Baval's page

no, i was not able to get this working for me. it still is completely unable to download because its still stuck on personalizing.

Its stuck perpetually in personalizing, has been for weeks, maybe months.

Riding the horse is one thing having the rider and mount in full plate with heavy weapons is the one thing that druids won't do and most rangers won't do either. If you are looking for a cavalier expert horse riding is only part of the package you expect when talking about a cavalier.

Druids and rangers are understandably REALLY GOOD at getting animals to do what they want when they want. They are however not heavy cavalry like a cavalier is.

Cavalier is not heavy cavalry. Cavalier is horsemen, the class had dozens of archetypes for every type of rider. Now that it has been changed into an archetype it needs to keep that versatility, not try to turn a class into an archetype and then force that archetype to turn back into the class, that simply doesnt make sense. If you want the class to keep its identity, leave it as a class. If you want the class to become an Archetype, it has to adapt the identity of the base class.

Look here
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/cavalier/archetypes/paizo-cav alier-archetypes/dune-drifter-cavalier-archetype

No armor heavier than light, no shield, no banner, no tactics, still very much a Cavalier.

There is nothing whatsoever stopping a ranger from wearing heavy armor, and the only thing stopping druids is the (current) lack of heavy armor that isnt made of metal.

All that said, while expert horse riding might not be the only thing that made Pathfinders base cavalier, thats not an excuse for making it so much worse than Druids. Imagine if Clerics didnt get turning till level 10 and someone said "turning isnt the only thing that makes a Cleric", that wouldnt be a valid excuse for putting off a core part of their kit for half their career now is it?

Now imagine if at the same time Clerics lost turning till level 10, Rangers got it right away if they picked favored enemy undead. Would that be ok?

Maybe it is just me but playing a natural oriented primal spell caster who can actually commune and speak with animals AND understand their responses seems like maybe they should be better in the pure riding/controlling of horses and SHOULD be better on horseback.

I disagree. There are a ton of concepts of characters who ride horses and most of them are not Druids. Druid should not be the best way to represent characters who arent Druids.

I can understand where youre coming from, and I wouldnt really be opposed to if the Druid had the better mount ability for 1-2 levels earlier than Cavalier, but 6 levels earlier is ridiculous.

To point out another discrepancy, the Ranger is actually as good at riding as the Cavalier before level 10, in some ways better.

Baval wrote:

et me give you an example. My favorite character is a character who fights from horseback, with a shield, in melee, with an ally. What classes allow me to do that and at what level?

I would suggest a Druid for that concept. They're traditionally good at summoning allies.

However, if you want to play knight in shining armor, or a guy on a horse with a Retributive Strike and a reach weapon, or a mounted archer, there are other classes that might do a better job.

Theyre also the only class that can do that concept before level 10 in PF2. That character is actually usually a Necromancer, so it would make sense for me to be Cleric with Cavalier Archetype but that cant do it before level 10. Druid however can do it at level 4, and in fact can even get undead by taking the Cleric Archetype.

Sure if you want to play the one type that Druid physically cant be, or want the ability exclusive to one class (until archtype Paladin comes out), then Druid wont work. That doesnt really mean much though. (Also reach 10 weapons, the only kind available to medium creatures, dont have reach when mounted on a large creature, the size they have to ride and the size a horse is)

As for archer, im not so sure theres a class that can do it better than Druid levels 4-9. If you have any ideas let me know

Baval you've literally spent two posts saying how awesome Druids are because they get a free stride.

Why yes, yes I have, since thats the entire point of the thread. Ive actually spent 5-6 posts talking about that.

You've also been quite insulting as you do that.

If you say so. Im sorry if anything I said came off as insulting. However you did come into this thread about free stride to talk about everything except free stride. At several points you tried to compare Fighter to Druid which has nothing to do with this thread at all.

Good luck to you in your gaming endeavors but I'm done with responding to you in this thread.

thats fine, have fun with your games.

It seems like the Heavy metal armor component of being a good knight wouldn't jive well with the Druid. The druid may make a better light cavalry or horse archer though. I think if your plan is to ride your horse into the thick of it though, the Heavy Armor proficiencies are going to be pretty critical

I agree that if your concept is to be a knight then Druid might not be best (for now, pretty typically some non-metal heavy armor has been introduced at some point in the game)

But I dont want to *just* support the knight concept, the Cavalier Archetype should support all horseman archetypes, since mounted characters are a pretty common theme across all types of characters from wizards (Gandalf) to Juggernauts (Archaeon)

The Cavalier itself from PF1 that the Archetype is based on understood this, having plenty of Archetypes of its own to support different mounted character concepts.

Baval wrote:

Honestly did you even read most of my post? My sole definition isnt "can ride without spending an action" but rather "best enables concepts the earliest" and being able to ride without spending an action defacto makes you more effective than those that cant.

Yup. Most of it was "that's not relevant. Stop talking about that". So what else about the Druid enables the concept beyond no action auto stride? Because not a single point in this reply actually detailed that. All it did was reinforce your point of "Druids win because they get a free stride".

So stop telling me Imiss the point and start telling me what the point is.

You read my post, yet somehow missed this

but rather "best enables concepts the earliest" and being able to ride without spending an action defacto makes you more effective than those that cant.

this

Most mounted characters want the horse for mobility for one reason or another and thats it, they want their actual character doing the work and horses arent often thought of as battle mounts. Only the Druid and the Cavalier allow that, and the Druid allows it at level 4 while the Cavalier is at level 10.

and all this

Let me give you an example. My favorite character is a character who fights from horseback, with a shield, in melee, with an ally. What classes allow me to do that and at what level?

Well, to do that I need 4 actions in a turn, 1 to use my shield, 1 to command my horse, 1 to command my summoned ally, and 1 to use my weapon. I can do that with Cavalier or Druid, but I can do it at Druid level 4 or Cavalier level 10. Since I dont want to wait half my adventuring career to play the character I want to play (and its a simple concept), im forced to be a Druid.

which honestly is pretty close to my entire post.

So....i dont really know what to say to you now. I mean, you even quoted when i explained my point and asked me what it was. Thats next level not reading.

There doesnt have to be anything beyond auto stride. Thats it. Auto stride enables concepts. That single ability is what this thread is asking to make uniform between druid and cavalier. Because that single ability enables concepts. Thats the only thing I asked for. The fact that youre asking me what else I want besides that shows me you didnt even read the very first post of this thread before arguing against it. I really have no idea what else to tell you. Druids win because they get free stride.

If your sole criteria of a good cavalier is someone who can ride a horse without spending an action then you win. I will concede under THAT definition you are right.

That is not a definition I am willing to use though to be perfectly honest. If that is not your criteria can you please outline it for me. Because all I see is "druids are the best because they don't have to spend an action to get their mount to stride."

Honestly did you even read most of my post? My sole definition isnt "can ride without spending an action" but rather "best enables concepts the earliest" and being able to ride without spending an action defacto makes you more effective than those that cant.

Very few mounted warrior concepts are "I fight with my horse", in fact the only one I can think of off the top of my head is a Druid with a horse animal companion. Most mounted characters want the horse for mobility for one reason or another and thats it, they want their actual character doing the work and horses arent often thought of as battle mounts. Only the Druid and the Cavalier allow that, and the Druid allows it at level 4 while the Cavalier is at level 10.

Let me give you an example. My favorite character is a character who fights from horseback, with a shield, in melee, with an ally. What classes allow me to do that and at what level?

Well, to do that I need 4 actions in a turn, 1 to use my shield, 1 to command my horse, 1 to command my summoned ally, and 1 to use my weapon. I can do that with Cavalier or Druid, but I can do it at Druid level 4 or Cavalier level 10. Since I dont want to wait half my adventuring career to play the character I want to play (and its a simple concept), im forced to be a Druid.

Your criteria just seems to be "who gets the most actions per turn" or "who has to spend less resources to own a horse" or even "which class is better ignoring horse or otherwise" which completely misses the point.

Oh, I see. We're trying to say which class has to invest more resources. Well druids of the animal order spend half a feat on their animal companion (I think a trained skill and spell points are fair to be equal to the other half of the feat), Full Grown Companion at 4th level and 1 general feat for lance proficiency. The Fighter (Cavalier) spends 2 feats (Cavalier Dedication and Knightly Steed).

So that's 1.5+1 feats vs 2 feats. Given druids get a bit extra for their 1.5 feats but then have to spend an extra feat to boost their weapon damage I'd argue they're investing about equal amounts of resources into being a cavalier.

No, we were never trying to see which class has to invest more into being a horseman, we were trying to see which class gets to be one first and better. The answer is Druid. It gets the option of using its horse as a horse at level 4, instead of being required to use it as a combination horse and attack. The fact that even by your calculations they spend the same amount of resources and the druid still comes out much better only furthers my point. Also, its Impressive Steed not Knightly Steed the Cavalier needs, Knightly Steed only makes the mount an adult, Impressive Steed allows it to make its own moves without being commanded.

Sure. And as a fighter I could take archetype (druid) and perhaps get a
different set of mount-related feats.

There is no archetype druid, and even if there will (be which is likely) if it ends up being a better horseman than the horseman archetype that still a problem. The same problem im pointing out. Druids are better horsemen than Cavaliers.

I did make that note in my post. I have to believe Paizo fully intend for lances to be usable atop horses though.

There is no rule that says you cant use a lance atop a horse, 2 handed or otherwise.

1) The prohibition against metal is only against metal armor and shields.
2) Scythes are also a two-handed weapon. I'd be less confident of PF2e allowing scythes to be used atop a horse, but it could definitely be possible (they might limit it to two-handed piercing weapons or just limit it to the lance itself).
3) That extra 1d10 is only on your second and third attacks (but still a really good feat).

We could compare the two builds in total which I did start doing by mentioning weapon attacks. Fighters get more HP, but druids get spells. Fighters can spend their stat points on charisma instead of dex (STR, CON, WIS, CHA), but druids can have higher reflex saves (STR, DEX, CON, WIS).

Overall ideally you'll find both classes are much of a muchness (and if they're not then there's an indicator of an overpowered or underpowered feat or two).

Youre pointing out a bunch of things that are irrelevant. 1 was already pointed out to me and acknowledged. 2 is nonsensical since there are no rules restricting using 2 handed weapons while mounted. 3 is something i already mentioned and completely irrelevant.

We dont need to compare HP and saves and things like that to determine which class makes the better horseman, we only need to compare one thing: which class is better at riding around on a horse in combat. The answer at levels 1 and 4-9 is Druid.

What I specifically wanted to look at was "how good are the two classes at being a cavalier"

Then why are you talking about things that are irrelevant to how good the two classes are at riding horses?

It's irrelevant though because both the druid and fighter can choose to benefit from the work together ability. Furthermore the animal companion cannot use work together unless they are commanded to which means they're "one free stride or strike" that the druid gets is irrelevant.

I feel like you didnt even read the rest of the line. Your response was completely irrelevant to my point, which was the only real advantage the fighter gets from moving with their horse is the work together benefit, since the horses attack is defacto weaker than the Druids scythe, but the work together benefit still is not better than the Druids scythe (and even if it was, the Druid also has that option)

And the fighter gets more class feats and the fighter gets expert and master weapon proficiency, more hit points, etc, etc.

Once again, irrelevant. Firstly, we are not comparing the fighter to the druid we are comparing the cavalier to the druid, and only in terms of how well they can ride horses. The druids mount enables them to make more non-striking actions in a round than the cavaliers mount does from level 4-9. These can include but are not limited to tripping, using a shield, and casting spells. These are not specifically benefits of the druid, they are benefits of using the Druids mounts free move as an extra action while performing non-striking actions. The Druids mount also allows the druid to make more powerful attacks than the Cavalier, because it allows them to make their own attacks rather than using the non scaling attacks of the horse.

If you want to look at which is the better class: druid vs fighter, go for it. But that's not relevant to the conversation of which one is better able to work with their animal companion while expending the same or less resources.

I agree, its completely irrelevant so stop bringing it up. Also stop bringing up "expending the same or less resources" because that is also irrelevant. The only thing being discussed here is "who is better at riding horses, and at what level"

See my analysis as to why I disagree. If you are trying to say the druid is a better class than the fighter, you can. But that might be better in another thread. If you want to say the druid is a better mounted warrior then the fighter (cavalier) I'll need evidence before I agree with you. Because so far druids do not have an edge in the action economy.

Your analysis, which previously precluded any scenario but standing right next to the target, now tries to make it seem like the Cavaliers 4 actions and the Druids 4 actions are equal, when the third attack is very different (a minimum of 2d10 damage from the druids scythe vs 1d6 from the horses hooves, with the gulf widened further with magic weapons and crits). It also precludes once again any options other than moving in and using all your actions on strikes. If for example it becomes needed to trip an enemy the druid can move in with his mount and get 3 trip attacks, while the fighter must command his mount and only gets 2 as the horse cant trip. Or if the Cavalier was a magic Cavalier the Druid could move with his horse while retaining 3 actions to cast a spells or other activities like using a shield, while the cavalier must command his horse to move, not using the second action the horse gets at all, and is left with 2 actions to split between spellcasting and other activities. Or, if theyre an archer, the same thing happens where the Druid can have his horse move from combat and then fire 3 arrows while the Cavalier must command his horse to move and fire only 2

Otha wrote:

But, as you say, the RPG market is probably different. I just don't know if Paizo can afford to lose the majority of their Grognards unless they can get at least a matching infusion of new players...

Thing is, grognards will eventually leave the game, it's a group with dwindling numbers by definition. You cannot add new grognards to the group there are, but you substract some of them every year. If not because some other reason, at least because they'll die of old age someday.

The game NEEDS new players for long term success. The game does not need grognards, can survive without them.

The problem here is just that picking up new players is riskier. It might work, or it might not, and if it doesn't work, Paizo will suffer, a lot. So it's a choice between taking a risk, and succeed or die in a blazing fireball of glory, or sit down and slowly wait your death.

You can certainly add new grognards, depending on your definition. Sure you cant add people who have literally been playing the game for years and wont leave the edition they started with, but you can certainly add new people who started on older editions and prefer them if grognards start them on that edition. I myself prefer 3.X almost exclusively (play some 5E now and then and other game systems) and have added plenty of other people who also prefer 3.X to the hobby.

Wait... Animal Companions attack at -10? They don't get their own MAP iteration?

It depends on if youre riding them or not. If youre riding them they count yours as part of theirs and vice versa. See page 315 "Mounted Attacks"

Druids can use metal weapons all they like. It's only metal armor and shields that are anathema.

even better then

Why cant I spend a general feat to get a lance as a druid too? Theyre typically wooden weapons. It would cost less feats than the fighters spending for Cavalier. Or if I really wanted to I could take Archetype (fighter) and pick up some of the fighters tricks too.

There are currently no rules to use a lance one handed while mounted you didnt overlook that (or we both did. Also a Lance is not 1d10 on the charge, its 1d8+1. They come out to the same average though so thats mostly semantics.

In addition id probably be looking to use a Scythe as a mounted Druid if I truly only cared about my damage, since my Savage Slice allows me to add an extra 1d10 to the second hit for free, and both its base damage and deadly quality are higher which is likely more valuable than the few extra damage from Charge. Im aware Scythe is a partially metal weapon, but not much more than a Scimitar and its nature related, so I could probably talk most DMs into allowing it (and even if not, it would only be one anathema so it shouldnt cost me my druid powers)

But more importantly youre overlooking the point of this thread, which is youre assuming both players start right next to the enemy and make their mounts attack with them, when my point is that if they dont start right next to the enemy the Druid can have his horse make a free move to get him next and then take 3 attacks of his own, while the fighter has to command his horse to move and then gets 2 attacks and his horse gets 1.

Does the Work Together benefit make up for the extra attack? Possibly, but that depends entirely on how likely you are to hit with your third attack, as +1 to damage for the first 2 attacks doesnt make up for an extra 1d6-1d10 or more if the third attack hits, even if the first one crits (likely if the third has a good chance to hit). But there are other things he might want to do after moving, such as blocking, tripping, or even being a spellcaster and thus not using the Work Together benefit, at which point the Druid gains the distinct advantage over the Cavalier.

The cavalier description says "How you fight from your mount can vary, from striking with a lance to casting spells.", but as it stands the Druid is as good or better at both from level 4-10 (and at level 1 as well, when the Druid will have his companion while the Cavalier-to-be will have to at best rent a warhorse).

If my main character concept is a mounted warrior, I can best achieve that by being a Druid rather than being any other class and picking up the cavalier archetype, and by quite a lot. Why? Because Animal Order Druids get the ability to let their horse move without them spending an action to make it move at level 4, while Cavaliers dont get it till level 10.

That is a remarkable dissonance between concept and rules, as I think most people who want to ride a horse dont want to be a druid and vice versa (i imagine most druids want a wolf or hawk or something)

Im not suggesting nerfing animal order druids, because that ability makes sense for them, but how about letting cavaliers get the ability to have a beneficial horse at the same level, seeing as horses bring a ton of inconveniences with them.

The description says it changes harm to a duration of 24 hours, but the critical failure effect is you control the undead for 1 hour. Which if any of the following is true:

1: The 24 hour duration is a mistake and you control the undead 1 minute or 1 hour, after which it goes free

2: The 24 hours is how long the spell lasts and when the undead becomes uncontrolled it has to save again until 24 hours are up or it makes the save.

3: The 24 hours is a restraint on the spell, it lasts 1 minute or 1 hour and then cant be used on that undead again because technically he already has Harm on him for 24 hours.

Edit: since improved command undead makes it last up to 24 hours, I assume the 24 hour duration is just a precaution and the answer is: you control the undead as long as the result indicates and the remaining time does nothing at all, positive or negative.

So my other question is why are you only allowed to have 4 undead minions at a time? That is really terrible for anyone who wants to be a necromancer. (not that you can control more than realistically 1-2 at a time anyway thanks to the terrible minion system trying to prevent "undesirable" gamestates)

In total, it works out in your favour with an animal companion when you look at the total number of actions you can take on your turn.

1. PC with pet shop animal = Handle animal action, Command animal action, Command animal action = 2 useful actions out of that turn (both taken by the animal in this case)
2. PC with animal companion = Handle animal action, Command animal action, Command animal action = 4 useful actions out of that turn (all taken by the animal)
3. PC with Ride feat, mounted on pet shop animal = Command animal action x 3 = 3 useful actions (all taken by the animal)
4. PC with Ride feat, mounted on animal companion with mount quality = Command animal action x 3 = 6 useful actions (all taken by the animal)

So the weirdness around mounts and the Ride feat remains, but each time, you're better off with the animal companion.

wow, i didnt even realize you had to spend an action for each action your mount takes. Thats even worse. I assumed you just had to "command an animal" as upkeep each turn for it to do anything like minions.

I guess that means necromancers do ride undead horses though.

It gets odder than that. If Rover is an animal companion, it's a Minion and gets two actions. If you bought it from the pet shop, it gets three. So a stock horse the wizard bought at auction that morning runs 50% faster than the ranger's AC.

necromancers only ride living horses because undead horses lose an action.

It is not too late, but it is not very useful. The people who don't like the current changes, probably won't like different changes, unless it is a 3.76 version of the current 3.75 engine, and that is something Paizo has already discarded. At the very least, they should let us playtest a few adventures and give the survey a fair shot. Then they can decide if they scrap this revolutionary change to start a different revolution, or keep this revolutionary change.

What is gone forever is the option to keep the status quo. Revolution is coming, be it one way or another, I feel.

I disagree, I very much like the concept of the class feats and the 3 actions and stuff like that. Its all the crappy limitations put into the system that I loathe. Trying to make the game break proof is making it garbage. Certain things cost actions that shouldnt, like using shields or riding horses, certain things cost continuous actions that shouldnt, like commanding undead every round, and certain things are just unnecessary, like reach being reduced while mounted or multiclassing being hard enforced to be undippable.

Ive said before the reason I dont go back to 3.5 is because Pathfinder allows so much creativity in its systems, so I was looking forward to PF2 opening up the system even more to allow concepts to be doable (like what SoP and SoM did for PF1) and instead what were getting is a hardline "play out way or not at all" system that I rejected PFS for and am rejecting this system for.

Its amazing to me considering Pathfinders origins how much worse than 4E PF2 feels. So many restrictions and so many things ruined in the name of "balance".

Let me give you an example. My favorite character is a necromancer/warrior who uses a whip and a shield while mounted. I like the idea of a terrifying master of the undead riding proud amongst his minions. Now in PF2, he has to spend 1 action to ride his horse (with a feat), 1 action to use his shield, and 1 action to command his 1 skeleton I guess. No actions left to actually use his whip, and no way to have more than 3 skeletons ever, and even commanding 1 hes never actually using his whip or making intimidate checks or anything. I might as well just have him on the ground with no weapons commanding 3. Even the whip if I could use it is completely useless with its 1d4 damage and no reach because reach 10 weapons have no reach when used from horseback now.

I will never play PF2 released as it is now, or anything close to as it is now.

The minion system feels so video-gamey and a ton of the limitations in the system in general feel like attempts to limit players from being able to break anything. It just feels like an attempt to make an MMO rather than an RPG

I love Pathfinder for its ability to make pretty much any concept I want because the rules (when I ignore the "erratas" like hands of effort) dont limit me in what I can do. This new system is trying to put restrictions on everything the developers dont like. Restricted multiclassing, restricted summoning, restricted minions, restricted everything.

Riding a horse while using a shield takes up all your actions in a round unless you have the ride feat, and then it only takes up most of your actions. These are things that are passive in real life! And unless i overlooked something its impossible to be mounted with a lance and a shield since the lance has no rules for being one handed while mounted.

And on topic if a necromancer wants to invade a town as currently written he needs 1 necromancer for every 2 undead he has (2 commands for the undead and 1 action to move with them) and they cant go to sleep ever (leave an undead alone for more than a minute and they regain free will if theyre intelligent).

Its incredibly ironic how much PF2 feels like 4E because of this crap.

Seems to be a mistake in your review or in the PDFs terminology, as "adding 1 to the crit range" would normally mean the number you have to roll to threaten a crit. So the sniper doesnt steadily do more damage if he gets a crit, but rather has more of a chance of getting a crit if he takes time to aim, which makes sense. In that regard a +1 to crit range is actually pretty weak on a weapon that is normally a 20/x4, since 4 rounds of aiming gets you nothing but a 15-20/x4 which while impressive, is only a 25% chance to do the damage you probably would have done otherwise if you shot each round. Unless of course the crit range increase is applied before Keen, in which case it becomes pretty good (and still not broken)

I also pretty strongly disagree on your assertion that free ammo is a huge problem that will unbalance guns, but thats a matter of opinion.

halflings are often nomadic, so a GM could include warnings carved into trees or stones in halfling in wilderness areas that might help players avoid or prepare for natural encounters.

Youre right to a point. I do say the definition of the term takes preference over an incomplete list of examples.

You know, because thats logical. Its reasonable to assume a list of examples wont cover every possible iteration and that looking at the definition of the term and coming to your own conclusion makes more sense. Anything else is a logical fallacy or pure rules lawyering cheese.

But to each his own.

Btw, you didnt give any examples because all your examples boil down to "just because its a smart doesnt mean its not still a stupid"

And no one labels their own rulings "this is something im just saying because im worried someone will break it otherwise and isnt actually whats written."

And dont try to take the moral highground here "oh you just dont like the rules as theyve been changed so now you want to pretend they dont count since ive said four times now that still needing handle animal is official Paizo ruling but that that ruling doesnt make sense so i would ignore it personally if, and ive now said this twice, I ever used animal companions since I dont.

What a joke, theres no point even talking to you anymore since your argument constantly revolves around "lists of examples overrule definitions!" and "you dont have anything specifically written out to prove your obvious inference. if its not written into the core rulebook 'Baval is right' then youre wrong"

ok i was wrong about autohypnisis, but knowledge which is also about memory is also int based. However memory has been a long debated subject so were not going to get a clear answer here since neither of us have strong ground to stand on

animal companions are called out as the exception, although you are correct they carried that line over and animals with an int of 3 or more are *supposed* to become magical beasts, but thats a 3.5 definition.

memory is int based. Wizards memorize their spells and its an int based class. linguistics is int based. autohypnosis is int based. Memory is int based.

Baval wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

by the time an animal companion gets an int of 3 or higher it will have spent enough time with its master to have picked up at least one of its languages

I agree, and youre perfectly free to put its first skill rank into linguistics to represent that. That is how skills and experience points work, you gain experience doing things and you turn those into concrete benefits through leveling up.

nope without the linguistics points, the animal would have spent months or years with its master and oppon reaching 3 int it would have an epiphany about language and say "oh that's what words are" as a forum of higher thinking is unlocked in their brain just like how if a pc has an int of 2 or less they cant talk and what not as they have been regressed into less knowledge

No that is the opposite. You can spontaneously forget things you once knew, you cant spontaneously know things you didnt know.

The creature did not have the mental capacity before to learn a language, so it didnt just store it as useless information for later. Think of it like a computer, you cant install windows 10 on a T98 and then just replace the hard drive and it works, because it is physically incapable of storing that kind of information before.

Baval wrote:

Nooooo, thats not what i said ever and ive said 3 times that that isnt what i said. What i said is since linguistics gives you an ability getting those same abilties without any outside source is against the rules. Its not a hard concept.

Its a very easy concept. You're not saying x you're saying x. Because if you were saying x you would be wrong but since you're saying x you're so right that paizo would have to be wrong.

There is no functional difference to what you say you're saying and what you say you're not saying.

Quote:

Int only gives you bonus languages at the start of the game, int increases afterwards do not give you additional languages.

It doesn't say that. The words "at the start of the game" are there, but they don't necessarily carry over through the next sentence. The number of bonus languages your character knows at the start of the game depends on his intelligence score at the start of the game. The rules do not explicitly spell out what happens when your int is raised. That is an interpretation on your part, an interpretation that (once again) isn't the rules.

Look im going to put this as simply as i can:

There are many ways to get new languages. Every PC starts with at least one, usually common. You can put points into linguistics and get more. Some class abilities give you more. Some feats give you more. Even a few spells give you more.

But just stating to the DM "i speak elven now because ive been talking to elves" isnt one of them. When you want to do something you have to use the rules there to do it, you cant just will it to happen.

What next sentence? "These are in addition to any starting racial languages and Common. "? Thats a non point. The point about when you get bonus languages for int is all one sentence, and that sentence is at the start of the game. You cant just say "the rules dont spell out every specific instance of anything that could possibly happen in clear lawer speak so i can do whatever i want". Otherwise I could say "it says at level 1 clerics get 2 domains but it doesnt say i cant keep getting more domains later"

As I said, youre just saying random things now.

by the time an animal companion gets an int of 3 or higher it will have spent enough time with its master to have picked up at least one of its languages

I agree, and youre perfectly free to put its first skill rank into linguistics to represent that. That is how skills and experience points work, you gain experience doing things and you turn those into concrete benefits through leveling up.

Baval wrote:

Youre just saying random things now.

No. It's not random. Its a straightforward, point black, objective refutation of your logic. "Random" has a different meaning than "gives a restult that I don't like".

Quote:

Ok, then if thats the case why did you point out twice in a row that humans have a starting language.

Because You are making the following argument

That is what the linguistics skill does. Every rank in it is a new language. If your DM lets you learn languages without it thats their call

The linguistics skill gives you a language, therefore anything that isn't the linguistics skill giving you a language is a contradiction. This is refuted by the number of things that give you a language, including...

Quote:

There is no grey area here. You only get languages from int when your character is first created. Raising int afterwards does not allow you to learn new languages unless you put skills in linguistics or have another ability such as a class feature or feat that specifically say you can.

This is also wrong.

Intelligence: If my Intelligence modifier increases, can I select another bonus language?

Yes. For example, if your Int is 13 and you reach level 4 and apply your ability score increase to Int, this increases your Int bonus from +1 to +2, which grants you another bonus language.
Technically, Int-enhancing items such as a headband of vast intelligence should grant a specific language (in the same way they do for skill ranks).
posted June 2013 | back to top

Nooooo, thats not what i said ever and ive said 3 times that that isnt what i said. What i said is since linguistics gives you an ability getting those same abilties without any outside source is against the rules. Its not a hard concept.

Thanks for showing me another way Paizo doesnt know the rules its lifting.
Quote:
The number of bonus languages your character knows at the start of the game. These are in addition to any starting racial languages and Common. If you have a penalty, you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3.

Int only gives you bonus languages at the start of the game, int increases afterwards do not give you additional languages.

However in this specific case its likely intentional, as they made all bonuses from leveling up retroactive on purpose, a direct and intentional change from 3.5. So in this case its not misunderstanding what the rules say but rather forgetting to change the wording when copying.

However note that it changes nothing for animals, as a negative int gives you no bonus languages even if you increase it until it becomes positive.

I very much agree with Baval, Lady-J, and BNW. In my home game I specifically suggested our Hunter/Samurai to put her Tiger's first stat point increase in Int, and a skill point in Linguistics when she could, cuz it saves me a headache (since I'm inexperienced as a DM)...

Then again I also allowed her to take Beast Rider (at 1st level) in exchange for Mounted Archer, and suggested Hunter and specifically Pack Master when she found a second animal she wanted to add as a pet. She now has found a Roc egg she wants to hatch as well x3

good dm.

"this is your concept, lets see what we can do to make it work in the rules and if it doesnt exist we'll bend them a little"

thats what youre supposed to do. Its about fun before anything else

Baval wrote:

I didnt say there was no other way to acquire a language.

You are arguing as if that is the case. What you said was read. What you said was considered. What you argued is being objected to on it's own merits. If that bothers you change your position because the idea that there's a contradiction here is completely unfounded.

Quote:

Because thats how the rules work. If something allows you to do something you cant do it without that thing unless you have another way to do it in the rules. Otherwise feats and skills and everything else are useless.

This is completely made up. Thats not whats happening at all.

Sentient creatures (those with int 3+) start with a language. Animals don't start out with a language. I don't know if this rule is spelled out anywhere, but its a heck of a trend.

An animal companion starts knowing no languages, but becomes sentient (or sapient if you prefer) and gains an int 3. Does it get a language?

That was a bonified gray area "there are no rules that cover this" situation. The blog filled in that blank with a yes. PFS filled that blank in with a "get a point in linguistics".

None of the rules you're citing to the contrary are actually rules, nor do they logically follow from any rules that you're citing. Calling the official blog a house rule because you have a terrible argument against it is.. i don't know if its the height of hubris but you're climbing way up there for a view.

Youre just saying random things now. "what you said was read". Ok, then if thats the case why did you point out twice in a row that humans have a starting language. "If that bothers you change your position because the idea that there's a contradiction here is completely unfounded. " You havent even *mentioned* the contradiction i brought up (that an awakened creature both obeys and might not obey your orders) you just keep talking about languages. Youre not very good at either arguing or reading.

And then you go on to argue that you can do things without the relevant skills or feats for them?

I dont want to play whatever game youre playing in where the core framework of the game is ignored. Its one thing to say "im ignoring this rule it doesnt make sense" and another entirely to say "im ignoring the concept of the game having rules"

"Sure you can finesse without weapon finesse. Yeah you can speak as many languages as you want"

Theres no hard rule that every creature with an int of 3 or more has a language. That is just a common occurrence because most things with an int of 3 or more values langauge. The Carbuncle has an int of 6 and has no language.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/magical-beasts/carbuncle/

nor does the devil dog, not even a way of communicating
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/magical-beasts/devil-dog- tohc/

There is no grey area here. You only get languages from int when your character is first created. Raising int afterwards does not allow you to learn new languages unless you put skills in linguistics or have another ability such as a class feature or feat that specifically say you can.

Baval wrote:

That is what the linguistics skill does. Every rank in it is a new language. If your DM lets you learn languages without it thats their call, but its the same as letting a player use dex to hit without weapon finesse.

You are making leap of logic to reach a rules interpretation and using that interpretation to say that paizo is wrong.

That absolutely doesn't work.

Just because you learn a new language with a rank in linguistics does not mean that there's no other way to acquire a language. In fact, most characters start with a language despite having zero ranks in linguistics.

A--->B

C---> Not B.

Your interpretation of the rules is not the rules. There is no contradiction here.

I didnt say there was no other way to acquire a language. I specifically said already that every PC race starts with at least 1 language, please read what I actually say. In addition there are class abilities and feats and the like that can give you languages.

However the way you dont get a language is telling your DM "btw i know this new language now for reasons" because hes going to ask "did you put ranks in linguistics?"

Because thats how the rules work. If something allows you to do something you cant do it without that thing unless you have another way to do it in the rules. Otherwise feats and skills and everything else are useless.

Now if your DM says "you have been living with elves for 5 years and picked up elven" thats his call. The same as if he says "youve been training in the pits for 5 years so now you can Power Attack"

Baval wrote:

Animals do not. To learn a new language a creature needs to put ranks in linguistics.

Please realize you are claiming that paizo isn't following the rules they made up without even bothing to cite a contradiction.

To learn a new language a creature needs to put ranks in linguistics.<---- Where is this coming from? Where is the rule, or what rule are you drawing this inference from?

Please realize you are claiming Paizo made up rules that are copied from Wizards of the Coast word for word. And I already cited several contradictions, such as awakened animals leaving or not obeying you despite the awaken spell explicitly stating the most recent one obeys your orders.

That is what the linguistics skill does. Every rank in it is a new language. If your DM lets you learn languages without it thats their call, but its the same as letting a player use dex to hit without weapon finesse.

Baval wrote:

I think that blog is wrong.

Blogs are really big FAQ subjects, so this is kind of like saying that the rules are wrong.

Quote:

The rules of the game say anything needs to put a point into linguistics to understand a language.

So human fighters without ranks in linguistics are limited to points and grunts?

If you mean something else, provide a citation.

Quote:

Another thing is that blog treats the gaining the intelligence as something that just happens overnight, and not the eventual result of a gaining thats been happening the whole last level as its supposed to represent

Leveling is kind of funny in the game, but its a necessary abstraction

Paizo is working with rules they didnt write. The rules are right here, Paizos interpretation of them is wrong. Paizo pretty much always skews its faqs in the direction of whichever ruling will cause the least exploits regardless of what the rules actually say or what would make logical sense.

Human Fighters start with common and possibly racial languages. Animals do not. To learn a new language a creature needs to put ranks in linguistics. Common might be a language almost every creature who can speak speaks (and even then not all), but its not a divine magical language zapped into your brain.

pulled right from the book/paizo rules website

Creatures incapable of speech have an Intelligence score of 2 or lower.
meaning if you have 3 int or more you are capable of speech which means you are capable of language

Capable doesn't mean you automatically know one. Humans are capable of learning every language but that doesn't mean they automatically do. See my above comment about common and zapping.

Also you got it backwards. Int 3 means capable of learning a language, it does not mean capable of speech.

Baval wrote:

thats actually wrong lady-j, they need to take the linguistics before they can understand a language

PFS has a rule that they need a point of linguistics. According to the monkey see monkey do blog they just get it after an unspecified amount of time and work.

I think that blog is wrong. The rules of the game say anything needs to put a point into linguistics to understand a language. Another thing is that blog treats the gaining the intelligence as something that just happens overnight, and not the eventual result of a gaining thats been happening the whole last level as its supposed to represent

The blog also says awakened animals might leave eventually when the blog says that your most recent awakened animal obeys your commands

thats actually wrong lady-j, they need to take the linguistics before they can understand a language

The rules say what they say. It's not unclear.

Animal companions regardless of intelligence require tricks and handle animal for them to take actions as desired by their PC handler. If this doesn't make sense to you or is illogical...well it's your prerogative to change it for your home games, but there's no sense in arguing it here.

I agree completely (and have said so about 3 times now), however I do enjoy discussing the logic behind rules. Theres no doubt that in any official Pathfinder strict game Id have to follow these rules (if i ever used an animal companion) but that doesn't mean they make sense.

Baval wrote:

Reksew_Trebla wrote:

But, that’s already been explained, several times in this thread. So the fact that you are asking for an explanation that has already been given to you can only mean you are trolling. Great, now I’m sad, because apparently even this awesome site gets trolls.

No, it has not been explained

Literally every time you brought it up it was countered in this thread. Just reread the posts opposing you, except this time actually accept the fact that you could be wrong instead of being an a** and assuming everyone not agreeing with you is automatically wrong.

The short answer, since your a troll, thus I know you won’t actually do that, is that those two things do NOT in fact both apply to animals. Animals don’t understand languages just cause they gained a 3 or more in intelligence, it takes several years to learn one, and even after learning one, they still have their natural instincts and thus won’t just obey you just because they know what you are saying.

Now I know you’re just going to call me wrong because I’m not agreeing with you, so I’m not going to bother replying again, because you know, do not feed the trolls and what not.

Cute how you think anyone who disagrees with you is a troll, youll go far with that attitude.

Youre the first person to bring up that the animal doesnt instantly learn a language, and while thats true fluffwise its irrelevant since mechanically as soon as I give it a rank in linguistics it does.

Your argument for after having one is "it still has its natural instincts and thus wont just obey you" to which I counter with the *printed rules* " sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability."

So yes it will, or else you once again have to explain how "obeys your orders to the best of its ability" and "wont obey you unless you teach it a trick" both make sense when talking about the same subject who can understand you.

Oh but wait, Im a troll so you wont respond again.

But, that’s already been explained, several times in this thread. So the fact that you are asking for an explanation that has already been given to you can only mean you are trolling. Great, now I’m sad, because apparently even this awesome site gets trolls.

No, it has not been explained, so why don't you explain it.

How do you reconcile two directly opposing traits on the same subject. It's really easy to try and take the high ground and tell people to grow up or dismiss any argument you dont have an answer to as "youre just trolling" but its a lot harder to actually back up your claims.

Wow, I have never seen so many people whining like little kids about how the rules don’t make sense (even though they do in fact make sense) while simultaneously calling the people who aren’t agreeing with their factually wrong protests names. Like god d***, grow the f*** up and either don’t play pathfinder or accept the rules.

Back on topic, since the game supports theoretically infinitely leveled characters, and there are archetypes which let you divide your effective druid levels between as many animal companions you want, you can take a theoretically infinite amount of animal companions. However high you go in epic levels is how many animal companions you get.

They make sense huh? Ok. Ill leave it to you to explain how "can understand a language and obeys your orders to the best of its ability" and "cant understand you and/or wont obey you unless you teach it a trick" both make sense when talking about the same subject.

Nice thing about roleplaying games is I dont have to accept the bad rules to play the game, I can change any that dont make sense.

Baval wrote:

I didnt omit any of it. I referenced only the relevant part, that being the actual definition of sentience in Pathfinder and a description of how a sentient companion acts. The parts youre bolding have no relevance.

The first part regarding what is a non sentient animal is a list of examples, not a hard list. The definition of what is sentient is provided. It specifically defines a sentient animal as one with int of 3 that can understand a language. A list of examples doesnt change the definition, nor is it reasonable to expect a list of examples to include every possible situation that could possibly come up when a hard rule (an animal with with int 3 and can understand languages) was already defined. The wording supports this, using "fall into this category" rather than "comprise this category".

The second part regarding still needing handle animal is an FAQ which i addressed. It is a damage control faq like the "hands of effort" one or a number of others and is just damage control for potentially overpowered builds and not anything that actually makes sense. It is however still the official rules.

Learn to read other peoples posts if youre going to be cocky.

That's truly a sentence you should't conclude with as you didn't in fact read what I've written in my other posts, and you're being twice as cocky as I am.

For exemple, if you readed my earlier posts, you would have known that if that text started as an FAQ in 2011 it was later made part of official printed rules in 2013, and then incorporated in the official online SRD.
And thus, you should have known that it makes you "it's just FAQ" argument obsolete even before writting it.... because it's litteraly RAW now.

Then, on the point of being cocky, how do you qualify someone that dismiss whole sentences of the rules on the behalf -he- decide they are just exemples when NOWHERE it's written they are?
And dismiss the validity of what official rule writters say as a clairfication to the said rules under the pretext...

See this is a prime example. I *did* read what you said and offered a rebuttal to them. I said that the FAQ is a damage control FAQ to the way things did work in 3.5. The rules are lifted straight from that with the extra bit from the FAQ tacked on.

*Every* FAQ or errata answer is RAW. Thats the point of them, to clarify what is RAW. However Paizo often likes to change what is actually RAW (which they didnt themselves actually write remember since theyre lifted from 3.5) to try and curb what they see as overpowered abilities. Again, this is shown by the fact that their addition directly contradicts the definition of sentient companions actions. Indeed the wording "it is a smart animal rather than a low-intelligence person" shows whoever wrote the FAQ doesnt understand how objective ability scores work. For another related example go look at the essay on how animal companions will act after awakened from animal archive, which directly contradicts the awaken animal spell. So no I don't put myself above the people who created the game (Wizards of the Coast), but I do at times consider myself less prone to knee jerk reactions than the people who modified the game(Paizo) and this is why as a DM I will often ignore nonsensical FAQs, even if they get printed. Note however that I did say twice through this thread that official Pathfinder rules are you still need to use Handle Animal and that cant be overruled without a house rule.

I am able to ignore certain irrelevant parts such as the list by using simple reading skills. For example in the following sentence:

A dictator (a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force) will often be harmful to his country. Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Mao Zedong fall into this category.

You'll notice that I used the exact same format and wording as the sentient companion listing. It is understood that the list is not a compiled list of every possible and past dictator, and that instead you should refer to the definition to determine on your own what qualifies. In general you can ignore lists from any given definition except as clarification *unless* the list specifically says the list is all inclusive. The lists in the companion definitions do not.

All of this, all of it, I already explained in my previous post. So now Ive read and rebutted everything you said, lets see if you bother to read what I say.

Lady-J wrote:

fun fact if a dog had an int of 18 it would be as smart as Albert Einstein

I would vote for Dr Genius Dog.

However, this is a game, there is a specific exception for animals, so no.

The exception is only that you still need to use handle animal for some reason, it is still that smart.

Lady-J wrote:

that's because animals are far more intelligent then the game gives them credit for and are there for poorly made rules while there are some dumb animals that would fall under the kind of rules currently in place for animals not all of them fall into that category some of whom are nearly on par with humans and a small handful are smarter

This again ? How long are you going to hammer this intelligence argument when I explained you three times already that intelligence is totaly irrelevant on the matter?

Are we going to do the whole thread again from the beginning because you don't make any effort to integrate the elements of information that were given to you?

Intelligence is not irrelevant in the slightest as Lady-J is correct that it is 50% of the defining characteristic of sentience in Pathfinder, and 100% in 3.5.

Intelligence like all ability scores is not relative to the creature it is an absolute number. A creature with an int of 10 IS as smart as the average human, whether its a mindflayer (making it dumb for mindflayer) or a dog (making it incredibly intelligent for dogs)

BigNorseWolf wrote:

1) it makes sense around int 3 or 4. 5, 6, 10? It starts to not.

I've explained why it makes sense, but seems I could as well piss in the snow... so your turn: please explain me in what the fact a creature reach 10 intelligence suddently turns it into a perfectly submissive being that would suddently jump into the lava with no check needed if you asked for it?

You havent, youve explained why it would make sense in a relative system, but ability scores are an absolute system. A dog with an int of 18 isnt super smart for a dog, its a genius even by human standards. It would be able to understand not only that its companion is in danger but what the danger is, why it should help them, and if it has the relevant skill checks or none are required how it can help them. To the point that a dog with ranks in heal could be expected to preform CPR to stabilize a dying player or similar crazy in the real world acts.

You claim that it makes no sense to be needed to make an handle animal checks toward an animal with 6 intelligence (I'm not talking of 10, since animal companion can't naturaly reach 10 int anyway)

I surely did an exageration speaking of a suicidal order like jumping into lava, but besides that, saying that upon hearing an order that doesn't look too suicidal, the animal will obey you everytime.

So please explain why, by your understanding, becoming more intelligent make a living creature suddently willing to obey every of your non-harmful command without question?

Becoming more intelligent doesn't make it willing to obey you, it already was willing to obey you, it allows it to understand orders it didnt previously.

Handle animal to make an animal do a trick doesn't make wild animals obey you, it makes tame animals understand you. This is specifically called out in the definition of sentient animal companions.

@Baval: Ok, let me add the full text you omitted, and bold the true relevant parts of it:

Quote:

Nonsentient Companions: a nonsentient companion (one with animal-level intelligence) is loyal to you in the way a well-trained dog is—the creature is conditioned to obey your commands, but its behavior is limited by its intelligence and it can’t make altruistic moral decisions—such as nobly sacrificing itself to save another. Animal companions, cavalier mounts, and purchased creatures (such as common horses and guard dogs) fall into this category. In general they’re GM-controlled companions. You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM.

Sentient Companions: a sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won’t necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions. (Note from myself: note there is no "animal companion" in this list)

---------------

Intelligent Animals

Increasing an animal’s Intelligence to 3 or higher means it is smart enough to understand a language. However, unless an awaken spell is used, the animal doesn’t automatically and instantly learn a language, any more than a human child does. The animal must be taught a language, usually over the course of months, giving it the understanding of the meaning of words and sentences beyond its trained responses to commands like “attack” and “heel.”

Even if the animal is taught to understand a language, it probably lacks the anatomy to actually speak (unless awaken is used). For example, dogs, elephants, and even gorillas lack the proper physiology to speak humanoid languages, though they can use their limited “vocabulary” of

...

I didnt omit any of it. I referenced only the relevant part, that being the actual definition of sentience in Pathfinder and a description of how a sentient companion acts. The parts youre bolding have no relevance.

The first part regarding what is a non sentient animal is a list of examples, not a hard list. The definition of what is sentient is provided. It specifically defines a sentient animal as one with int of 3 that can understand a language. A list of examples doesnt change the definition, nor is it reasonable to expect a list of examples to include every possible situation that could possibly come up when a hard rule (an animal with with int 3 and can understand languages) was already defined. The wording supports this, using "fall into this category" rather than "comprise this category".

The second part regarding still needing handle animal is an FAQ which i addressed. It is a damage control faq like the "hands of effort" one or a number of others and is just damage control for potentially overpowered builds and not anything that actually makes sense. It is however still the official rules.

Learn to read other peoples posts if youre going to be cocky.

That's probably completly wrong, because I'm prettry sure there is absolutly no rule stating that an int of 3 is a sufficient condition to be qualitifed as "sentient", but who cares?

I already explained to you that becoming sentient is not going to make any creature magicaly become also magicaly dominated and thus forced to obey your every whim without you needing to roll some skill to convaince it.

So, it's still irrelevant for the current topic.

In 3.5 it was the rule, int 2 means sapient int 3 means sentient (and Magical Beast). However thats 3.5 and this is Pathfinder, and the rules are clear even if they dont make sense and are just there to prevent exploits.

That said if those rules werent there gaining sentience would make it obey your commands. Your special bond with your animal companion and the explicit wording " A sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won't necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive." means its highly likely to follow your orders unless it thinks of what it considers a better plan. Its not dominated to do so, but chances are it respects you enough and your battle judgement to do so. Relevant parts bolded

The FAQ is just standard Paizo damage control of anything which could get out of hand and actively counteracts their own printed definition of what a sentient animal is and how it acts. But one of the reasons people like Pathfinder over 3.5 is it keeps overpowered tricks to a minimum.

although the pfsrd links to the teleport spell, in the actual books they are not italicized. They reference only the common term, not the specific spell (and would say as the spell if they did)

aye even I missed that evidence but its strong evidence

Yes, I went and looked it over and edited my post as you were posting.

Taking a 1 level dip will net you a small pool of maneuvers and a relatively low initiator level, but it will still proc the retraining every 2 (or in the case of cleric 4) levels.

In addition without feats you would never learn higher level stances

Baval, I know that's how it's written, but strictly by how it's written, you could just take 1 level of one of the classes, like Zealot for instance, and then take the rest of your levels in Cleric for instance, and still continue to be able to swap old maneuvers for higher level ones as you advance in cleric levels. That doesn't seem right.

Edit: I made a mistake, I havent used PoW in a while. Cleric increases your initiator level by 1/2 per level, and separate classes stack. Therefor, yes you could take a 1 level dip but you would have a small pool of maneuvers and a relatively low initiator level.

Likewise, other initiating base classes start their own separate initiator level, and so wont proc each other.

Prestige classes however increase the initiator level that you were before joining, so they will proc it.

MadScientistWorking wrote:

lucklesshero wrote:

I just felt there was enough to have fun with already in the game..how many ways can you re-skin a Wizard or a Ranger? (apparently a lot)

Besides I sometimes feel with all the options presented it took away(suppressed) some of the roll-play opportunities from existing classes.
I mean why play a mystical mind control wizard when you can play the Mesmerist?

The mesmerist is a class which actually supports a specific playstyle with unique mechanics. Far more interesting design than the wizard and enables some bizarre combinations that work.

Not disagreeing with you MadScientistWorking....I believe (and Sales support) that many players like to have mechanics more in line with the particular concept they have. My preference would be to roll-play most of the flavor in order to keep rules bloat down. It's not a right or wrong debate..just bringing up a question of preference..

I would add...when does it stop? How many new mechanics (which is just another way of saying rules) can or will they introduce? No amount of books could ever replace a single person's capacity to imagine new and creative character concepts....so why try? Point is: I believe they've given us enough skins (or at least I'm satisfied with what they've given us)..I can work with the rest.

But I acknowledge and respect that others feel differently.

I do agree that theyve certainly given us more than enough to at least partially represent everyones ideal character, but every new concept put out might bring new abilities that are slightly more in line with what a player wants.

My signature character has gone through at least 20 iterations over the 5 years hes existed, at least 3 times of which ive said "This is the perfect class for my concept"

Right now its the Dread with the Nightmare archtype, because its a fear based melee combatant. But hes also a necromancer and uses a whip, and I need to multiclass and spend feats wisely to make that work. Will a class come out thats better? Who knows, I look forward to finding out.