Hardly seems fair saying an alchemist is a better rogue and then applying a PrC that gives you trap finding and bardic knowledge. Not exactly an alchemist thing.
A few questions though:
Your hp is listed as 78. 8 at level one, 45 from level 2-10, +20 from con, and you're at 73. Where's the other 5 coming from?
Your skills are listed at 112. +4 per level from int, +4 per level of alchemist, +8 from PrC, +9 favored class, and you're at 93. Where's the other 19 coming from?
Your perception is listed at 29. +3 class skill, +10 ranks, +5 item, +6 feat, +1 PrC, and you're at 25. Where's the other 5 coming from? This also takes a -1 when using your mutagen along with the -1 on will saves.
Your damage is listed at 1d6+10. +5 dex, +1 magic, and you're at +6. Another +2 from mutagen? Where does the other 2 come from? You also list the +10 on your offhand strikes when the agile enchantment says you still get half damage with your off hand strikes which puts your off hand to 1d6+7 since you round down, maybe less from the missing +2 I can't find.
You list immunity to possessions and mental control with will saves. Where does this come from?
Sure thing. Right after you finish that detailed analysis of comparing every class and archetype from levels 1 to 20 to validate the claims of rogues and fighters being so inferior.
I didn't address this before because I thought it was the point you were making. You said it was based on phenomenal rolls which when applied to the fighter or rogue will make both of them shine more than others as well mitigating this balance issue as they now appear better. Didn't seem worth mentioning.
For this to have any validity you'd have to play every AP as a set of each class to make a comparison. I'm sure 4 fighters will struggle more in some campaigns than others including it being near impossible in some. The same can be said of almost any class. 4 wizards is a challenge in the early levels. You have to be strategic with spell casting and abilities. Whereas the melee classes have it easier in the beginning and have more of a grind in the upper levels.
So now you wanna talk about balanced character builds and not just this class is better than that class at some ability.
The fighter has 10 feats he can use towards anything his heart desires while still having 11 feats to put into his combat skills. That's 11 more feats than most other classes. 10 of which he can spend on anything to make himself more applicable to whatever you want him to do.A fighter could feel free to take an eldritch heritage and grab a familiar to spam wands for him if he wanted to, invest into being a face or good with any other skill, choose to just take 10 fleets for the fun of having an 80 foot move wearing full plate granting him a +20 to jumping allowing him to jump 7 feet in the air to click his heels. Find a balance and make it work. The class is not about squeezing every point out of damage.
The rogue is intended to be a support combatant. This is given by their main damage system being provided mainly during flanking. There's a few other methods to get it reliably, but flanking is simple enough. A rogue gets to evade spells that require a reflex save fairly easily and avoid all negatives on a save for half. This scales with a talent to being half damage regardless of saving. Fireballs and the like seem to come up often enough on enemy spell lists. Rogues get an ability to not be flanked in combat and not be caught flat footed which means the rogue can always make attacks of opportunity and should be trying to increase AC to get into positions that may end with you flanked. Doesn't lose dex vs invisible creatures. Gets 10 rogue talents including a few feats to free up your real feats for other diversity.
The rogue doesn't just come with a pile of skills. They can also get the ability to take 10 in several skills regardless of threats.
I never mentioned rolls into anything. I said I've played campaigns successfully using classes that you guys are claiming are bad classes. The rogue isn't good because the bard does it better. The fighter isn't good because the barbarian does it better. But really, everyone sucks because god wizard is best.
All I meant is that if a class is capable of surviving when its deemed bad compared to others just means the AP's aren't that hard and there's not a problem with the class. The developers created classes to be effective in the APs that they make.
ex. If your water filter cleans water to potable levels, but distilling it will clean it further that doesn't invalidate the first method. The first method still works fine.
I get what you're saying that there's balance issues, but the balance issues shouldn't be an in game issue which then makes them moot. You can play an effective fighter and rogue in a campaign and have fun. If there's a bard in the party showing up the rogue on skills then maybe someone should have thought about why you needed two skill monkeys. Likewise with all classes. Even when I played my all wizard campaign we made sure to attempt different focuses to not have excessive overlap.
The GM didn't modify things in our campaigns either. Things were overcome by tactics, planning, and taking our time. Many items were used. Two of us had UMD and dealt with some wands and scrolls. Spells were bought in towns using the RAW payment method for casters. We had several funny diplomatic encounters.
the point is, with the whole moving post thing, that when you make a character, you generally want it to do a specific thing, whether it be smashing something, casting spells, or sneaking around, rogue and fighter will never end up being the best choice. We move the goal post, because there is only ever one at any given instance, so if you want teh best skill monkey, it is not rogue, if you want the best caster, it is not rogue, and if you want the best sneak attacker, it still, is not rogue. THIS is the rogues issue, it is never considered the shiniest tool in the shed, ever. You can still do it, but it's like buying a bagel when you really want a donut, and a donut is right there for the same price.
Moving goal posts is never a good thing. You make sound comparisons on static properties. Not just comparing a single facet of a class to another class. While one class may make a better skill monkey than the rogue who is still competent at being a skill monkey the rogue may have something more to offer that the other class doesn't. The rogue can disarm magic traps where the bard has to take an archetype giving up something about his base class. Now you need to run a comparison on how all the mechanics work.
This is how you balance mechanics. Comparing a single attribute means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme.
EDIT: I just find it funny that this stemmed from a comment about how fighters have 1 strong point and rogues have none. Fighters aren't the best melee combatants, but they are good at it. Much as rogues are good at things too.
So what's the definition of what's good and balanced because it seems like being the best is the only thing being accepted so far. And being the best, oddly enough, isn't balanced.
People taking offense at another person putting them down and you have the audacity to tell them not to get upset at your insults? Perhaps spend more time reading the forum rules with all your mighty grammar skills. No where in them does it condone the use of personal attacks. Focus on the rules or don't post.
Blake Duffey wrote:
PRD on Master Craftsman wrote:
You can create magic items using these feats
PRD on Craft Magic Arms and Armor wrote:
You can create magic weapons, armor, or shields.
PRD on Craft Wondrous Items wrote:
You can create a wide variety of magic wondrous items.
Notice anything similar in the wording of any of these feats? None of them require you make the base item only that you have the feats in order to enchant an item.
Blake Duffey wrote:
How is it an assumption? Where in the feat does it say you have to craft the weapon in question and not just imbue it with magic? The assumption is yours.
Blake Duffey wrote:
With Craft (Weapons) Conan can craft his own blade. With this feat AND craft magic arms and armor Conan can enchant his own blade. This is the difference. There is no crafting of the initial blade involved only the making it magic portion.
Blake Duffey wrote:
So it's balanced to require 2 feats to make a select few types of items vs one feat to make all types under whichever craft feat you chose?
The wizard argument is entirely relevant. You're making argument of having to craft the basic item when there's no mention of this anywhere. The wording is the exact same as in the regular craft feats which means the wizard and the master craftsman is not expected to make the basic item. Only that they have gained enough understanding to make magic items.
Is it really game breaking in any way to allow it to happen? To disallow it makes the feat near worthless. You've invested 5 skill ranks into a craft or a profession that don't net you much as an adventurer, wasted a feat to make a select few items which doesn't net you much, along with the second feat to actually craft the magic items.
If you didn't require taking the craft magic arms and armor feat and the master craftsman feat was a standalone that let you use your craft skills to make select items I could understand. As it stands it's a large investment and should come with the full benefits.
Since when does anyone have to create the base item they wish to enchant? That's a huge inference you're making. I take a masterwork weapon and make it +1 and I've effectively created a +1 weapon. I didn't have to make the base weapon.
Under your argument a wizard now needs craft weapons to CREATE magic weapons as listed under craft magic arms and armor feat.
Benefit: You can create magic weapons, armor, or shields.
The very first line of Craft Magic Arms and Armors benefits.
The proof of this working with ANY craft or profession skill should be obvious in the benefit of the feat Master Craftsman.
Benefit: Choose one Craft or Profession skill in which you possess at least 5 ranks.
If the skill had to be the applicable one listed under the item then the feat would tell you that the skill or profession you must choose for master craftsman must be one that is listed under item creation text. There would be a list of acceptable skills to take so you couldn't use profession midwife to enchant swords, armor, bags, anything with magical script.
As it stands you can choose ANY craft or profession skill you have 5 ranks in to qualify for the feat. So choosing any profession skill to qualify now makes the feat obsolete. Choosing any craft skill that's not listed makes the feat obsolete.
Why couldn't a master calligraphy practitioner inscribe magical runes on a weapon, suit of armor, or a shield to provide magical properties?
It would take a bit of effort to be submerged in lava.
It's not just barbarians being absurd. The game itself is absurd. Nothing follows the rules of physics which is where the basis of absurdity would come from in the first place.
I stab you with a sword, but your DR says it didn't hurt you.
You swing your sword a bunch and you can suddenly take 3 sword hits instead of one before you die.
Wizards break all laws of thermodynamics.
Clerics do the same along with performing miracles.
Classes get skill points to invest making them more resourceful.
The capability of carrying a thousand pounds.
As others have noted though this isn't the absurdity of the barbarian as every example listed applies to every class as they level up.
Why is experience only being associated with killing creatures? Defeating an encounter is done in several means. Talk your way out of a fight, stealth around an encounter, intimidate a creature into running from you, disarm a trap, find a trap and set it off with a means to keep players safe, or just walk into a trap and don't care as many people find traps not worth putting effort into avoiding, sleep a creature and walk away, color spray and walk away, just walk away.
Maybe the problem with murder-hobo is that GM's aren't awarding experience for anything other than killing creatures.
I'm more a fan of awarding experience on top of the things you simply kill. Players using creative means to solve problems are gaining experience. Role playing should be awarded experience. After all experience points are just a representation of the accumulation of life experiences.
I disagree, simply because it makes no sense. An master at arms who has zero knowledge of the enemies he'll be fighting is pretty much just a corpse, and a waste of investment in training. For a rank & file fodder-grunt (NPC Warrior), I can see a lack of counter-magic and counter-monster training, because they are low-investment expendable types. But not an elite specialist (heck, not even an officer in the military) should be spared training and education on counter-magic and counter-monster tactics. It's similar to neglecting the presence of aircraft or armored vehicles in today's world.
How does this make no sense? And how does a class with no understanding of magic get trained in how to defend themselves against magic and the tactics to defeat it. A wizard with 10 intelligence can't cast 1st level spells. Why should a fighter with 10 intelligence understand all spells and know tactics to fighting wizards if he doesn't know what wizards can do? He's never faced a wizard in combat until he's begun adventuring.
Your assumption that he's been trained in such fashion is a fallacy. Nothing in the fighter class states this is so. I can pick up a sword and say I'm a fighter. This is strictly your projections on how a fighter should work.
Justin Sane wrote:
Everyone is an aide next to the person that is defined to be whatever for your group. You don't have multiple party faces. You have a party face and people who help him get the highest roll. You have people that do specific things in your group and everyone else helps everyone to maximize the parties effectiveness. Having two checks of 20 isn't as good as a single check of 26.
The fighter's going to be a better survivalist than the wizard. One skill point and he gains more benefit than the wizard. So now that wizard is just useless in the wild because he can't make survival checks, but he can use his aid another action to make sure the fighters survival check is high enough to feed everyone.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
The fighter dumped his charisma to 7 and boosted his intelligence to 13 thus qualifying for combat expertise making him a better combatant and having more skills increasing his usefulness outside of combat. Seems like it works fine to me.
Or take that feat that gives you both the hp and skill point.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Cleric of light rallies the troops with a powerful religious sermon in preparation for the coming battles (roll diplo), Wizard of Intelligence holds a strategy meeting with the military officers (roll int and various knowledges), Ranger of Wisdom scouts the enemy lines and reports back his findings (roll survival+stealth), and fighter of hitting sits in a corner watching and waiting for the hitting to start!
Fighter aide's the diplomacy by cheering on the troops and renewing everyone's vigor, the fighter brings his knowledge of monsters and battle to the table and aide's with the over all approach with his minor noting of good flanking maneuvers, the ranger goes alone but didn't have time to finish his gillie suit and the fighter helped with the survival roll, and then the fighter went back to soldiering and training the new recruits with weapon use and tactics.
Even untrained in knowledge skills anyone can make the most basic of checks no greater than a DC 10. Just so happens that Aide another is a DC 10. Anyone can give a +2 on knowledge checks.
EDIT: And like shallow said contribution is not measured by a meter. If it were maybe the martials should be receiving more experience in the early levels than the wizard. I've seen a level 1 barbarian cleave through 3 creatures in one round. Should he receive all the experience for those 3 creatures while everyone else gets none?
Aiding another and providing a +2 to a perception, sense motive, diplomacy, any other check you can aide is still useful. Just because you're not leading the party as the face doesn't mean you can't help your party outside of combat. Along with other members aiding your strength check to push that boulder and adding a +2 to your check.
EDIT: In every campaign I've ever played you sit down with your group and discuss what you'd like to play and see how it meshes. You don't show up to the table with 4 wizards. Like Shallow said you try to play characters that cover all the bases and then you all aide to enhance each members skills. A collective +6 to all skills from your other members can easily overcome most things a campaign throws at you.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Noble fighters were usually trained in etiquette and educated. This should be reflected in your stats with charisma and intelligence. Still a competent combatant, but not as good as a soldier. Smarter than a soldier and usually more charismatic, but not necessarily as agile or tough.
EDIT: And to be fair, acrobatics is a terrible combat skill. It requires a lot of investment to be okay at evading attacks. There's plenty of threads about it.
It's still a feat though.
What was your break down to get the values for weapon training and armor training? +4 to hit/dmg vs all creatures all the time seems more valuable than +5 along with armor training providing full movement in full plate being the equivalent of 2 fleet feats and then however you account for the +4 to potential dex and -4 to armor check penalties. Some things really don't have feat equivalencies.
Ranger bonus feats are still just single feat regardless of not having to meet prerequisites. They don't provide any bonus beyond the feat being listed other than not having to take a prerequisite and many of them you end up taking the prerequisite anyway. 1.5 seems too high for bypassing a prerequisite as taking 2 of such feats doesn't really give you the power increase of 3 feats.
Spells should be worth more than 4 feats for sure, but this is just magic breaking martials again. A good analysis for sure showing how far behind fighters are of casting martial classes. What's it look like for a fighter vs barbarian/rogue/cavalier?
1) There isn't a reason it should be true, but it is true. How do martials emulate teleportation, time stop, creating fire out of nothing, or any other ridiculous spell. At high end the wizard gates in creatures he bribes and has his own fighter/barbarian/"insert needs here". It's not that it should be the way it is it's just that's the way the mechanics work. The trade off I think is how dependent those casters can be on other classes in the early levels to keep them alive by being meat shields although some classes are well balanced to survive alone like rangers, paladins, bards, inquisitors. In my opinion it's the middle row casters that have the most balance with martials being more effective at the early levels and waning towards the end with the opposite to be said of full casters except the power creep of casters climbs way faster than the decline of martials. So a martial can still be okay towards the end and have a place, but without magic you're in trouble.
2) Fighters gain versatility through feats and access to full chains earlier than other classes. This is one of their bonuses above others. Arguing about "points" with no baseline isn't really solving anything and is just pushing your opinion on others.
3) Thanks for the insult.
Fighter 20; 20pt buy; Human
STR 14+2 > +4 from levels, +6 belt = 28
cloak of resistance +5
Fort +25, Ref +16, Will +19(+24 vs fear)
Ranger 20; 20pt buy; Human
STR 14 > +2 from levels, +6 belt = 22
cloak of resistance +5
Fort +24, Ref +25, Will +18
So the ranger has worse fort and will, but a much higher reflex due to the good save AND being a bow or finesse dex build. Probably a spell to overcome the deficit. He gets 6 less feats than the fighter to build him up better or more likely 5 to drop lightning reflexes and still have better reflex saves. If the fighter changes to a bow or finesse build he could get comparable dex and up his reflex save to +19 to +21. Still worse than the ranger, but far more comparable while still maintaining a slightly higher fort and will save.
There's your save comparison for a level 20.
4) I see this comparison to NPC classes a lot when it comes to fighters. No one has yet been capable of showing this.
When designing encounters you go by the APL/CR tables. Average challenge is APL=CR. This assumes a party of 4-5. 2-3 players is APL-1. Nothing is listed for 1 player, but you could guess at APL-2. So an average challenge for a level 10 character alone is CR 8. CR 9 is a challenging fight, CR 10 is an hard encounter. Terrain can also adjust the CR of an encounter.
Casters>Martials. This will always be true. Even reduced list casters are still casters. Arguing the fighter against a class that uses wisdom to cast spells doesn't make fair comparison. None of this changes that it's up to the player to accommodate the weaknesses of their class. Otherwise you put an 18 in your main stat and who cares about the rest.
Why are you wasting feats on boosting intimidate. It's the easiest de-buff to get in the game by just putting ranks into it.
One class cannot be good at everything. Every class has weaknesses. I've seen arguments like yours everywhere on these boards and every time someone posts a build that accommodates the weakness the goal posts change to incorporate another weakness not accounted for. This isn't a good representation. The will saves were the thing in question here and now you've turned it to incorporate reflex saves compared to a ranger.
EDIT: Using the stat array above the fighter with iron will has Fort +4, Ref +2, Will +4 at level 1. The Ranger has Fort +4, Ref +4, Will +2. REF +5 by switching dex and str if you use bows which also reduces damage.
EDIT2: Again, some class has to be the worst at certain things. This is inherent to all gaming systems. If every class were equal at every aspect there's no point in having different classes as they all do the same thing.
EDIT3: This thread has taken a bad turn as to what it's about. It's been established several times and admitted to by people that want change that the fighter is still likable and can be effective. The problem is that some want the fighter to be more on par with other classes. Not just on par with one other class, but all classes combined. A build can be posted to put in on par to another class only to have it compared to a different class.
If something can be effective then it works. If something can do it better doesn't change the fact that the former still works. It's like arguing that your windows keep the wind out, but a concrete wall would be more effective so windows are obviously an inferior choice and we should just build concrete boxes.
Every class can be dominated. Some are more susceptible than others and one class will actually be the worst at it. Another class will be the second worst at it and so on until you have the best class at resisting it. It doesn't make it a class feature for anyone; it's just inherent to each class on varying levels based on gaming systems. This is as silly as saying a wizard has a disintegrate weakness class feature or a getting beaten to death by martials class feature.
Fighters get lots of feats so Iron Will and Improved Iron Will shouldn't be a problem to get. Having a 12-14 wisdom isn't hard to get if you dump CHA. There's also traits to give another +1 boost to will saves. It's up to the player to make up for the weaknesses of the class and not so much the class which is a part of the challenge of playing.
20 pt buy; human;
can even dump cha to 7 and get an extra skill point.
EDIT: I generally play casters when I'm a player. Nothing wrong with martials I just get bored not looking at a spell list. Every caster I've played and played with have prepared spells to buff players to help with things like this. Spells like prayer have versatility to everyone and become a staple for divine casters.
EDIT2: So instead of arguing that fighters have terrible will saves instead say all fighters get a free Iron Will at first level or whenever you choose to take it.
This thread has been going since feb last year and is up to 3800 posts almost. It's been on for months then off for a couple the whole time. Not really much necromancy going on here.
1&2) This can already be implemented through role playing, applying stats to your character appropriate to how you role play, and taking the applicable skills or feats to make it apparent. A fighter is a master of martial combat. They swing weapons, shoot bows, wear armor. If you want a knowledge of spells or to play as a tactician you should probably invest in spellcraft and intelligence which fits the role playing aspect. A wizard can't even cast level 1 spells with a 10 intelligence so a fighter shouldn't have any working knowledge of spells and magic other than it does exist.
3) Just like you stated about the Warrior NPC class the fighter already is like an officer or spec ops of today. They're not just a warrior, but an elite warrior.
4) It's hard to depict a class as some fixture in video games or fantasies. There's not a real parallel for comparison. Your examples could very well be designed as level 20 fighters or some form of dip multiclass.
I'm sure our tables are different, but my group are friends and we actually discuss things beyond D&D at the table. Some of our sessions can be counterproductive to the actual gaming although its still fun. The merits and down falls of classes come up, but its not like many of the comments in this thread about the fighter sucks compared to this class or that class. Every class has its ups and downs.
If you state things factually instead of dropping a lot of sarcasm in your posts people might not take offense to you so often. You also just condemned the other poster for using the "you don't like fighter" argument that you just presented. It's just personal preference really.
That's all I have to say about this as it's counterproductive to this thread. Let's not delineate back into preferential arguments.
That's the side I was seeing from some people in this thread with varying levels of vehemence, but it seems they gave up the argument to those in favor of change have been the only ones sticking around. Not that this means either side is right or wrong just that some people didn't feel it necessary to continue. This is what's lead to change ideas which is why I suggest this be moved to homebrew at this point as this forum is for general discussion of the current gaming system. I personally wouldn't mind seeing some changes, but I've yet to hear any player at my table complain about a fighters usefulness.
Paizo boards wrote:
This forum is for general comments about the Pathfinder RPG and discussing the system with other gamers.
That's one way to look at it for sure. Same thing with many rage powers that provide scaling benefits though. Beast totem is scaling AC which is the same as having 6 feats that provide a +1 bonus. Superstition is the same as having those feats that boost saves except a larger bonus and only vs spells/SLA's, but even then there's the drawback of it affecting spells from the party.
The problem isn't that something is wrong with feats. Feats are the same feats for everyone right now. The trending problem I've seen in this thread is that feats aren't the equivalent of rage powers, spells, other classes abilities. Except the rogue of course where its the rogue talents that are worse than feats. So increasing the power of feats for a fighter would put them closer to par with rage powers and also have the added benefit of being better for a fighter vs regular leveling feats of other classes.
EDIT: There really needs to be some baseline to power to make scaling comparison. Obviously feats have scaling utility but there should be some measure to use. Maybe using combat feats as the best level of feat with things compared to it. Or using a static bonus like +1 to AC = +1 to hit = +2 to a single save and so on and then considering the value of each element to a class.
Truly things like weapon focus and shield focus should scale as you level too or maybe just have that for the fighter based off his bonus from weapon training/armor training as well.
EDIT2: I'm not a huge fan of the domination argument against fighters either. It should be the players responsibility to deal with their classes weakness and with all the feats a fighter gets they should be investing in Iron Will, getting a small bonus from wisdom, and even taking a trait should they need it. +2 stat, +2 feat, +1 trait and that bad save is 1 less than it being a good save. Making it a class feature somewhere removes a need for those things and allows fighters to focus more on just strength, dex, or con.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Yeah, then the fighter could have the option of being a complete combat monster, or using his bonus feats to handle his combat while picking up general utility from his general feats. Which would also work just fine
A solution I was thinking of is just making feats work better for the fighter. By this I mean allow things like vital strike, two weapon fighting, other multiple tier feats that only boost the single thing you got in the start scale for free for the fighter. This then allows the fighter to use his bonus feats to get his combat prowess or use some of his level feats, but still frees up his level feats to gain more utility.
I'd also allow feats like weapon focus/specialization to work for entire groups of weapons that the player has weapon training in. There is feats for humans already like martial versatility that provide this, but it should be a fighter class feature. Along with critical versatility.
EDIT: Also don't think of bonus feats as "fighters get feats big deal since everyone can take feats". Look at it more of what you take as in fighters get the full two weapon fighting line for free which no other class gets. Fighters get the full vital strike line for free which no other class gets. Fighters get all the best bow use feats for free which some classes do get a few of but not as many as the fighter. Just seems a little dismissive to say that everyone can take feats when the fighter can take twice as many feats as most classes. I do get that many rage powers are better than many feats, but some are just a tax much like certain feat chains. The Beast totem is great for what the level 6 and 10 options are. The first one in the line is pointless if you're not a natural weapon user. Great as a back up if your main is gone, but you probably won't have the Amulet of Mighty Fists to make them effective as you level. You also need to squeeze superstition in which leaves only 1 other power to take by level 10. Superstition can also be a double edged sword if you're getting beaten to death and someone needs to heal you and from my experience barbarians are more of a spell sink for healing than fighters are. This can also be a problem with Come and Get Me which also comes with the problem of giving a large bonus to multiple enemies and needing combat reflexes and a decent dex to make it worth it.
The list Khrys provided was all the spells with an instantaneous effect as listed in the spell. That's what an instantaneous conjuration is if I'm not mistaken. Also why summoned monsters are called out separately in the description of the spells function. You cast it and the effects happen instantaneously with no lingering effects. The effects of a CLW wouldn't be negated or suppressed. Spells without an instantaneous effect wouldn't get this benefit as the magic still exists. In this case in the form of a magical acid arrow. Same thing with a cloudkill spell that's a persistent magical fog that has a duration. The fog wouldn't push into the AMF as it's a magical fog with a duration above instantaneous.
Should probably stop responding to comments that don't add to the specific point of the thread as it only delineates the purpose. It doesn't add to the conversation or address the problems.
EDIT: As for the solutions being provided some of them are decent thoughts but this topic is now straying into the homebrew realm. This forum is for general discussion of the pathfinder rules not for solving the problems. If there is a general consensus that there's a problem the thread is pretty much over and new alternatives should be moved to a new thread in homebrew. 3726 posts seems a little overwhelming for the most basic class in the game.