Every preview increased my sense of dread. By the time the playtest dropped, I had nearly zero energy to look through it aside from getting a few more things to make jokes about to my friends.
After glancing through some things, not too bad. Skills do things now, magic arms and armor have been reworked so interesting abilities are a thing you actually get now before maxing out the boring number bonuses. Druid wild shape can't be used as utility until level 10 (which is way better than never). It appears that Racial, skill, and general feats help more out of combat while your class gives most of what you are doing in combat.
Magic is still really strong (Full caster > Everything else), you can't actually fix that and be in genre. More-so, the cool magic is Pathfinder/D&D's appeal to me over other games I like. Being a martial seems to suck less now, and they were pretty tolerable in 1e (compared to 3.5). Sure things got "nerfed", but a lot of things got "nerfed" to compensate that your skills actually do things now.
Summons and Magic Item crafting look fine (yeah Item level being a thing is "meta" but it's a contrivance I can get behind to contain the math).
And yes, I am getting a 4e vibe, but 4e did have a good layout (and complicated games need to deliver information efficiently). The big difference from the 4e set up is that abilities are cumulative, where in 4e you replace powers as you level (oh and have about a 3rd of the feats).
So yeah, seems fine. I'm still not SUPER jazzed about it, but it's not like I would refuse to play it (like I refuse to play 5e).
What if you only roll for skills when you are in a contest with another creature?
What if your "rank" of untrained, trained, expert, master, and legendary decided things that you can do and only moderately helped out with a skill contest?
3.X have us this idea that everything you can do with a skill should be decided by a roll or taking 10. But with the d20 as the base randomizer this can lead to unwieldy systems, tons of mods, and just wonky stuff overall. For example opening lock DCs have to assume everyone can take 20. You need at least a DC of 21 or higher to prevent anyone from being able to pick a lock.
Now let's say expert thievery let's you pick expert locks, but picking pockets is still an opposed roll. How do people feel about a system like that?
Resonance is a special thing that special people have more of. It's a form of power intrinsic to level and charisma.
It also hasn't shown up in any fantasy setting I've ever read. PF 2e Golarion can have it easily because the writers of that setting are also writing these rules. With Golarion in mind, you can add certain fantasy conceits and "buy in" concepts that don't fit the fantasy genre or even D&D Fantasy as a whole because it fits the one setting that's Infused in the rules. Other setting considerations will just matter less because if you are playing the game, then the setting should just be something like Golarion.
"But D&D basically does this" D&D Fantasy has also become it's open genre after decades of play. Can/should Paizo try to make Pathfinder Fantasy it's own genre? Is that what consumers want.
I'm not married to D&D sacred cows, but It's been bugging me that I can't imagine Starfinder being used outside the Starfinder setting and I think that is because many of the mechanics seen alright but only really make sense in that setting not that genre, which really limits the # of campaign ideas our group will have with that system because when tend to not revisit settings after a campaign.
I'm concerned that PF 2e will be a great game, but we won't play it because GMs homebrew their own settings and campaigns.
Like even if resonance is a cool mechanic and makes everything more fun, if it doesn't make sense in other settings, then the mechanic is a reason we wouldn't play the game.
Since we are looking at how to address C/M disparity again with a new edition, I wanted to talk about how this book series balances these character concepts.
Mages are crazy powerful. They can destroy armies, transverse the planes, live a really long time, heal wounds, ect. But many of these things come with caveats. Mages fairly different power can counter each other. Planar travel is dangerous. Most really powerful ancients are eternally imprisoned. And "force healing" with magic can cause psychological problems. Mages also rarely attract followers or inspire loyalty. Magic is scary to most people and mages are unnaturally off putting. Generally because they are too drunk on power or too careful about drawing attention.
Warriors aren't jumping over mountains or causing earthquakes unless they are ascended immortals that gained magic powers. But extremely skilled martials are feared. They can kill mages before they cast a spell and chop up monsters with speed and precision. Alchemy can keep a person living indefinitely and creates explosives that feed off the power of the target, meaning they can kill just about anything or anyone. Skilled warriors command armies with their own sappers and mages to counter anything out of reach of their sword.
When reading these books, martials don't feel like less important characters while mages still seem powerful.
The PDFs aren't even out yet and the mods are already placing taboos about topics (topics I really don't have strong opinions about).
I'm concerned that Paizo will block out feedback that doesn't adhere to a set of sensibilities.
For example, when I loved 5e d&d, I didn't-notice/I-forgave the problems I have with it now. Paizo obviously loves their own game. People that hate the new edition will see problems that Paizo can't, and they have no obligation to be kind. I get the feeling that Paizo will disregard feedback like that because "well they won't play anyways" or "we don't want them in this hobby". Probably true, but they will see things your fans won't complain about for YEARS, long after the issue has become systemic.
I'm concerned that the playtest is doomed to fail with this culture hostile towards negativity.
So inexplicable luck let's you and a +8 to one roll per day. This, with skill focus, trait, a circlet of persuasion, +4 Cha item, and full level 10 ranks yields +33 UMD check once per day or a 7th spell level scroll. +25 UMD on all roles allows for 3rd spell level scroll use.
Improvisation at low levels is suppose to give some low level skill monkeying and the rest of the build is to just keep the combat numbers big.
I have a sickness where I really like to optimise and play rogues merely due to the name on the character class.
I say sickness because bringing yet another useless rogue to the party tends to annoy fellow players and get everyone killed in standard APs.
Hence I'm hesitant to actually give the unchained rogue another shot I've already played one once and died as soon as I entered melee. I've had better luck with an unchained Eldritch scoundrel vmc Magus, but that is barely even a rogue at that point.
So I've thrown together yet another build, but I'm open to any optimization suggestions.
First, Cavaliers have a better skill list than the fighter while getting more skill points and bonuses on top of that to various skills. In addition, orders give you a couple more class skills.
Same saves? Well not really, a Human Cavalier gets a +7 bonus to fear, charm, and compulsions saves or you know most will saves.
Well surely fighters can duke it out better than Cavaliers? Well, not always. Plenty of orders give to-hit bonuses with the challenge and the challenge bonus to damage is so large that a Cavalier can use a shield, meaning their AC and Damage can outpace Fighters against the foes where that extra damage is needed and all of that is before the...
MOUNT! A silly horse is pretty useless at high levels, but for a couple of feats (monstrous mount), you can upgrade that to a pouncing griffon and most of your mounted features work with just about anything including wildshaping druids, summons, or even drakes you train. Your human charge bonus to-hit goes up to +11 and you do triple-quadruple damage with that attack.
In areas where large size creatures can roam, cavaliers can be highly mobile, flying damage bringers than can also give feats to allies and let them reroll saves once per day.
Even with all the new stuff fighter's have now, a comparable cavalier is just easier to build and does more in a fight to the enemy and to support allies than the fighter can.
It seems like fighter's only upsides is being more compact and tower shield prof.
I took my own stab at making the Artificer class in pathfinder, but intent is not a 1:1 translation. I wanted to make what the old artificers did possible with this new one, but also add new options. I was also inspired by 5e's attempt at the artificer and the 3.5 versions infusions, but I didn't want to make a whole list of spells devoted to that specific purpose. Instead I went the route of infusing objects to just make 'temporary' magic items.
Balance-wise, I want it relative to a wizard. This is causing problems in that things that I consider unbalanced, a wizard could do with a bit more effort while also having true fullcasting.
I would appreciate any thoughts, oberservations, and opinions.
I have less of a specific concept than just wanting a fighter with the fighter class features to work. The groups I play in are fairly well optimized and my GMs tend to run the encounters hard. I need to contribute as well as a normal partial caster inside and outside of combat, but I've always had the most fun as a fighter until I reach the point that my character feels incompetent or made of glass (level 9+ or so). I no longer feel like a fighter if I can't wade in the front of combat without exploding or having 6+ spell buffs on me. I have a gamist need to have some mechanical reason to be playing this class over another.
I want to know if the following build achieves my personal wants, and if it doesn't, how I can make that happen.
CG Human Fighter
18str 14dex 14con 10int 10wis 10cha
Skills: Climb, Perception, Survival
Traits: Seeker, Blood of the Dragon (low light vision)
1. Shield Brace, Shield Focus, Combat Reflexes
2. Blind-Fight
3. Armor training, Master Armorer
4. Power Attack
5. Weapon Training (Polearms), Versatile Training (Diplomacy, Sense Motive)
6. Cut from the Air
7. Adaptable Training (Knowledge Engineering), Guarded Charge
8. Armor Specialization
9. Smash From the Air, Versatile Training (Bluff, Intimidate)
10. Armed Bravery
11. Armored Juggernaut, Dazzling Assault
12. Pin Down
13. Warrior Spirit, Adaptable Training (Acrobatics)
14. Adaptable Training (Climb)
15. Adaptable Training (Disguise), Fighter’s Reflexes
16. Improved Initiative
17. Trained Initiative, Sprightly Armor
18. Armored Sacrifice
19. Armor Mastery, Devastating Assault
20. Weapon Mastery, Weapon Sacrifice
kineticist is great and all, but I wanted something a bit simpler to run. Instead of picking a bunch of different abilities, instead your play style is more defined by stats and feats you use to support your abilities.
It's similar to the caster v martial disparity. A Martial in super magic gear could very well be equivalent to a far far far less geared wizard. They are equivalent because the martial has far more wealth and is slightly better at wielding weapons and wearing armor. But this doesn't make the martial feel equivalent because the magic gear is not dependent on his class features and he requires a massive wealth advantage to get the edge (and perhaps even custom magic items).
So how will Starfinder make the tech class equivalent to the magic classes without arbitrarily locking tech to specific classes? We know that actual technology is designed to be used by people who did not make it. Iron-Man can loan out his suits to Fighter-pilots and those tech noobs can be just as dangerous in combat. If Iron-man and Warmachine were in the same party, Warmachine is the worse character even if he has a +2-5 bonus to hit.
I would say that Iron-man and Dr. Strange could be in the same party without either being the object worse. But Tony Stark is vastly more wealthy than just about any other Marvel hero. Tony Stark with a Spiderman budget is just a normal person.
For technomancers to stay equivalent to innate magic characters, I think the tech characters will need class features to generate extra money.
But what about poor Warmachine? Star-Lord seems the better example of a mundane character done right. He doesn't build tech, he doesn't normally use magic, but he does seem to have a higher action economy than the more extraordinary members of the cast. It doesn't take him 2 rounds to switch weapons, deploy grenades, rig a ship to explode, and flip on his mask while blowing away 5-6 people. He flies around in fights, but he doesn't have alien reflexes. He seems to just be using his complex arsenal very quickly with great ease. I don't think the other guardians aside from Raccoon, could perform similarly with the same gear.
I do hope these issues are addressed. Warmachine makes a great cohort, not a PC class. I don't want to see Warmachine classes in Starfinder. I also don't want to see classes that try to justify their existence with slightly higher accuracy.
As I was puzzling over how a high level fighter could be both high level and not too DBZ/Bleach/One-Piece/Naruto shounen anime, it occurred to me that high level wizards would fit very well in those universes, sometimes as the main character.
How many GM's out there have placed the party in dire situations only for the wizard to pull some mcguffin spell out of his hat that fixes everything? How many classical fantasy struggles are just ignored by wuxia reality bending Death Note Kira wannabes?
How would you make magic sufficiently mundane but functional enough to fit better in a genre that is supposedly dominated by sword swingers?
This has been more of a thought puzzle for me than anything else, "How to make a 6th level caster equivalent to a 9th caster with just casting?"
I'm finding that multiple spell levels are a hard thing to overcome with just "broken" class features like free meta magic and boosted action economy.
My first idea was trying out a wizard/cleric hybrid and seeing if a "sub-par wizard" + a "sub-par cleric" could equal a viable character
Wizard/Cleric
At level 1, I was worried that a higher number of slots would be too strong, but it seems to be balanced out by high stat requirements and a lack domain/school powers that are really strong at early levels.
Level 4 seems a tad strong, but I was comparing the spell slot edge to animal companions and it just didn't seem like an issue. Overall this char is pretty equal to my psion.
Level 8 is when the concept starts to get tested, because now real fullcasters have higher level slots and my 6th caster just has class features like Dual casting and Meta Adapt to close the gap. So does a level 1 spell + a level 3 spell compete with a 4th level spell (or a 5th level spell next level)? If the idea is too strong, I think it would be most apparent at this level, yet I personally haven't seen an issue.
Level 12 is the opposite test. If the concept is too weak, it should be apparent here. At this level the 6th caster is competing with 4th+2nd level spells with 6th and 5th level spells. Right now, I feel like the normal fullcaster is just stronger.
Idk. Suggestions? Other 6th caster ideas? Would you want someone playing this class in your party?
My goal instead of trying to balance 9th level casting was to balance 6th level casting. I want this class equivalent to other 6th level casters but through sheer casting ability rather than mixing a vein of casting with some other concept.
I want this to still feel like a fullcaster even though it lacks the top 3 levels of spells.
OK so unchained automatic bonus progression slows down how fast I would purchase big 6 items if I was optimizing WBL, but I feel the progression more falls in line with what campaigns give you.
It seems like your ranged options fall off very fast without weapon training to boost the to-hit.
I really liked filling out your slots with cool items rather than big 6.
I could see playing this fighter in a more casual groups, but if my character is really expected to contribute, all this just doesn't compare to most caster builds I could throw together in the fraction of the time.
If said fighter started at level 1 with a 20 in each stat and gained every feat (within Paizo material) that it qualified for, would it be OP for all 20 levels?
Druid is arguably one of the strongest classes in the game, yet I have never seen anyone complain about it's disruptiveness like they do about arguably weaker classes like the chained summoner.
Our group is 20 point buy and we are using the Unchained action economy and automatic bonus progression (normal rate).
I'm curious as to what you would do with it. What talents would you get? Skill unlocks? How would you approach combat and out of combat?
The other party members are a swashbuckler, an oracle (low str), and a witch. There are lots of open sea areas. GM took inspiration from Path of Exile (which I haven't played past the warden)
Some critical improvements were made that really makes the rogue competitive amoung the mundanes like slayer and even 1/4 casters like ranger (though not Paladin).
Between the effective +8 to hit and +10 to damage, skill unlocks like stealth, and feature reworks, we have a real class on our hands.
I discovered that the most effective buff spell is summoning creatures that pick up and place martials in full attack range.
We ended a campaign recently and I was using time stop to summon trumpet archons who flew around healing or moving martials, and by martial I mean anyone who wants to full attack.
Between that and the arcanist counterspelling the BBEG melted. We played at 20th level for 4 whole rounds against a boss with 5 final Fantasy like forms.
Do you tailor encounters to your PCs or do you roleplay the world around them?
I tend to catch myself throwing CR appropriate monsters at the party when I expect them to fight the monster, and when I do throw something too dangerous at the party I always leave an out. Now if the party is weaker than they should be, then I let them die.
I also tend to keep shoving the plot into the players face rather than letting them get completely lost by roleplaying the world honestly. If a was being honest, they could miss every clue and wander around aimlessly for sessions at a time. I tend to avoid that, but should I? I feel that when I determine that the plot must move forward that I am taking away agency.
How do you balance having an authentic world and tailoring a campaign to a leveling party?
What happened to the days of people just talking about topics? Seems like whenever someone's logical problems are pointed out it's "hostile" and "disrespectful".
You cannot have serious debates without them getting heated. You cannot be shown that you were wrong about something you were passionate about without that making you feel bad.
Calm civil discussion is fine, but that should not be a reason to subtract all heat from the conversation. It is such cop-out to derail a thread with tone complaint. Complaining about someone's tone is a personal attack. Their tone is not always a personal attack. Flag and move on people.
I was reading this thread and wondered why the overall opinion was negative. I feel like I am very critical of pathfinder material, but I adore the Vigilante. Since that particular thread is not for discussion, I wanted to ask people about it elsewhere.
OK so I have been finding myself making up various house-rules for pathfinder. I decided to branch out and read up on various systems. This includes D&D 5e. I just want ramble on for a bit on the differences I noticed.
5e and Pathfinder treat the rules very differently. In Pathfinder the rules attempt to simulate what is going on, while the 5e rules attempt to abstract what is going on. The difference manifest itself as such. Pathfinder rules attempt to immerse you into the game through it's mechanics. The mechanics are a route to immersion and are suppose to help you immerse yourself. In 5e the rules are treated as a barrier to immersion, so it attempts to make the rules the thinnest most efficient barrier as possible. Both rule sets exist to facilitate role-playing.
This leads 5e to use unifying mechanics whenever possible. Characters gain a proficiency bonus which enhances the saves, skills, weapon to-hit, spell to-hit, and spell DCs. So your character sheet will list your proficiency bonus and then what saves, skills, and weapons you are proficient in. There is no DR in 5e. Creatures instead may have resistance or immunity to non-magical weapon damage. If a creature is resistant to a damage type it takes half damage from that damage type. Multiclass spellcasters progress the same spell-slot table but prepare/know spells as individual classes (so a cleric 9/ wizard 8 gets one 9th level spell slot). Spells were compressed when possible. Some spells have added effects when cast in higher levels. 5e has very few general rules and is not afraid to repeat itself in monster stat blocks, spells and character abilities. Mass suggestion does not say "as suggestion but more people" it instead lays out exactly what it does even though it is the same as suggestion.
Martials, skills, and spellcasting works very differently.
Spellcasting has been rebalanced. Casting a spell does not generate an AoO. You can cast spells in any armor that you are proficient in. Maintaining concentration on a spell does not cost actions, but you can only maintain concentration on one spell effect at a time. When you take damage you make a constitution save (which serves as the concentration check). Spell slots have been reduce, but spells themselves are generally stronger. Many spells require concentration, thus many classic spell combos are impossible. A (ritual) tag is added to spells that can be ritually cast without expending spell slots.
Martials are rebalanced. Individual attacks do less damage. Feats are an optional rule. You may select feats instead of an ability score increase. Ability score increases are tied to your class and are not a natural part of leveling. Movement is not an action. You can just move X amount during your turn. Attacking is an action. Certain class features allow you to attack more than once with the attack action. You may move as much as you can between attacks.
Skills are more or less handwaved. There are only 18 skills. They are important. But only your DM really knows what a skill can do. There are skill contest (one skill vs another) or fixed DCs of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30. They represent very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard, and nearly impossible. If your DM thinks balancing on clouds is nearly impossible then the DC for that is 30 and a rogue could have +17 on that skill check. If you DM thinks balancing on clouds is just impossible then you could not do that.
Archetypes are not just options, they are mandatory. You will pick one. Things like eldritch knight and arcane trickster are archetypes of the fighter and rogue. That means their other archetypes are balanced to 1/3 (rounded up) spellcasting. Only 3/12 classes can avoid spellcasting of any kind. Only 5/42 class/archetype combos are devoid of spell effects.
Misc tid-bits:
Flight is hard to have as a constant effect.
Mounted combat is nice
Monks are geared towards dex based
Rogues are very good
Warlocks are back, the only thing I am missing from 3.5 is a constant flight invocation.
Sorcerers have their own spell list
Paladins and Rangers are 1/2 casters
Bards are fullcasters
Druids can't get "natural spell" until level 18
There is no "falling" as a Paladin. If you "fall" you either get the boss Oathbreaker class features or you become a different class. Losing class features is pure houserules.
No spell is at a different level for a different class.
There are other things I could go on and on about, but the main take away is that Pathfinder and 5e are not like kinds. They are fundamentally different kinds of rule sets. I don't see much competition between the two. It also seems like 5e is more a tribute to D&D's legacy, than WotC's attempt to retake the market.
I'm thinking the crafting focus goes well with the trope of hoarding wealth.
Universalist is quite the spell slot hit, but consequentially I like having easy access to all the schools. That makes changing tactics easier mid-game.
Obviously if we look at this from the wizard perspective, you lose three levels of spellcasting. But let's look at what the rogue loses.
As a rogue you lose 5 BAB, but you sneak attack with touch attacks so your accuracy probably increases.
As a rogue you are behind 3 levels of sneak attack progression until the highest levels. But if the spell your sneak attacking with does more than 2d6+weapon damage then you actually do MORE damage with sneak attacks.
Wizards get 2+int skill points and Arcane Tricksters get 4+int skills points that seems to be less than the Rogue's 8+int until you realize that by going Arcane Trickster your In is going to be A LOT higher. At mid levels you will probably have 20 or higher int while the most skillful regular rogues might be sporting a 16. Eventually the Arcane Trickster will have more skill points in addition to spells that make them better at skills.
As a rogue you lose out of 17 levels of rogue talent along with uncanny dodge. This seems like as issue, but in my opinion Arcane Trickster class features (not counting spellcasting) are BETTER than what the rogue gets with those 17 levels.
Will you feel worse next to a wizard than a regular rogue? Idk it seems like a wizard in the party means you will have nearly free access to spells. More likely than not you will focus on skills the wizard didn't and most of the skill-negating spells are low level which means you will have access to them too. If you milk sneak attack you may even edge out the wizard in blasting strength.
I am trying to find some reason for being a mystic theurge. I think the key is to find some sort of odd combination between divine and arcane casting, but for the life of me, I can't find it.
It's different than arcane trickster and eldritch knight. The first one is a rogue who trade 5 BAB and 3d6 sneak attack dice for better class features and 9th level wizard spells. The second is a wizard who trades 2 levels of spell progression for more BAB and proficiencies in armor and weapons.
Theurge though, seems like a waste to focus on either the divine or arcane portion. You can be a wizard who is 3 levels behind for 13 cleric spellcasting levels or a cleric who is 3 levels behind for 13 wizard spellcasting levels or you can be a theurge that combos both but is eventually 5 caster levels behind.
I just don't see divine casting as all that different from arcane casting to justify the 3 level dip to add the abilities.
So how does one make a "Theurge" mystic theurge work? Someone who does end up with only 8th level spells in two classes.
I got rid of the eidolon and the spell list.
I kept the base summoner SLA.
I added a reduced version of the SLA
I added new ways to enhance summoning
I added a potentially OP ability, but it would keep the summoner's stats relevant.
The idea is that you can only effectively have two top level summon spells active at a time.
My question is if this class would be too mechanically strong next to wizards, druids, clerics, and Psions?
I would not mind if the class seemed weaker than those options.
I was thinking of running a PF game with some alt rules. If you see any immediate or potential problems with it please let me know.
1. No WBL (You don't NEED gear but that does not mean you won't get it)
2. No Big 6 items (Deflection bonus, Resistance bonuses, Enhancement bonuses to armor, weapons, Natural armor, or stats). Items with these effects have these effects removed (like Robe of the Archmagi resistance bonus)
3. Arms and armor do not need a plus 1 to have a special effect. All ten bonuses can be special effects. You do not automatically bypass DR with a +X weapon since there is no base enhancement bonus. Effective +6 still bypasses Epic as normal.
4. Characters get a Dodge bonus to their armor equal to their BAB. (BAB no longer adds to CMD. Instead add this dodge bonus)
5. Best saves progress at 1:1 with levels. Worst saves progress at the same rate as 3/4 BAB. (So a fighter would have from class features at level 20 +20 fort, +15 will, +15 ref)
6. Attributes are increased at every even level. You can only select each attribute once. After selecting an attribute, that attribute increases by one at even even level. (So at 12th all stats go up by one. At 20 your first stat selected at 2 increased a total of +10)
7. You cannot put ranks into perception.
8. Your perception check is equal to your BAB+wis mod. If perception is a class skill, you get a plus 3 bonus. Feats and abilities dependent on skill ranks in perception treat your BAB as your ranks in perception.
I love the Aegis as a martial. So I took its easily customize-able nature and tried to replicate that with the fighter. I also introduced the idea of non-AC defenses. I effectively lowered the AC of the fighter by altering the role of armor training in the class. The overall damage of the class should be reduced, but it should be better during the moving rounds. Now an Aegis can get flight. I didn't give that to the fighter, so the way I increased his movement also ups the offensive power while not full-attacking. I also added some sensible burst mechanics to the fighter and made all the various abilities run off one resource pool.
Ideally the abilities should be valued as such:
Combat Style > Conditioning > Stamina > Battle Experience > Others
The cap stone abilities (19/20) are a little strong, but those were made keeping in mind that at this point your allies are casting 9th level spells at least once each combat.
Skills were only changed just a little bit. Battles experience should also help a tad in this department. My main dissatisfaction with the fighter was his combat performance at mid to higher levels.
OK so normally we assume that all things are fair when making builds or comparing classes.
What if instead we didn't assume that? What if we didn't assume WBL, limited crafting time, or no custom magic items? What if Leadership was allowed (The one that lets you recruit cohorts not the one that lets you conjure cohorts out of thin air)?
Steal money make items. The first item you make is a spellcraft skill booster. Once you can craft and recruit armies, do that to continue in levels. Your main solution to problems is magic via items. You can tangle in melee. Your range weapon is a little weak, but your race let's you poison things at no risk.
I've also seen some niche fighter builds that made use of eldritch heritage and magic item crafting. Things like that would be fun to see.
I have had a lot of fun playing fighters. Not just through roleplaying but through my actual mechanical competence. That was until the levels started climbing. My party did not suddenly become more optimized. I was not suddenly outshined by casters because they themselves were not optimized in either build or prepared spells. My issue came at around level 9 or so because the encounters started to change dramatically.
The main issue I see with high level play is that without lots of spell support, range combat is your only option. But you had fun in low levels by spec-ing for melee. So how you address this? My thought is that you build melee at the start and then invest heavily into range combat for later levels. I generally dislike weapon focus because it limits you to one weapon, but for range combat the chances are that you only want to wield a longbow. So what if you dropped weapon focus on your secondary option? Could that help mitigate the difference between your strength and dexterity?
I'm going to list off some hypothetical powers. If you were given one of these powers, would you use it?
1. You can overwrite any person's personality with your current personality. This effect is permanent. Only your original body has this power.
2. You can send your personality into another body, leaving behind a copy of your personality that does no remember having this power. This power goes with you into the new body.
3. You can erase the existence of others. After doing so, you can turn into that person and have access to all of their memories. You can change forms at will. When a person would naturally die, including your original self, you lose all of their memories.
4. You have seven days to live. When you touch someone, you can will them to die. Within the next month that person will die by either disease, violence, or an accident. Every person you kill this way extends your life by one day. You gain perfect immortality, and can only die when your time runs out.
5. You are made aware of the afterlife and are guaranteed to go to the heaven equivalent. You may grant yourself nigh god-like powers, allowing you to alter and shape existence to your will. After doing so, you cease to exist.
6. You may perform any kind of magic. Your magic is fueled by the suffering and death of those you care for. You will not know the cost of a magical act ahead of time. Should you run out of people you care for, you will automatically die.
7. You may instantly travel 1000 years into the future to a safe location near your current one. No force in the universe can make you go back in time. This power can be used as frequently as you want.
8. You may alter the speed at which you age. However you alter your age speed, the inverse happens to those around you.
9. You may will anyone to instantly die. Every time you do, a random innocent you don't know dies horribly.
10. You may grant everyone perfect immortality, except yourself.
11. You may turn into a specter that can watch anything. After doing so, you are immortal and cannot turn back. As a specter, you may only observe and cannot interact with anything.
12. You can become a true-God with the all the capabilities that come with that. Consequentially, you can no longer interact with this universe.
13. You can make a person forget their hopes and dreams. These hopes and dreams become incorporated into your own.
14. You can cause a person to experience true happiness, but they die immediately afterwards. Doing this causes you to experience every sad moment in their life.
15. You may heal any health problem. Someone you care about receives the problem instead and you cannot heal it. If you have no one you care for, health problems you heal are transferred to no one.
16. You may cause any person to instantly die. Doing so causes you to learn about perspectives and information that makes that person's passing regrettable.
17. You can cause the most evil person currently in the world to die, but you lose a finger. You do not know who these people are or if they are already incarcerated.
18. You can grant yourself the ability to be the perfect Judge and all people recognize your authority. Should you give yourself this ability, you cannot turn it off and will judge all you meet.
19. You can bring the dead back to life, but those risen forget about the person most important to them.
20. You can swap bodies with one person. After doing so, you forget you had this power.