| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strictly inferior to all other options in all respects isn't bad? That seems like kind of the definition of bad to me. Even if you want to avoid comparisons, attacking for 1d8+0 is mediocre at low levels and rapidly approaches utterly abysmal as the game goes on....
5 levels of bolt ace. Dex to damage reduces the MAD aspect of ranged fighting, you'll crit more often than with a bow and the increased feat load can be reduced by firing against touch AC, and its pretty SAD so you're likely to end up with a higher stat contribution to damage pretty quickly
Crossbow is just narrow, with like 5 required levels.
U-monk does an okay job at it, but also locks you into a fairly specific character design in the process.
Half elf u-rogue with a specific trait that gives them curve blade proficiency isn't specific character design dammit :P
The combination of light/no armor and a large melee weapon. Very common in fantasy. Very hard to pull off in Pathfinder and never a good idea.
Strictly inferior to all other options in all respects isn't bad? That seems like kind of the definition of bad to me.
Crossbow is not "bad" at all in PF.
Barbarian with a two handed weapon is a classic. Light armor, large melee weapon.
Inferior to the sling? The javelin? Thrown daggers? Darts? Blowgun?
It's inferior to the Longbow and the gun- both of which, oddly were superior.
True, but the original comment was on "crossbows without bolt ace"
Yes, but that's then not a concept that cant be done in PF. It CAN be done.
Probably the same reason there is no arcane equivalent to the cleric (full casting, d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, armor proficiency).
Because obviously arcane spells are considered more potent, so you have to give up more in the class to maintain balance (relative to divine spells).
It's clearly not a balance thing, the Bloodrager exists. There's a d12 HD Full BaB 4 level arcane caster already.
He just wants an Int based prepared version instead of the Cha based spontaneous version we have.
Being a monster. Some 3rd party books are starting to deal with this (both DreamScarred Press and Kobold Press if I remember correctly), but I want to see a Paizo equivalent of D&D 3.5 Savage Species.
And, with Eldritch Knight, you can do much the same. If my Arcanist/Dragon Disciple is any example, you don't need actual armor to be front line.
Probably the same reason there is no arcane equivalent to the cleric (full casting, d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, armor proficiency).
Because obviously arcane spells are considered more potent, so you have to give up more in the class to maintain balance (relative to divine spells).
It's clearly not a balance thing, the Bloodrager exists. There's a d12 HD Full BaB 4 level arcane caster already.
He just wants an Int based prepared version instead of the Cha based spontaneous version we have.
Bloodrager is d10, but I too would like a d10/fullbab int-based 4/9 arcane caster. The fighter archetype is pretty not good.
An equivalent to the 3.5 Artificer, according to my roommate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two weapon fighting
thrown weapons
tanking
mobility based characters
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two weapon fighting
thrown weapons
tanking
mobility based characters
Throwing weapons were solved by that style that gets them to return.
TWF and mobility actually work together a bit- outslug style is fantastic for getting full attacks. Altogether, it gives you penalty free lunge (+5' reach on attacks during turn) and turns your 5' step into a 10' step. In total, you can attack an enemy 20' away (5' reach+5' from lunge+10' step).
That can allow a lot of things. You can move in on giants for free, strafe around to get into flank position, and more. It gets particularly fun if you have some increase in your reach (enlarge person, long arm, etc). You can attack, back up 10', and force enemies to eat AoOs if they want to attack you.
Anyway, outslug is a style meant for light weapons. The cestus is one of the best weapons for TWF (dagger like stats, and you can wear them 24/7, making you always armed). And it directly benefits TWF style (since it is a great alternative to pounce- it just makes full attacks easier).
I was going to mention Dirty Fighting, but that bypasses Combat Expertise and Intelligence 13 only for Improved Combat Maneuver feats and feats that have Improved Combat Maneuver feats as prerequisites. Outslug Style is not one of these.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
That distinction is not worth making. After all, the crossbow is bad relative to other options in the game ... like longbows.A decent HarskCrossbow anything that isn't a Gunslinger (Bolt Ace) is bad after the first few levels. I'd personally enjoy support for different crossbow build types - a version that turns crossbows into single shot per round snipey weapons (that does competitive damage), maybe with status effects tacked on, and a bow-like repeating crossbow or dual crossbow sort or build. But if I had to pick one, I'd prefer the one that makes crossbows single shot weapons, to differentiate them from longbows. The only real way to make crossbows viable at this point is to stick them on a Bolt Ace, which basically turns them into strange, 19-20/x2 bows that require 5 levels to come online. I'd love some sort of baseline crossbow buff that lets them remain usable as weapons later on.Crossbow is not "bad" at all in PF.
It's just that the Longbow is way better.
Ah the nostalgy of the old arguements of longbows vs waterballon-like weapons.
I used to think like you chengar, but then I saw in youtube a video of an english-born archer shooting 10 arrows in 6 seconds to split in half a panzer, it convinced me that Longbows are the Katana of the west.
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Composite Longbow" b##*+!$# that's going on in the d20 system right now. English Longbows deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine Longbow in England for 18,000 Pounds (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even shoot wooden arrows through slabs of solid steel with my longbow.
English bowyers spend years working on a single longbow and treat the wood up to a million times to produce the finest ranged weapons known to mankind.
Longbows are thrice as powerful as crossbows and shoot thrice as far and fast for that matter too. Anything a crossbow can shoot through, a longbow can shoot through better. I'm pretty sure a longbow could easily shoot through three knights wearing full plate with half-draw.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering England? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined English Longbowmen and their longbows of destruction. Even in World War II, German soldiers targeted the men with the longbows first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Longbows are simply the best ranged weapon that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Longbows:
(Ranged Simple Weapon)
2d10 Damage
17-20 x4 Crit
500 ft range increment
+5 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork
Now that seems a lot more representative of the shooting power of longbows in real life, don't you think?
tl;dr = Longbows need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That distinction is not worth making. After all, the crossbow is bad relative to other options in the game ... like longbows.A decent HarskCrossbow anything that isn't a Gunslinger (Bolt Ace) is bad after the first few levels. I'd personally enjoy support for different crossbow build types - a version that turns crossbows into single shot per round snipey weapons (that does competitive damage), maybe with status effects tacked on, and a bow-like repeating crossbow or dual crossbow sort or build. But if I had to pick one, I'd prefer the one that makes crossbows single shot weapons, to differentiate them from longbows. The only real way to make crossbows viable at this point is to stick them on a Bolt Ace, which basically turns them into strange, 19-20/x2 bows that require 5 levels to come online. I'd love some sort of baseline crossbow buff that lets them remain usable as weapons later on.Crossbow is not "bad" at all in PF.
It's just that the Longbow is way better.
Ah the nostalgy of the old arguements of longbows vs waterballon-like weapons.
I used to think like you chengar, but then I saw in youtube a video of an english-born archer shooting 10 arrows in 6 seconds to split in half a panzer, it convinced me that Longbows are the Katana of the west.
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Composite Longbow" b*$$**&@ that's going on in the d20 system right now. English Longbows deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine Longbow in England for 18,000 Pounds (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even shoot wooden arrows through slabs of solid steel with my longbow.
English bowyers spend years working on a single longbow and treat the wood up to a million times to produce the finest ranged weapons known to mankind....
...That distinction is not worth making. After all, the crossbow is bad relative to other options in the game ... like longbows.A decent HarskCrossbow anything that isn't a Gunslinger (Bolt Ace) is bad after the first few levels. I'd personally enjoy support for different crossbow build types - a version that turns crossbows into single shot per round snipey weapons (that does competitive damage), maybe with status effects tacked on, and a bow-like repeating crossbow or dual crossbow sort or build. But if I had to pick one, I'd prefer the one that makes crossbows single shot weapons, to differentiate them from longbows. The only real way to make crossbows viable at this point is to stick them on a Bolt Ace, which basically turns them into strange, 19-20/x2 bows that require 5 levels to come online. I'd love some sort of baseline crossbow buff that lets them remain usable as weapons later on.Crossbow is not "bad" at all in PF.
It's just that the Longbow is way better.
Ah the nostalgy of the old arguements of longbows vs waterballon-like weapons.
I used to think like you chengar, but then I saw in youtube a video of an english-born archer shooting 10 arrows in 6 seconds to split in half a panzer, it convinced me that Longbows are the Katana of the west.
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Composite Longbow" b~~#&$&$ that's going on in the d20 system right now. English Longbows deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine Longbow in England for 18,000 Pounds (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even shoot wooden arrows through slabs of solid steel with my longbow.
English bowyers spend years working on a single longbow and treat the wood up to a million times to produce the finest
I'd settle for bows using the same stat to hit and damage. realistically, all weapons should use the same stat for hit and damage, whether it's dex or strength should simply determine whether or not a feat is spent to accomplish it, not 3 bloody feats, or no feats at all in the case of bows crossbows and thrown weapons.
No offense, but this requires five feats and 13 int. The only way it works with TWF is if you are specifically playing a brawler.
I could make it work with a slayer. They get bonus feats for TWF, another general bonus feat as a talent, and they have at least a couple of int related abilities (specifically thinking of assassination). Lore Warden fighter is another option, since they have 'feats for days', and you get combat expertise without eating a feat- that leaves enough room to grab outslug, TWF, and maybe some maneuver feats (because that is the lore warden's gimmick).
When you think of the fact that 'this is basically pounce', I think it is worth consideration at least. And this specifically is the 'high mobility' character that truly lives up to the idea- 10' step gives you enough leeway in this system to mess with a lot of things.
Being a monster. Some 3rd party books are starting to deal with this (both DreamScarred Press and Kobold Press if I remember correctly), but I want to see a Paizo equivalent of D&D 3.5 Savage Species.
D&D 3.5 didnt have a equivalent of 3.0 Savage Species.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You forgot Strength: +2 Feats.
But Str to AC (still subject to max Dex restriction with Str in place of Dex) and Reflex saves would balance that out pretty well regardless. Let the clumsy unarmored beefcake just tank the hits.
Barbarian with a two handed weapon is a classic. Light armor, large melee weapon.Barbarians run with medium armor, typically. It's just better for a strength based build.
I always use light armor for the speed. Yes, of course after a bit that means mithral breastplate, but that's still light for most purposes.
Two Feats, remember we're talking about Dex to DAMAGE as well, which requires a Feat like Slashing or Fencing Grace, or Deadly Agility (Path of War, 3pp).
True, but the original comment was on "crossbows without bolt ace"Yes, but that's then not a concept that cant be done in PF. It CAN be done.I suppose then it becomes a question of whether or not you consider it okay for a character archetype to only be expressable in one specific way good enough or not.
On the one hand, yeah, it's doable. On the other it suddenly locks you into a specific character archetype (like the earlir monk example, suddenly everyone who fights that way is limited to one third of the alignment tree for no discernable reason, etc.)
Is it ok in general? It's definitely not ideal. Is it ok for the purposes of this topic? I'd say so.
Honestly, I see this topic as the type of thing that people say "hey that's a cool idea" and are severely disappointed when they find out they can't do it. Crossbows, while worse than Bows, don't fall into that category. One of my earliest characters was a Human Fighter that used a Crossbow. I had more than enough feats to make light crossbows work at level 1, and heavy crossbows were working by level 3. I never felt like I was doing particularly low damage despite the lack of a composite bow, mostly because archery is just really good in general, even without a STR mod being added. I also enjoyed a better crit chance, one of the only real perks of crossbows, not that I appreciated it at the time. Character ended up being rather competent, just not amazing.I wouldn't consider it unsupported or particularly hamstrung compared to say, throwing daggers, nets, scarfs, battle-ladders, etc .
Full disclosure: I don't like using composite bows in general, they're awkward. It may make me weaker to stick with +1 STR, maybe +2 STR composite bows later on, but again, not about hitting the highest numbers possible, it's just about being baseline functional.
So yeah, that's my experience with Crossbows WITHOUT using Bolt Ace. They could be better, but they absolutely could be worse, and they're 100% playable. Tricky at low levels if you don't enjoy playing Human, but otherwise they're fine on a Fighter or Ranger.
Biggest problem then, is the Crossbow Rogue. Such a great concept, yet it does have some genuine playability concerns.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
realistically, all weapons should use the same stat for hit and damage, whether it's dex or strength should simply determine whether or not a feat is spent to accomplish itJust to make sure I'm understanding you correctly...
Strength:
- Hit
- Damage
- Carrying capacity
- Climb/SwimDexterity:
- Hit
- Damage
- Disable Device/Stealth/Ride/Acrobatics/Escape Artist
- Initiative
- Reflex
- Armor ClassThat looks balanced to you?
For the record, I have a house rule that Weapon Finesse/Agile Manuevers/etc all apply automatically...but you can't get Dex to damage.
Dex to damage is fine, and Str to Hit and Damage with a "Recurve" bow or Str to Hit with a Brutal Throws feat would be fine too. Balance is relative, and really as long as 9th level spells exist crying over Dex to damage sounds pathetic.
the laughable thing here is according to paizo logic strength is still the better stat. To be honest, I don't care if you end up with a build that gets one stat to everything so long as you needed to put in some work or planning to get it. Hell I can build a Scaled Fist 1/Paladin 2/Skeletal Champion/Eldritch Scion with Desna's Shooting Star and have my Charisma do everything, but it took effort and planning to set it up, and it has it's downsides, like adhering to a paladin's code, only being able to use light weapons that deal 1d4 damage, dying at 0 hp and only healing with neg energy.
I'd love to see the magus and empiricist investigator get a way to have int to attack and damage, I'd love to see monks, warpriests and inquisitors find ways to add wis to hit and damage, bards, paladins and bloodragers with Cha to hit and damage would be super fun, as long as it requires investment, a build plan, good feating without bloat.
5e gives Dex to damage with finesse and ranged weapons, it hardly breaks the game.
That's it. I'm sick of all this "Composite Longbow" b&%~$!~& that's going on in the d20 system right now. English Longbows deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine Longbow in England for 18,000 Pounds (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even shoot wooden arrows through slabs of solid steel with my longbow.
English bowyers spend years working on a single longbow and treat the wood up to a million times to produce the finest ranged weapons known to mankind.
Longbows are thrice as powerful as crossbows and shoot thrice as far and fast for that matter too. Anything a crossbow can shoot through, a longbow can shoot through better. I'm pretty sure a longbow could easily shoot through three knights wearing full plate with half-draw.
Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering England? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined English Longbowmen and their longbows of destruction. Even in World War II, German soldiers targeted the men with the longbows first because their killing power was feared and respected.
So what am I saying? Longbows are simply the best ranged weapon that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Longbows:
(Ranged Simple Weapon)
2d10 Damage
17-20 x4 Crit
500 ft range increment
+5 to hit and damage
Counts as MasterworkNow that seems a lot more representative of the shooting power of longbows in real life, don't you think?
tl;dr = Longbows need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.
What price (in GP) would you put on the weapon?
{. . .}
So what am I saying? Longbows are simply the best ranged weapon that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Longbows:(Ranged Simple Weapon)
2d10 Damage
17-20 x4 Crit
500 ft range increment
+5 to hit and damage
Counts as MasterworkNow that seems a lot more representative of the shooting power of longbows in real life, don't you think?
tl;dr = Longbows need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.
What price (in GP) would you put on the weapon?
Actually, it's paid for by advertising.
Blind Swordsman
Blind Swordsman
Blind anything. unless it gets blindsense or blindsight, it's useless
Well, it makes sense. Being a 'blind swordsman' means you don't suffer for being blind- so you aren't punished for the basic premise of you character.
Which basically means you are immune to the blind condition (since you aren't suffering penalties from being blind). Maybe darkness and a lot of concealment too. Those seem like major class features you build an entire archetype around.
Maybe give it some darkness spells so that the one eyed king gets his rear end kicked when the blind guy finds the light switch. Still a limited archetype (since later enemies often have other senses), but it could still be fun.
Kobolds. Poor things are just so... weak. Yes, Tucker's Kobolds and all that, but that was a different edition and apparently no one put ranks in Spot or Disable Device.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said it's hard to find a reasonable character that you can't make with all the material that's out there. For most concepts, you'll find a multitude of roads to get to any destination at this point.Ha.
Consider that to make Red Sonja work in that bundle the site's advertising, they had to make up a whole new archetype just for her. (Pathfinder is not kind to unarmored meleers.)
You really don't want the game to make armor an option that's completely useless. As it would be if armor is that much of a deal.
And besides Sonja's armor stinks, The original character (named Red Sonja of Rogatine) did not strut in a chainmail bikini. She also didn't have that Amazon "I will take no man save he who conquers me" BS either. (She also carried a brace of three pistols.) That sexist monstrosity created for undersexed boys is all on Marvel Comics, which to their credit, eventually ditched the bikini for more practical light armor.
Oh, I just remembered concepts that are technically unsupported by the rules but usually handwaved in:
Dual-wielding Rangers, and weapon and shield Paladins and Clerics that use magic in combat.
RAW none of these characters can cast any spells in combat that require somatic or material components (aka almost all spells) because those require a free hand to gesture/grab materials. Drizzt and knightly crusaders have to do all their casting before drawing weapons.
Of course AFAIK everyone ignores this either intentionally or by accident because it makes already weaker characters even more hamstrung.
While you can't do Drizzt, you can still do TWF ranger.
just wear a gauntlet. Or a cestus. Those let you gesture and attack. You can even 2 hand a one handed weapon when you are not TWFing.
Shields work too- everything short of heavy shields allow you to use your hand.
Blind Swordsman
Actually, now that I think about it, you'd have to go to some trouble and get not such great results making any of several units (including Heroes) from WarCraft III/TFT (and probably World of WarCraft, but I haven't played that). The above reminded me of the Demon Hunter (not just the blindness and Blind-Fighting, but also Mana Burn), but I could also mention a great variety of others. Now, D&D/PF isn't the best system to do that in (as the WarCraft RPG illustrates), but these do include valid examples of things that would need quite a bit of shoehorning.
Blind SwordsmanBlind anything. unless it gets blindsense or blindsight, it's useless
Which interestingly enough means your only useless for two levels if you are that deadset on that concept.
Blind Swordsman
It's doable, just start as a fighter and then after a few levels get blinded. Probably needs at least 5 levels of investment before it becomes workable.
It's sub-optimal yes, but then when deeper darkness/obscuring mist/invisible enemies come you will suddenly become amazing.
{. . .}
Shields work too- everything short of heavy shields allow you to use your hand.
{. . .} You can cast a spell with somatic components using your shield arm, but you lose the buckler’s Armor Class bonus until your next turn. {. . .}
{. . .} A skirnir may use his shield hand to perform somatic components for magus spells, forfeiting the shield’s bonus to AC until the beginning of his next turn; if the bonded shield is a buckler, he retains its bonus to AC. {. . .}
Strange that these have text that specifically allow casting spells with Somatic components using your shield hand, and other shields and most classes/archetypes don't, implying that normally you can't use your shield hand for somatic components. I could have sworn to having read somewhere that you can in fact use your shield hand to cast spells with Somatic components (although needing something like the above to do so in Spell Combat), but now I can't find it.