Garundi Alchemist

Frosty Ace's page

281 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 281 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Gorbacz wrote:
Ah, somebody smoked out all the people who think that linear fighters quadratic wizards is a good thing.

Calling out BS and busting chops. It's kinda what I do. Ain't I a hoot?

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Nitro~Nina wrote:

I want to be able to play heroes who have the swordsmanship of Inigo Montoya or the master-plans of Havelock Vetinari, who can wrestle like Beowulf, think like Sherlock Holmes, shoot like Roland Deschain... In a fantasy setting like this one, humans and their ilk are not necessarily bound by the same laws and restrictions as they are here.

Statements like these remind me of why I love RPGs so much, and how I so hate any form of a "wrongbadfun" mentality.

18 people marked this as a favorite.
NetoD20 wrote:
ENHenry wrote:
Imagine that, people don’t want martial characters to break physical laws in a world steeped in magic, where wizards and clerics can wave a hand and do the same thing. As a person whose favorite characters for decades have been clerics, I say Welcome to the martials! It’s time overdue.
Well, then at least give me a good in-world explanation for it. Not this determination, and hard training nonsense.

Nornal humans can become gods with hard work in Pathfinder. What sense does it then make for normal humans to not be able to become superhuman?

You literally have to ignore in game canon to justify disallowing the mundane to become more from just trying hard.

23 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
kaid wrote:
Varun Creed wrote:

If you wouldn't want a 'Legendary' style game, your campaigns wouldn't go above level 15 anyhow in Pathfinder 1.

In PF1 once people start slinging around wish and opening new dimensions and some of those crazy spells a thief who is really good at stealing pants does not seem to be that far fetched.

In PF1, one doesn't survive the vacuum of space without magic or a magical or technological item, i.e. an in-game explanation. Having access to reality altering magic as a high level spellcaster = an in-game explanation.

Surviving in a vacuum in PF2? "I'm just that skilled/good at Survival that the environmental effects of vacuum no longer apply." In other words, my knowledge and training is so good, the laws of the in-game universe cease to apply to me. WTF?

PF2 character - I can survive a fall from ANY height without being the offspring of a god, being a spellcaster, or possessing a magic item that provides that ability. "I'm just that skilled/good that gravity causes me to fall like any other object but momentum doesn't exist when I land." Again, WTF?

In game explanations of the fantastic I can get behind. It's one of the appealing facets of fantasy games. However, saying "I can now break the realities of the game solely on the basis of 'I leveled high enough'" is way past the line of internal consistency. I'd hate it in a video game and I sure as hell hate it in my tabletop RPGs.

Even the superhero genre and its associated RPGs require that a fantastic power has a source/in-world explanation. That has not be presented or even hinted at with respect to PF2's Legendary tier.

The reason isn't level. The reason is growing your skills from untrained to legendary with seemingly countless hours of training, near endless trial and error, and the inevitable success and gained "proficiency" that follows the aforementioned regiment. The reason is literally practice and dedication, in a setting where Irori exists, a man that became a god thru practice and dedication.

The expectation that there has to be an otherworldly solution or a specific word to hand waive impossibilities is the exact reason why Martials have drooled and casters have rooled for so long.

I know. It's weird. The path to being legendary sometimes requires working hard, but hey, some of us like the idea of being a self-made badass. No special blood. No ancient prophecy. No super, duper, blooper weapon. No curses and revelations. No praying for a miracle or wishing upon a star. No magic to literally hand waive reality. Nope. Just hard work, courage, conviction, and belief in one's self; to eventually break one's own limits, surpass yourself, and perhaps eventually even humanity itself.

Wait, why is that bad again? It just seems human and inspiring to me.

@Malk-Content. That's a great idea. I've had the general principle of it bouncing around in my head. There's already precedent for Monks and Styles (Master of Many styles: Perfect concept. Horrible execution), only add weapon styles to the mix. It always upset me how hard it was to make a Spear Dancing Monk in PF1, or even just a Bojutsu ascetic (Never was any real quarterstaff focus, despite it being so iconic for any Monk).

Another idea I had was to keep the class a Monk, but have them be warriors of their faith. Clerics would be messengers and conduits of deific magic, Paladins would be crusaders and defenders of their faith and all of its tenants, and Monks, thru abandonment of worldly desires and a pursuit of aceticism, bring themselves closer to their deity, eventually transcending humanity. I guess "Avatar" or "Paragon" would be an apt descriptor at that point.

Edit: It would also help the Monk keeps its legacy as a "monastic, ascetic warrior," and actually justify their alignment restriction.

Thinking about it more, Monks "pursuing" their respective deities opens a lot of fun ideas. Instead of domains, the focus could be purely on the deities preferred weapon. Each Monk has a type of weapon or style they choose to perfect in pursuit of becoming more like their chosen deity. They fight for their faith as their god would. Pretty badass, actually.

To clarify my idea with "Martial Artist," I want the unifying theme of the class to be perfection and subsequent transcendence , and there to be many paths to that goal, not just Asian traditions or monasticity.

All Monks should have Ki. If anything, Ki would be the things that makes the concept of Martial Artist work (Extraordinary and Supernatural fighting prowess). I feel it suits the Monk since the Fighter is about always being great in combat and making absolutely lethal most weapons. What I'd hope with Monks is for the class to have options for their paths to perfection. It could be anything really. Just as well, most martial arts come with philosophical teachings, and become a lifestyle (Part of "The Way" so to speak), meaning certain styles could could impact class abilities or even skills.

Also, archetypes will exist, right? Martial Artist could include Monks, Brawlers, Spell Fencers, etc...

5 people marked this as a favorite.

So I'm extremely excited for this game to come out, and given that my favorite class is likely going to be revealed last since, well, it's cared about the least by the community, I think that lack of caring needs to be addressed.

I begrudgingly have to admit that, all in all, Monks are, in fact, too wuxia. It's in the name and the class abilities. You may as well have the word "Shaolin" in front of the word Monk, because that's what the base class is completely based around. There's nothing wrong with Shaolin Monks, or even wanting to play one (Or a derivative) in a PF setting (I practice Shaolin kung Fu and philosophies myself, and have a sense for why they're so damn awesome), but it's too limiting.

You see this is PF1 and how crazy the archetypes got, because the base class itself felt like an archetype that was very lackluster, and while I do like some of the unchained changes, it just made the Monk a better at hitting things. The class itself still felt like a mess.

Let's just look at pretty much any other class by comparison (Specifically the ones already discussed for PF2e). Paladins and Clerics are only as limited as the number of deities, and even then, Paladins have oaths/codes and Clerics their domains/allegiance to a deity. Sorcerers have bloodlines and incredible innate magic, while Wizards have schools and are crazy versatile with magic. Barbarians have totems and rage powers, and Fighters are just custom robos for combat. Even ACG classes like the Cavalier or Oracle feel like the sky is the limit compared to "The Monk," whose identity is limited to punching and being very Shaolin (Unless archetyped to be something that's no longer Shaolin, but then what's the point of the base class?).

TL;DR/My point: The name Monk isn't nearly as nebulous as pretty much any other class, and it feels like a legacy that's inhibiting so much potential.

Proposal: Change the name to Martial Artist. I feel the biggest appeal of the Monk is to kick ass and look good while doing it. A bard is a person of the fine arts, and the name Bard is nebulous enough to encompass anything from playing the ukulele for more courage to break dancing in combat to distract from a Hypnotic Pattern. Basically creating magic through their art.Conversely, a "martial artist" should be able to take their warlike, artistic movements into combat, and make the battlefield their canvas. A perfect example of Martial Arts. Or if that's too wuxia, think of Arya Stark of Game of Thrones fame and her martial artistry.

A Fighter should be the most lethal with weapons. Including their fists. A Martial Artist, however, should be able to push and break the limits of what's possible with weapons. Including their bodies.

Any other opinions on the Monk, and what it should be, I'd love to see. The class has always felt like a problem child, but I think it's a necessary archetype. For all those who wanna make Saitama or Garou. Become a superhuman from hard work, discipline, conviction and courage!

Despite my favorite class being the polar opposite of a Barb (Monks. They always stay frosty) I completely empathize with ya. One can only meditate away their impatience and disappointment so many times before I, how would you put it... AM ANGRY.

Pardon the outburst. I am just human. Till level 20.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I kinda get why all the small races are charismatic. They're all very persuasive.

Gnomes are Diplomatic: "Ah, it's just a little pantsing! No need to reach for your sword. See, I'll pull mine down too. And I don't even have underwear on!

Halfling are great bluffers: "No, ya see, these gems fissure with time. Each crack memorializing its age... and value.

And Goblins... are basically pyromaniac land sharks that sing lively songs while eating their enemies along with their clothing and armor, ya know, since their teeth and digestive tracks are seemingly indestructible. That's fairly intimidating, ya'll. And Jawsome

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Ever since this blog post, I've theory crafted and "practice role-played" several Goblin PCs. I never knew I needed these little bastards in my RPG life so bad.

And if that's wrong, well I don't wanna be right.

16 people marked this as a favorite.

God, this is such a non issue. Like, the most controversial thing thus far is the least consequential. I honestly can't wrap my head around this. There truly is no outrage like the kind seen from outrageous gamers. Like, just don't play a Goblin, and let others have fun with Goblins. Is that... is that really too much to ask? I hesitate to use the phrases sacred cow or wrongbadfun, but man, I seriously don't see any argument not mired in "legacy, legacy, legacy." Yeah, it's a change, but that doesn't mean it's bad.

Yeah. Like that'll convince anyone.

Well, ya'll can be upset. It only fuels the fire in my soul. My lust for goblinhood is insatiable.

I shall make a Goblin PC that is a Fighter who crafts his own pointy, metal fire sticks and flaming junk armor. Whenever battle approaches, he'll start quaking feverishly, eyes twitching and spastically blinking from the excitement, so happy he gets to poke people with fire sticks. His mouth drooling from the thought of tantalizing flesh filled with cortisol from stress and fear grinding in his gnashing teeth. His catch phrases will be, "It's for people with money and power instead of just for fun, making my desire for wonton slaughter not only okay, but treasured," and, "Jawsome!!" whenever he crits with a bite.

You know what? This change is jawesome.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Frosty Ace wrote:

Them being a core race that's just chaotic??? is more fun and interesting than, "Oh. They're green with teeth. They must be evil." Which is... kind of dumb, honestly. Sacred cow levels of dumb. Imo anyway.
They don't read, educate themselves, or conduct any other real activity of civilization. They are depicted as near mindless monsters who do nothing but revel in chaos and violence. Whose greatest cultural achievement is coming up with a song to chant while they raid villages.

So primitive humans then? The further back in time you go, the more monstrous humans are. It's not like the acts depicted by any race in this world were never done by any other race or irl humanity itself.

I get that you want Orcs to be core, but there is no need to be upset with people that are happy to play Goblins because they like them, or to try to invalidate their excitement that they're core now.

Edit: Ironically my "green with teeth" statement was also about Orcs. Haha.

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see why a Goblin can't be a PC. Maybe the setting is just a little more progressive than racist, judging people as individuals for their actions and the content of their characters. Or at least progressive enough not to just kill the person immediately, which is hilariously ironic btw. "Agh! He's acting civil and poilite! Slaughter him for the monster that HE is! Unlike us!! We're civilized humans! When have we ever done evil acts!!?" Plenty of societies and cultures integrate peoples despite a tumultuous history or (Understandable) fear and resentment. Goblins don't have to be loved, just tolerated, with a few proving themselves as adventurers.

Besides, Goblins are iconic in most fantasy. When I think of Goblin, I think of some quirky little bastard who lives every moment to the fullest, whether they're fighting, eating, or playing a slapped together guitar built with some string and sticks.

Then again, my biggest exposure to Goblins wasn't DnD. I always think of the Goblins from Radiata Stories, which were just a different kind of people that live in shanty towns or toadstool forests, speaking in broken English and being hilarious in general, with kids, elders, jerks, lovers and all that. It definitely wasn't my first time seeing a Goblin, but it stuck with me since they were so zany, fun and an actual people. They're like really straightforward gnomes. Speaking of gnomes, they're Fey descendants, right? Fairly certain the Fey aren't that loved. Don't see why a few chill Goblin tribes (High on some toadstools, perhaps) just decided to make peace and not war.

Them being a core race that's just chaotic??? is more fun and interesting than, "Oh. They're green with teeth. They must be evil." Which is... kind of dumb, honestly. Sacred cow levels of dumb. Imo anyway.

Looking at the new levels of success system, adding your shield bonus to a reflex throw could potentially be huge. Given that crit fails for saves will be really bad (Given their lower likelihood) and will happen often if your reflex is poor, it could mean the difference between life or death if fighting face to face with a dragon or if you're moving in on an enemy blaster. If anything, it could mean you don't crit fail on anything but a one.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

That being said... why are you looking for cohesion? The least cohesive characters I've ever seen are Character = Class, including Monoclassed characters under that...

There's a reason I said subjective. Haha. What's cohesive is dependent on the person. I guess my point is that I'd rather make/have a concept, then maximize it, instead of vice versa. Example: A tiefling, Fey founded Paladin that happened to be an Oracle for a level. Strong? Oh yeah, but a background at that point, to me, is just justifying the min/max. I'm not saying either is right or wrong, just that I prefer one over the other. That preference being the character class, feats and features coincide with the background, which everyone wants (Usually) I just like to make things work around the background/idea.

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Frosty Ace wrote:
The problem isn't multi classing, it's that some multiclassing is objectively stronger than a single class focus.

Over the course of the game as a whole that is objectively untrue.

In fact I would say the problem with multiclassing is that it's too easy to make characters that don't keep up with the single classed characters. Especially past level 10.

I conflated multiclassing and 1 level dipping. Sorry. 1 level dips into Monk and Fighter were often far better than a straight shot of either. That's what I was speaking on. As I said in my post, I want both actul multiclassing and single class focus to both be valid paths of character development.

Dipping has always irked me. It's gamey as hell (PFS only runs so high, so it's rewarded to front load characters) and often lacks the thematic cohesion a "proper" (Subjective, I know) multiclass or PrC aims for. Seriously, how many Paladins took one level in Oracle?

The problem isn't multi classing, it's that some multiclassing is objectively stronger than a single class focus. The actual solution is just heavily incentivizing commitment to a class, which given class feats, and how unique and character defining they seem to be (Also restricted by class level I'm assuming) this is already a thing.

Let a player make an Eldritch Knight, splitting Fighter and Wizard levels, focusing on reactions and counterspelling, so long as that same EK is never gonna have the same legendary level of mastery of steel and magic like a Fighter and Wizard would respectively.

Really, the new "All options are feats and the base class and archetypes(?) give a few free features" design choice promotes multiclassing and general PC diversity. Who need PrCs when you can design your own within the system?

At least I hope that's how it works.

P.S. A lot of this has probably already been said. Sorry. Threads too long for me right now. Haha

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@ Graystone. There's no need to know the AC as a player. The GM knows the ac. Just add and subtract ten from the AC, and wait for a number to be called out. Not to mention crit fails don't automatically proc any kind of reaction in combat. Only the fighter has any kind of reprisal for a crit fail for enemies, and his enhanced training in combat assures the Fighter will crit the most (More reactions, more accuracy, more options to attack in combat without a severe penaly). If anything, the new system highlights failures, success, and how PCs capitalize on them and react to them, which is awesome. After all, how we react to situations determines our character.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stone Dog wrote:

I like this set up overall, but I think that ones and twenties rolling the result down or up the success scale is way better than making it an automatic success or failure.

Well thankfully the game is in alpha testing!! And what you suggest is a simple, yet fundamental change that all the dev's are seeing. I like the idea. If you couldn't tell from my posts, I like the removal of randomness (Bad fumble rules, save or dies, etc), unnecessary minutia (Million tiny damage bonuses and careful positioning due to the melee/mobility paradigm) and weak, poorly built classes. I see Paizo working to alleviate these issues. It won't be perfect, but that's what a playtest is for, right?

I will say this, if checks and feats are heavily decided by you level of training (Untrained to Legendary) then the current success system is fine. I'm more willing to believe that a specialist at something, while amazing, isn't perfect, but is good enough to mitigate failure, rather than a specialist that never fails. A rocket scientist is obviously well trained in his field, but mistakes are human, and PCs are "human." Just say more capable.

TiwazBlackhand wrote:

Crafting a Laser Rifle requires Gunsmithing at Legendary
Crafting an automatic Rifle requires Gunsmithing at Master
Crafting single action pin fire gun requires Gunsmithing at Expert
Crafting a smooth bore black powder gun requires Gunsmithing at Trained
Not accidentally shooting yourself in the head and dying is a dc 20 untrained check.

An interesting theory, and it makes sense. We know levels of training exist, and the feats that make skill checks mundane tasks will be locked behind training ranks, right?. Meaning a Rouge, with a ton of trained skills and 20feats to customize them, can make many skills a trivial task, and actually be well trained and versatile in a lot of things.

Remember ya'll, every aspect of the game works off of 4 levels of success, so trap finding will be just as layered with feats (To trivialize lower level challenges), legendary level challenges and all that, as attacking or diplomacy, so a Legendary Rogue could blaze thru a dungeon past all guards and beasts with no feared failure, because her legendary skill feats make it all mundane to her. It seems like proficiency, training, whatever, is everything. It's likely why everyone gets so many feats. The rogues character is in their skills.

Likewise, a Fighter, with his early weapon training advancement, if combat feats are training level gated, can not only gets more combat feats, but better combat feats sooner. Imagine what a legendary level feat looks like. Beautiful.

Again,just conjecture. Idealistic conjecture.

Alydos wrote:

Offensive spells do have critical success in 2e, they deal double damage like martial attacks. At +10/nat20.

I also don't think it effects player agency, but that's an odd aside so maybe? Many hundreds of critical fails will occur for the enemies in a campaign. Moreso with the proper party now that the -10 rule is here.

Paladins are supposed to be the Defensive class per one of their earlier blogs, so maybe they'll have something more along the lines of what I want.

I still don't think at high levels a single reaction is even close to okay for martials. As has been said much better for 14+ years, if casters can aim for a much stronger Prince of Amber, why does the fighter not aim for Ares?

Ah. Let me clarify. I meant one such as fireball or dominate person. Or to be even more hyperbolic to get my point across, mage hand or bless. I mean the basic concept of "Use magic." A martial has to use martial prowess to succeed and achieve, and before that was bound to purely mundane, generic attacks. Even ragelancepiunce is just more regular attacks, but with movement. As such, in a bad fumble system, a 1 being a dropped weapon means the double bladed, twf with 8 attacks, limited to 5 feet to be effective , has a 5% chance to be useless. And even more nuanced fumble rules were often too penalizing or gamey, and all it ignored the strongest, casters, cause too many spells just had to be at and could "win," so to speak. That was my point in why typical fumble systems are bad.

Just keep in mind we don't know much of anything. We all probably are too attached to PF1. A -10 is a fumble, but remember, iterative attack are at -5 and-10(?), meaning they are, to say the least, not great. On the other hand, a +4 ac possibly leading to an attack at -2, a class feature only I have, so I may move, attack, guard (Against everything, mind you), and react, hitting with the highest average accuracy out of most (Since remember, only the Fighter can pump his AoO, and subsequently, his action economy, and accuracy is everything since all damage is more dice), well that sounds great.

All of that is conjecture. But what we do know, is that a huge emphasis is being placed on defense and mobility (Ideally equal to offense for purposes of design choices). If you see them all as valid avenues to this new system, one where one move + creative stuff seems rewarded more than attack+other attack, that is a step in a good direction.

Edit: A Paladin is about defense in that it can heal, ignore really bad things and cast helpful spells. A Fighter is all about combat, pure and simple. Whether they dodge an attack while flanked, block an attack, chase an enemy, or gang up with a squishy, they're either dealing damage or facilitating it being dealt. With how well thought out the feats seem to he (Relative to the new action economy), the may not be Ares, but it he will fight like him.

Second edit: A thought in action economy: If iterative attacks are at a - 5 and -10 penalty, and this applies for every martial, and for spell casters they have different levels of spells to use different amounts of action points, then the classes that are able to use their reactions may actually be the best at whatever it is that they do, since you can't innately get more actions. In the case of the fighter, that would be combat in general, and in the case of the wizard, that would be counterspelling

Alydos wrote:
Frosty Ace wrote:
Do we know if crit fails only occur on a 1? Would he huge if being bad at something meant failing miserably often or not. Same with crits being DC + 10. I think that's how it works. The blog post says every check in a post about crits and fails.

No, it should also occur if they fail your DC by 10. But it doesn't do anything. It's equal to a failure except it might trigger your once per turn reaction, assuming you have taken the class feat to take advantage of it.

That's the part I'm taking issue with. By default it's nothing. With investment it's once per turn. I don't think either is how it should be.

I actually think it's better to have more variety for failure and success around everything except attacking. At the end of the day, every martial willattack, and every caster will cast, but there can be ways to make it much spicier. What you suggest, for a magic equivalent, would be a crit fail or succeed for casting an offensive spell. That'd be bad. It's why most fumble rules suck. It removes too much agency.

What the Fighter has by way of reactions and AoOs is what a Wizard has by way of counterspell: a specialty in a "common" field (Spell and steel are mundane in DnD). For a Goblin attacking a Paladin, an attack pinging of the shield rather than the armor is the same, but only a Fighter can make it a two weapon parry. That's the kind of "nice martial/mundane thing" people have wanted. It's a layer only the best can access, and no dice luck or spell can mimic it. It's a design decision I'm seeing with a lot of things.

Alydos wrote:
Frosty Ace wrote:

I don't think it is. Thank you for the shield example, that helps though.

I'm optimistic, but I feel like they are missing a huge opportunity with their new +10/-10 if they are making it primarily for spells and skills. They could be taking inspiration from Tenra Bansho Zero that makes defense a truly viable option by making it dangerous to attack someone who is skilled in defense.

I think that make exist. We have this Ripose that activates basically as a replacement for an attack by raising your guard (But the AC stays for every hit!) And the ability to be flanked, and have a missing flaker hit the other. Feels like a sword and board Fighter can lead his defense, or even just protect a rogue that wants to "Gang up" with the Fighter. I like how it's all shaping up, really.

Do we know if crit fails only occur on a 1? Would he huge if being bad at something meant failing miserably often or not. Same with crits being DC + 10. I think that's how it works. The blog post says every check in a post about crits and fails.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alydos wrote:

I wonder if what you want isn't already available. You say feat tax, but is it? Remember, a shield is a weapon, and with the new action economy, as a "full round" a Fighter can (I'm assuming eventually) slash, bash, and raise his guard, block his enemy's attack, to the retaliate against the enemy foolish enough to attack a Fighter with his guard up and blade ready. It rewards both offense and defense, rather than pure offense, a huge problem with PF1 I recall, with all its "Rocket tag."

Hell, it being a feat Might be good. An archetype you'd have to wait, but a Fighter could do the above scenario in a few levels if it's all feats (Which makes him a huge threat. Remember, most things can't even react with an attack), only sacrificing the base when on the move.

There seems to be a confusion about messaging here. I was under the impression that beating any DC or AC by 10 gives you a crit (Critical now being a universal term), meaning a specialist in whatever field gets critical successes all the time(Beating whatever AC or DC by 10) and can't fail miserably(Too many bonuses. Too good), since crits are more common in general.

Or is that only for combat? Because if not, then the d20 becomes more of a range of effects, 1 meaning awful, and 20 meaning amazing with the DC putting you toward the awful and bonuses toward the awesome. God I hope that's how it works. It would mean a removal of some bad randomness.

Edit: This post is operating with this new blog post in mind. I'm suggesting a lot of contention may be coming from a misunderstanding of critial and what it means to this edition. If all challenges operate around 1-20 with a range of outcomes, which this blog post seems to indicate, that is actually... pretty cool.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing I am loving the most about the success/failure system is how thematic it is, which just makes for more fun in play!! You can be the Fighter that never misses or the Barb who just can ignore anything by being that tough.

Fighter: And he almost dodged the last one. Too bad for him I don't miss.

Barb: Man, I love the snow!! It feels so good on my skin. Like a blanket of frozen water.

It's always been kinda dumb how much of a factor luck is in some of the more iconic aspects of the mundane classes. A Fighter should be able to choose to not miss if he focuses on accuracy, but also be able to choose power or mobility if need be, the same way a monk caught off guard is still far better off that a lucky Bard.

This also feels like it encourages diversity in that each class is irreplacably good at its core role. That is to say, only a Fighter can literally never miss, or only a Rogue can never fail miserably at (Insert skills of choice here). Has me hyped for the monk. The martial 5th man!!

How is Storm Retribution bad again? I mean for a caster, yeah, but for a wild shape focused Druid it sounds amazing. Nothing says badass quite like an electrified bull rush from a screaming gorilla. Also, it's hella thematic and fitting for the concept of Druid. Ya know, the shape shifting spellcaster.

If anything, between this and the Fighter feat double slice, class feats sound like a fine tuning of whatever archetype you've chosen to follow for your class or to branch out and diversify your abilities, which gives me hope for a huge amount of variety within classes, instead of yet another humming bird storm caller with a tiger #9481.

Ya know, while a part of me misses things like style fests or the Oracle, as long as there are feats and perhaps even archetypes that allow you to heavily customize and augment your character and class, I'll be happy with that. Just looking at power attack, you can see we're being offered options for an entirely new system, which I love. Emphasis on options, not taxes.

Even with the contentiousness with the shield abilities. They're all great, just not brain dead. If you're fighting a dragon that has yet to use a breath attack, maybe rely on your full plate and, oh, I dunno, your multitude of feats for defense to protect yourself or your ally. If you're fighting Falchion Freddie, raise your guard. If you're fighting mooks, twf. If an adamantium golden, power attack.

I know it's hard to grasp, the Fighter (Archetypically the taciturn, 3 steps ahead of his enemy, battle-hardened badass who's always the first to fight/last to flight) being great at fighting in general, having options for all enemy types, but it's a good thing, people.

Shinigami02 wrote:
Maybe it is Selective Memory, or maybe it's my background from the PF Reddit, but every time I can think of that the Tier List has ever come up it's pretty much always used to deride martial players. Maybe it's used better here, but if it is it's not in conversations I can remember reading. So maybe I am being a bit unfair on the tier list, but it's hard to resist that association when it is misused in most of your (remembered, again not ruling out the possibility it may be Selective Memory, negative does stick with you more) exposures to a tool.

I'm not sure it's you being selective. I think it's that the only reason someone would have to bring up a tier list in a discussion about a Cooperative, table-top role-playing game is to prove another wrong about a class' strengths or weaknesses.

C/MD is the actual "tool" to use to not screw over a game for others or yourself, because, ya know, it's cooperative, and I personally consider a responsibility upon everyone to ensure fun is had. But that's just me thinking an extremely social game that exists for purposes of cooperative entertainment should be... fun for everyone, which is why there are options for all types, but I guess that makes too much sense.

Facetiousness aside, tiers themselves almost feel moot at this point. Anything that was weak or awful has been changed , buffed or can be Archetyped to be at least considered for tiers 3 or 4, which is generally considered to be the sweet spot of power for both players and GMs anyway.

Edit: As for the OP. Yes. Yes they are.

If you can afford the feat, use a Madu as a weapon. It also really helps CE.

avr wrote:

Activating smite is a swift action too - not even the paladin can follow Moonheart's plan.

That said a cleric can, sort of. The contingent spell feat allows for no-action healing, and quicken spell lets a cleric buff as a swift action. It's not terribly efficient but it is possible.

It's important to note that a typical Paladin is two handed power attacker, meaning the rest of their feats may be dedicated to Lay On Hands, and oath of vengeance makes it the strongest build I can think of that takes that mane Extra X feats.

Smite being a swift action isn't even bad. It's the first thing you do for whatever you want very dead very soon, and after that one swift action, I can't think of anything in class a Paladin needs for their swift action.

Cleric also struggles to keep pace with damage. Less Bab means worse aim and damage, which can be remedied within spells, but that's, say, two spells. If two standard spells, then the Pally is already ahead since it's smite, then smash. Even with quicken, that's a swift action a Paladin of Vengeance uses on smite, and tho a cleric may be able to buff to make up for the damage and accuracy of a base Paladin, but nothing really compares to a Smiting Paladin in melee (Where a tank is supposed to be at all times).

I'd say Paladin. That it's defense is so innately good, it can spend it's resources (Money and feats) on offense. And tanks need great defense, with good offense.

There's also smite. It can, quite easily, trivialize boss encounters. When a Paladin's in the party, it's usually in the back of everyone's mind, "Phew, we have him to protect us from seriously dangerous stuff." Protect, being the operative word there. A tank is usually what a team's offense is structured around, and squishier members rely on that tank being there not dying and relentlessly attacking. For a BBEG, you want to be closer to a Paladin's (Insert AoE buff here) while he's beating the enemy with righteous fury.

Speaking of AoE buffs, most of what makes a Paladin amazing is that it's strongest abilities don't interfere with action economy, meaning they're free to position and attack without having to slowly shift into top gear like most buffing melee do, not that that's not a great idea, but even spell swords could use a good tank to give them a second to get set up (Such as the cleric).

That makes it the best tank to me. Well, an argument can be made for the Fighter, but I don't need another "Fighter debate" caused migraine in my life.

Wood Oracle with a Bow. All the (Essential) Divine spells are covered, and spontaneous to boot so no daily micromanagement of spells. The mysteries Wood Bond and Wood armor will have you at an effective full Bab when hitting, and your Dex doesn't get capped by wood armor (If your GM allows magic vestment on Wood Armor, this becomes the best mystery you get). Grab the appropriate Archery feats and Wood bond, and with all the buffs your party will have, you'll be golden.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The secret is to be a Fighter and dedicate about... half of your resources to making the shield good. An Armor Master Fighter with Mobile Bulwark Style gets the full shield AC to touch, as well as eventually swim with, on top of any other neat things associated with Armor Master and MBS.

All in all, you have to sacrifice way too much to get it to be good, but it's a pretty fun character concept to be wielding a Nodachi with a tower shield.

A high level Monk can get 11 attacks potentially in a Flurry. Someone that can move at the speed of teleport and can choke out a dragon shouldn't be breaking their hands every time they get their once in a blue moon flurry.

Fumbles makes sense for regular people doing mundane stuff. We get distracted, don't focus because we're comfortable, or we push our bodies too hard, but I imagine someone, for instance, whose immune to fear and life's goal is the extermination of demons in the name of their God, with their life on the line every day (And is also a fantasy hero) wouldn't drop their Holy sword of Smiting even if they died.

Mistakes do occur in combat. It's called missing or failing a check. Tacking on fumbles just feels like a bad way of adding tension when the encounters and story should be doing that.

Zen Archer Monk has all the necessities baked into the class, and will likely have the best saves out of any archer, and the Holy Hunter (?) has ranged smite so, you know, that ridiculous.

Sohei Monk has the potential to be crazy early (Mounted Skirmisher 13 levels early) and can flurry with a bow, but the feats needed are just ridiculous.

I'd go with the latter. Gloves of Dueling raises the "level" of your Weapon Training (Attack, damage and CMD), so it'd be plus four. I say this since the gloves work with AWT that use your WT bonus.

A simple twf Fighter with Trained Grace does a lot of damage on a Full Attack and gets some of the best AC with pretty damn good saves. If you're willing to lose Armor Training, Dervish of Dawn Fighter gets mobility with it's twf at 11. Hell, go Gnome with a hooked hammer for style points.

claymade wrote:

Well the real life mechanics of many things in the game don't make sense. You can Ricochet Toss a Greatsword.

"Enough" in general means 2 things. 1) The feelings of awesome, and 2) Useful to a party and narrative. The first is relative to the person, the latter is much easier to deal with.

Irontruth wrote:
some stuff

You seem to be quite knowledgeable on this matter. What would you propose a solution is to this? I personally feel it's gotta either be A) A new gaming system, or B) An Unchained Fighter is released that actually lives up to the standard of fantasy heroes, following that unchained mantra of ,"We are unbound by 3.x."

Solution A, in a "perfect" world, would remove about 60-70% of magic's ability to invalidate other PCs and just break the game, and also buffing skills significantly while making them much harder to access, with less magic = more skill points being a general rule. There actually needs to be cons to using a (full) caster other than making certain PCs feel useless at highish levels.

Solution B would actually be fairly simple to do and really fun. Just take "Equipment Tricks" and already attainable mundane options to their logical (and I use that term so loosely) extreme. This, however, requires a mentality of, "If someone had a superhuman level of strength, dexterity, adroitness, accuracy, precision, understanding or arms and armor, etc... would this be possible," and, let's be real, a lot of people don't want a Fighter to be fantastic It's like a part of the DnD culture at this point. Casters rool, martials drool.

slachance6 wrote:
Except that it would be impossible for fighter to replicate most of the the abilities that make casters so powerful without flavoring them as magical. No amount of sword swinging or nonmagical physical prowess...

Eh. I feel like that's one part lack of creativity, one parts magic does way too much. Honestly, flavoring and not replicating magic is just a matter of good writing and being willing to give martial/mundane characters powerful options that magic (Read: Casters) can't replicate. Though then you'd get people complaining that a Fighter is super human and actually extraordinary. As for options being too magical, well that's more a matter of perspective.

I'd talk about the magic does too much thing, but the Fighter is controversial enough.

Milo v3 wrote:

The issue with that is it means one class is forced to be limited to never be able to cover any character concepts which are level appropriate past level 6.

Well that's not an issue of the "Archetype" but of design choices. This is evident by comparing the Fighter now and the "core" Fighter. Now a Fighter can remain relevant as long as any not full Caster! Woohoo!!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's just design preference. Really tho, "magic" can be literally anything supernatural. Barbarian and Monk aren't casters, but can fly and teleport respectively.

The issue, I think, is not enough extraordinary options. Smash from the Air is probably the coolest thing a Fighter can do (Nothing says badass quite like parrying a boulder with a rapier). There just need to be a lot more of those extraordinary options for the Fighter, in class, from level 1-20.

People will always want the mundane badass, but mundane shouldn't equal bland or easily duplicated.

Lady-J wrote:
improved bravery is a waste when you can get armed bravery

Eh. Improved Bravery is A)Always on (Good for surprise will saves), and B)Can end up giving a +7 against mind affecting affects to others. It also helps if you want to take something else at level 5. In this case, 4 more skill points to play with. Tho a middle ground can be met on a human if you don't care for the pseudo aura.

Another Fighter:
16(+2), 14, 14, 13, 10, 7
Lvl1: Power Attack, Fast Learner, Toughness Weapon
Lvl2:Combat Reflexes
Lvl3:Master Armorer
Lvl4: Unhindering Shield
Lvl5: Armed Bravery
Lvl6: Cut From the Air
Lvl7: Iron Will (Trade Armor Training for Armored Juggernaut)
Lvl8: Courage in a Bottle
Lvl9: Smash from the Air (Trade weapon training for Warrior Spirit)
Lvl10: Advanced Weapon Training: Item Mastery:Flight
Lvl11: Improved Critical (Trade Armor Training for Armor Specialization)

Boy oh boy is 18 strength not worth it. Just be a core Fighter. Stats looking like this.

16(+2), 14, 12, 10, 10, 13

Lvl1: Power Attack, Combat Reflexes, Toughness
Lvl2:Improved Bravery
Lvl3:Master Armorer
Lvl4: Unhindering Shield
Lvl5: Versatile Training (Your Choice)
Lvl6: Cut From the Air
Lvl7: Inspiring Bravery (Trade Armor Training for Armored Juggernaut)
Lvl8: Courage in a Bottle
Lvl9: Smash from the Air (Trade weapon training for Warrior Spirit)
Lvl10: Inspiring Confidence
Lvl11: From here you can focus on offense with whatever you like (Trade Armor Training for Armor Specialization)

Make your own adamantium gear that stacks with your DR and craft gear for yourself and your squad in downtime, have a pretty damn good aura, great AC, and smack away boulders and Disintegrate from yourself and nearby allies. Grab Item Mastery (Flight) at some point as well. Either trade a later weapon Training or qualify and take the feat normally.

A buckler bash would be less an actual shield bash and more a spinning back fist. It actually makes sense that it's never been able to shield bash, considering the thematics behind most shield bashing related augments (Shield Slam, Shield Snag, Siegebreaker Archetype, some others I'm sure) are more about plowing into your enemy with your shield as a brace (Shield Brace lol) or smacking them with a strong discombobulatory weight. A buckler is just a slightly more defensive gauntlet.

I'll hit the FAQ, but it's likely just gonna be a GM fiat thing, since from what I've heard, the best you'll get for splatbooks is developer intent. RAW and RAI nothing super prevents it, so a home game should be ok (Most reasonable GMs will see the enchantment's necessity for a return on investment), but good luck in PFS. They ban things like Warrior Spirit and a feat that makes tower shields strong at level 7 with a 7-8 feat investment, so...

Seems simple to me. You can enchant a buckler as a weapon the same as any shield (If it isn't excluded in text specifically, and well, is still a shield), you just can't use it as such without proper feats or abilities.

At least that's what I'm gathering from RAW, and I typically assume RAI is the thing that allows something to actually function in a sensible manner, for better or worse. Be kinda asinine to dedicate numerous feats to an unenchantable weapon (style). I'm sure there are worse feat (trees), but most of of what was in Armor and Weapon Master's Handbook actually work.

The description of claw blades says it changes the claws from a natural weapon to a light slashing weapon. Would it still count as natural for the purposes of weapon training, or be light blades?

I'm surprised you made this thread named the way you did, considering the thread this one spawned from. The conceit of the last thread was that no matter what, a Cavalier is better than a Fighter, which is a bold claim considering how many options there are. Even the OP ended up making a few Fighters they considered worthy.

To make this claim, you're gonna have to clarify what "better" is, which, like in the last thread, is gonna be hard to prove in every single circumstance across every and any kind of build.

Good luck.

Edit: Reading the thread title and OP, this actually won't be much of a thing to prove, since "multi classing" includes any and every class in the game. In which case, yeah, the C/MD exists. Congratulations, you won!!

1 to 50 of 281 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>