Hahaha why because you say so? I count a whole heck of a lot of defensive and utility spells on the Magus spell list.
Sorry to break this to you but the artificial boundaries you place on a type of magic in your head mean nothing in reality.
The bard has been Arcane for a very long time and yet has very few offensive spells.
What the real problem is is people thinking their opinion is worth far far more then it is.
Classes not being "beta-worthy" is nothing more then your opinion and a poor one at that. All the classes function (some better then some of the core classes.) I don't like all of them by a long shot but ohh well. I don't like all of any book.
This "I don't like it so its trash and should never happen" mentality is nothing short of childish.
I really think many people don't get this class at all. All this "the casting is not blended with the melee enough" and "I don't find myself using the spells all the time."
.....duh. Its a 4 spell lvl full BaB class. If you want something that blends spell casting more that is what the Magus is for.
The point is just like the other 4 spell level full BaB classes. Mostly melee with the flexibility and options to do something in situations that melee is a poor choice or flat out imposable.
Ranger and Paladin don't "blend casting seamlessly with melee." and all the other such complaints. I don't see why any expected this to be different or even want it to be.
Don't give me "the magus spell list is not good for that.". That's a load. If you think that then you have never really looked at the spell list.
The thing is the magus spell list isn't even that focused on their ability to mesh touch spells with an attack. The number of spells that work with it is low. So ignore shocking grasp and frigid touch (vampiric touch is still more then worth having.)I fail to see how that is a big deal.
What do you gain over no spell list? MASSIVE flexibility. Ranged options when you have no other choice, Burning hands when you run into a
Honestly it covers every weakness melee have. Flying monsters, Swarms, uselessness in any situation that isn't "hit thing", Keeping yourself alive if something happens to the casters or things just go very wrong.
I don;t understand how people can complain about this spell list.
Kaisos Erranon wrote:
So it's not the fault of the developers for developing something that isn't the least bit creative?
Again with the over blown opinions. What is or isn't creative is completely subjective. Iteration is a fact of game design. Both table top and digital. Pathfinder as a whole is in fact iterative.
Putting building blocks together in a new way isn't counter to creativity.
I love the bloodrager. I have wanted a full BaB 4 spell lvl class for a long time.
But the more I play around with it the more I can not help but feel it makes the Barbarian useless for anything more then flavor reasons. (meaning does not want/hates magic.) Now not to say flavor reasons are not valid. But my personal opinion is that it should not void its parent class completely for all other reasons but flavor.
I think it just gets to much of whats good from Barbarian without losing enough. What I mean is it loses some hp (d10 DD) trap sense (lets be honest its a weak ability.) and rage powers (but most bloodlines are superior anyway.)
So my suggestion is to perhaps think about taking away a bit more of the Barb stuff? Here is a few of my thoughts on it.
Weaker form of rage. +2 +4 +6 rather then +4 +6 +8
Drop ether uncanny dodge or fast movement.
DR stopping at 3/- rather then 5
Simple weapon pref and then added pref from bloodlines (might be to big of a pain in the back side at this point.)
Light armor with "If the bloodrager gains med armor pref they can then cast in med armor without ASF"
In no way am I saying do ALL of those. They are just thoughts I have on the topic. But its only one mans opinion. So you know take it with a grain of salt.
Hybrid Classes fail to offer new niches, unnecessary reiterate old classes and dilute support for existing classes.
I am really getting tired of this over use of extremely vague terms like "niche" "concept" "not distinct enough" and so on without even trying to attempt to define the terms you us.
Its a common tactic used when someone is trying to push their opinion as fact and its pretty easy to see though.
You don't like it that's fine. Don't buy/use it. But trying to pretend that you not liking it makes it factually bad/wrong/poor is low brow at best.
So in your -opinion- there is some vague line where something -feels- [Insert another vague term here. Flavorful, distinct, concept or the like.] enough to be a class?
That's nice. Everyone has an opinion. Mine is that a class is anything the game designers want it to be... because they are designing the game...
For one making them archetypes means they would have to go through a lot to make sure nothing funny happens when mixed with other archetypes. Making it a class means a nice clean slate.
And frankly I don't get this complaint. So perhaps it could have worked the same or close as an archetype. Your point is? Why do you care so much if the way to make [Blank] is a class or a archetype as long as it works. The end result is the same. I could not care less if they called them "super fun time vocations." as long as they function.
It really does just feel like people need something to complain about.
I would assume he like the Ranger and Paladin has a caster level of his class lvl -4.
I am a bit sad that he can cast out of rage. I personally saw it as a balancing factor. Because lets not kid ourselves its a strong class. Having to worry about bloodrage rounds and being able to be in bloodrage when you need a spell. It would make playing the class well very tactical. But that's just my opinion so of course take it with a grain of salt.
I am also in the camp that thinks a few of the bloodlines are a bit strong. Arcane being the one that jumps out at me. It simply just gets the best arcane buffs a bit to easily. I would drop a couple (displacement and haste) move some to a tier up (blur) and add some of the weaker arcane buffs in there (like false life.). They would still be plenty useful since we are talking about action free buffing here.
"3 (more like 4) PC's working together perfectly where the BBEG and minions do nothing to stop them from setting up this convoluted combo can kill the BBEG!!"
Well duh. The list of ways 3-4 PCs could kill a BBEG in one round under perfect circumstances when nothing is done to counter it is pretty long. Simply 3 rage-pounching Barbs could easily one round kill any BBEG thats of a proper CR for a BBEG of that lvl.
Stagger isn't anything great. Using a full round to partially limit one targets actions is a so-so trade off at best.
I have kicked around this idea a few times. My version of it uses Kensai. Also uses a arcana that most think is near worthless. Pool strike.
You see pool strike is (SU) and therefore CAN be used while raging. Later on grabbing arching pool strike. That mixed with arcane strike and gloves of arcane striking makes for interesting AoE ability.
Spells mostly buffs, out of combat utility and recovery (Infernal healing.)
Have not tested it out in play yet but I think the idea has promise.
There is a difference in universality. Everyone has the core rulebook, and the Bestiary is the same across the board. Anything else has to be considered optional. There shouldn't be general rules found only in other books. I am really surprised by the level of venom, considering that almost everyone agrees on what the preferred rule is. For me it's just a matter of the text. The attitude almost seems to be, "How dare you care about this, I care very much and think it's wrong you care about this."
Firstly since there are monsters in the GMG and the Bestiary is in no way needed to play then it is also NOT core. So the argument falls apart right there.
Secondly what is considered optional is nothing but your opinion. You are welcome to it of course but thinking is in universal shows nothing but arrogance.
It is not universal, at all. To me since almost everything is freely available on a couple of sites there is no reason for anything to be secondary. But this is only my opinion and I don't expect anyone else to do things as I do. Nor do I feel the need to try and cram my opinion down anyone's throat and pretend its a fact.
That rule is in the advanced race guide. It is directly opposed to the rules in the bestiary so really it depends where you look as to what the aasimar pc gains.
Its not "opposed" it is a specific rule that trumps the general rule. This is a core concept of the system as a whole. Specific trumps general. It very much is a system of exceptions.
Its starting to feel like many of these FAQ "request" are people that know good and well what the RAW and RAI are and disagree with it. Then they try to mask that disagreement as manufactured "confusion" they pretend to see in the rules.
The funny thing about opinions is everyone's is different and few or none are worth more the3n any other.
See I completely disagree with you. I would rather see Prestige Classes done away with completely. It is a fiddly and clunky system that was nothing more then a poor bandaid for how bland and poorly made many classes had been in 3.5.
Archetypes on the other hand accomplish the need of fleshing out chars so they are very distinctly different even with the same class. And honestly if you think they only vary slightly you really haven't taken a good look at many of them.
A bard that is far more like a rogue? (but better.) Yep. A intelligent fighter that uses his brain a to help overcome the enemy? Yep. A rangerbarian? Yep.
Many of these trade out MAJOR class features for another classes MAJOR feature. Hexcrafter being another one. These things are in no way minor.
Wow.. just wow.. So your whole argument for martails being fine is completely based on "My group plays like impatient meatheads so your tactics are invalid everywhere always!!11!"
Seriously the fact that your group/s do not use the tools built into the system does not have any weight on weather there is balance in the system.
You know sometimes this is the case I am sure. But then other times your augment (meaning the "yeah that's great in theory but in play I think not so much." position.) Is simply used to try to counter a point that the person can't counter with real numbers or facts and the assumption that the person they are trying to discredit has never played it in a real game is often wrong.
The thing people that don't see the problem fail to grasp is that damage is the least important part of the game. Even the least important part of combat. (unless you have no casters then its the only way to win. But removing casters is not a fix most would like.)
Even a low level example. A well placed glitter dust disables most of the enemies then the melees go in and finish it up.
Who won the battle? The caster or the clean up crew? Melees largely become nothing but janitors cleaning up whats left.
Even the shenanigans aside APs are made for a 4 person 15-20 point buy group and even then are on the easy side. With rolled scores and a 5 person party of course APs are going to be VERY easy.
In fact even with a group made for it APs tend to have flat poorly designed encounters. Like single target boss fights. The ppl writing this stuff really need to knock that off. Anyway with a shred of system mastery knows that's just stupid.
Alright reading back a few I have seen gold called a very low cost resource and whatnot. What game are you people playing? Do you only play casters? Or do you just hand out 2X-3X the WBL?
For melee (who this rule is clearly meant to help) Gold is spread really damn thin as it is. With the high cost of magic armor and much higher cost of magic weapons, Needing at least the two ability belt if not the all 3 ability score belt, A way to fly at least for a short time every day, Save boosting items (since most melee get jack for will saves) and more. These are needed just to function in their intended roles.
Even if you have a caster to make a couple of those wondrous items for you gold should not be nearly as plentiful as some are making it out to be.
Firstly the OP out right said they are not looking for crit builds so as was asked I gave crit no consideration. Also since damage from vital strike is not multiplied on a crit it becomes far less valuable. Not worthless of course but not a priority.
As for feat slots. This is hardly a feat starved build.
So with vital strike and improved vs we have a large bastard sword with impact doing 9D8 or 12D8 on a crit (10% chance unless another feat is spent or keen enchantment.)
Falcata 9D6 or 15D6 on a crit. (again 10% chance unless feat or keen.)
Nodachi is pretty much out hands down.
Now this is from just damage dice not str and power attack ect. So that would push the crit damage in favor of Falcata of course. Though I am not a super math guy and lack the ability to run those numbers. At least without taking all night. Though I am reasonably sure without keen/imp crit Bastard sword wins hands down. With though Falcata likely wins.
In the end though the OP asked for a non-crit fishing build.
It really is amazing the number for people that clearly don't understand how full casters work that try to post on things related to balance.
Not just what you pointed out but they are also able to buy spell slots with s number of items. And since they don't have to spend coin on extremely expensive gear just to do function as their class they have the coin to burn.
The whole "casters have limited resources" thing is vastly over stated. Ether by people with low system understanding or those that personally want to try and hide the power gap between melee and casters.
Err also something I failed to notice. You list of classes leaves well no healing other then ranger and maybe oracles? (not sure if around means PCs will or won;t be allowed to play them.)
This gives ranger a bit more value too. Frankly I would drop a rogue any day before a ranger. SA is a very weak mechanic.
Vulnerable to Fire wrote:
There's a feedback loop. Change the rules to make magic more common and give each character absurd powers, and you make the playerbase expect this, and attract a playerbase that wants this. Next time you change the rules, you follow what your playerbase wants, and so you get even more common magic and powers. Repeat for a few cycles and you get monks who can teleport just by meditating really hard and a CR system where players are assumed to survive and win constantly instead of needing to be worried.
If you don't like it don't play. Sorry to break this to you but your opinion is worth next to nothing.
The game is not and never should be player vs DM. Wealth by level is a guideline not a hard rule but it still has a very good reason for being there. Because the Cr system assumes a rough level of power from items. While it is far from perfect it is a GAME system and must be built on numbers and logic. For the system not to take equipment into account would be nothing short of stupid.
As for the rest of it. The GAME system is in fact built around the idea that more often then not the PCs will win. And really it is built around the PCs and DM being the center of it. You see I said both there, not one or the other. You are in no way more important then your players nor is your fun more valid then there's.
In the end it is a GAME, It is made for enjoyment. It is designed from the ground up with that in mind.
Your post is full of frankly bs assumptions and fallacies out the ears. A player wanting to upgrade his sword has nothing to do with WoW, An adventure wanting to do all he can to stay alive (by being optimal as they can be.) is not doing it wrong. Anyone that faces danage would be an idiot not to.
Another reason this analogy is just flat bad is that requesting something done to YOUR dish or having it remade effects only you. This is more like walking into a restaurant and screaming that they should permanently change the menu because you don't like something on it. It would effect everyone that eats there and its just idiotic to even attempt.
Ohh so its "melee can't have nice things." There can be gods know how many spells that control people/monsters but the second its something melee can have its not alright because its not magic?
I really thought the PF community moved pass melee can;t have nice things by now. My mistake.
-Edit- And where are you getting this "has to run up and punch" nonsense? They can cast at the feat user and nothing keeps them from drawing a weapon as part of their move if they don't have one in had.
The problem with this is a great deal of the time so called "problems" purposed on this forum are in no way a real problem. Its the people that turn out to be the problem a lot of the time. Ether trying to twist something even when they really know its not the case or trying to make something not work because they don't like it but still likely know they are full of it.
I feel about the same as most. They would make much better commando squads and even stealth squads. (low ACP and invis spells work well for this.)Save for maybe Skirnir Magi. They could make an army I suppose. But they take forever to get off the ground (lvl 8) so it would be one serious army. Something I would oath to use.
As for cookie cutter builds I have to disagree. Yes the Dex build is common but just with what I have played and seen played we have a whip trip Magus, Hexcrafter using hair as his main weapon, A halfling slingstaff magus, and I am forgetting at least one.
You know what I have never seen? A Barb that was not THF. So barbs are clearly far more cookie cutter yet there is a great deal less complaining about it. It's more peoples personal dislike for one feat disguised as anti-cookie cutter complaints.
Now for some better thought out answers. BBEG's with good will saves is pretty much a must. DO NOT run encounters with one BBEG alone. Seriously this is at the root of way to much "This is OP!" threads. Action econamy alone makes it unwise but also things like this. If that BBEG had a someone that can remove the effect with him things would have gone much better yes?
Rerolls. PF has a plethora of ways to get rerolls. They are great for PCs but even better for BBEG's. 1/day for someone that might very well have a one encounter lifespan means more then 1/day on a PC that should be seeing around 4 encounters a day. (another point here. No 15min work days.) Ways to get rerolls, Saving finale spell, Preacher Inquisitor, and Duel cursed oracle. There surely are more that's just off the top of my head.
Then there are items. Even mundane ones like Soothe Syrup.
Its a sad sad thing when people complain about having options. Honestly if you don't like them don't use them. There are many people that do like them and frankly the "I don't like it so you shouldn't have made it!" thing is a bit arrogant.
The last thing I want is for the game to stop moving forward because some people don't like more options. I would like to see more alternate classes for instance.
Toned down is one thing but they flat made it strictly worse then many weapons that don't need EWP. That is just bad design imo.
I know a lot of people had issue with this weapon but at the same time it is still only melee. And frankly it was the only weapon forth the feat in 3.5 (Now there are a couple weapons worth it at least.)
While toning some things down from 3.5 was very good it does bother me a bit that this was made useless and yet a good deal of far more powerful things got left alone (a good number of metamagics I am looking at you.)
I am having a hard time believing anyone could read the item and come up with what he did.
Perhaps he is a "magic is to powerful as it is" kind of person. Which is something I can understand. Even so rather then trying to be sneaky and change how the item is meant to work he really should just be upfront about it and just ban it honestly.