in mind they have invisibility at will all of the time. And they need no preparation to do anything.

You could also do the oft-scorned kinetic chirugeon if you wanted more status effect removal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:

I don't see the big deal with Master Craftsman. You're most likely not a caster with that feat. You can't cast the needed spells to craft items. You get with a feat and skill ranks what takes other characters whole levels to do.

That's a pretty good return on investment if you want to make magic items. That you need two feats seems rather OK.

I'll admit splitting the crafting up among the various craft skills is a bit annoying but that's more balanced than Craft Wondrous single-handedly letting you make the vast majority of the magic items in the game at level 3.

1- It's unfairly costly and restrictive. If it gives you half the benefits, why does it cost double? Why can't it cost a single feat, then? Alternatively, if it's going to cost double, why not give the full benefit?

2- It's boring and frustrating... You get the Master Craftsman feat and. You still can't craft magic items. In fact, you're no better at cratfing than you were before.

You have to wait yet another level (or two) and take yet another feat, just to be able to benefit from your first feat. And you still won't do it nearly as well as a caster... Even a minor caster, like a Ranger or Paladin, despite spending twice as many resources.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

1- If it gives you half the benefits, why does it cost double? Why can't it cost a single feat, then?

2- It's boring and frustrating... You get the Master Craftsman feat and... You still can't craft magic items. In fact, you're no better at cratfing than you were before.

You have to wait yet another level (or two) and take yet another feat, just to be able to benefit from your first feat. And you still won't do it nearly as well as a caster... Even a minor caster, like a Ranger or Paladin, despite spending twice as many resources.

I would argue you are better at crafting. You're so good, you can start to plan out how to make magic items. That it confers no mechanical bonus is beside the point. Before, you couldn't ever hope to make magic items. After, you can. That is better.

I agree it's a steeper buy-in than needed for casters. But, it's not unreasonable. If you wanted the same benefits at the same cost as a caster then you probably should have played one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
I would argue you are better at crafting. You're so good, you can start to plan out how to make magic items. That it confers no mechanical bonus is beside the point. Before, you couldn't ever hope to make magic items. After, you can. That is better.

No, it isn't. It's hoping to be better... Because at that point, you're just as good at crafting magic gear as a commoner. You don't need the feat to "start to plan how to make magic items". You could "plan" how to make magic gear before you got that feat. "planning how to make magic gear" means absolutely nothing from a mechanical perspective... That's just roleplay. And you can roleplay that without taking any feat (or even without ever succeeding on actually crafting anything).

Buri Reborn wrote:
I agree it's a steeper buy-in than needed for casters. But, it's not unreasonable. If you wanted the same benefits at the same cost as a caster then you should probably should have played one.

Here is the thing... Even assuming that there's anything wrong with non-casters having a way of crafting magic items as well as minor caster (Kinda of. Their checks will still be more difficult, since they don't know the necessary spells)... That's not what I'm saying:

The feat costs more and gives you less. Why couldn't it cost more but give the same benefit or cost the same (1 feat) for a lesser benefit?


Lemmy wrote:
The feat costs more and gives you less. Why couldn't it cost more but give the same benefit or cost the same (1 feat) for a lesser benefit?

Because you're trying to do something that is otherwise impossible in the game without that single feat. There is a necessary trade off. This is one area I have no issue with feat taxes. It's not exactly as egregious as the style chains either. As I said, yes, it is a bit frustrating that your ranks in craft (weapons) don't apply to ranks in craft (jewelry). That's very understandable. It's still not terrible given the benefit it bestows which is totally breaking the normal rules of the game.

There is also a practical benefit to the Master Craftsman feat. Take a paladin. The soonest they can take Craft Magic Arms and Armor is level 9. With MC, you can grab it at level 7.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Feats break the rules of the game as part of their purpose. There is no reason to have a feat that does nothing by itself.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Feats break the rules of the game as part of their purpose. There is no reason to have a fear that does nothing by itself.

Then, it sounds like the MC feat is doing its job just fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Because you're trying to do something that is otherwise impossible in the game without that single feat. There is a necessary trade off.

A trade off is not the same as "a tradeoff + yet another unnecessary tradeoff".

Buri Reborn wrote:
There is also a practical benefit to the Master Craftsman feat. Take a paladin. The soonest they can take Craft Magic Arms and Armor is level 9. With MC, you can grab it at level 7.

And all it cost them is a whole feat... The scarcest resource in the game... Very practical, indeed. And let's not forget they could do the same with a trait.

Buri Reborn wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Feats break the rules of the game as part of their purpose. There is no reason to have a fear that does nothing by itself.
Then, it sounds like the MC feat is doing its job just fine.

No it sounds like MC is a s*~+ty feat. MC does nothing. If you take that feat and nothing else... It makes no difference whatsoever for your character.


Lemmy wrote:
No it sounds like MC is a s%!@ty feat. MC does nothing. If you take that feat and nothing else... It makes no difference whatsoever for your character.

Same as you would if you rolled a caster and never took a crafting feat. The whole point of the MC feat is to put you on a path so you can do magic item crafting. That's it. It does that job fine.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
No it sounds like MC is a s%!@ty feat. MC does nothing. If you take that feat and nothing else... It makes no difference whatsoever for your character.
Same as you would if you rolled a caster and never took a crafting feat. The whole point of the MC feat is to put you on a path so you can do magic item crafting. That's it. It does that job fine.

Except casters gain CL for free. They aren't spending feats or any other resource for them. And their CL has many other benefits, they don't exist merely to be used with a feat you don't have. And if/when they do get a crafting feat... They spend a single feat and gain the full benefit.

MC does it job... But it does it badly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Buri Reborn wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
No it sounds like MC is a s%!@ty feat. MC does nothing. If you take that feat and nothing else... It makes no difference whatsoever for your character.
Same as you would if you rolled a caster and never took a crafting feat.

Well, a caster not taking a crafting feat isn't taking a feat. So that's not the same at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Except casters gain CL for free.

Your point? They're casters. If you want caster goodies, you play a caster. Don't be a martial and complain you're not a caster. MC gives you CL without being a caster for the purposes of magic item crafting. Which, that is actually a mechanical benefit. Just because you can't roll a d20 with it right away is secondary.

And thinking about the other mechanical side effects. Making you eligible for magic item crafting by level 7 is in line with how soon 4th level classes let you start normally crafting by themselves. That seems to be the balance point.


Really master craftsman should just be a part of the craft skill itself. Say at 6 ranks you are considered to have the effects of Master craftsman.

You're already investing skill ranks into a craft skill (which are by and large worthless). In addition to having to beat higher DC's, the range of what you can make is incredibly constrained.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Buri Reborn wrote:


Your point? They're casters. If you want caster goodies, you play a caster. Don't be a martial

I think that pretty much sums up the whole thread.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Except casters gain CL for free.
Your point? They're casters. If you want caster goodies, you play a caster. Don't be a martial and complain you're not a caster.

Do you not read my posts past the first two words? Or did a strawman steal your girlfriend and now you're sworn to attack them at every opportunity?

Buri Reborn wrote:
MC gives you CL without being a caster for the purposes of magic item crafting. Which, that is actually a mechanical benefit. Just because you can't roll a d20 with it right away is secondary.

It doesn't give you CL... It allows skill ranks to count as CL in one very specific way... A way from which you can't benefit. At all.

You need yet another level and yet another feat just to be able to enjoy half the benefit.


Lemmy wrote:
It doesn't give you CL... It allows skill ranks to count as CL in one very specific way... A way from which you can't benefit. At all.

... until you take the appropriate crafting feats. I'm just not seeing the big deal around MC. It sounds like you want a feat that give you CL = character level and likely a plug-able slot that behaves like a crafting feat all in one that you can repeatedly take selecting another crafting feat to plug into that slot. If true, this would ignore the precedent around letting one class dip into another class' pool. It's always delivered in a restricted fashion. The response is ultimately the same: if you want to craft like a full caster, then just play a damn caster.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My response is also ultimately the same: If you want to have a honest discussion, then just read my damn posts and stop attacking damn strawmen!

Seriously... Don't you ever tire of misrepresenting my argument? When did I say a single feat should make a non-caster capable of crafting just as well as a full-caster?

How exactly is "spending a single feat to still not be as good at crafting" or "spending twice as many feats to be (almost) as good at crafting" the same "crafting like a full caster"?


Lemmy wrote:

My response is also ultimately the same: If you want to have a honest discussion, then just read my damn posts and stop attacking damn strawmen!

Seriously... Don't you ever tire of misrepresenting my argument? When did I say a single feat should make a non-caster capable of crafting just as well as a full-caster?

How exactly is "spending a single feat to still not be as good at crafting" or "spending twice as many feats to be (almost) as good at crafting" the same "crafting like a full caster"?

My post was clearly a supposition of my own creation. This is obvious if you read mine. There is no strawman.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

You were obviously replying to my argument. And intentionally misrepresenting it.

But you know what? I don't care. I believe my argument is clear enough to anyone who doesn't intentionally misunderstand it. So I won't participate in this discussion anymore. I don't care at all about Master Craftsman, anyway. It's just another poorly designed feat for me to ignore.


I was replying to it. I did not intentionally do anything except posit a possibility.

Quote:
It sounds like[...]If true,

Never did I say "you want this." But, whatever, man, get mad and rage quit. Later.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

9 people marked this as a favorite.

It's like watching a train wreck. Can't look away.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Except casters gain CL for free.

Your point? They're casters. If you want caster goodies, you play a caster. Don't be a martial and complain you're not a caster. MC gives you CL without being a caster for the purposes of magic item crafting. Which, that is actually a mechanical benefit. Just because you can't roll a d20 with it right away is secondary.

And thinking about the other mechanical side effects. Making you eligible for magic item crafting by level 7 is in line with how soon 4th level classes let you start normally crafting by themselves. That seems to be the balance point.

YES. SUBMIT TO MY WILL, MORTALS. LET THE FEAT TREANT ENVELOP YOUR SOUL. REPEAT AFTER ME:FEAT TREES ARE GOOD. FEAT TREES ARE LIFE. I MUST FEED FEAT TREES.

101 to 150 of 340 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Tiers? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.