| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People like the class, it exists for them.
Search Posts
It's one of many house rules I use.
It looks fun from what I have seen. I would just need to convince everyone I play with to give it a shot. I also wonder if converting pathfinder material will be time consuming or not.
Things I want are an end of feat trees, an end to feat taxes, and feats that scale with BAB. A combat maneuver system that doesn't require heavy investment to be useful. A revamp of the skill system that allows skills to compete with spells at higher levels. Clarification or nerfing of problem spells. Some real class features for the rogue, and fighter. Basically I want are a bunch of alternate rules. But so far things like armor as DR, called shots, duels, words of power, basically any alternate rules that have been put out so far have been rather disappointing for me so far. I expect any new ones will fall flat, be overly complicated, or fail to address the issues I perceive. Yes I am definitely in the camp of people who wants a lot from this product. What I expect is a lot of new material I won't want to include in my game, and a bit that I will.
Yes. I am waiting for pathfinder unchained but I doubt it will change my opinion.
A female Gnoll iconic would be a dream come true though I am guessing not popular enough or standard enough to ever be a reality. Ratfolk is also good.
Level 9 spell casters they cause a lot of pissy arguments.
No full casters on my list.
Get rid of all classes but level 6 spell casters?
Casters are less dependant on the GM providing solutions, and require more GM adjudication on how abilities work (look how often arguments about how simulacrum, wish, blood money or whatever spell should be run pop up.) Casters also get more benefit from down time, and require more checks and balances by the GM. Keeping parity between classes in a game is fairly easy but it usually means most of the GM's effort is focused on keeping the casters from reaching their full potential. My experience tends to be that spell casters quickly run out of useful spells, but I build my home games to intentionally bring his about.
Take out half-elf, and half-orc. Add goblin, and gnoll.
Barbarian Bard Inquisitor Investigator Magus Monk Slayer Warpriest
Bad Ass is pretty popular at my table. Named after a mule that wouldn't walk in the mud.
Spellbane against Explosive Runes? Uh... sure. Even if that's that case there's plenty of ways to beat him. And really the stats don't matter that much. And the only way he can get a contingency is to blow his 1/day Wish. Cthulhu has a huge treasure hoard and UMD using it's treasure to benefit itself is standard for intelligent monsters. So scrolls are an option, higher stats raise the DC's of his abilities, Initiative could be at least 10 higher, and he could choose 20 as his initiate roll using mythic wish, he could have simulacra of anti paladins to remove immunity to fear. That once a day wish means he could have an unlimited number of wish granting ifrit. Honestly all I think this thought experiment shows is that if the player is more ruthless and informed than the GM a level 20 wizard can beat Cthulhu. Mind you a fighter can beat a wizard if the wizard player lacks system mastery. If you want to think up some different ways to beat Cthulhu other than the explosive rune trick that would be interesting but I think any tactic will have a counter.
I would be surprised if spell bane wasn't up on Cthulhu, and a back up source severance, and some sort of contingency. We also seem to be assuming his stats aren't also 11 higher from belts, headbands, or inherent bonuses. Sure he's beatable but this idea seems to operate under the assumption that there are no preparations on Cthulhu's part. I mean if he's aware of the wizard he could just wish them to a dead magic plane.
Some ideas. Great Mirth: the fighter can consume a number of pounds of edible material equal to 10 times his fighter level plus 10 times his CON bonus as a full round action. This can increase his weight by an equal amount if the fighter wants or he may remain the same weight, if he chooses to gain weight he may increase his size one step as if using enlarge person if he consumes at least 50% his regular weight, this effect lasts 4 hours, the fighter can end this effect early as a free action. The fighter must wait 4 hours before using this ability again. Swordcopter: by rapidly spinning a two-handed weapon the fighter gains a fly speed equal to 10 times his strength bonus, he can maintain this flight for a number of rounds equal to his CON score. The fighter must wait twice the number of rounds spent flying before he can use this ability again. The fighter can attack with his weapon while flying but his hands are otherwise occupied while flying in this manner. Narrative Weather: the weather quickly changes to match the fighter's mood. At will as a free action the fighter can alter the weather in a 4 mile radius around himself. The fighter picks a type of weather, over the next hour the weather changes to match the designated weather. If the weather is being manipulated by magic the fighter can attempt an opposed caster level check (treating his fighter level as his caster level) if successful the weather begins to change, if the fighter fails he must wait 1 hour before he can attempt to alter any weather again.
Well, to be fair, a Ranger, Cavalier, Rogue, Fighter, and Barbarian all have the same problem. If they don't have a magic weapon, odds are they can't damage a Shadow without one. It's just the word 'Fighter' is often used to mean 'martial' when it comes to talking about issues with martials in Pathfinder. Barbarians can pick up ghost rager, at level 6 that's fairly high but it's a solution that doesn't require an item.
To be fair to the people making Sarah Palin jokes she did say you can see Russia from Alaska, which while being true was used as her foreign policy credentials repeatedly. Not as funny I know but still.
Fighters just need a SLA to craft magic items.
See your reasoning behind the wizards tier shows your bias. If a sorcerer is tier 2 and a wizard is tier 1 it's because the sorcerer has a limited number of spells known. If the wizard cannot purchase more spells he has a limited number of spells he will ever know. Incapacitation can be achieved with non lethal damage or grapple and rope. You missed part of my argument I will assume and aren't actively ignoring what doesn't suit your purposes. As for flight no item needed again I will assume you misread. You keep bringing up sneaking into places, unless the area is a brightly lit straight corridor of some considerable length guarded by a creature with poor perception and no means to sense invisible creatures then yes being invisible is great. But in most cases stealth or disguise can accomplish the same thing. As for social skill, ranks quickly outpace ability modifiers and class skills are highly customizable with traits so if the barbarian needs to be a face he can easily, the wizard may have charm person but did the tier 2 sorcerer pick it up? The wizard is indeed a higher tier than the barbarian that's why I put the class at 2. But if you don't count paragon surge a sorcerer is tier 2 and they cannot customize on the fly so I will stick with my placement.
And a build was posted of AM but it's kinda outdated now.
N.Jolly you should have followed the AM BARBARIAN threads more closely they showed a lot of what a non casting class was capable of. Scrying didn't work effectively because the barbarian was outside the spell range by the time the spell was cast (constant high speed movement). Though one build was posted that did bring the barbarian down. It involved a 20th diviner/ oracle of time I believe with a number of simulacrum of itself and a wish binding spell that offered no save. However if the AM BARBARIAN build had made use of a contingency source severance it wouldn't have worked. Mind you the build was originally intended to just be a showcase of the classes abilities. The fact that some posters felt the need to try and "beat" it is a good show case of how ingrained the martial caster disparity idea is (not that it doesn't exist it,s just blown out of proportion). Things kind of got bogged down the exercise became a show of builds designed to one up the character.
The wizard purchases spell outside the 2 he gets per level. If the wizard cannot add further than those 2 spells per level he basically drops a tier. Gear is an assumed part of the game sure naked martial classes suck but that's not how the game is generally played. Plane shift and teleporting are the only real issue the barbarian cannot deal with effectively without gear, and the necessity of such abilities is highly campaign dependant. Turning a creature to stone doesn't solve anything killing or incapacitation can't. Even without items a barbarian can gain access to commune and flight. If seeing miles away refers to scrying, skill checks can gather as much, less, or more. The barbarian can dispel indefinitely, and this covers things the spells can't. The barbarian can access scent, and other senses, it can beat exceptionally high strength checks, murder things like crazy, and boasts some of the best saves around. N.Jolly as much as you feel gear shouldn't be taken in to consideration on a classes ability to operate at a given tier, it makes no sense. You might as well take away a wizards spell book and call them useless at that point. WBL in a standard game and the fact that purchased items work off of lowest casting stat are enough reason to keep full spell casters at the highest 2 tiers, and most lower. Some people seem to get defensive if you point out that items take the place of certain class abilities at later levels. Same goes for climb and swim being replaced by spells. The fact is gameplay changes as you level, once mind blank becomes available you can't use see invisibility or true sight to detect invisibility reliably anymore, you need other options. And this is why tiers are so subjective, people cannot be unbiased about it. You can't accept that items are a necessary part of tier position fine, I will always include them in my own assessments.
The ability to solve a wide variety of problems is still highly campaign dependant. The spells or feats that are available, WBL, item availability, item selection, the creatures that exist within the campaign, and stat generation have a huge impact on a classes ability. A wizard with access to all published spells and the items to make use of them is certainly tier 1 in what could be described as the assumed default setting. However I think it's been shown that many published adventures tend to be fairly unimaginative in regards to challenges, the crane wing rework gives a good indication as to the simple encounter design you are likely to see. Using the mentioned assumed default setting though I still would place barbarians in tier 2. The class has the best dispel mechanic in the game and social skills are pretty easy to get to a useable level. The class lacks certain mobility options, and can't remove a few magical impediments, it also has low power HP replenishment options. Still most of these issues can be fixed with items easily, healing is cheap, and the mobility issues are overcome by items later as well.
Simulacrum like wish is very much a GM makes the calls spell. While I believe recharging a staff is probably within the simulacrums abilities developers have made comments saying creating spawn, and crafting magic items fall under the increasing in power rule of the spell. Since what counts as an increase of power isn't directly spelled out using magic items at all could be argued to be an increase in power.
I am going to echo the others that have mentioned tiers being relative to the campaign you are playing in. I had a group made up of a cleric, 2 druids, a wizard, and a bard. A few of the characters died and the players made full BAB classes as replacements because the party felt they were lacking in real damage options. That said a lot of AP's certainly favour spell casting classes, but a well built barbarian or paladin should easily be tier 2. If you have a GM that is lenient with spell interpretation, or who doesn't track WBL closely the tier system can be thrown out completely as character power becomes more about item use at that point.
Gustavo that's why I said mostly, given high enough AC or an enemy with low enough attack near auto negating an attack is still good. Of course it doesn't change anything for a character with a really high AC or a character with low AC. And it is far less attractive against creatures or NPC's with ways to greatly boost attack bonuses.
The investment for snake style may be a bit higher than crane style, but snake is much better in terms of offensive capability. Crane was attractive as a defensive option and while wing isn't completely useless now, it's switch mostly makes it an AoO trigger for riposte.
Power attack would still be more useful. Probably Improved Initiative as well. I don't think we need to reduce the effectiveness of feats to place them on par with say Prone Shooter.
Weapons Brass Knuckles: You may deal your unarmed strike damage when using brass knuckles. Brass Knuckles: Brass Knuckles are a distinct weapon separate from the unarmed strike weapon option. When making use of brass knuckles use the damage listed in the weapons entry. Combat Mounted Combat: When making a mounted charge the rider or mount counts as charging for the purposes of feats and effects whichever is most confusing and least beneficial.
I have mentioned this numerous times before but I will mention it again, if you readied an action to attack someone using crane wing you would hit them before they could deflect the attack. Any creature or character could do this, it's not like a great sword wielder with one attack couldn't get his one attack in.
People keep bringing up this idea that single weapon characters can't hit someone using crane wing. A readied action allows you to attack before they use total defence or fight defensively, if they move away from you they provoke an attack of opportunity. It's not like you could't get around it already.
FE provides a large bonus making the list smaller is a considerable boost to a class feature that is already very good. Feel free to change it though.
Stephen I think everything you listed applies to melee and spell options too.
If we are going to be stuck with a change couldn't we just allow a reflex save once a turn against damage dealt when fighting defensively or using total defence. High reflex save characters would benefit more and you would always have a chance of success or failure when negating an attack. It still involves more rolling, but less guess work on the players part and provides more of a benefit. It also makes big single hits harder to avoid while making many less damaging attacks easier too.
I think a lot of people are viewing the original version of the feat as overpowered because maybe some of the ways around it are being overlooked. It requires either a standard or full attack action to activate, an opponent can ready an attack to hit before the character can fight defensively or use total defence, if they use ranged attacks just ready to move next to them so they will provoke an attack if they want to fire. It only works against melee attacks. Obvious but worth mentioning. Every creature has access to two weapon fighting and unarmed strikes, many can used improvised weapons. This may be a subpar fighting style for the creature in question but it does mean you still have a chance of hitting anytime you can full attack. You don't have to attack the character using this feat most of the time, I doubt every character in a party makes use of this feat.
Thanks Jason sorry to get off topic but I don't get a chance like that often.
Out of curiosity Jason what changes were made based off of board feedback. Was it prone shooter?
The issue is having to provide a list of house rules to players, as well as a list of accepted and banned material. A lot of work goes into running a game already, avoiding the need to dump more information on the players is a good reason to voice displeasure. A better reason to voice complaint is to make your opinion known, if you want better service or a certain product to be produced you should let a company know, it's to be helpful. Personal attacks are of course unhelpful but saying you think a decision was poorly made isn't really an attack. You can impact future decisions even if you don't get a reversal of the original decision.
I would ask when we can expect errata for blood money, or simulacrum but really that's just being bitter. It does feel like favouritism towards certain customers in some respect as to what is considered balanced or fair.
I personally feel the change wasn't necessary. I tend to follow the advice about avoiding single creature encounters though, especially single creature encounters where the creature only has one means of attack. I mean this is a team game unless every character had the original feat and was fighting defensively or using total defence couldn't the single monster with one melee attack just have targeted a different character instead. Encouraging total defence is a bad move in my mind because it is essentially selfish behaviour. And the need to declare which attack you want to get the +4 dodge bonus against slows down the game.
I can just ignore this errata but it honestly turns me off of further purchases when I need to run a game I feel I have to edit to stay fun and balanced. Not that I am cancelling my subscription yet. I just don't get the reasoning behind this, we still have save or die spells in the game don't they ruin single creature encounters far more often?
Pump UMD as any class get a scroll of simulacrum. Now make an efreeti and wish for 3 more efreeti. repeat until you have a sizeable army of wish granters you now have access to most spells. Expensive but worth picking up as soon as possible at 7,275 it's available at low levels if you are allowed t use over 50% of your wealth on one item. Just make sure your GM doesn't put much emphasis into that whole special abilities for a creature of that level or HD.
Fighter is +4/+4 unless weapon master which is +5/+5 with duelling gloves boosting another +2/+2 with both weapon focus feats and both weapon specializations you can get +9/+11. And FE is only +10/10 against one group of favoured enemy if each time he gains an additional group he increases the initial or second choice. I think the two classes mesh well. Armor training works best with a high DEX build and lowers ACP so thats an increase to some scout based skills. It gives rogues a better chance to hit and the feats to pursue a two weapon fighting build and a ranged option. Honestly I think the class lends itself better to a rogue role. You can now afford to have a bunch of mid range stats to be a skill monkey without being useless at combat, and you can afford to take utility feats and talents as well as combat ones. The fighter role gets less out of the trade. A higher reflex save and evasion are good but SA, and trap related stuff don't really enhance the main functions.
If a creatures attacks are all natural attacks the difference isn't going to be that great. An adult red dragon has a difference of +2 to hit between primary and secondary attacks. With 6 attacks total and about 7 damage difference between it's best attack and it's next best. If it means the difference between one attack hitting or not the feat still reduces the damage you take by a good margin, however before it was a sure thing and now it's quite variable in it's usefulness. The main difference is the effect it has against single creature encounters where the creature is limited to one attack. The old version was great against a single creature like a tyrannosaurus because it was basically incapable of hurting you, the new version is only useful if you have already invested in a high AC.
Until crane riposte at least gets an errata as well I will be leaving the feat chain as is. It was a good option but still not so good as to be basically mandatory like some feats. I still fin it odd that crane wing is considered more problematic than say simulacrum.
Damaging spells can get big numbers but reducing or completely avoiding that damage especially at higher levels is incredibly easy. It's the various debilitating effects that make spells powerful, that and having a swiss army knife kit of solutions.
I have seen full casters run out of spells at 8th level so it can happen, gaming groups have a lot of variance. I haven't seen a barbarian run out of rage but I assume this is also possible. A barbarian can also be prevented from entering a rage. I would say Barbarian but it depends on what types of games you play.
Spells can be really powerful or absolutely useless depending on what you have to deal with. Spells are only game breaking when used in a situation that permits them to be. If you know what spells to have on hand then yes you will feel powerful. Because of easy access to a wide variety of spells and lack of options for the spell less it does make spells seem pretty great. If you want to challenge someone it's easier when they have less options. Of course the bigger issue is people tend to not enforce the limitations built into the magic system very well. It requires more system mastery on the GM's part but if the players are close in skill then you can certainly run the game in such a way that all the players contribute equally.
|