shallowsoul's page

It depends entirely on the campaign, and the playstyles of the players.

In a fairly casual game, at 6th level you can totally play a monk 2/druid 2/sorcerer 2 with Skill Focus (basketweaving) and still feel like you're contributing. Sometimes I really like to play in those types of games, where I have that kind of freedom to play whatever I want.

In a meatgrinder like the Age of Worms, you need a totally optimized hunter-killer team in which each member works with every other like a swiss watch -- if you want to have even a 50/50 chance to avoid a TPK. There's no room there for casual stuff, or "flavor-only" choices. Sometimes I really, really enjoy games with that level of brutal tactical challenge.

Many games are in between those two endpoints, and that's okay, too. The key is that everyone needs to be on the same page before you get started.

If you bring your hunter-killer to a casual game, everyone will hate you for it because you're trying to play a different game than they are. It would be like a bunch of kids playing nerf basketball in the driveway, and you ask if Michael Jordan can be on one of the teams. Sure he can, but unless he totally gimps himself, he'll ruin the game.

If you bring your monk/druid/sorcerer to the AoW slugfest, you're going to get the whole party killed -- it would be like replacing Michael Jordan with one of those little kids from the neighbor's driveway, and still expecing the Bulls to still win the playoffs.

Could it be that Age of Worms has a problem in that it's too difficult? I don't think any module was built with the intention you must optimize the hell out of a character just to survive.

Well, here's the thing, if three characters are all equally effective and the fourth much less so...that fourth player is very likely to have less fun, since their character feels less powerful and competent. The game isn't competitive in the sense that the PCs fight, but it does have a certain amount of inherent competition for spotlight time, and if one person is getting less of that in most areas (or even just one important area like combat) they're probably gonna feel left out...and not being effective in one or more commonly occurring areas is likely going to result in precisely this.

That's not universally true, but it's a pretty typical attitude to have. Now, it's worth noting that the reverse problem (of one character being notably more effective than the rest) is at least as bad, probably more so, but both are still problems.

At it's heart, this is what all the optimization arguments tend to boil down to: Everyone in the party should be about equally optimal to maximize everyone's enjoyment. Whether that's a high or low level of optimization is almost irrelevant (though a certain very basic degree of optimization is useful to avoid getting frustrated by the game's difficulty), but it being relatively equal among the PCs is very relevant indeed.

So, now we come to Classes. If you're playing a mechanically sub-par class in a group where others aren't doing so, and you're not a fairly significant degree better than them at optimization, you're almost certainly going to wind up with a less effective and competent character than the other players have...and all the problems listed above suddenly come into play. It's not an insurmountable problem, but it's a very real one. And that's a large part of why this argument comes up.

Additionally, for many home games the GM will calibrate the threat levels to the party, and one sub-par (or overpowered) character can really throw that calculation off and make challenges either too easy or too hard for everyone else. Contrariwise, if using published...

Define effective in your statement.

The default way Pathfinder is set up shows a casual game. There is no recommended section on top builds. There is no section telling you what to stay from and what to take.

The problem I see is the game getting changed encompass a higher power style of play. In my opinion, the classes aren't created with a power level in mind, I believe they are born out of a concept the designer had and they just ensure the class isn't broken. There is no class or concept that is useless.

One thing you hear from people is an expectation to reach a certain level of usefulness in a party. I'm not really sure where and when this started. Sometimes ia gets so extreme that you would think the game should only contain class AB and C because of their supposed usefulness. We don't encounter this in our groups. We don't have a criteria that all characters must meet in order to be considered useful. There are many options to choose from that enable you to come up with all sorts of combinations. Now before you say it runs the risk of getting other PC's killed, the designers felt this wasn't an issue because we have plenty of options that are not optimal in any way, but they do contain flavour.

Certain classes are tougher than others, but if that's all that mattered, then that's all would show up to games which we all know doesn't happen. People give out about the Fighter, Monk, and Rogue and claim these classes aren't useful when compared to certain other classes but I think this is a bit unfair. How do these classes stand up to the monsters in the Beastiary is really where some of these criticisms need to be bases around. Now I can tell you we sometimes pick optimized builds, or builds based around teamwork, and sometimes around pure concept.

As far as I can tell, all classes when working together can end encounters so why the need to indulge in overkill? How hard do you need to kill something, dead is dead? What's the point in having abilities that way more than exceed the needed DC?

The best suggestion is to put the fear of god into the troublemakers.

You temp ban them enough, or actually delete their posts and I bet we will see an improvement.

I would also recommend adding a Baiting/Flaming choice when you click flag.

If you start off a thread with "100 ways you suck at playing a paladin complete with pictures" you are going to get negative responses.

You won't ever find a thread I started that is anywhere near this.

Why are you exaggerating the issue?

shallowsoul wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

Yes, and there's a couple of posters pulling the old trick of when the debate isn;t going the way they want it to, they start asking for a thread lock and insulting other posters- which means that post gets flagged, which does sometimes end in a thread lock. It's a nasty, cheap trick.

The mods are just so busy I don't think they catch it.

This this this this!

I'm growing tired of a select few posters who act like they are the self proclaimed Paizo forum police and go out of their way to get threads locked just because they either don't like the topic, or they are losing their argument. They are dictating when a thread is to remain open or closed. I will not continue to be held prisoner by these people.

Nobody is forcing you to click on the thread and read it, nor is anyone forcing you to make a comment, especially those comments informing you that you are trolling and they will be flagging it. It's like these people think they are of so much importance that the whole board needs to hear them speak.

By the same token, it is this sort of melodrama that keeps things in a state of turmoil. No one is holding you prisoner. No one is forcing you to respond to the other posters and exacerbate the situation, nor to post things that are provocative.

It goes both ways. You cannot say they are being meanieheads when your hands are not clean either. And that goes for anyone and everyone in these threads. Over half the posts are accusing someone of being a troll or not knowing what they are talking about or debating if they are being offended or needling the other to get them in trouble. It's like driving with kids who poke at each other until someone gets smacked or the car gets pulled over.

What's holding me prisoner is the fact that I can't come in and have a discussion unless it's under their terms. Like I almost have to have permission to discuss a particular topic. I respond to those posters because in all honesty, nothing gets done flagging them.

My hands aren't clean but I don't go around looking trouble. Some people really don't need to take it upon themselves to decide that a post or a thread is somehow "trolling" when it clearly isn't. It's just a tactic to get the post removed or the thread locked.

shallowsoul wrote:

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but I found something in the PRD under the multiclass section.

Note that there are a number of effects and prerequisites that rely on a character's level or Hit Dice. Such effects are always based on the total number of levels or Hit Dice a character possesses, not just those from one class. The exception to this is class abilities, most of which are based on the total number of class levels that a character possesses of that particular class.

Shhhhh! They're all having way too much fun arguing.

Also, the FAQ on Sorcerer Bloodline abilities contradicts that rule.

So let the FAQ take care of the Sorcerer only.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but I found something in the PRD under the multiclass section.

Note that there are a number of effects and prerequisites that rely on a character's level or Hit Dice. Such effects are always based on the total number of levels or Hit Dice a character possesses, not just those from one class. The exception to this is class abilities, most of which are based on the total number of class levels that a character possesses of that particular class.

Yes, and there's a couple of posters pulling the old trick of when the debate isn;t going the way they want it to, they start asking for a thread lock and insulting other posters- which means that post gets flagged, which does sometimes end in a thread lock. It's a nasty, cheap trick.

The mods are just so busy I don't think they catch it.

This this this this!

I'm growing tired of a select few posters who act like they are the self proclaimed Paizo forum police and go out of their way to get threads locked just because they either don't like the topic, or they are losing their argument. They are dictating when a thread is to remain open or closed. I will not continue to be held prisoner by these people.

Nobody is forcing you to click on the thread and read it, nor is anyone forcing you to make a comment, especially those comments informing you that you are trolling and they will be flagging it. It's like these people think they are of so much importance that the whole board needs to hear them speak.

4E discussion is getting a little off topic...

** spoiler omitted **

Aelryinth wrote:

Depriving an enemy of a powerful weapon is a fundamental military tactic. Theft is generally stealing from another to enrich yourself. Stealing an artifact from Cheliax falls under the same lines as destroying it in this instance, since destroying it is not possible, you do the next best thing. The objective is not to gain the artifact to sell it, its to get it out of the control of the enemy and weaken them...a very worthy goal.

As for not lying...minor violation at best, and there are SO MANY ways around this its not funny. Being misleading is an artform that is not limited to the practice of rogues and bards.

I agree. However, if you're going to give a LG paladin to commit minor dishonourable acts - lying, and taking something that does not belong to you - in order to achieve a worthy goal, then you also have to give the CG paladin to commit minor lawful acts like showing respect to a monarch in order to negotiate for greater protection of his subjects' personal liberties. In which case the code I posted was not "insanity" but very reasonable - though it could...

Champions of Purity hasn't rewritten the alignment system.

shallowsoul wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

CG will look out for themselves of need be.

That is not how Law-vs-Chaos works.

Actually, it can and it all depends on the situation.

You implied that a Chaotic Good person is somehow less likely to be Good than a Lawful Good person. That is false: they are equally Good. LG is not 'more Good' than CG any more than CE is 'more Evil' than LE or LN is 'more Good' than CN.

I'm in favor of the alignment restriction on Paladins. But is isn't because CG isn't 'Good enough'.

I'm sorry but I am going to disagree. A Lawful Good person would go above and beyond for good, A Chaotic Good person would not. A Lawful Good character would sacrifice himself at a moments notice while a CG would not.

as long as no harm is done, CG characters will totally look out for themselves before others. That, again, does not mean they ALL will be that way, but they CAN be that way. And, y'know, being chaotic individualists, it's more likely then not.

==Aelryinth

Which is not the behaviour of a paladin.

shallowsoul wrote:

CG will look out for themselves of need be.

That is not how Law-vs-Chaos works.

Actually, it can and it all depends on the situation.

What gives the same few individuals on these boards the right to troll threads they don't agree with and end up getting them locked? If you don't like what is being discussed in a thread then stay OUT!

How hard is that to comprehend and why aren't the mods doing anything about these people? They dance a fine line when it comes to being jerks while others constanty over step it by baiting and flaming until you respond back and then go running to the mods because you've smacked them on the hand.

Why does this continue to go on here?

The problem with a CG Paladin is they don't fit the mold with what a paladin represents. CG will look out for themselves if need be.

they would, but they could also make good paladins, if we divorce the notion that paladins have to be LG. I would be more willing to agree on he terms of warpriest over cleric though. Clerics are support casters that are very capable of combat if they use the right buffs, and warpriest are a nice middle ground between cleric and fighter. The problem is that both of these classes fail when compared to the paladin when it comes to durability. The warpriest has a smaller hit die, and fervor is not as good at healing as Lay on hands. As a matter in fact, fervor, without fey foundling, is terrible at healing, unless your DM is kind enough to let the phylactery of positive channeling boost up fervor's healing. Cleric, while a higher tier class than the paladin, does not have nearly as much support for durability right off the bat until you hit levels where you can cast quickened buffs or drop Heals.

Durability!

Thanks for letting us know you are only interested in the mechanics and not the actual concept of the class.

It's a gamist attitude.

Well I can write fluff from a couple of characters too. What point is there to that?

Hell, I could write enough fluff that describes a Wizard casting nothing but divine spells, doesn't mean the class needs to get that ability.

I think what a paldin truly is is what's being missed.

shallowsoul wrote:

What is the push to get rid of the Paladin's alignment restriction? Being a pure hearted champion of good is the core of the Paladin. It would be like taking magic away from a Wizard, lawful good is what makes the Paladin what it is.

Terrible analogy. Spells are the core of the wizard's gameplay. A paladin's core gameplay is a divinely inspired warrior. The latter mechanic could just as easily be accomplished by a champion of Chaos or Law or Good or Evil or Chaotic Good as it could by a champion of Lawful Good.

People don't like it because you're taking a perfectly good chassis and stapling on an alignment restriction that doesn't need to be there and just takes away player choice. Honestly I can't see how that could possibly be a good thing.

Once again, it is a spot on analogy. Being Lawful Good "is" the paladin. At the core of the whole concept is the Lawful Good follow a code ideal. It is what makes the paladin unique. The same goes with a wizard and magic. Magic is the heart of a wizard.

A Champion of Chaos is not a paladin. I don't think you get what the name of the class means.

shallowsoul wrote:

Being Lawful Good is what makes a paladin what it is. A paladin is not a champion of the faith, it is a champion of the most good and pure hearted as you can get, which BTW os the lawful good alignment.

No. Being "the most good and pure hearted as you can get" is a Neutral Good thing, being pure hearted or good has nothing to do with the Law. You can check at the description of the Lawful alignment in the book.

If the paladin was "the most good and pure hearted as you can get", then the alignment restriction should be either "Neutral Good only", either "Any Good".

I would go back and read up on Lawful Good and Neutral Good.

shallowsoul wrote:

Being a pure hearted champion of good is the core of the Paladin.

This screams Neutral Good to me not Lawful Good. I also personally find the other restrictions that have been mentioned in this thread and agree with what others have said.

I also find other alignment restrictions stupid such as Necromancy and Intelligent free willed Undead always being evil; but enough about that back to Paladins I think it would be better if they were restricted to Any Good, Anti-Paladins to Any Evil, and finally another class similar to them which could be Any Neutral and could decided to Smite an alignment that doesn't match theirs(LN can pick Chaos, Good, or Evil), Channel Positive or Negative(Which would decided if they get Lay of Hands/Touch of Corruption and Mercies/Cruelties), their weapons are as their alignment and they get DR opposite that(LN weapons Lawful DR/Chaotic Neutral picks one and it can't be changed), etc.

What about that screams neutral good?

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

I think a lot of the "Paladin Hate" comes from players who want to play a character how they want to (which is fine, not trying to present that as a negative), while a paladin has to be played as their code dictates.

Yeah. Most of the issues I see people having the Paladin boil down to just how tightly restricted the class' flavor is. A lot of players don't like being narrowly pigeonholed into a single specific character type, and no class is more prone to that than the Paladin. If a fighter or wizard is played in a unique or different way, everything's cool. If the Paladin is, you're risking a fall and/or table drama unless everyone agrees that your character is acting appropriately for a Paladin.

Any rules that seem arbitrary or overly restrictive will tend to get players annoyed. The Paladin gets the most attention of any class because his roleplaying restrictions are by far the tightest and most narrowly defined. At base, it's the same reason players don't like being told "Your dwarf must be bearded, drink heavily, and have a scottish accent" or "Your elf must be a snooty uptight tree-hugger." Players generally want to be free to define their characters as they wish, not have someone else's vision imposed on them. And no class is more prone to having other people's ideas of how it ought to be played imposed than the Paladin.

Then I would just give the advice to not play a paladin.

Notice how we don't get arguments about how so and so is angry because they can't play their lawful good barbarian? I will bet you any amount of money that if it somehow led to awesome mechanics we would hear about it.

shallowsoul wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Because the Paladin is a cool class with nice mechanics which is overly restricted by alignment restrictions.

(Also, Anti-paladin code screws them out of ever being a reliable party member)

So basically you just want access to cool mechanics without the restrictions?

This is an RPG BTW.

I imagine he just wants to have people not tell him how to play his character.

It's not that simple. Paladins are built with a default assumption. This isn't a discussion about homebrew, you cam homebrew anything you like. Are you going to go to one of the devs amd tell them to remove each and every restriction because you feel they are trying to tell you how to play your character? If that's how someone feels then I would actually suggest a system like GURPS.

Part of what makes D&D/Pathfinder a unique game is it's default flavour.

shallowsoul wrote:

Scythia wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

Being a pure hearted champion of good is the core of the Paladin. It would be like taking magic away from a Wizard, lawful good is what makes the Paladin what it is.

The problem is that many people disagree with this. To me, being a warrior that has divine abilities is what makes a Paladin what it is. Because a full BAB, divinely empowered, minor divine caster is what a Paladin is. It is reasonably easy to describe them as martial champions of a faith, but there are gods that are not lawful good. Some people enjoy having divinely empowered warriors that represent other gods than the lawful good ones.

To many people, lawful good is what prevents the Paladin from being a useful class.

Divorce yourself from the mechanics for a moment. A divine warrior and a champion of the faith is nothing but a cleric, always has been.

Being Lawful Good is what makes a paladin what it is. A paladin is not a champion of the faith, it is a champion of the most good and pure hearted as you can get, which BTW os the lawful good alignment. If you want an actual divine warrior who has partial divine magic then a fighter/cleric is what you want, but then again it's not the most optimal.

No... the cleric has always been the priest.. the pastor.. the minister of faith. The cleric has always been the divine equivalent to a wizard. The armor and BAB was given to them because their spells are not quite as potent in combat as a wizard and so the creators gave them a bone to help balance it out a bit vs arcanes.

Ehhhhh no.

The default cleric was a full plate wearing, shield toting, mace swinging warrior of the faith.

You could choose to wear no armour and carry no weapon but that wasn't the default.

shallowsoul wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Because the Paladin is a cool class with nice mechanics which is overly restricted by alignment restrictions.

(Also, Anti-paladin code screws them out of ever being a reliable party member)

So basically you just want access to cool mechanics without the restrictions?

This is an RPG BTW.

And? The mechanics of the Paladin are interesting and sometimes people want to play a Paladin-esque character, but wants to play as say... a harbinger of Law and the absolution of law. The Warpriest, the cleric, and the Inquisitor can mimic it to some extent but lacks things like Smite that really bring the flavor to the forefront. Say, as an LN "Paladin" you would have Smite Chaos, and you would basically be flavored as smiting down chaos with the absolute power of law.

Oh BTW, this is a RPG...i.e. YOU PLAY ROLES... WHATEVER ROLE YOU WANT...

In a homebrew game you can play what ever you want, but this isn't the homebrew section. We are discussing the default of the game which cannot be ignored in these conversations. Can you play any way you want? Sure you can, but the game is set up with a specific default flavour and that flavour has carried on for over 30 years now.

Dismissing the lawful good alignment with the paladin is dismissing the paladin itself. If you remove the restriction you no longer have a paladin, you have something else.

shallowsoul wrote:

Decimus Drake wrote:

I don't think the wizard without spells is a good analogy since a Wizard without spells is just a physically weak intelligent guy whereas a Paladin minus the alignment restriction still has a a range of martial and divine abilities.

I think what people want is not the mechanics without the restrictions but rather they want the mechanics of the Paladin but with the restrictions of a different code other then lawful good. An example could be a LN Paladin of a LN god that opposes oath-breakers - their purpose would be to bring individuals who break oaths and contracts to justice regardless of the reasons that individual breaks the oath in question. A pure champion of Law.

Actually, it's a spot on analogy.

Arcane magic is what defines a wizard, always has. Lawful good has always defined a paladin and of you take that away then the paladin no longer exists, it becomes something else. This isn't about mechanics, this is about what defines a paladin.

The abilities of the paladin have changed through the years, but the thing that has always remained was they had to be lawful good.

Except this is false comparison. So does the Barbarian's Non-lawful-ness define him? Does the Druid's neutrality define him? No. The Barbarian is defined by his rage. When people thing barb, they thing raging hulking fighter, not chaotically aligned dude. For dude people think of the shapechanging, their nature themed spells, and their nature-y abilities.

The Paladin is defined not by his alignment, but by his opposition to his alignment. People don't think of the (anti)paladin as the LG guy. The (Anti)Paladin is defined as the (Dark)Shining Knight who smites (Good)evil with (un)holy power and is blessed by the (Profane)divine. That can easily be described in nearly any alignment so long as the paladin holds true to his god...

It's not a false comparison not matter how badly you think different. If you know anything about the history of the paladin then you will know that being lawful good is what makes a paladin what it is, just like a wizard and spells.

shallowsoul wrote:

Being a pure hearted champion of good is the core of the Paladin. It would be like taking magic away from a Wizard, lawful good is what makes the Paladin what it is.

The problem is that many people disagree with this. To me, being a warrior that has divine abilities is what makes a Paladin what it is. Because a full BAB, divinely empowered, minor divine caster is what a Paladin is. It is reasonably easy to describe them as martial champions of a faith, but there are gods that are not lawful good. Some people enjoy having divinely empowered warriors that represent other gods than the lawful good ones.

To many people, lawful good is what prevents the Paladin from being a useful class.

Divorce yourself from the mechanics for a moment. A divine warrior and a champion of the faith is nothing but a cleric, always has been.

Being Lawful Good is what makes a paladin what it is. A paladin is not a champion of the faith, it is a champion of the most good and pure hearted as you can get, which BTW os the lawful good alignment. If you want an actual divine warrior who has partial divine magic then a fighter/cleric is what you want, but then again it's not the most optimal.

Because the Paladin is a cool class with nice mechanics which is overly restricted by alignment restrictions.

(Also, Anti-paladin code screws them out of ever being a reliable party member)

So basically you just want access to cool mechanics without the restrictions?

This is an RPG BTW.

I don't think the wizard without spells is a good analogy since a Wizard without spells is just a physically weak intelligent guy whereas a Paladin minus the alignment restriction still has a a range of martial and divine abilities.

I think what people want is not the mechanics without the restrictions but rather they want the mechanics of the Paladin but with the restrictions of a different code other then lawful good. An example could be a LN Paladin of a LN god that opposes oath-breakers - their purpose would be to bring individuals who break oaths and contracts to justice regardless of the reasons that individual breaks the oath in question. A pure champion of Law.

Actually, it's a spot on analogy.

Arcane magic is what defines a wizard, always has. Lawful good has always defined a paladin and of you take that away then the paladin no longer exists, it becomes something else. This isn't about mechanics, this is about what defines a paladin.

The abilities of the paladin have changed through the years, but the thing that has always remained was they had to be lawful good.

I mean, unless I'm playing an alignment restricted class, I don't even put it on my sheet. If the DM needs to know what alignment I am for some effect, I ask him to tell me.

Well you should put down your alignment because certain spells and abilities are effected by alignment.

Druid: A druid who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited
shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her
supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so
and for 24 hours thereafter.

Barbarian: Any nonlawful

Clerics: A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required
by her god loses all spells and class features, except for
armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with
simple weapons. She cannot thereafter gain levels as a
cleric of that god until she atones for her deeds (see the
atonement spell description). A cleric’s alignment must be within one
step of her deity’s, along either the law/chaos axis or the
good/evil axis (see Chapter 7).

These classes here have restrictions as well.

What is the push to get rid of the Paladin's alignment restriction? Being a pure hearted champion of good is the core of the Paladin. It would be like taking magic away from a Wizard, lawful good is what makes the Paladin what it is.

We have never experienced those catch 22 situations we hear about on these forums so playing a lawful good character with a code of honour has never been a problem.

Is it because people just want the Paladin's power and not the restrictions?

Righteous Might wrote:

Magical effects that increase size do not stack.

Ahhhh!

Didn't even see that.

Every time something grows in size, the specific mods have always increased.

Power of Giants (Sp): At 15th level, you may grow to Large size as a standard action. At this size you gain a +6 size bonus to Strength, a –2 penalty to Dexterity, a +4 size bonus to Constitution, and a +4 natural armor bonus. You may return to your normal size as a standard action. You may remain in this size for up to 1 minute per character level per day; this duration does not need to be consecutive, but it must be used in 1 minute increments.

I am looking at the "Righteous Might" spell and the ability "Power of Giants" from the Orc Bloodline and I wonder if they stack? I know same type bonuses don't stack but if you enlarge yourself to large size and then increase your size from "Righteous Might" you are looking at being huge. Why would size bonuses not stack and size mods not stack?

Sorry I wrote the wrong one. Should have been Power of Giants.

I wonder if I can ask the mods to change the title.

I am looking at the "Righteous Might" spell and the ability "Power of Giants" from the Orc Bloodline and I wonder if they stack? I know same type bonuses don't stack but if you enlarge yourself to large size and then increase your size from "Righteous Might" you are looking at being huge. Why would size bonuses not stack and size mods not stack?

Either a sysnthesist or an invulnerable ragelancepounce come-and-get-me human barbarian with a courageous weapon.

Depends how much you value spells.

Ragelancepounce doesn't work.

All you need is a caster level.

Taking the item creation feat itself requires your character to have a caster level, or some substitute.

The CL determined exclusively for the use of a SLA is not the same as a character's CL for the purpose of meeting the prerequisite for a MIC feat.

Citation?

shallowsoul wrote:

I'm not convinced the healing part is that much of a benefit. Anyone can get UMD and use a wand, but trying this in melee is not a good idea because you draw AoO's and drawing a wand and using it takes up two actions that draw AoO's.

Casting a spell from a wand doesn't provoke an AoO.

Forgot that was changed from 3.5. I still wouldn't be drawing one in combat.

Khrysaor wrote:

Scavion wrote:

What does a Fighter get? A few more points of DPR but doesn't....

Fighters will have higher AC meaning less hits which make his hp last longer. Ranger will need more healing than a fighter.

Both have equivalent will saves only rangers get wis caster stat that. Never reaches decent numbers much like the fighters. So both are dominate bait.

A fighter's bonuses to hit and damage will be active all the time vs. only when facing a favored enemy. Sure there's a spell for that, but now it's back to the having to waste resources deal which you seemed opposed to in your previous post.

A fighter will have a higher CMB/CMD.

I'm sure there's other facets the fighter will excel at, but no one cares what fighters are good at it seems.

To me:

Fighters - balance of offense and defense (not the highest in either compared to others)
Rangers - on par offense, lower AC defense, slightly higher saves, magic

Higher AC? Barkskin is a longlasting scaling AC benefit.

FE is twice the benefit Weapon Training is, at faster scaling, you get it earlier AND it applies to more than just attacks and damage(I.E Makes you better at skills too). Your Animal Companion also benefits fully from it. So when you DO encounter your Favored Enemy, it's 4 times as good as Weapon Training.

Why? CMB and CMD as a system is borked. Early levels, everyone can be good at Combat Maneuvers with light investments, late game everyone is terrible at them without incredible investments and even then some enemies are just going to be flat out immune to them.

I would love to hear what I get by choosing to play a Fighter over a Ranger.

Because a debatedly slightly higher AC is a poor metric. And don't get me started on your old argument of unhitable builds because you can make an unhitable character AC-wise with any class in the game.

You only get so many spells to cast in a day so you will need to decide what all you will be taking. Being a two weapon ranger and casting spells in battle is not a good idea. Bark Skin is nice but sometimes hours can go by between encounters.

redliska wrote:

Fighters just need a SLA to craft magic items.

Which they have to expend resources to obtain.

And?

Every single class in the game spends resources, they are built into the design.

The fighter could take a Bane weapon and gain a +2 to hit and +2d6 damage which is very close to mimicking the Favoured Enemy class feature.

There is more to Handle Animal than some of you are stating.

shallowsoul wrote:

Pupsocket wrote:

shallowsoul wrote:

You basically want to have something good in five stats if you want an animal companion, especially one that is a wild animal. You will want a bit of Cha when using Handle Animal and such to actually befriend the animal and gain it as a companion.

A 4. level Ranger with 7 Cha and no investment beyond the skill ranks auto-succeeds on his check to handle his animal companion.

So he auto succeeds with only a +3?

4 skill ranks. +3 for being a class skill. +4 bonus from link. -2 from Charisma. That 4+3+4-2=9. A 1 on the die gives him the DC 10 he needs to meet.

Do you even rules, Bro?

I was thinking a 7 was minus 4 for some reason. The smart ass comment wasn't necessary bro.

shallowsoul wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

yeah, I think the problem with rangers to me anyway is the fact that favored enemies and terrain may suddenly become useless(due to lack of specific enemies). however, you can retrain them as per norm...

oh, and don't get me started on the option instead of AC, WHO WANTS TO HAVE A MERRY BAND OF MEN? it arguably doesn't work with instant enemy either.

All instances of Hunter's Bond benefit from Hunter's Howl and Instant Enemy. Hunter's Bond shares bonuses, not class features. If the Ranger is receiving FE or FT bonuses, they're shared by Hunter's Bond. I've actually seen Rangers perform as amazing party leaders, buffing allies and manipulating terrain while standing as a strong front-line combatant and solid damage dealer himself. Basically he can tame kingdoms, rouse the hearts of men, and control the flow of battle, better than any Fighter I've ever seen.

Actually, you only share half the bonus.

Or the whole bonus if it's your animal companion. Since Hunter's Bond encompasses both and I assume most of here can read, it seemed a superfluous statement. It's still more than the Fighter's sharing with anyone....

Just so we are clear. You know that you can only choose one part of Hunter's Bond? You can either grant your allies half your favoured enemy bonus to all allies with in 30ft for a number of rounds equal to your wis mod or you can have an animal companion who shares your favoured enemy and favoured terrain bonus.

You don't get to do both. Granting allies a bonus is nice but it's not that great.

shallowsoul wrote:

You basically want to have something good in five stats if you want an animal companion, especially one that is a wild animal. You will want a bit of Cha when using Handle Animal and such to actually befriend the animal and gain it as a companion.

A 4. level Ranger with 7 Cha and no investment beyond the skill ranks auto-succeeds on his check to handle his animal companion.

So he auto succeeds with only a +3?

Khrysaor wrote:

MrSin wrote:

Khrysaor wrote:

I could build an Elven Curveblade wielding fighter in Mithral full plate with power attack and weapon finesse that still posts good numbers for damage, would have a good to hit with a bow, could choose to TWF, or go sword and board with a scimitar.

Is that actually a good idea though? To try and do all of those things at once?

Try all of those things? A Curveblade main, bow for ranged needs, then TWF or sword and board back up? How is this outside the realm of possibility with the vast number of feats a fighter gets?

What level are you wanting to do all that? Even Fighters don't have enough feats to be good at all of those things. Sword and Board alone devours feats, usually demanding every single feat the Fighter gets until 10th level, and then the GTWF feat as well. You've also eaten up all your Weapon Training options, so no in-style versatility there...

And you definitely don't have any feats left for shoring up bad skills or saves.

The Fighter doesn't have a "vast number of feats", he has 5 more feats than a Ranger, and the Ranger gets to jump over feat taxes with his bonus feats so you may not even be getting the full impact of the small lead you have.

He gets to jump prereqs for specific feats only.