Tiamat

Temeryn's page

Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 116 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
PF Paladin is still Tier 4 by the JaronK style tiering. It's a high tier 4 but indeed tier 4.

Not really; PF paladin got better saves, better smite, ability to remove afflictions and break enchantments, more uses of smite, immune to more things, have auras that buff allies, detect evil was expanded, better damage, more durable mount, can identify magic, better spells and an actual capstone. Tier 3 now. Low tier 3 (IMO) but tier 3.

Personally, I do think it should still be Better. Giving it 4 skill points per level and their mount gets half-celestial eventually.

It is usually placed in tier 4 though I guess you could make an argument for tier 3. The issue is whichever of those you place it in, if paladin got an additional +10 damage per level on all attacks it would not move up because that tier list is all about flexibility, especially in ideal circumstances. Fundamentally, its about how given enough time, a mid-high level wizard can prepare for a specific known quantity and solve it at least as well as anyone else.

I have a lot of issues with this tiering system which is why I jumped on this thread at the chance to show the OP's requested style of tier list.

Unfortunately I am incapable of doing the skill floors and ceilings because I just cannot decide how incompetent the floor is and how ridiculous (and probably banned in my games) the ceiling is.

An example of this issue would be sorcerer vs wizard. A terrible player would be better at wizard because if they pick something dumb they can change their minds later. A pretty good player will pick solid spells and sorcerer will be better but a GREAT wizard might have all the spells needed for a particular day but an EVEN BETTER sorcerer will pick spells that don't conflict and have UMD for the fringe cases the wizard would have an advantage at and therefore have the edge case spells and the awesome bloodline arcanas and greater spells per day. It can ramp up or down infinitely in either direction to even something like all the spell choices made are so garbage and the sorc gets more free abilities so is better...


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:
Temeryn wrote:


All in all I consider wizards to be tier 4 of 6 for defense. They can move up if they spend more resources but usually one will fall around there because of the weaknesses I outlined in my previous post. I feel the other classes higher in defense overall have better options through the level spectrum. Sometimes it is a different type of defense so it is hard to compare but for example arcanist with its dimensional slide and counterspelling I feel is consistently better at defense than a wizard.
I think you'd be hard pressed to top a truly optimized Wizard's defenses after level 9. Prior to that 4 sounds about right. And at level 17, they are tier 1 defensively.

Well I would say an arcanist stays consistently better at defense throughout (you can make arguments on some odd levels with strong spells arcanist does not yet have) because of their extra defensive abilities.

By level 10 wizards are certainly stronger than tier 4 defensively, but some of the tier 3 are imo still better especially when considering all buffs aren't up all the time and a few rounds of buffs isn't enough for wizards to fully leverage their higher spellcasting over the 6th level casters in tier 3 who have extra defensive abilities. (I also think UnMonk at level109 will still have better defense too)


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Blackwaltzomega wrote:
Temeryn wrote:
ElementalXX wrote:

If anything it can be tailored around the anvil of combat roles

Tiering classes by role is how it was done at 4e

for example a wizard is god tier on :Hammer/Anvil/Arm

An archer ranger/fighter/monk is god tier on : Hammer

it can apply to other classes as well, as you can see many fullcasters can be god tiers on all tiers there hence the reason they are tier 1 on the regular tier list

Without derailing the thread, the discussion was not really meant to be martial caster disparity, which frankly is my problem with the other list. The other list is about flexibility. We have that list already; this is meant to be a list showing which roles classes are better at in generic scenarios 1-20.

All in all I consider wizards to be tier 4 of 6 for defense. They can move up if they spend more resources but usually one will fall around there because of the weaknesses I outlined in my previous post. I feel the other classes higher in defense overall have better options through the level spectrum. Sometimes it is a different type of defense so it is hard to compare but for example arcanist with its dimensional slide and counterspelling I feel is consistently better at defense than a wizard.

I do feel that the wizard has a bit of a leg up in that positioning, arguably the most important form of defense in the game, is his specialty, but you have a point that outside of certain builds the wizard is at at disadvantage on this front against the Arcanist and Sorcerer, who are more likely to have non-spell mobility powers than the standard Divination-school wizard.

The Arcanist is probably the top of arcane full casting for defenses, what with its self-contained supply of temporary HP to make it seem bulkier than it is, dimensional slide, immediate-action counter spelling, and the option to nick one of the mobility bloodline abilities from a sorcerer as a blood arcanist.

I would say with the list, it is easier to see my thought process with similar types of classes. We agree about the defensive abilities of arcane classes and that is why arcanist is a tier higher (sorcerer did not quite make it).

The combat classes put higher were difficult but basically it had to do with having stronger defense throughout 1-20. At the higher levels arcane casters have strong defense (given time) but still have some weaknesses especially if only a few buffs can be cast or the right spell is not known or prepared. The combat Classes placed higher in defense usually were very strong in defense early and don't fall off as much as the other combat classes.

Barbarian being a good example. The extremely high hp and DR (and some from rage with the right powers) are great at low levels and still good at high levels aginast other fighting classes but the superstitious huge save bonuses and ghost rager and bonuses to will and fort (from con) from rage give the barbarian the anti-caster defenses at higher level as well. This leads to its placement as hard to stop at any level.

Admittedly I placed Barbarian 2 above so its a clearer case. It is much iffier between tier 3 and the sorcerer. Alchemist for example, got there because of having the highest AC in the game early on and scaling pretty well. I would agree at higher levels their defense is probably worse than wizard/sorc eventually but I think the tipping point was such that they are put above in total. Especially considering alchemists have great defensive spells too and only at very high levels does the disparity from the casting become big enough for the sorc to make up for the alchemist built in defenses with significantly higher level spells.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ElementalXX wrote:

If anything it can be tailored around the anvil of combat roles

Tiering classes by role is how it was done at 4e

for example a wizard is god tier on :Hammer/Anvil/Arm

An archer ranger/fighter/monk is god tier on : Hammer

it can apply to other classes as well, as you can see many fullcasters can be god tiers on all tiers there hence the reason they are tier 1 on the regular tier list

Without derailing the thread, the discussion was not really meant to be martial caster disparity, which frankly is my problem with the other list. The other list is about flexibility. We have that list already; this is meant to be a list showing which roles classes are better at in generic scenarios 1-20.

All in all I consider wizards to be tier 4 of 6 for defense. They can move up if they spend more resources but usually one will fall around there because of the weaknesses I outlined in my previous post. I feel the other classes higher in defense overall have better options through the level spectrum. Sometimes it is a different type of defense so it is hard to compare but for example arcanist with its dimensional slide and counterspelling I feel is consistently better at defense than a wizard.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
ZZTRaider wrote:
Temeryn wrote:

Combat Defensive (AC, saves, HP, ability to avoid damage, protect against certain statuses)

4. Wizard, Sorcerer, Samurai, UnSummoner, Summoner, Bloodrager
Psychic

Does this take into account the Wizard's ability to cast Resist Energy/Protection from Energy, Mirror Image, Invisibility, Fly, and Blur/Displacement?

I'll agree the Wizard is a bit lacking on saves and status protection, but it has some of the best tools in the game to avoid damage, despite a low AC.

Don't forget Defending Bone, False Life, Freedom of Movement, and Stoneskin.

The wizard does not get access to freedom of movement, which is one of the classes main weaknesses.

And yes it does which is why wizard is placed above most full BAB classes with higher HP. Wizard still is weak to fortitude saves and has little to protect against them. Their will saves are pretty good but not the best and their reflex is also low if they are not resisting. Wizards have tons of ways of avoiding damage and many times the game being played is avoid getting hit dead on or else. Wizards are good at avoiding which is why they are higher than tough full BAB classes without extra goodies.

I actually just edited them to be more on par with other full BAB because I realized a lot of the defensive stuff only comes online later when you have spells to spare and at low levels wizards are much less beefy and still don't have enough spells to waste to defend. Obviosuly the true strength of casters is that they can switch what they want to do and a full defense wizard will be good at all levels but would then take a hit in offense or utility.

Also remember that this is not meant to be 1v1 casters do also have the weakness of having their defensive spells be shut down by other casters whether by dispelling or revealing or casting fly etc.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Secret Wizard wrote:

That's a s+#&ty list in my opinion and really useless too.

For example, UnMonk can have ridiculously high AC while outputting good damage and having tons of combat mobility and some out of combat utility. Nowhere in the list that is reflected.

Plus I also disagree heartily with your placements, particularly if you believe a Bard is better offensively than all of those classes you mentioned.

I'm out of this thread.

It is a little rough and obviously opinions will defer. I already glanced at it and want to move some up or down 1. But UnMonk was put in the combat offense slot of not most damaging fighting class but strong at damage without much debuff next to fighter. UnMonks should be in the same tier damage wise as fighters and they are tier 3 in defense (frankly near the top) but do not have what it takes to get to tier 2 because of the weak will save.

Druid has strong defensive spells, natural armor ans size increases to defense with wildshape, and strong fort, will the two most important saves. All the others in tier 2 have strong defensive abilities, strong defensive divine spells, good fort and will jsut like druid except Barbarian who has other massive defensive bonuses with superstitious.

Bard has strong offense because of buffs. Notice how that is included. This is not a 1v1 tier list and in a group bards and skalds can be massive force multipliers on damage while bing a little worse than divine full casters at defensive buffs.

Also Monk was in utility, the tier below rogue which I think is fitting because Rogues bring more utility.

Obviously with stuff like this though people will always disagree *shrug* just explaining the thought process.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Here is a list I just made in much less time than a great list would take. Somewhat taking into account archetypes but not doing them individually even in edge cases so a little rough. Also, assume hardbacks only and a rough assumption that things in hardbacks that are banned in pfs are probably not being considered (for example grand master summoner).

I started out trying to do the floor, ceiling thing but got frustrated trying to decide how incompetent the floor was. This is supposed to represent an average through 1-20 and is not only representative of high levels like some tiers like to assume.

The classes within tiers are currently not in a particular order. Note that this also means that averaging the different tiers does not give a good way of telling strength as a whole because the top of a particular tier vs the bottom could be significant as well as the gap between tier 1 and 2 being an indeterminate amount in relation to the gap between tier 2 and 3.

***

Combat Defensive (AC, saves, HP, ability to avoid damage, protect against certain statuses)

1. Cleric, Paladin, Antipaladin, Oracle, Warpriest

2. Barbarian, Druid, Monk, Inquisitor, Shaman

3. UnMonk, Alchemist, Arcanist, Kineticist, Occultist, Spiritualist, Bloodrager, Summoner, UnSummoner, Samurai

4. Wizard, Sorcerer, Psychic, Bard, Fighter, Gunslinger, Witch, Investigator, Skald, Medium, Mesmerist

5. Cavalier, Ranger, Magus, Brawler, Hunter, Slayer, Swashbuckler

6. Ninja, UnRogue, Rogue

***

Combat Offensive (debuffs, offensive buffs on you or allies, damage)

1. Witch, Sorcerer, Summoner,

2. Paladin, Wizard, Bard, Druid, Antipaladin, Arcanist, Shaman, Skald, Mesmerist,

3. Barbarian, UnSummoner, UnRogue, Bloodrager, Slayer, Gunslinger, Oracle, Psychic, Alchemist

4. Fighter, Cleric, UnMonk, Ranger, Samurai, Brawler, Swashbuckler, Warpriest, Inquisitor, Cavalier, Kineticist, Medium, Occultist, Hunter

5. Magus, Spiritualist

6. Monk, Rogue, Ninja, Investigator

**

Utility (face, skills, spells, ability to solve problems)

1. Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Arcanist, Investigator, Shaman, Medium,

2. Sorcerer, Alchemist, Oracle, Witch, Skald, Occultist, Mesmerist, Psychic

3. Ninja, Inquisitor, UnRogue, Kineticist, Spiritualist

4. Rogue, Ranger, Summoner, UnSummoner, Hunter, Slayer

5. Magus, Swashbuckler, Warpriest, UnMonk, Monk, Paladin, Antiplaladin

6. Samurai, Cavalier,

7. Barbarian, Fighter, Gunslinger, Bloodrager, Brawler

(Blech, the formatting got all jumbled)

Edit: Changed it a bit after a re-read


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The problem with the linked tier and the one that people always talk about is that it is very much a utility tier list by definition and does not separate combat and utility.

For example, Paladin has solid utility but its not huge and it is the strongest combat class 1-20 in my opinion and cannot be reflected in the old tier list method. It is put as 4 which is ridiculous.

Separating two different lists seems smarter to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If you are reaching 12d6+24 you are certainly using stuff that is banned at my table and/or setting specific paperback stuff which really should not count in these discussions.

I think it is pointless for this to devolve into a "well I don't allow that" because frankly I play with rules stricter than PFS, but paperback books are not the core line and are Golarion specific so they should not be considered.

Just in general it is more fair to compare CL6 to CL6. When the sorcerer reaches 7, scorching ray gets better and more stuff does too and when the kinetcisit gets to 7, he gets a hybrid and another element as well as a 2d6 bump when empowering. Sorcerer has been out longer and just has more stuff to play with in feats. Its not really a fair comparison


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have never done a full damage comparison of the inquisitor but my vague glancing at the numbers makes me think that the inquisitor can do better in one fight and can definitely do better with proper prep, but I think a lot of times people underestimate the attack roles and its effect on DPR.

This is especially important for kinetcisits who have the option of touch attacks which are free hits or even one single hit which will be more likely to hit than a regular 3/4 BAB class because it is at the highest attack bonus. Against many bad enemies with low AC the kineticist can use aoe (at least with fire for free) so a low attack role character with a lot of damage wouldn't necessarily do better in that scenario either.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Obviously, level 6 is not the kineticist's best level but even with that comparison it stacks up fine.

The kineticist does less than an archer but has more utility.

Especially at level 6, I would not even say a sorcerer does much more damage considering the limits per day (ignoring crossblooded with orc which is banned because it is a rigged bloodline). Red dragon sorcerer is focusing on damage and has a 4d6 + 4 or 18 damage scorching ray which is only limited in use. If the sorcerer uses more of those, he has less utility spells while the kineticist keeps his all day. I am not saying a sorcerer is worse than a kineticist (a good sorcerer doesn't really go for damage), but the point is that they are comparable.

And the expert/aristocrat doing more damage is a math error by wheover came up with that. It is patently false, though obviously being better than an aristocrat doesn't mean anything anyway.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am pretty sure it is just flavor text trying to encourage the medium to role play.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am confused as to why the discipline powers use charisma sometimes and intelligence other times.

I have a player play testing a pain psychic and am specifically worried about the free dazing spell. I had assumed that it used charisma as the other powers from the discipline key off charisma. I thought that the balance of getting the free dazing spell that scales with level was that it uses your secondary stat score.

I feel that if his DC had used intelligence (he was level 13), it would have caused the pain psychic dazing spell ability to be too strong because it would allow for free dazing with a DC equal to your highest level spell, and I would consider dazing spell already incredibly strong as a metamagic feat by itself.

In essence, I feel that using intelligence for discipline abilities breaks pain discipline (probably even with cha DC, it is a little too strong as is) but also feels weird from a design perspective with the inconsistent ability score usage.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am a little confused about what exactly you believe MrTsFloatinghead.

Do you think that many spells are arbitrarily given to certain classes and not others and that the designers should error on the side of giving more options rather than less? For example, gravity bow is an arcane spell and if it makes sense for some bards, it should have been put on the bard list.

Or are you saying all classes should have all spells. Period.

I disagree with both of these positions but I can see the argument of the former even though I disagree while the latter I vehemently oppose.

With regards to abolishing all spell lists. I think the easiest example of why I think spell lists are important is the cleric vs wizard. Both have the standard divine and arcane spells respectively. They get slightly different abilities, but the real reason the classes feel so different is because the divine spells on the cleric list are different than the wizard list. The cleric gets extra buffs that have built in flavor of coming from a divine entity and the wizard has a bunch of spells the cleric doesn't. This divergent spell list helps the cleric and wizard feel distinct from each other so that everyone is not just a generic spellcaster class and that adds value to the game.

With regards to the bard not getting gravity bow specifically, I still disagree. Wizards and sorcerers trade health and BAB and have worse saves all to maximize their arcane might. Part of their power comes from the ability to access a wider variety of spells than other classes because they focus more on magic. That makes sense to me both mechanically and thematically. Bards gain a variety of powerful abilities and are more of jacks of all trades but masters of none. The limited spell list is part of what makes them not a master of arcane magic.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My understanding is that a shaman can only pick one witch hex because unless noted otherwise, a hex may only be picked once.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And the ninja gets all rogue talents.

Yes it has been done before.

In my opinion, it was wrong to be done before.

A bunch of hybrid classes however will make the problem exponentially worst because now there are even more classes and not just archetypes that have to be kept in mind when adding new fighter feats.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kekkres wrote:
what about making them count as half fighter? as in a level 12 swashbuckler counts as a level 6 fighter for feat purposes.

I can see this perspective, but at that point why not give them none? There are plenty of feats every class that is not named fighter can take.

Also, while it definitely decreases the issue, you still have the problem of trying to give something to fighters and then having to deal with being forced to balance it with regards to the other classes (even if they get it later).


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
drbuzzard wrote:
Haven't looked at the Warpriest, but the Swashbuckler wouldn't hold up without access to those feats IMO. It's already a marginal front liner, so gimping it more would be pretty bad.

I disagree with that statement about swashbuckler, I think they are slightly overpowered right now, but it doesn't matter for this argument.

If swashbuckler is too weak without fighter only feats give them something else to bring them up.

My point is just to not give fighter only feats.

Having said that, especially with swashbucklers, I am fine with specifically giving certain fighter only feats as class abilities if they make sense; just not the blanket statement that they get them all.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I feel that both warpriest and swashbuckler should not be given blanket access to fighter only feats because it gives away one of the fighter's few things that only it got.

This is similar to the thinking that all rogue talents should not be given away to slayer or investigator.

In general, giving away those special features and giving access to all of the features the parent class has leads to situations that weaken the viability and uniqueness of the parent class.

Also, while obviously the goal is for all classes to be well balanced, it also makes it difficult to re tune or give goodies to one class without the other. For example, because the ninja gets all rogue talents, there is no way to help better carve the rogue's niche in relation to the ninja by giving special rogue talents because the ninja can take those anyway.

It also means from now on any cool interesting abilities that would be good for a rogue must be balanced for both it and ninja.

An example from this playtest would be creating new powerful fighter only feats for high levels should not be impeded because a medium casting class is already pretty strong at that level and they can take it too (warpriest).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DeciusNero wrote:
Knight_Druid wrote:

How about having the hunter use a swift action to give his pet a boost dependent on level;

1. Armor Class and saving throws, or

2. Bonus to hit and damage

This along with specific spells that can only be cast on the pet (i.e. magic fang, barkskin, bless, cure light wounds, etc...)

Thoughts?

I think it'd be nice to expand on the share spells ability. As in, when the hunter, casts barkskin on herself, the animal companion also gains the benefit (could always have the CL be halved for purpose of duration and whatnot to not make it too OP).

I REALLY like this idea. it gives the class a really cool ability that nobody else has and helps bring the animal companion up in later levels when it is not as strong. Also, usually you have to decide whether to buff yourself or your companion. For the summoner, the current best pet class, it just buffs the eidolon, but being able to do both helps strengthen the idea of both the hunter and companion fighting together as opposed to hunter sits in back and continually buffs companion like the summoner does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If investigator is going to lose sneak attack, my suggestion would be to have an investigator version of smite, similar to the movie Sherlock Holmes planning out the fight in advance.

A rough version of this idea would be:

Battle Insight:

You can use it as many times per day as you like but you can only use it on one enemy at a time. It gives an insight bonus on attack roles, damage, and AC against the target and uses a standard action of observation of the target to start (lasts until the end of combat like smite). At level 7, it goes down to a move action and then a swift action at level 13.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I completely understand why they want to limit the number of new spell lists. It makes sense.

However, I think shaman needs its own spell list because there are a lot of spells from both cleric and druid that fit the shaman's theme and possibly some from neither that do too.

Because of this, if a new spell list is not used, it will always feel as though the class is missing something.

The best examples of when it is a good idea to not change the spell list would be warpriest. It would be nice if they got some spells early but they can be balanced in other ways. At the end of the day, the warpriest spell list should pretty much be the cleric spell list that makes sense even if at different levels. With this in mind, it is better to not change up some spell lists and instead give other things to the class but allow it to sue the cleric spell list for backwards compatibility and forward compatibility

The issue in the shaman case is that depending on spell list used, the class might be missing spells completely that it would make sense for the class to have. Other abilities can make the class stronger and as a whole the class with some bonuses may be stronger without the different spell list.

But that is not the issue.

The class will be plenty viable, it will just lack some abilities that a shaman should have and consequentially will feel less like a shaman.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It seems wisdom for casting is out, but the reason I thought it was such a good idea besides the "Oh its nice to have a choice of wisdom to casting" is that it widens the gulf between arcanist and other spellcasters and helps give arcanist a greater niche.

Using wisdom for casting would allow arcanist to also be able to fill the sort of hermit mystic who is a wiseman that people visit. Wizard can do that somewhat, but getting a spellbook filled with spells when not in "civilized" society is sort of hard. And the mystic I am talking about is less book smart and more wise in any case. Many times in fantasy books and other mediums, I feel this archetype is dominant as opposed to the book smart wizard.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:

Kryzbyn is a made up word for a DnD character name.

As for the rest, same thing as it does for the messageboard guidelines.
There may be a problem with direct translation stuff that looks ok to us, but to someone that speaks it natively, there could be issues.

I'd prefer not to stumble over foreign language named classes, unless theres a better reason than "I know! What's fighter in German?"

I speak a little German, so it's not a problem for me, but wouldn't it also cause a problem in a German PF book where the fighter is already called a Krieger most likely?

I'm in no way bashing all of the foreign people who play PF. It certainly wasn't meant to be taken that way, or to imply that English is superior.

While I agree the names I gave are too obscure and therefore not very good. It is different to just translate warrior into German than it is to give the name of one of the ruling castes of Celtic society that is not just a translation of warrior or noble. This is especially true when we already have a class named druid which is the other ruling caste already. They are the priest caste for the Celts.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah the issue is that these names are so obscure that even though they would fit really well, they probably are not good names either.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Starfox wrote:

Brawler: This is weak - brawling is not just to fight unarmed, it is to do so without formalized training. Pugilist is the best so far.

Hunter: Agree with the criticism that this sounds like a mundane class. Beastmaster or Packleader sounds better to me.

Investigator: Saboteur, agent, demolitionist, daredevil, bomber, tinkerer.

Shaman: This is nitpicking, but a shaman tome is more community-oriented and protective than this class is. Witch doctor is my obvious suggestion.

Skald: Probably fine.

Slayer: Agree with Stalker from above. Slayer is so-so. But can Pazio risk using any name used in D&D that is not in the SRD? They might make themselves targets of lawsuits that way.

Swashbuckler: If the swashbuckler can actually have a buckler (or small shield, since the Pathfinder nomenclature is wrong), this name is just too good not to use. Rogue AT, please move aside for the bulldozer...

Warpriest: Templar is good, but see my comment on Slayer.

Temeryn wrote:
...Equites...
Equites also means horseman in latin, which makes it a knight/cavalier type. It is just applying the closest latin word to a celtic phenomenon. Not spot on. Try to dig up some gaelic word instead.

So apparently the original word for equites appear to be:

guladach or uladach
and aetheling was the Anglo-Saxon version

Dryht and dryhten might also be names that work but I am not sure if they also mean the exact same thing.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Excaliburproxy wrote:
Lo&beholder wrote:

Oh that makes sense in my head.

MAKE THE ARCANIST WORK OFF WISDOM.

The arcanist sounds like more than a force of personality and the sum of knowledge as opposed to experience and sheer will.

It doesn't favor wizard or sorcerer dipping.

AND MAKE IT THE FIRST CLASS THAT AGES YOU.

Sure first level bump your character one age category up.

-1 str.dex.con. +1 int.wis.cha.

Why do people want another wisdom class in a book that already has three?

Also: If we are talking about a guy who UNDERSTANDS magic. She doesn't have any of that wibbly wobbly intuitive b*!+~+*! those tree hugging Druids and supplicating Clerics have to rely on (those animals). She recognizes the faults in spells and tears them apart because she knows better how that magical energy can be used.

The way I see it, if the arcanist uses intelligence, the flavor jsut sounds like a better wizard. It makes me feel like both have studied magic intensely and use their intelligence, but an arcanist sees how it truly works.

If it is wisdom it actually implies a different approach of feeling the magic and understanding and controlling it intuitively based on understanding the nature of magic as opposed to knowing a lot about magic and using it to write formulas.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Athaleon wrote:
Maxximilius wrote:
Temeryn wrote:
Obviously I agree 100% with the first part because I was the poster that come up with the idea of having the precise strike replace strength (or dexterity with dervish dance).

Beat you to it with my second post in this thread actually :p

Quote:
I am not so sure about the critical multiplier idea. I could get behind giving x3 and x4 bonus 1 and 2 panache but I do not think longsword or shortsword should just get free 18-20x2 critical.

I just noticed this now, but if going the route we're pushing for, the longsword wouldn't even need this greater critical range.

It would be one the most balanced choices for a Power Attacking swashbuckler thanks to the ability to be wielded two-handed, the damage dice and 17-20 final critical modifier, improving the chances to recover grit with a killing blow, even if at the expense of reducing recober by critical hits.

Come on Paizo, that's obviously the miraculous answer :o))

The scimitar can be wielded in two hands as well, and damage dice are irrelevant because the difference works out to exactly 1 damage.

Remember that Improved Critical doesn't add to your crit range, it doubles it. On a 19-20 weapon it increases your critical threat chance from 10% to 20%. But on an 18-20 weapon it increases your critical threat chance from 15% to 30%.

Even if you gain Panache based on your crit multiplier (x2=1, x3=2, x4=3):

- 20/x4 will be equivalent to 18-20/x2.
- 20/x3 will still be worthless.
- 19-20/x3 (the Falcata) would actually become the best option... if it did Piercing damage.

(Speaking purely in terms of Panache generation. This doesn't take into account that gaining 2-3 Panache with a crit might "overflow" your pool and thus be wasted.)

And never forget, this is a class for whom crits are fuel and whose gas tank is tiny.

For every class, beyond low levels, weapons soon devolve into...

You make a valid point. Then allow cutlass and not scimitar. If you take dervish dance and we are using the precision damage not stacking then you deserve to be able to use the scimitar which can also be two handed.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Maxximilius wrote:
Temeryn wrote:
Obviously I agree 100% with the first part because I was the poster that come up with the idea of having the precise strike replace strength (or dexterity with dervish dance).

Beat you to it with my second post in this thread actually :p

Quote:
I am not so sure about the critical multiplier idea. I could get behind giving x3 and x4 bonus 1 and 2 panache but I do not think longsword or shortsword should just get free 18-20x2 critical.

I just noticed this now, but if going the route we're pushing for, the longsword wouldn't even need this greater critical range.

It would be one the most balanced choices for a Power Attacking swashbuckler thanks to the ability to be wielded two-handed, the damage dice and 17-20 final critical modifier, improving the chances to recover grit with a killing blow, even if at the expense of reducing recober by critical hits.

Come on Paizo, that's obviously the miraculous answer :o))

Noooo I feel less special now!

I agree completely with your longsword point. It has its own niche especially if you are against something immune to precision damage and need the better power attack.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Coridan wrote:

I think Skald shoehorns the class too much. In its thread I suggested Warchief or Warchanter for it.

Warpriest could be Templar or Sohei.

Bloodrager is ok, though it could be better.

Slayer I am not a fan of, it is just another word for "murderer" which should not be a player class. Slayer should be called Hunter.

Hunter of course could be Beastlord, Beastmaster, Tamer, Animalist, Zookeeper...

I think skald is good as a general combination but is is the same name as an archetype...

I really like slayer. I think it is the best name out of all of the new classes. A demon slayer is not a murderer I disagree. And The Slayer from Buffy is basically The Slayer of All Supernatural Predators.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
danielc wrote:
Forgotten Knight wrote:
I think a better name for the Warpriest would have been Templar.
I have to disagree. Warpriest at least feels generic. Templar is linked to a specific religion/church. I say stay away from specific links like that IMO.

Cleric comes from the old french clerc which means member of the Christian clergy. It is just as specific to Christianity. And Templar I believe was used in a prior edition so it has some precedence as a generic divine fighter like cleric does in prior editions.

I said in the other post that I agree with bloodrager--->warlock with the flavor of someone's heritage being wild and uncontrollable causing them to sometimes go into rages enhanced by their magical lineage.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Maxximilius wrote:
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The doubling of the flat bonus is important to me, and lowering the level-based bonus damage compensates.

Lowering the level-based bonus damage would hurt the feelings of growth granted by the current itteration. Right now you effectively get something cool at every level, up to +2 damage per level with panache !

Quote:
But the Dex to damage (instead of Str) is important because, without it, then all SBs will either be Str based or use Dervish Dance, and if that's the case then the class will have failed to produce the swashbucklers of our shared experience.

Unless again you design the class so Precise Strike does not stack with Dex/Str bonuses to damage. If you give the swashbuckler enough damage so that he doesn't NEED to become Str-based or pick Dervish Dance just to stay relevant, you resolve the balance and pigeon-holing issues with a single stone. Precise Strike is too bold, fun and cool in execution that it would be a shame to nerf by both granting yet another "add X ability to damage" and reducing the versatility of the class.

I'll state again that I'm a big fan of the method suggested earlier : the swashbuckler would get all its damage out of his class levels, weapon enhancements, weapon training and eventual weapon specialization feats.

Dex would only add to AC/Ref/Skills/Attack Rolls, much like how it works with all firearms by simply determining if you hit and nothing more. It's a great and balanced way way to stay in line with the gunslinger's essence by making melee feel like firearms. A swashbuckler's effective damage would come out of his own awesomeness and panache, not from stat bonuses which can be abused or restrict builds too much.

With this mechanic, you could still get 13 Str for Power Attack if you want a damage boost, which would come at the cost of investing some points into this stat ; which would thus make you slightly more MAD.
Or you could still pick Dervish Dance... even if it doesn't stack, the damage bonus...

Obviously I agree 100% with the first part because I was the poster that come up with the idea of having the precise strike replace strength (or dexterity with dervish dance).

I am not so sure about the critical multiplier idea. I could get behind giving x3 and x4 bonus 1 and 2 panache but I do not think longsword or shortsword should just get free 18-20x2 critical.

The class needs to open up and allow scimitar and cutlass. If so, I am fine with rapier, scimitar, and cutlass being the 3 best weapons because those are the weapons I most associate with swashbuckler anyway.

Buffing the weapons with larger multipliers definitely sounds fun and balanced but if a pick is the 4th best weapon option for swashbuckler it is a little weird so not sure.

The other issue with this idea is that moves panache away from being exactly grit to actually being slightly different because if gunslingers got 3 grit on each critical that would be ridiculous and they do not.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am a little worried with people wanting to drastically reduce or remove sneak attack. As of now I feel that the class strikes a good balance of being great out of combat but still pretty good in combat. If sneak attack is removed or reduced, the investigator needs something to increase his/her ability in combat.

Also, if anything this class needs buffs at least at early levels. I keep comparing it to vivisectionist and investigator seems weaker.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mortag1981 wrote:

I know a lot of folks are just looking at the WP to be a comparable DPR to Paladins, F/C, and Inquisitors, and there are a lot of good ideas to help make that happen. That being said, I really want the WP to be more a tanky party buffer, and there are definitely some neat tools in the kit to let that happen.

The Artifice Blessing in particular has me going "this is neat". At level 10, I can use my sacred weapon and sacred armor abilities, and then pass those abilities off to another member of the party. "Oh we're fighting X? Here, let me bless my weapon, and just give you the extra bonus mr. fighter". I like that idea. I'm looking from a PFS angle as well, so my thoughts pretty much stop right around level 12. I think from a WPL aspect, the artifice/protection WP can do a lot to free up cash throughout the party, and I think that's pretty neat. I'm rolling one up for PFS this weekend, so I'll be able to see how it works at the low levels, but I don't think it'll be that much worse than the fighters at the table, and I think I can hold my own against the clerics.

Just some thoughts at least.

See my issue with this is there already is this class. The regular cleric takes heavy armor proficiency and has full casting divine buffing as well as better channel positive energy. Also keep in mind it has already been stated that there will be a cleric archetype that gets blessings.

But this discussion just goes back to what I have been saying all along, which is we all agree warpriest is a little weak now, but to know what needs to be buffed we need to know what the class is supposed to be.

Is it supposed to be most similar to a cleric, inquisitor, or paladin. How good should it be at buffing the party, healing, buffing itself, and fighting.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DeathQuaker wrote:
Temeryn wrote:

Warpriest also annoys me because there is no priest class (which I would want eventually) so it sort of seems weird because there is no such thing as a 'priest' per se and now you are saying this class is a priest that goes to war. Also if they make a priest class you just stuck war in tront of it which is a lame name for a different class like warcleric, warwizard, warsorcerer, wardruid.

Well warwizard sounds good to me but probably because I read to many Forgotten Realms books.

The issue of "priest" is that it assumes you are ordained clergy, which I would think a divinely gifted person doesn't necessarily have to be. The problem is, "cleric" does the same thing, and that ship sailed decades ago.

Well the issue isn't the word priest in general for me, it is the fact that you just stuck the word war in front of another word that is basically a synonym for cleric and called it a day. It is exactly the same as warcleric. It does say what the class is but it is a terrible name. It is like just calling a magus a warwizard.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was thinking about how hunter evokes a sort of class without spells. A sort of version of a ranger with no spells and this class has even better spells than ranger.

I thought of a good name for the class that better fits the current flavor: equites.

Equites and druids were the too ruling classes in Celtic society with equites being the noble warriors as opposed to the more priestly druidic order.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I like removing medium armor proficiency thematically, but I also would be on board to giving the class druid armors without the negatives for metal armor.

As in let shaman get good metal armors with the proficiency feat, but have it originally only get the more 'primal' armors which I feel fit the class's flavor better.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Warpriest also annoys me because there is no priest class (which I would want eventually) so it sort of seems weird because there is no such thing as a 'priest' per se and now you are saying this class is a priest that goes to war. Also if they make a priest class you just stuck war in tront of it which is a lame name for a different class like warcleric, warwizard, warsorcerer, wardruid.

Well warwizard sounds good to me but probably because I read to many Forgotten Realms books.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Spellcasters vs non-spellcasters is not the argument here.

I personally believe over levels 1-20 in total paladin is the strongest class in the game as well but that should not affect the arcanist.

The arcansit needs to be balanced with respect to sorcerer and wizard. Nobody else.

I personally would rather error on the side of arcanist's being slightly weaker because even though the remake sounds cool, the spellcasting mechanic seems to be the lazy way out in which you get versatility without having to be careful of how many times you need to memorize each thing as a wizard. Also I usually would prefer to error on making the core superior.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Warlock is not bad, though I would prefer a closer to magus route with medium BAB and similar abilities if it is going to be named warlock.

The flavor of the warlock name could be sort of a wildmage (also a good name) that has sorcerer blood but cannot fully control it and it means that invoking their magical heritage causes them to lose control of themselves and enter a spellfrenzy (also a good name). Makes sense to me.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
nate lange wrote:

it seems to me that if we're creating spectrums they should probably look more like:

fighter-warpriest-cleric
ranger-inquisitor-cleric

i haven't playtested one yet but it looks like the warpriest should be better in combat than an inquisitor but at the cost of out of combat usefulness. they seem like different roles to me. there are some pretty solid melee builds for clerics, so the necessity of this make be questionable from that standpoint... i'm assuming (based on what has already been said about the brawler) that warpriests will count their levels (or at least some of them) as fighter levels, which will help move them a little closer to fighter than melee-cleric...

I agree that the inquisitor out of combat is very different, specifically because it has lots of out of combat skill based abilities and that is something that helps the class differentiate if the warpriest remains 3/4 BAB too.

This issue is in combat they play exactly the same basically. They have special abilities to enhance their attack bonus and damage to make up for the mediocre BAB and also have level 6 casting so can do a little bit of the cleric buff routine on themselves if there is time before combat (right now inquisitor is just better at this as well as being better out of combat but that is a separate issue)

If warpriest remains with 3/4 BAB and i would probably prefer it has full, I think our go to examples of good 3/4 casters that seem pretty distinct should be magus and bard. Bard for sure is much better out of combat similar to an inquisitor vs warpriest but that is not enough. In combat, even though they are both medium casters they play very differently.

The magus focuses more on blasting spells and adding to his attack to do more damage and sometimes using a few utility spells with spell combat if need be. His arcane pool helps him wade into melee with 3/4 BAB and still hit while also casting spells, but can also be used to increase his spells creating more flexibility depending on what you need.

The bard cannot cast and fight at the same time and unless he is trying to conserve spells, does not usually enter combat directly because of this. Bardic music is used to buff the entire party and bard spells are very good for buffing, making bard one of if not the best buffer in the game. If not buffing, bards also get early access to a bunch of debuff spells as well in the enchantment spells and these can be game changing fight enders.

Now even despite all this, I feel like the classes are close to (but do not) stepping one each others toes. Usually my players that play one or the other wind up in between the two classes even though they are pretty different, because they are both at the end of the day medium BAB arcane casters with cool abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
christos gurd wrote:

...*inhales*PLEASE DEAR SWEET MERCIFUL HEAVENS CONSIDER WISDOM CASTING, IT FITS THE FLAVOR MORE THAN EVER!

...wait a minute
Jason Buhlman wrote:
The arcanist takes a different route. Seeing magic for what it really is,
I wrote wrote:
I think this class should be about looking at the nature of arcane magic
O_O

Oh wow I did not see your post before I posted.

I obviously agree.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also arcanist's new flavor also lends itself to having it cast with wisdom instead of intelligence and charisma.

Wizards use complex formulas to cast spells that they write in their spellbooks and they memorize the formulas each day.

Sorcerers use natural force of will to control their limited set of spells they obtained from their heritage.

Arcanists see, understand, and DO which seems to point towards wisdom. The arcanist does not not have as much rote knowledge as the wizard; that is not how they do things. The arcanist does not use their personality and force of will like a sorcerer. They understand how it works and how to interact with the magic around them to achieve their goals.

Also it helps create more differentiation and gives people a wisdom based arcane caster which many people want.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I feel as though with the new arcanist idea, the class should have access to all arcane spells and choose each day like a cleric but then cast spontaneously. Obviously, the spellcasting needs to be nerfed in some way to compensate this buff, but the new vision of the arcanist does not jive with the idea of having a spellbook and learning new spells by copying down notes from another guy's book.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I feel like the class needs to better define what is should be.

How is a warpriest different from a cleric focusing on buffing and fighting? Not just in terms of making sure warpriest is better but also what is the difference?

A cleric that buffs and goes into melee is already pretty good if you have time to buff.

Should warpriest get their own version of spellcombat for personal buffs so they will benefit from buffing in advance but can also wade in to melee and buff as they go if need be?

Or should they have full BAB and reduced casting so that they are already good in melee but only have limited buff spells so sometimes a few times per day if the warpriest knows there is an encounter coming up it can use its few spells to buff and become ridiculously powerful for that combat.

Also how is it different from inquisitor which has reduced spell casting and gets buffs in return to attacking while keeping 3/4 BAB. Inquisitors get judgement, warpriest get sacred weapons, but if both wind up doing the same thing it does not really matter what you call it.

They are too close together right now (with warpriest just being weaker). I feel that if one is better than the other the other will never be played because they are virtually the same class so buffing the warpriest is not the solution.

Giving a magus like ability instead of the same bonii but in different form would help make the class seem different sort of like bard vs magus.

The other solution is to make them more like paladins and then worry about instead stepping on their toes but at least they are alignment restricted so I feel less bad because as is not everyone can make a holy warrior if their alignment is not right.

Both of the above options are good, but for some reason I am enamored with the idea giving full BAB and 9th level casting with very few class features and reduced casting getting 0 per day at 1 4 6 8... up to 2 total memorized.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I am definitely a fan of a priest class or an archivist or whatever you want to call it and I feel it has a stronger niche than warpriest. I would rather have a priest class, but I am fine with warpriest being kept and making a priest later in a different book because it seems unlikely that they would so drastically change their last class.

On inspire courage, I believe there is already an archetype with it so not a huge fan actually.

If warpriest is kept I do think it needs its niche clearly stated. I personally think their should be changes made to make it more defined in its niche, but it would help if a developer explained where they feel warpriest should be in relation to paladin,inquisitor, and cleric. Some ideas on the specific class thread I like, but each moves warpriest in one direction or another and trying to figure out what we want from the class should come first.

That is also what I like about the priest idea. It pushes more in the caster direction where there is no divine class in that area, while warpriest must contend with cleric which has the same BAB and better spells, the inquisitor that has the same spells (sort of) and a bunch of abilities also meant to enhance combat like the warpriest currently does, and paladin which is full BAB and is for sure the best at actually being a holy warrior but has limited spells.

If the divine classes were a number line with characters on the left having the worst spells and being the best at fighting and characters on the right having the best spells and worse at fighting:

Paladin------Inquisitor-----Cleric

With Priest we can immediately see where it goes:

Paladin------Inquisitor-----Cleric-----Priest

For warpriest I honestly have no idea:

Paladin---Warpriest?----Inquisitor-----Cleric

Paladin----Inquisitor----Warpriest?----Cleric

Or this which makes warpriest really clash with inquisitor:

Paladin----Inquisitor, Warpriest-------Cleric


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Because swashbucklers get it for free at 5th level. Reread the weapon training feature.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well I am still a fan of precise strike replacing the strength (or dex with dervish/agile) to damage. You can give other goodies to keep swashbuckler strong.

I would rather swashbuckler do a little less damage than a fighter anyway but also debuff a little bit with its attacks or do something a little different anyway.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Shisumo wrote:
Zark wrote:
Only works on living creatures. You have any idea how common undeads are in any AP?

Also gone.

Also, the addition of buckler access means that Dervish Dance loses a bit of effectiveness vs rapiers.

This is true, but it is still definitely the best choice.

And don't forget, that as of now, if you aren't dervish dancing you should probably be maxing strength, which I am not too thrilled about either.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rogue Eidolon wrote:
Throne wrote:
Zark wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Tels wrote:
Why are so many people butt-hurt over dervish dance and agile weapons?
Because its the only thing that works with a dex fighter, so its the only kind of character they'll see.

¨

Ah, but the DPR comparison is made using a Str based Swashbuckler.

A dex based Swashbuckler without dervish dance or agile weapon would suck, especially vs. to incorporeals, oozes, elementals, undeads, Swarms, warms, Aeons, constructs and objects.

And we all know it, don’t we?

BTW, Neither dervish dance nor agile weapon are part of the core rules. If they were I’m not even sure we had a Swashbuckler class.

I'd think that the 'optimal build' swashbuckler currently relying so heavily on Str at the expense of Dex and Cha (which are clearly intended to be key abilities for the class) just proves the need for something akin to Dervish Dance for the class. It's clearly not working as intended.

It would be nice not to pay the feat tax or enchantment tax though.

If we realy do want to go that route, one way to do it is to replace the +level to damage with +Dex to damage (maybe capped at level) at level 3. Heck, allow both Str and Dex to discourage 7 Str. Let it all double on a crit. swift action 1 panache still adds +level to damage which doesn't multiply on a crit. That could work, and requiring level 3 makes it less dippable for the dex to damage.

The dexterity to damage as well as strength instead of level to damage also works but that would make this class the most MAD of probably any other base class, which could make the power of swashbuckler very swingy depending upon point buy used in game and WBL.

1 to 50 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>