Karyouonigami's page

64 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
if a Fighter in Full plate gets hit 40% less of the time than the Barbarian
Try 10-20% less of the time.

okay it is still more than an extra 4 or 5 damage and that would be more than the DR and extra HP of a Barbarian


@Ssalarn : First off Bravery is not equal to evasion so lets not pretend that it is.

Besides a better save, I would probaly let the player pick the save between reflex and will, what would make the Fighter compare to the Ranger and Barbarian better?

I liked the comparison for damage you did it really made sense to me, even though a fighter can do more damage doesn't mean you beat the enemy any faster.


Rub-Eta wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
I do not believe that the ranger and Barbarian can stand and fight as well as a fighter and Paladin, heavy armor is better than damage reduction and if you put better stats into dex you lose some of the other abilities that would make the non-fighter better.

Um... what?

How much better is heavy armour than DR + medium armour? You can't just say "this is how it is". Back it up.

The Fighter would have to up CON to be on par with a Barbarian hp wise. Then the Barbarian can up DEX to be on par with a Fighter AC wise. They then have ~same hp and ~same AC but the Barbarian also have DR. And a Barbarian is suppoerior in defence against spell casters.

why not, everyone else has been?

if a Fighter in Full plate gets hit 40% less of the time than the Barbarian the odds of the enemy doing more than one damage at 7th level(when the Barbarian gets DR) is pretty high and by 13th level the fighter just might have adamantine full plate which has the DR 3/- which is the same as the Barbarian. There is no situation where a Medium armor such as breast plate can get higher AC than the Full plate with the same options(feel free to prove me wrong cause I wanna use the Breast plate more)

I am NOT saying that the Barbarian is bad, it just isn't my choice of class if I am looking for a up front heavy fighter


MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
what can a Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin do for skills that another class could not do as well or better?
Dangerous question, the right answer is: More than fighter :P.
It is sad to think that the only way you can role-play is limited by the numbers on the sheet :(

Where in my post did I say that? You want to point it out for me?

Karyouonigami wrote:
one of the major arguments for other classes over fighters and rouges is that other classes such as wizards can replicate there skills/abilities with spells? so what I am asking is would you agree that the same replication could apply to the Paladin/Barbarian/Ranger?
Apples and oranges. Thread is about fighter.

then stop comparing fighters to other classes that have medium or full spellcasting.

you say that Barbarians can hold there own with fighters in combat, I feel that while they can for one or two fights a fighter is good as long as they have HP and I do not believe that the damage reduction of a Barbarian makes up for the lack of heavy armor and even if it does a fighter can get adamantine and have better DR so not getting hit AND DR is better in combat, as for moving in combat...buy Boot of expeditions retreat, use Vital strike, Charge, or any other of the fighters choices that require a standard action. I'm not saying the Barbarian is bad, and if you want to play a mobile combat character then by all means do that for that matter the ranger is just as good if not better than the Barbarian in that way, if you want to play the Heavy armor tank like character then Paladin and Fighter are the way to go and you play the Fighter when you don't want to play LG.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Karyouonigami wrote:
what can a Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin do for skills that another class could not do as well or better?
  • All three of those classes can do the stand-still-and-fight thing, almost as well or equally as well as the fighter.
  • However, the ranger and barbarian also get more skills than the fighter. In addition:
  • The ranger and paladin can heal themselves (freeing up allies to do other stuff instead), and the barbarian just straight-up gets more hp.
  • The ranger and paladin get spells, allowing them to do exceptional things, and the barbarian gets rage powers.
  • The paladin can remove conditions and the ranger can share bonuses or bring an extra combatant as class features.

    When you have a full caster like a cleric or druid that can also fight as well as one of the above three, then the game is seriously borked, and I don't want to even go there, so comparing the fighter to his nearest neighbors is enough for me.

  • I do not believe that the ranger and Barbarian can stand and fight as well as a fighter and Paladin, heavy armor is better than damage reduction and if you put better stats into dex you lose some of the other abilities that would make the non-fighter better. The only thing I have against the Paladin is the alignment other than that I would agree that most parties would benifit from a Paladin in the group


    MrSin wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    what can a Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin do for skills that another class could not do as well or better?
    Dangerous question, the right answer is: More than fighter :P.

    It is sad to think that the only way you can role-play is limited by the numbers on the sheet :(

    one of the major arguments for other classes over fighters and rouges is that other classes such as wizards can replicate there skills/abilities with spells? so what I am asking is would you agree that the same replication could apply to the Paladin/Barbarian/Ranger?


    MrSin wrote:
    KrispyXIV wrote:
    I guess what I'm wanting to suggest is this; perhaps the problem isn't that the class doesn't deliver what it needs to in order to be valid, but that it doesn't deliver what you want .

    Your right in that it doesn't deliver what I want, I have a problem with the fighter being easily roasted by a dragon or dominated and lacking the ability to deal with problems and his lack of function out. I want the fighter to be good at fighting and participate when there's not fighting. I wouldn't think that's a bad thing. Its valid in that you can play it, but its just not a good class. That doesn't mean I need to change my expectations though, it might mean there is a problem with the class. Especially if me and people I know aren't having fun with it because of mechanical concerns.

    It feels like your sort of downplaying other peoples needs when you say you don't have a problem so lets not change it, and its worse when you tell other people they need to change because that's just how things are.

    KrispyXIV wrote:
    I personally find the idea that a fighter has to compete with wizards for 'power' ludicrous.
    Cool! Is anyone saying that the fighter should do so here? I mean, the game could probably use better balance both ways, but I don't see anyone saying that wizards and fighters should compete for power.

    on more than one post in the last two pages the fighter has been compared to full spell casters like the wizard in combat abilitys so yes someone has.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    saying that other classes can do more damage is not evidence
    You're the only person who thinks that "more damage = more useful out of combat" (and in more dynamic combats that consist of more than stand still and full attack). Think on that a bit.

    but you don't need class abilitys to do things like move in combat. I never said that more damage is more useful I am pointing out that there have been more than one point made that the barbarian can do more damage and that is one reason they are better, my point is that they can't allways do so.

    what can a Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin do for skills that another class could not do as well or better?


    KrispyXIV wrote:


    Obviously our groups have different expectations for what we want from the class.

    That's fine.

    I guess what I'm wanting to suggest is this; perhaps the problem isn't that the class doesn't deliver what it needs to in order to be valid, but that it doesn't deliver what you want .

    If you're sitting down wanting it to be more than it is, I can see you being unhappy with it.

    The simplest solution to that, however, is not to change the fighter. It's to change your expectations of what the fighter should be capable of.

    I personally find the idea that a fighter has to compete with wizards for 'power' ludicrous. There are plenty of character ideas I've had where a fighter works best to make a concept work.

    Good luck on not having them compare the fighter and full spellcasters, I believe that the way people play MMO's truly affect the way they play games like pathfinder.


    MrSin wrote:
    KrispyXIV wrote:

    I have yet to run a campaign without a fighter.

    I have yet to have someone playing a fighter be unhappy or disappointed with their character or performance.

    In that sense, I really have a hard time supporting the idea there's actually a problem with the class itself.

    Really? Because its been a problem for me and people I know. Do my problems not count because you personally don't have a problem with it? Do you give out a survey to make absolutely sure and why?

    why were they dissapointed with the performance of the fighter? were the monsters appropriate level for the group? were there lots of spell casters in the group?


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Justin Sane wrote:
    people who were saying "the Fighter is fine" absolutely ignored it.
    ...as they've been ignoring every other piece of evidence in the massive pile showing that he's not "fine" -- except of course in a game that is nothing but a lineup of monsters that obligingly step up to be full-attacked, round after round, encounter after encounter, with same-level casters acting as cohorts to buff and heal the fighter as their full-time job.

    saying that other classes can do more damage is not evidence, showing the math and showing that more than one build of the class could do that would be.


    Arachnofiend wrote:


    Well you leave yourself with the Barbarian, Rogue, and the Monk to pick from. Two of these receive almost (Monk) or just as many (Rogue) complaints as the Fighter. The remainder can do just about as much damage as a Fighter and can do it more consistently with the ability to full attack on a charge, and on top of that has excellent defenses in the form of damage resistance and superstition. He also gets 2 more skill points per level so you have the capacity to play around with utility if you want.

    The Barbarian and the Fighter essentially fill the same role, it's just the Barbarian does it so much better.

    The reason I took away the Paladin and Monk is because they have the ability to heal and that makes them better. as for the Barbarian doing the fighters job better I don't agree since I would rather not get hit than take one or two less damage for that matter I could just get adamantine Full plate for my fighter and have both. As for the saves while it is not a perfect fix the fighter has enough feats to use some non-fighter ones to pick up things like Iron will to help those out. I haven't had other classes out damage my fighters so it is hard for me to believe that they are so far behind in that area


    WWWW wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    MrSin wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
    Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.
    so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.
    That seems like it is just reinforcing the argument against the fighter in favor of the paladin, ranger, or barbarian.

    I am all for debating the value of Fighters vs Barbarians just not Fighter vs. All spellcasters. It's getting silly that every time I point out the weaknesses of classes we come back to spellcasters vs. fighters


    andreww wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    Question: what Martial class can fly all day or summon angels? and I would still take the fighter with me since they would most likely die and I would get more treasure :)

    Clerics, Druids ad Oracles all fill the martial role perfectly ell, often far better than actual martial classes, especially as you go up in level.

    I am not sure how anyone can compare, say, a level 9 fighter to a level 9 druid wildshaped into a huge dinosaur, with a large dinosaur companion summoning more dinosaurs as a means of controlling the battlefield. There is little more effective at tanking/area denial than dropping many tons of angry dinosaur into the area.

    again we go back to comparing Fighters to Spell casters.

    Other than Paladins and Rangers what non-spell casting class is better at filling the role of a fighter? I do agree that the ability to heal pushes the Paladin and Ranger over the fighter in usefulness.


    Arachnofiend wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    MrSin wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
    Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.
    so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.
    Humorously (or not), the Fighter is about useless when the Wizard is without his spellbook too. The Fighter doesn't really have any solutions to problems that can't be solved with "5-foot step and full attack" that don't rely on a caster buffing him.

    agreed, well mostly I never have played a fighter without a back up weapon but that is just me.

    I guess the trouble I am having is that you(not just you) are thinking of characters as an indavidual and I think of them as one of a group so I do expect the fighter to get buffed by the Wizard and healed by the cleric and for the rouge to spot the bad guys and traps.


    swoosh wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    What do you think could be done to help the fighter?

    -More skill points.

    -Less super long feat trees that only give minimal functionality per feat or delay basic abilities to really high levels.
    -Better fighter specific feats that let him do powerful and epic things at higher level.
    -Ability to generalize in weapons more effectively. A weapon specific specialist is fine, but feeling awful because the dragon has a sword and you're an axe specialist is no good and having so much trouble being versatile isn't any good either.
    -A good will save.
    -Some innate way to deal with magic (goes back to 3 and 5 a bit there)

    I all for more skills points and the ability to generalize more effectively. What if they gave the Bravery bonus to all will saves, would that be enough to help there saves? Maybe just add UMD to the skill list to solve the healing issue? I don't think any of this would break the game and just might bring the fighter back into the same power level as other martials


    MrSin wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting
    Not really. You play a spellcasting class to cast spells, and to be honest a wizard is pretty much all about spells. You play a martial to fight things, and fighter is all about fighting things. If anything you might take away the fighters weapon and feats, since you took about as much away from the wizard.

    so what you are saying is that without a spell book the wizard is useless? that was the point I was making in reply to his "take the weapon away from the fighter" point.


    andreww wrote:
    strayshift wrote:
    The fighter also however is the blunt instrument and meat shield that is why he consumes resources, because he is busy defeating the enemy. If he wasn't there, your resources consumed would be greater, I can assure you of that.

    I can pretty much guarantee that if you replaced the fighter with a barbarian, paladin or ranger your resources consumed would be roughly the same and they each bring more to the table. I you replaced him with a combat (rather than spell) orientated oracle, druid or cleric they would be significantly less impacted and you would have a much wider range of options to chose from. As the levels grow that disparity becomes more and more severe.

    Put it this way, if you were looking for a new level 9 member of your group which would you prefer. Someone who can hit things well with a pointy stick or someone who can do much of the same while also being able to raise the dead, summon angels, fly all day, raise armies of zombies, cast a whole host of buff spells and remove a massive range of horrible disabling effects.

    I know which one I would want to take with me if I was interviewing for the post of "adventurer to take with me into hideous dungeon full of monsters which want to eat me and traps designed to mildly inconvenience".

    Question: what Martial class can fly all day or summon angels? and I would still take the fighter with me since they would most likely die and I would get more treasure :)


    Anzyr wrote:


    The Wizard doesn't go adventuring with the spellbook in his hands, perfectly targetable (unless he's an idiot). The Fighter does.

    True, I would argue that the spell book is easier to destroy even on accident and much more likely for a bad guy to try and steal.

    I could also point out that after a long day of adventuring and spell casting that the wizard needs to rest and regain spells and if he is interupted then he is considerably less useful than a fighter who is low on HP but still can swing a sword.

    I guess what I am trying to say is that EVERY class has a weakness, and I agree that the fighter needs some help to keep up, I would love to see Weapon focus and specialization scale up based on level without needing more feats but that is just me. What do you think could be done to help the fighter?


    MrSin wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    So we take away the fighters weapon, lets take away the wizards spell book and the clerics holy symbol at the same time. it seems to me that the fighter can still pick up any martial weapon and be good or for that fact because they have a better base attack they can pick up an exotic weapon and still be okay.

    A biased hypothetical eh? Lets take away the fighters arms and legs instead. Lets also compare an apple to cabbages in order to judge the value of that apple, rather than every other type of apple.

    Or translated, lets compare fighters to barbarians and paladins rather than casters, and not used biased hypotheticals. Could've even have compared them to a sorcerer with eschew materials, or an oracle. Could've compared them to a cleric without a weapon too, but nope, apparently you want to take away spell casting entirely. A main class feature, and you even gave the fighter a replacement for his loss instead of saying "well the fighter goes unarmed!" or something.

    since it is also a biased hypothetical to take away the fighters weapon I thought that was fair and it is much more likely that someone tries to separate the Wizard from his spell book. If you read the whole post you would see that I did compare the barbarian and ranger, and since the fighters main class feature is his weapon it is a viable comparison.

    By the way when people are comparing the fighter to the spellcasters in power and saying that the fighter is weak because they can't cast spells it makes sense to compare the fighter to a wizard without spell casting


    Ssalarn wrote:
    Fighter loses his bonus if he loses access to his preferred weapon type, This can also cause problems in extended adventures where the Fighter may go 2-3 levels without hitting a town he can trade in, and spend the whole time stuck with a sub-par weapon if he doesn't get what he built for. That's a problem very unique to the Fighter; he's actually more limited in what weapons he can use than any other full BAB class, and that's not theorycraft, that's what I see at the table every time we run an AP or module. The GM either has to adjust the loot specifically to accommodate the Fighter, or the Fighter starts falling behind quick. Why am I spending money to have someone prebuild an adventure for me to save time if I have to turn around and spend that time scrubbing every book to verify if I have to add or change loot to keep one...

    Very Good points, and yes I did edit your post down. So we take away the fighters weapon, lets take away the wizards spell book and the clerics holy symbol at the same time. it seems to me that the fighter can still pick up any martial weapon and be good or for that fact because they have a better base attack they can pick up an exotic weapon and still be okay. Since the wizard and cleric don't have a full base attack lets try the barbarian and ranger, what happens when you find amazing full plate in the treasure? they lose out because they lose most of there abilitys by putting it on so you run into the same problem with the fighter and his weapon if not worse because if the fighter finds a weapon that isn't his normal but is good enough to replace the abilitys he can still use it. So even though I agree that if you take away the fighters weapon it hurts them I don't think that it is worse than taking the primary items from other classes.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I would roll a new character, all 18's would bore me


    Anzyr wrote:
    If that's the case you are playing magical tea party, not a RPG. There isn't anything wrong with playing magical tea party, but I don't need rules for that. Until I tell you that this post completely changed your outlook to my own and you say "Nuh uh." Then we need rules. Good thing I have a caster lying around... *rolls dice*

    What happens when you find a situation that is not covered by the rules, it doesn't matter what it is just that the player wants it to happen and the rules don't say that you can or that you can't what do you do?


    Anzyr wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    Anzyr wrote:
    If the mechanics say you aren't a good sword fighter all the RP in the world isn't going to make you one. And as a some who can both build and RP, I should know.

    There is more than one way of accomplishing a goal, swinging a sword is one of them but not the only one. Convincing the enemy that you are much better than they are with a sword is another, avoiding the fight alltogether is another....no where in the rules does it say that you HAVE to kill a monster to earn exp

    In my experience people who have to say they can do things rarely can.

    I see nothing here that will make you a good sword fighter if the mechanics say you aren't. And it will be difficult to convince the enemy you are a good sword fighter if the mechanics say you can't bluff worth a darn.

    the Mechanics are not the final arbiter of the actions of your character, the DM is so if you convince them that you are an amazing swordsman through role-playing then sometimes you can do things without needing to roll dice. Those kind of things are totally up to the DM and how they run their game.


    blahpers wrote:
    Anzyr wrote:
    Ifthe mechanics say you aren't a good sword fighter all the RP in the world isn't going to make you one. And as a some who can both build and RP, I should know.
    Which is why we have mechanics--to further the roleplayer's goal of playing the role of a sword fighter. When situations come up in which a player should be able to demonstrate her character's prowess with a sword in comparison to other characters, the mechanics provide a way to do that. There are other ways to accomplish this, and people tend to gravitate toward the system they feel best resolves these ambiguities. Without the goal, however, it's just paper, dice, and mats. Roleplaying without mechanics is still roleplaying, but mechanics without roleplaying is a different kind of game altogether. That type of game can be very fun, but I got into D&D to roleplay, not to wargame. The latter serves the former.

    that is what I was trying to say, thank you


    Anzyr wrote:
    If the mechanics say you aren't a good sword fighter all the RP in the world isn't going to make you one. And as a some who can both build and RP, I should know.

    There is more than one way of accomplishing a goal, swinging a sword is one of them but not the only one. Convincing the enemy that you are much better than they are with a sword is another, avoiding the fight alltogether is another....no where in the rules does it say that you HAVE to kill a monster to earn exp

    In my experience people who have to say they can do things rarely can.


    Khrysaor wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    Khrysaor wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    mechanics don't measure the effects of role playing, the are more of a "if I do -this- what happens?"

    So mechanics don't measure the effects of role playing; they tell you what happens if you do something which is quantifiable and you've measured something.

    Got it.

    Correct, they measure the ROLL part not the ROLE.

    and to be fair the rules are more for the GM so he/she can tell you what happens when you do the action since it is up to him what really happens in the game

    You do understand that swinging your sword IS role playing, right? Just because it's accompanied with a die roll to tell you the outcome doesn't change this. You chose the role of the aggressor or whatever reason you have for attacking and your character swings their weapon. Role playing is not just the speaking part of the game.

    It is a part of Role-playing and I am not disagreeing with you as far as it is a part of the game, I am trying to point out(badly) that you don't need the mechanics to play the role of a character. I know many players who could care less what the bonus is to hit something with a sword or how to find out and they can still role play. At least to me the point of playing any game is to have fun, some people have more fun when they have lots of rules like in pathfinder and others have more fun with LARPing but the mechanics don't tell you how much fun you are having. I feel the MMO effect has many players focused too much on how to "win" at role-playing and less on "how do I make a unforgetable character." I say "win" because things like Damage per Seconed/round and phrases like "how they can change the world around them" lend themselves more to the Roll side of the game and the mechanics of the game itself. On the other side of the game you have the players who only care about the personality of the character to the exclusion of the mechanics or even the disdain for them, When the game is not designed to be heavy in either way it should be a balance of the two.


    Khrysaor wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    mechanics don't measure the effects of role playing, the are more of a "if I do -this- what happens?"

    So mechanics don't measure the effects of role playing; they tell you what happens if you do something which is quantifiable and you've measured something.

    Got it.

    Correct, they measure the ROLL part not the ROLE.

    and to be fair the rules are more for the GM so he/she can tell you what happens when you do the action since it is up to him what really happens in the game


    Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
    Khrysaor wrote:
    Saying what you enjoy is secondary to the game intent isn't condescending.
    Except it isn't secondary. It's equally important.

    how is it equal? why would the mechanics be as important since you can change the mechanics and still play a character the same, or even the game itself?

    please elaborate on your point


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Khrysaor wrote:
    Saying what you enjoy is secondary to the game intent isn't condescending. The entire point of D&D is to "role play" a character in a fantasy setting. The mechanics are just the means to measure the effects of role playing. Without the mechanics there's nothing to tell you how effective your efforts are. You can't just say I cast fireball without having a spell range, blast radius, damage, and everything else the mechanics measure.

    whoa whoa whoa, hold the phone....mechanics don't measure the effects of role playing, the are more of a "if I do -this- what happens?" or a way of avoiding arguments like the "my guy can kick your guys behind" kind. the ONLY way of measuring the effectiveness of ROLE playing is how much fun you are having.


    Ssalarn wrote:

    You can't have a cooperative story-telling game without some form of rules and mechanics. Take those away and you aren't playing a Role Playing Game, you're just role playing, which is just LARPing (or possibly having sexy fun time).

    The RP portion is neither more nor less important than the G portion It's three letters, all together, RPG.

    Implying that someone who enjoys the "game" portion more than the "role playing" portion is absolutely condescending. It says "The things I value are more important than the things you value", and it's not okay. Throwing "tiger" in there only underscores the point, as it's either an affectionate nickname being used to assume unwarranted familiarity, or something you'd call a Little Leaguer who's just learning the game. Either way, not a respectful way to address a peer.

    100% agree with the first paragraph here.

    I read the "tiger" as more "easy 'super aggressive person'" than what you did.


    I have been a fan of "stacking" SR, as in having two+ items that give me SR and maybe an Ability so the caster has to roll multiple times. I wouldn't say no to it being stronger since SR below 20 is kinda weak and it makes feats like spell penetration pointless


    Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


    Just because I tell things how they are means I'm a bad GM who only thinks about winning? The mechanics are what they are; as a GM, I can choose to either follow those mechanics and expect the PCs to do the same, or make up my own rules and hope the PCs will still play my modified version of the game. By RAW, if Freedom of Movement is what it takes to automatically bypass subjects like Stand Still feat and Grapple, then so be it. And that's just assuming that enemies get the chance to do those.

    I'd also be in the same shoes as the Wizard: If I'm some 20 Intelligence goober, I'm not going to sit there and let them win. They're PCs in a dangerous environment going up against the most deadliest threat the (game) world has ever faced; a spellcasting Wizard, who is protected by Martial mooks so Mr. Wizard can do the cool stuff without having the action economy spit in his face.

    As a GM, I could just as easily make up some stupid crap for the wizard BBEG and get the same desired effect, because Rule 0. It's the same logic that backs the "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies" argument, which you seem to think I would try to throw. But we're arguing by-the-book mechanics, which, as I've said, Wizards can easily obtain, because Wizards have access to every option possible. It's that simple, and the fact you're so opposed to it only tells me you have a problem with the mechanics, not with the people who simply use them to their advantage; which, guess what, both the GM and the PCs do. If anything, I'd be more restrictive of my NPCs than any PFS GM in terms of mechanics.

    I'll point out that these same arguments I've made as a GM to NPC works both ways because of that distinction. These options are available to PCs too, and as I've said previously, the (N)PC is only shorting themselves by not covering that base, as there are characters and creatures who invest in those sorts of offenses, and do their damnedest to ensure their tactics work. It's not like PCs are the only ones who can Grapple or Sunder; but if you just want NPCs to pick their nose when they can't simply make attacks, then be my guest.

    You think spending money or resources on a Ring of Freedom really the smartest way to spend WBL? All I stated was a potential means to bypass such subjects, and a method to make it common without granting them to the PCs; I believe that's all you asked of me, actually. There are better things to buy with the money that would go into that ring, and for cheaper. A Wizard who's optimized enough probably wouldn't need a Ring of Freedom, though if the situation calls for it, it's not difficult for them to get one...

    if you optionize ALL NPCs then what is the point for the players? since they don't know what challenges you are going to put in there way so they have to try and cover all bases whereas your NPCs only have to worry about the players...

    I am not trying to bash on you or your DMing, just pointing out another side to your point


    blahpers wrote:
    Quote:
    All I can say is I hope they enjoy destroying their loot.
    That's extremely meta. Most people would do anything in their power to end a life-or-death combat quickly. Unless the problem element is a MacGuffin, only the greediest of murderhobos would stop themselves from removing the problem element from the equation as effectively as possible. If the belt is the biggest threat to the party, I sunder the belt and let the party rogue whine about it later.

    I agree, for that matter if it comes down to my choice to sunder the weapon of the bad guy that I really want or the party wizard maybe dying then the weapon goes away.


    Dark Immortal wrote:

    Cleave.

    Spring Attack.
    Crushing Blow.
    Scorpion Style (and friends).
    Dirty Trick (and friends).
    Total Defense.
    Vital Strike.
    Retrieval and use of Magic items.
    Activate a wand.
    Perform a Combat Maneuver (even untrained).
    Intimidate.
    Use Alchemical item.
    Aid another.
    Ready.
    Activate command magic items.
    Activate SL and SU abilities (domain powers and bloodline powers, chiefly).

    Probably a few more things I am missing but that should cover the bulk of it.

    What This says, but mostly it depends on what is going on in the combat, where the Character is and where the bad guys are and where the other Characters are you can always move to a better location if all else fails...or sunder the bad guys weapon if they have one


    Ssalarn wrote:
    Atarlost wrote:
    Ssalarn wrote:


    They also become drastically less viable as the levels go on. WHen enemies start gaining access to special movement modes like teleportation, burrow, climb, fly, etc. they don't have to walk past you to get at the caster, they just ignore you and maul the squishier-but-probably-more-dangerous-in-the-long-run guy.

    That never should have become common. There should probably be no teleporters that don't teleport as a spell (not an SLA and especially not ever an at will one, actually casting spells like a dragon or at least using ki like a monk) Martial screwing abilities shouldn't be handed out to every Tom, Dick, and Gothmog. Fly should be special with only a few classics like dragons, manticores, and eyrines having both flight and ranged attacks. Burrow should be kept slower than PCs move and so loud it can't be missed. Climb and Swim speeds are probably environmentally limited enough to not need special care for their rarity.

    Whether or not you personally think those movement modes should be common... they are. They're littered all over the Bestiaries, and really, they're necessary to offset the advantages that the casters are bringing to the party. The alternative, without completely remaking the game from the ground up, is that this a game about exterminators who deal with absolutely-obnoxious-but-not-actually-all-that-dangerous-if-you-know-what-y ou're-doing pests. Even then, Fighter is still the guy with a fly-swatter while full casters are the Orkin Man.

    It's not about what threats should exist that the Fighter has to deal with, it's about what threats do exist. And in many cases the Fighter is the only guy who wasn't given all the tools necessary to deal with the world he lives in.

    so the wizard just isn't there? or having an extra round or two to cast spells without being attacked is bad? the fighter doesn't have to do all the work on there own nor does the wizard again it is a team effort.

    and the Orkin man can run out of poison but the fly-swatter works all the time(kind of like a fighter, fancy that)


    kyrt-ryder wrote:

    The 'tactics' of which you speak only work in tight conditions.

    That works fine for standard dungeon delves, but some of us prefer a game in wide open spaces.

    It doesn't matter what environment a fighter is in the fighters job is the same as is the rouges and the wizards and the clerics. the fighters part of the party is to prevent or slow down a monster from getting to the wizard and to provide a stable person for the rouge to get there flank on with, the rouge job is to find and disable traps, open doors and flank with the fighter and help them dispose of threats, the clerics job is to keep people standing and maybe just drop some baddys along with the fighter and rouge, and last but deffinitly not least the wizard should provide mass damage and boost to the party. yes there are lost of options that you can choose but the game isn't based on any one class doing all of the jobs of the others. it should be a team effort since that is what the CRs are based off of and the whole game is based off of in fact.

    and just a FYI tactics work in wide open spaces too.


    Mr. Dodo wrote:

    Karyounigami: Fighters have no way of doing that. If this was some MMORPG we could have a fairly easy "Aggro" system, but in Pathfinder you have no ways of making moster fight you instead of someone else.

    Yeah, you could build an awesome Polearm master, high dex, Combat Reflexes, Stand Still and In Harm's Way, but you would still be nowhere near the idea of "protecting the spellcasters".

    Also, spellcasters can usually protect themselves quite well from mid to high levels

    If the monster has to get through the fighter to get to the wizard then you are forcing a fight and protecting the weaker characters...I wasn't talking about abilitys or powers I am talking tactics.


    I would like it if the Weapon focus and Weapon Specialization were a little better than a +1 and +2. I would think if they went up +1/4 levels it would help or in the case of Specialization a +2/4 levels and then the Greater versions would change it to +2/4 levels and +4/4 levels.

    I also tend to look at the game more of a team effort, yes the wizard can do more damage but that is okay since the Wizard is unlikely to go into the dungeon with the fighter, and yes the Barbarian can get a massive bonus or the ranger can dish out tons of damage but there are limits to that whereas the fighter can do the same damage to most if not everything he comes across. The fighters job in the party is to prevent the monsters from getting to the weaker(i.e. less HP) characters like spellcasters.


    Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
    The free attack is coming from the casting of a spell with range touch. Spellstrike lets you use your weapon instead of your hand, and Spell Combat lets you cast a spell and make a full attack in the same round. Taken together, this adds up to one more melee weapon attack than you would get when normally making a full attack, hence the use of the phrase 'extra attack'. Do you disagree with any of what I've just written?

    yes I do, since the spell has to require a attack role, the ability itself does not give an extra attack and that is what everyone is saying.


    Nefreet wrote:
    I think we found the GM in question.

    You are wrong about that too


    Xaratherus wrote:

    @Karyounoigami: I'm not sure why you're quoting that, as the text reiterates exactly what we're saying.

    Grick's Guide wrote:

    Spellstrike does not grant you an extra attack. You still have the exact same number of attacks (d20's rolled) as you would without it.

    You may get an extra attack when using Spell Combat over making a regular full-attack, but ONLY if the spell you cast has an attack roll.

    A Magus who has one attack per round normally can use Spell Combat to cast Shocking Grasp and take his normal melee attack; doing so causes him to take a -2 penalty to any attacks he makes that round. The casting of the spell grants him a free touch attack to deliver the spell - fulfilling the "if the spell has an attack roll" statement from Grick's guide. Spellstrike gives him the option to instead use his sword - as a melee attack - to deliver the spell.

    So combining the two means he casts Shocking Grasp, makes one melee attack to deliver the spell (using Spellstrike, and as a 'substitution' of the free touch attack granted by casting the spell), and then gets his normal melee attack as well.

    since you are so fixated on the whole shocking grasp thing you are forgetting the whole there are other touch spells out there, lets take bestow curse, it just so happens to be a touch spell so you could channel it(assumeing it is on the list) and yet it would NOT give an extra attack because neither spellstrike nor spell combat give an extra attack. and since the OP didn't say "the DM wont let me use shocking grasp to gain an extra attack" and no one has said anything other than "yes it gives an extra attack" or "no it doesn't" and the statement of "it doesn't give an extra attack" is correct but you can gain one by using the correct spells with these abilitys" is a little more correct.


    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    The Fabolous, Awesome, Marvelous, Super-Duper Really Cool Grick's Guide to Spell Combat and Spellstrike. just to help some of you out since you seem to be having issues with some words I will post the parts of this very well said post.

    I think you copy/pasted that without understanding it.

    Here's a quick puzzle. Larky the 15th level magus (3 iterative attacks) makes a full attack action with his long sword, while using Spell Combat to cast Shocking Grasp.

    How many times in that round does he roll a d20 to hit?

    (Answer: 4.)

    yes, but since you say that it is because of spellstrike and spell combat you are still wrong.


    The Fabolous, Awesome, Marvelous, Super-Duper Really Cool Grick's Guide to Spell Combat and Spellstrike. just to help some of you out since you seem to be having issues with some words I will post the parts of this very well said post.

    "Spellstrike does not grant you an extra attack. You still have the exact same number of attacks (d20's rolled) as you would without it.

    You may get an extra attack when using Spell Combat over making a regular full-attack, but ONLY if the spell you cast has an attack roll. "

    "Sparky walks up, demanding an explanation. "So when can this happen? It says something in there about a free attack! What the heck, dude?"

    It's simple. Any time Melvin could normally deliver a touch spell, he has the option of using his sword to do so. This means 1-4 above will apply. The rules for Spellstrike specifically call out being able to use Spellstrike in place of the free attack granted from casting the spell. (Remember point [1a] from the very top?) However, that is not a limitation, that is just point out that, in addition to being able to deliver his normal touch spells with his sword, he ALSO can deliver the FREE touch spell granted by casting it. If the rules did not spell this out, it would not be clear that Melvin is able to swing his sword more than once per round. This point is important, and it's thrown a lot of people off-track.

    So, once more, all those times that Sparky could deliver his touch spell? (Free attack from casting, touch attack with held charge, full-attack with held charge and weapons) Melvin can do all of those things, and he ALSO has the option of doing any or all of those things with his sword, instead of his hand or claw or fist. That is what Spellstrike does.

    Spellstrike is not an action. It's not a 'free' attack. It's not anything. All it does is let you use your sword instead of your hand. "


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    I think you are the one misinterpreting the rules since you and many other in this thread forget that you can no make a full attack in the same round as you make a standard action such as casting a spell the wording of that ability is so that you may use it in the same round and not to give a extra attack.

    But the casting of the spell gives an additional (free) attack. That's the "extra" attack.

    Spell Combat lets you full attack and cast a spell
    Casting a touch spell lets you make a free touch attack as part of the casting
    Spellstrike lets you use a weapon attack instead of a touch attack.

    no it doesn't say extra it replaces the free touch with free melee so in fact it give you the ability to touch with a weapon.


    Kazaan wrote:
    LazarX wrote:
    The GM IS RIGHT. What every developer that you can grab a hold of here will say is that the GM has the right to interpret the rules any way he or she pleases to do so. That doesn't mean that you as a player can't decide to jump ship if it happens that you aren't interested in the game that the GM is running.
    No. He's not "interpreting", he's "misinterpreting". If this were a matter of, "Yeah, I know that by RAW, it works <this> way, but I'm houseruling it to work differently." That's entirely a matter of GM fiat. But for him to be outright misinterpreting RAW and insisting that it's correct is an entirely different matter. You have to know the rules before you can alter them. The GM is just one player at a table of people playing the same game. By no means does that give him the privilege of lording it over everyone else.

    I think you are the one misinterpreting the rules since you and many other in this thread forget that you can no make a full attack in the same round as you make a standard action such as casting a spell the wording of that ability is so that you may use it in the same round and not to give a extra attack.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    The Morphling wrote:
    The problem is that you're allowing the player to "make" a cohort. Nooooooooooooooooo~.
    I've never had a problem with that. If the PC wants a pirate cohort with an eye patch, I see it as kind of a dick move on my part for me to say, "No, you get an elf like Legolas instead!"

    or saying " you took Power attack so I am going to choose when you use it."

    it is the players feat let them play it


    Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
    Karyouonigami wrote:
    The DM has UNLIMITED resources.

    Define Unlimited. In that he can do whatever he wants? That is even worse than the Optimizers in which the thread discusses.

    "Okay Mr. Optimizers, we got a room filled with 20 Dragons, what do you do?"

    Not only is that not fun, it's also an abuse of the GM's power, which actually makes the game even less fun; it actually makes it into a PVP sort of game, not a PVE game. The GM runs the Environment, and while in some circumstances a DMPC is a good idea, he is not of himself his own player (and thusly not one to just kill the game like that).

    Ever heard of Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies? That's pretty much what you're proposing.

    not at all, what I am saying is that whatever you can do so can the DM and since he can spend whatever ammount of gold on a NPC to balance out what you are doing he can do it better. I believe that the problem with optimizers isn't the player it is the DM, since it is the DMs job to run the game(not just the environment) and make if fun and challenging


    the Character I am currently playing has a 26 leadership score and using the rules in the book I am generating something like 1.5 million gold a month and that is with the GM putting a limit on things....the one guy crafting items isn't that bad really.


    The DM has UNLIMITED resources.

    1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>