Malanorea's page

The soulbolt's mind bolt uses the same progression as the soulknife's mind blade.

I came here while searching for a similar answer. I know the progression is the same, but is Soulbolt supposed to have a different set of enhancements? If so, that's the table that's missing, both on the SRD and in the print copy of UPsi.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

These Kobolds?

Here we go.

Fighter has resist energy fire on (10 minute per level buff. Trivial at that level 10?). Fighter sheaths his magical weapon and draws that one adamantine longsword the party found (pulling from RotRL here, still under WBL). So here can't be hit on anything less than a 20 that does F-all damage anyways, and is immune to the fire.

Fighter proceeds to saunter over smash the kobolds (tower shields and all). When being fired at from a murder hole, he simply slices through the wall to the kobolds. Might take a couple tries OR he can just smash the wall down with that hardness bypassing weapon.

Eventually all the kobolds will die. AND that was just with the rest of the party surviving after pre-buffing before the dungeon.

*NOTE: don't bring donkeys into a dungeon.

CR 1/4 Kobolds are harder to Tucker in PF than in AD&D.

So your proof that fighters are great at dungeons is that a level 10 character can take out a room full of CR 1/4 creatures. In what way does this seem reasonable?

I'm just pointing out that we are holding non core options for all classes that aren't the fighter against the fighter, but we aren't giving any of the non core options for the fighter light because they don't count for some reason.

Why don't archetypes count for fixing problems with a class again? Is it because they would make your argument less valid? Honestly looking at the Tactician, the only things I really miss for my fighter are heavy armor (but since I don't get the training for it I don't really miss it) and maybe the extra bonus feat at first level.

So are we evaluating all classes on a CRB only basis? If that's the case then there is no pleasing any of you because no supplemental material can fix the fighter and we are stuck in a perpetual never ending thread of fighter suckatude because you don't want to get out of it.

Largely because the archetypes in question don't do so. They add the things that people propose as possible fixes while taking away (in these cases) armor proficiency, which takes away protection, effectively making the Fighter worse at fighting.

GreenGecko81 wrote:

Now, what in the fighter's class abilities helps it avoid being beaten be having acid breathed at it every 1d4 rounds by something flying just out of reach?

The ability to shoot 2 arrows a round in return?

And if they both hit (which can be difficult on the second shot, as fighters tend to be strength-focused, as has been the basis of every other hypothetical in this thread today), they do 18 damage per two turns on average, compared to the dragon's 14 damage, which does not even care about AC. Doable, but difficult. For the 18/14/14/10/10/10 fighter presented earlier, the second hit is only hitting half the time, so cut that 18 damage to 13 (on average), and the dragon is outpacing him. And this assumes that the fighter has a bow on him; in a large amount of cases, greatsword fighters who have chose feats to improve their greatswords won't bother with other weapons (though I think they probably should, for pretty much precisely this reason).

To make the point with an actual scenario, let's put this fighter of yours in an actual "dungeon combat" scenario against an iconic creature. A level 10 PC is a suitable challenge for a CR 6 encounter, so we'll pit your fighter against a CR6 very young green dragon. Now, it's not unreasonable to assume that an average-intelligence/wisdom human would think "If I can fight this thing without it being able to reach me, I should," so we'll assume the dragon with that same amount of both can reach the same conclusion. Now, what in the fighter's class abilities helps it avoid being beaten be having acid breathed at it every 1d4 rounds by something flying just out of reach?

They weren't all that spacious as far as I knew, or they came with their own concerns that reduced the viability of the space.

Marthkus wrote:

Why wouldn't they be?

Mostly because they don't fit the 'cramped' definition you gave me. Undermountain's first level is sorta-kinda cramped, but then it opens way up. The Underdark is known for its mind-blowing size shifts. The rest of them are kinda...trippy.

And then there was the example of the labyrinth made of different planes, which have literally all the space in the world. I'm beginning to think you're just trying to use "dungeon combat" as your own personal handwave to avoid having your illusions shattered.

I'm not getting into anything, but dungeon combat.

You're also not actually defining what "dungeon combat" means. When asked for what a "dungeon" means in your use, you defined it as being "cramped", but when asked about a number of possible environments that someone else would call dungeons, you agreed, despite said environments explicitly being spacious, which by definition makes them not cramped.

Archomedes wrote:

"I don't like these classes because I don't see the niche they fill, so don't make this book" is fundamentally not helpful in the playtest forum.

Prince of Knives wrote:

This is legitimate feedback. It might not get listened to (and I wouldn't blame the devs entirely for it - they have bills to pay) but it is legitimate.

Sean wrote:

No, it isn't. If you actually mean, "the warpriest is redundant to the cleric," then you should actually say that instead of burying that nugget of advice in a vague, useless comment like "don't do this book."

Prince of Knives wrote:

You missed my point. It's legitimate because it indicates a real problem. It means that from the playstyle and groups I'm approching the classes from problems exist.

Then tell us about the problem. Don't just say, "don't do it."

If you don't say what the problem is, other than "don't do this," or even "I'm not going to buy this," you are wasting your time and mine because I can't do anything with that information.

So in the phrase "I don't like these classes because I don't see the niche they fill, so don't make this book", the slightly grumpy, easily ignored part (don't make this book) completely invalidates the completely legitimate feedback (which Prince of Knives was drawing attention to) of "I don't like these classes because I don't see the niche they fill"? Any negativity to any degree means that whatever it's attached to instantly become worthless, then?