I agree with the OP that Fighters are already good. I also agree with whomever posted that the DM should tailor the game to the characters and players.
That said, I do think the Fighter should have access to combat abilities that noone else has.
How about a feat (or chain of feats) to allow a fighter to get one (or more) of his iterative attacks after moving? I.e. allowing a partial full attack after a regular move action, up to a full full attack after moving.
1. The fighter has to improvise. Back his wizard friend into a corner or somewhere with cover on the back and sides if possible. Take the feat that allows his to get multiple attacks of opportunity and then let the on rushing bad guys run past him. after he hits all the ones that run by and then kills the last one and has the feat that allows you to cleave through an opponent to hit the next one in line. Then before you know it the fighter has killed every enemy in the first round on one turn before the wizard even gets to blink. (This actually happened once and it stunned everyone) Sorry about the rant their, but you get my drift, with alittle thought and some feats, the fighter can easily defend and protect the sissy spellcaster everytime.
Let's talk about that.
The Combat Reflexes feat allows you to get extra attacks of opportunity up to your Dex modifier. Most "tankish" fighters don't have a huge Dex, so it means maybe just a couple extra AoOs for them.
The Cleave feat is only useable once per round (unless PF changed that rule).
Given these limitations, it's not likely that the fighter will "killed every enemy in the first round on one turn before the wizard even gets to blink".
And this is all assuming there is a handy corner to tuck the mage into, and that the enemy didn't go first before the mage was safely tucked away, and that the enemy doesn't have ranged weapons or area attacks - any of which could prevent this tactic from being safely employed.
2. Disrupting a spellcasters concentration isn't the fault of the fighter, it's the fact that it's just too easy for a wizard to keep his focus. I say make the check for a wizard to maintain his spell more difficult. House rule on my end isn't 15+spell level, it's 15+damage dealt. That makes it fair, atleast to me anyway.
Agreed. Disrupting spellcasters is way too dificult (from the fighter's POV anyway). But are you sure your houserule is feasible, or is it only fair to the fighters?
Imagine a level 5 mage casting a 5d6 fireball for 18 damage. He has to roll a 33? Even with the appropriate skill focus, I don't think a 5th level caster can roll a 33, or only just barely, so he can probably only succeed on a natural 20?
Maybe the mage should hope the enemy makes his save, because then he will only do 9 damage and only need a 24 on the maintain check?
Now imagine a 12th level mage with a 12d6 chain lightning (average initial damage is 42). He needs to roll a 57 on his d20 roll to maintain this spell?
And what about area of effect? If that fireball hits 4 enemies for 18 damage each, is that 72 damage? Does the mage need to roll an 87 on his d20?
And one other major concern is, what is the maintain DC on Charm Person, Hold Monster, Teleport, Cure Critical Wounds, Summon Monster VII, Invisibility, etc.?
3. Who's going to keep the wizard alive longer? The best friend fighter that has multiple feats to deal with almost any situation and will fight to the death to try and keep his wizard friend of many years and more adventures alive, or the demon you just summoned and enslaved and are now forcing to defend your life at the risk of it's own with no gain.
Hmmm?
Well, considering the loyal fighter can make decisions, might even make selfish decicions once in a while, but a summoned and enslaved "pet" demon *must* do *exactly* what it is told, I'd say the mage has better odds with the demon.
Just my thoughts.
I think a mid-level fighter only feat that increases his weapons die damage by 1 should be introduced (thus 2D4 becomes 3D4, that sort of thing). Boost damage a bit.
I also don't really care for multiple attacks. I think these additional attacks could be translated into a multiplier. This multiplier would be ignored when using a non-standard Attack Action, such as when performing Cleave or some such thing. Perhaps a Full-Round Attack simply boosts the multiplier by 1. I don't know, just random ideas off the top of my head. =D
Two concerns:
1. Are you sure you want greataxe wielders to get a 2nd d12?
2. Why make it fighter-only? Fighters are not the only melee characters who need a little boost in the damage output department.
It seems to me to be awfully fighter-centric to have all these discussions about making fighters do more damage when the poor Monks, Rangers, and Paladins, and probably Barbarians too, are also in need of the same kind of love.
If we do create a feat that increases weapon damage dice, it seems (to me) like the kind of thing the other classes should probably be able to take, too.
I don't know why you think marking has to have a magical flavor. Marking has a few specific effects:
If you move away I get an AoO: not magical, you can't let your guard down near a fighter
Sure, but why only to the one "marked" enemy?
If my AoO hits, you stop moving: not magical, I got in your way
This should be a separate ability from "marking". The ability to use an AoO to stop an enemy's movement is HUGE.
And again, if you can do this to one moving enemy, why not do it to all of them? Why would a fighter who knows how to do this choose one enemy to stop but let the rest of them move right on by (assuming he has more AoOs to stop them)?
If you attack someone else you get -2: not magical, if you try to ignore the fighter, he gets in your way, or otherwise disrupts you
This works. If that someone else is adjacent to the fighter defending him.
If they move away and *then* attack they get -2: ok, this is pushing things, but you could say they had to spend so much mental effort getting away from you, they couldn't concentrate on launching a decent attack against your ally
Agreed, this is pushing things. Take your AoO, stop them if you can, but if they get away and survive the AoO, they can do what they want - just like anything in any combat can move around and make unhindered attacks.
Only one mark at a time: not magical, two fighters start to get in each other's way. this is mostly for game balance, so you can't triple mark a guy, who then provokes 10 AoOs for sneezing.
Fair enough.
Enemy knows he's marked: not magical, since the fighter is right in his face. a decently experienced adventurer knows what's going to happen if he turns his back on a foe.
I've always agreed this is how it should be.
Facing someone up in basketball is a physical endeavor, that requires skill, quicks and anticipation. YOU engage the ball handler, he doesn't just come into your area of affect because you want him to.
Marking is the same thing, abstracted into 6 second rounds.
--
What part do you consider to be necessarily magical?
If "marking" is done right then it doesn't need to be mystical.
And please, lets not call it "marking".
Consider a few new feats, just some examples of one way to handle this concept without being mystical in any way. I made them up on the fly so pardon the goofy (but descriptive) names.
[Wall of Steel]
You position yourself just right to protect your allies.
Prerequisites: Fighter or Paladin level 3+, DEX 13+, Combat Reflexes
Benefit: If an enemy moves through a square you threaten, or leaves a square you threaten, you may make an Attack of Opportunity against that enemy, but only if you have not used up your full quota of Attacks of Opportunity in this round. If the enemy uses the withdraw action, you do not get an Attack of Opportunity against him.
In addition, if an enemy that is adjacent to you attacks an ally that is also adjacent to you, you can give that ally +2 AC, or +4 AC if you are wearing a shield and the ally is on your shield side. You can only protect one such ally at a time, but you can make this decision after any of your allies is attacked but before the attack is rolled.
Your enemy knows you have positioned yourself and can attack or hinder his attacks.
[Stand and Fight]
You put yourself in the way of a moving enemy, stopping his movement and forcing him to deal with you.
Prerequisites: BAB 5+
Benefit: If you strike a moving enemy with a successful Attack of Opportunity that damages that enemy, he is forced to stop his movement. Putting yourself in harm's way is dangerous. Using this feat to stop an enemy provokes an immediate Attack of Opportunity from that enemy.
Note: This feat can only be used with Attacks of Opportunity provoked when an enemy moves through or out of a square you threaten. All other actions, including standing from prone, that provoke Attacks of Opportunities do not qualify to allow you to use this feat.
[Improved Stand and Fight]
You become adept at focing your enemies to deal with you without putting yourself in harm's way.
Prerequisites: BAB 11+, Stand and Fight
Benefit: You can use your Stand and Fight feat to force an enemy to stop (as described in that feat) but you do not provoke any Attack of Opportunity by doing so.
Note: Wall of Steel doesn't prevent two or more fighters from using this feat against the same enemy - but since most PC adventuring parties don't have two fighters, this will only rarely benefit them, but it might benefit monsters greatly (imagine a war party of a dozen hobgoblins, each with multiple fighter levels and this feat, carving up the PCs...)
Also note: I've posted before about not likeing "fighter-only" feats since other melee classes need love, too. But "marking" (by any name) isn't really a general melee feat. It's a feat specific to defenders. Hence the class restrictions on Wall of Steel.
I agree with the OP that Fighters are already good. I also agree with whomever posted that the DM should tailor the game to the characters and players.
That said, I do think the Fighter should have access to combat abilities that noone else has.
How about a feat (or chain of feats) to allow a fighter to get one (or more) of his iterative attacks after moving? I.e. allowing a partial full attack after a regular move action, up to a full full attack after moving.
Since your reply comes after the other posts on this thread that already rebutted this response, I'll repost:
Sure, a good DM "tailors the game" to fit his players.
But this forum is for discussions of a BETA Test of the game mechanics for how Fighters, Rangers, and Barbarians function according to the rules in the book.
Arguing that a rule might not be great but a good DM can fix it with "tailoring" is not what this forum is about.
Let's instead discuss how we can make a rule (or mechanic) good enough that no DM ever needs to "tailor" his game because of it.
That's what BETA Testing is for.
As for your suggestion, thanks, that is what this thread needs. Ideas to improve the mechanic.
I will reiterate my belief that Fighters are not the only melee-heavy classes that suffer at the higher levels and suggest that your chain of feats is a great idea as long as barbarians, rangers, paladins, monks, even rogues, and heck, monsters too, even mages and clerics if they want to, can all take the feat. Base it on BAB so wimpy little non-combatants have to wait longer to get it, but make it open to all.
As for a fighter having access to combat abilities that noone else has, he can learn to master his weapon and armor better than any other class. This is because he has nothing else to do. He's not learning new rage powers, learning how to track, learning to cast spells, developing Ki powers, or anything. He's fighting, and training to fight better.
Hence his weapon and armor mastery.
As for tricky combat stuff, like almost every feat that doesn't directly correlate to mastery of specific weapons/armor, those feats should be available to all.
If a fighter can learn to cleave, well than so can a barbarian. If a fighter can learn to cause a bleeding critical, then so can a ranger. Etc.
Because the fighter has a bajillion feats, he can learn a lot more of this stuff than any other class. That's another thing that only fighters can do - learn a ton of combat feats.
|
I've often had this suspicion that the weapon focus/specialization tree is a bit of a trap...
Ya think? ;)
I stopped taking those feats (along with the "dodge" tree, dodge and 'mobility' tie up valuable feat slots just to get to feats that are meh anyway...spring attack? please...) a long time ago. Considering how much fighters rely on their feats, filling six slots with abilities that relatively cheap magic items can do better seems counter intuitive.
And, yes, enlarge person is wonderful!
[Stand and Fight]
You put yourself in the way of a moving enemy, stopping his movement and forcing him to deal with you.
Prerequisites: BAB 5+
Benefit: If you strike a moving enemy with a successful Attack of Opportunity that damages that enemy, he is forced to stop his movement. Putting yourself in harm's way is dangerous. Using this feat to stop an enemy provokes an immediate Attack of Opportunity from that enemy.
Note: This feat can only be used with Attacks of Opportunity provoked when an enemy moves through or out of a square you threaten. All other actions, including standing from prone, that provoke Attacks of Opportunities do not qualify to allow you to use this feat.[Improved Stand and Fight]
You become adept at focing your enemies to deal with you without putting yourself in harm's way.
Prerequisites: BAB 11+, Stand and Fight
Benefit: You can use your Stand and Fight feat to force an enemy to stop (as described in that feat) but you do not provoke any Attack of Opportunity by doing so.Note: Wall of Steel doesn't prevent two or more fighters from using this feat against the same enemy - but since most PC adventuring parties don't have two fighters, this will only rarely benefit them, but it might benefit monsters greatly (imagine a war party of a dozen hobgoblins, each with multiple fighter levels and this feat, carving up the PCs...)
So...a no Save absolute movement buster? Why wouldn't *every* fighter/melee character take these feats? The requirements are ridiculously easy to reach. Tripping has a chance of failure, and even Stand Still from 3.5 allows a Reflex save, and you have to give up your damage in the process too.
|
So...a no Save absolute movement buster? Why wouldn't *every* fighter/melee character take these feats? The requirements are ridiculously easy to reach. Tripping has a chance of failure, and even Stand Still from 3.5 allows a Reflex save, and you have to give up your damage in the process too.
They would so they could continue to perform their job. The requirements put them right where they need to be, at the points that melee begins to have difficulty holding the line.
And for the most part, this isn't a sure bet. One, you still have to hit. Two, they have to trigger an AoO, which if they have Tumble, isn't likely to happen. Me personally, I wouldn't have a problem with these becoming standard combat rules. Make the AoO mean something in the upper levels instead of a hangnail.
What melee classes? Fighters can do ranged combat.
And they do it better than any other class.
I think people are wanting way too much, the Fighter has so much to work with right now. I made a theoretical level 20 fighter last night that could do 140 damage reliably at level 20 with a single blow with a +31 to hit modifier. +5 Adamantine Scythe w/weapon mastery giving it a x5 critical, average weapon damage 4-5 (1+8/2), weapon spec damage +4, weapon training damage +4, magical damage +5, 24 STR two-handed bonus 10, utilizing the Devastating Blow feat means: 28 damagex5 = 140. I wasn't sure if a player could use the Overhand Chop feat along with the Devastating Blow Feat, if they could the damage would be even higher. The fighter would be hitting at a +31, which would reliably hit even a great wyrm gold dragon 50% of the time. I also gave him the great cleave tree, then used the rest of the feats to boost his defenses and skills, making him a better Survivor than a Ranger, a better Sneaker than the Rogue, more Intimidating yet more Diplomatic than the Paladin, along with his dazzling display tree, he has a lot of great options for single and multi opponent combat, as well as "in the world" abilities and skills. And this is just the unarmored/itemed build for the fighter. All I gave him was a weapon to use.
It's nice to be able to do all of that damage, but it's of no use if you can't leverage it. All a high level Wizard needs to do is stay out of your reach for one round and then Dominate you. Quickened Wall Of Force + Contingency Displacement + Fly spell = facerolled Fighter.
How is it every argument I see that fighters are viable at high levels involves near-total reliance on the 20th level capstone ability? Can't anyone demonstrate usefulness at, say, levels 12-19?
I'll agree with the Original Poster on one thing: the Pathfinder Fighter gets a lot of things right. It's substantially stronger than the 3.5 fighter, with a number of nifty abilities that make him a capable combatant capable of taking hits and dealing out exemplary damage. They could still do with scalable feats, and perhaps more things like Tactical Feats. Overall good design, some room for improvement.
The problem is, if you use the PF Fighter and the Pathfinder Wizard, then the power gulf between the two is just as high as in 3.x. Perhaps even higher, as the wizard hasn't given up anything that made him the greatest class in 3.x, and gained his own suite of extra abilities and a higher hit dice, to boot.
And again, I feel the fighter's problem isn't his damage output; it's the subtle ways in which the combat system has been rigged to work against him more and more as he improves in skill. He can't intercept enemies, or disrupt spellcasting, or guard his friends, or make saving throws anymore the way he could in 1e/2e. The class design isn't at fault; the combat system is.
What melee classes? Fighters can do ranged combat.
Wind Wall for the win. Or better yet, Wall of Force!
NOTES ON THE THREAD:
1) I think Monkey-style was referring to 15 + the damage dealt to the spellcaster - not the damage dealt by the spell. (I do something similar, but I don't want to go on and on about house rules.)
2) I remain unconvinced that 4e makes sub-optimal builds playable. The way final modifiers are produced in that game, a favored race-class-build-power combination has a /big/ statistical edge over an unfavored combination of these same things, even for a beginning character. It could be argued that this at least allows you to find out what works and what doesn't before you're 10th level and surprisingly sub-par. But not by me. (Reaches for his Rules Cyclopedia.)
3) I'm pretty much of the opinion that without 4th edition style balance, (or at least something closer to it), spellcasters are always going to have an edge at high levels simply because high level spells can do some amazing things and, unless you're interested in gamist elements like "encounter powers," "marking," and "you can only swing your sword in this particular way once per day," fighters don't do anything like cast spells. Most folks I know that play non-magical characters are fine with that.
I am relying on the Pathfinder rules to do things like clear up grapple checks, add some joy to the odd "dead level" and get rid of the strange bookkeeping spawned from using experience points as spell or magic item components. I don't need them to force a new level of parity on my game.
|
What melee classes? Fighters can do ranged combat.Wind Wall for the win. Or better yet, Wall of Force!
Wind Wall provides only a 30% miss chance versus spears, throwing axes etc.
Wall of Force works both ways. Spells do not travel through the wall from either direction. If the goal of the caster is to remove himself from the encounter. Success!
|
What melee classes? Fighters can do ranged combat.Wind Wall for the win. Or better yet, Wall of Force!Wind Wall provides only a 30% miss chance versus spears, throwing axes etc.
Wall of Force works both ways. Spells do not travel through the wall from either direction. If the goal of the caster is to remove himself from the encounter. Success!
... im pretty sure you can summon creatures on the other side of the wall of force...
Pop a wall of force, not a big issue to me. Unless I'm on a static plane with no where to go, and the wall of force is infinite in size It's not an impossible problem. The wall of wind is a bit of a problem yes, but you can move through it, and shoot from right beside the wizard... what's he going to do AoO you?
|
|
... im pretty sure you can summon creatures on the other side of the wall of force...
I hope that is not how it works.
If you allow those conjurations to "pass through" the wall of force then you have to allow the rest through (ie. Stinking Cloud) as well. If those are allowed then why not transmutation spells like, say, Flesh to Stone? Or evocations like Forcecage? Neither of these spells "require" the spell to pass through the wall. If a creature can be summoned to a designated spot regardless of the wall then FtS and Fc are equally able to ignore the wall.
If you are you saying that the wall is only good for blocking rays and other directed attack spells like Fireball then Wall or Force is seriously weaker than I thought.
Wind Wall provides only a 30% miss chance versus spears, throwing axes etc.What melee classes? Fighters can do ranged combat.Wind Wall for the win. Or better yet, Wall of Force!
How many players do you know that use anything but a bow as their primary ranged weapon? LOL
But I must admit - it is better then the 3.5 version of the spell. I think it should probably be changed so that Wind Wall grants a -10 penalty to ranged attacks made through it, or that arrows are able to pass through are are simply subject to the 30% miss chance that other ranged weapons have to contend with right now.
Wall of Force works both ways. Spells do not travel through the wall from either direction. If the goal of the caster is to remove himself from the encounter. Success!
Wind Wall is your bread-and-butter here, but once you get to higher levels, you can use Wall Of Force to bring combat with anyone that gets the jump on you to a grinding halt. You are then free to re-initiate the fight on your terms, which is what is really most important when you're a Wizard...
|
|
How many players do you know that use anything but a bow as their primary ranged weapon? LOL
Well then, that would be a (potentially deadly) oversight on the part of the players running the fighter types then wouldn't it? :)
But I must admit - it is better then the 3.5 version of the spell. I think it should probably be changed so that Wind Wall grants a -10 penalty to ranged attacks made through it, or that arrows are able to pass through are are simply subject to the 30% miss chance that other ranged weapons have to contend with right now.
I'm fine with WW as it is, and, would be fine with your suggestion as well. WW is really just a different take on Protection from Arrows. WW is a static defense and can be defeated by simply stepping through and placing yourself on the same side of the wall as your target. PfA doesn't stop magical arrows but moves with you. Different strokes...
Wind Wall is your bread-and-butter here, but once you get to higher levels, you can use Wall Of Force to bring combat with anyone that gets the jump on you to a grinding halt. You are then free to re-initiate the fight on your terms, which is what is really most important when you're a Wizard...
If your Wizard needs the time. If he is already buffed then I think it works great for separating your foes, say splitting off the fighter from the rest of his party. ;)
"You three! Stay over there! [Wall of Force] You brawny fighter type, stay here with me for a while! I have plans for you! Mwa ha ha ha ha! [Dominate]"
What melee classes? Fighters can do ranged combat.And they do it better than any other class.
No. Archer clerics are better in every conceivable way.
|
|
No. Archer clerics are better in every conceivable way.What melee classes? Fighters can do ranged combat.And they do it better than any other class.
I'm not so sure about every conceivable way.
Fighters have a higher BAB, get their second attack 2 levels earlier than clerics, their third attack 4 levels earlier and get a fourth attack. The fighters also have more feat slots to spend and have weapon training to apply.
Clerics have spells. Which specific spells would apply to ranged combat I haven't looked up yet, I'm sure there are some, I just haven't figured them out yet. Clerics also need to spend a feat slot just to become proficient with bows (unless they are a cleric of Erastil -longbow- or Ketephys -bow-, both good gods if that matters to anyone).
I should also point out that Abraham said, "Fighters can do ranged combat."
He didn't specify archery.
|
|
No. Archer clerics are better in every conceivable way.What melee classes? Fighters can do ranged combat.And they do it better than any other class.
Dunno about that one either. Is a class that is casting its spells instead of shooting its bow actually an archer? I don't think so.
However, if just using the bow... I've gotta give this one to the fighter. Better base attack, typically higher dex, not having to take a feat (Zen Archery) to fight, on top of lots of freebie feats and iterative attacks... nah, its going to the fighter here.
|
|
At low levels, sure. Higher levels? How about Cat's Grace, free Point Blank Shot from domain, Divine Power to counter the BAB problem, and Greater Magic Weapon to make sure that bow has a nice plus to it?
Hmmmm.
Cat's Grace is not even a cleric spell.
Which Pathfinder domain gives you Point Blank Shot?
As for Divine Power, you use a fourth level spell slot to essentially give you +1 to attack and damage (for every 3 levels, max +6) and a single extra attack if you attack using a full attack. It also needs to be cast in combat. Duration equals rounds/level. How is this superior to the fighter?
GMW is indeed useful but I hardly see how this one 4th level spell makes clerics superior ranged attackers. I mean, is a cleric able to cast fourth level spells really going to spend one creating 50 arrows that "expire" in a few hours?
The cleric is expending spells to, at best, make himself on par with the fighter, not superior in ranged combat. And I'm not convinced about the on par part at all.
|
|
Just a few fourth level cleric spells I would rather use spell slots for in place of GMW.
In no particular order: Death Ward, Dismissal, Freedom of Movement, Holy Smite, Restoration and Summon Monster IV
Not to mention each time I use GMW or any other fourth level spell slot I am losing a casting of Cure Critical Wounds.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you havent had a powermonkey in your game if you havent seen the 3.5 archer cleric. elf domain gives you point blank shot and cats grace as a second level spell. war domain gave you proficiency in the longbow and a weapon focus. as a human you can pick up precise shot and rapid shot. bam you have as good of a archer as a Fighter ( you have 4 feats, he has 3 at first level) you also have divine favor, magic weapon, truestrike (its from the elf domain) unbuffed your archery skills are equal(the fighter having all the same feats minus weapon focus and a +1 base attack bonus, the cleric having the weapon focus to make up for the base attack bonus)
buffed, you are a nasty little piece of artillery. and as the Fighter picks up...multishot and specialization. your gaining bull strength, cats grace AND SUMMONS. Thats just the first 4 levels, divine favor just keeps getting better for you and makes up for your lesser BAB ( +6 to attack and damage, there goes your greater weapon focus, specialization, greater specialization AND 20 levels of primary BAB...and your still down 2 damage) Divine favor is a FIRST LEVEL SPELL, so you can just drop one on you without a second thought (you going to cast cure light at 16 level?
i played in a game as a Fighter/Ranger with all the archery feats and this jerk cleric outshined me in every way (i had a few more hitpoints and some melee feats because i ran out of archery feats to buy!)
...I remember back in 3.0 when magic weapon stacked between arrows AND the bow, greater magic weapon on both and your +10/+10
|
|
just giving a timeline of when clerics were better archers from 1-20th level, now they are just better from 3-20th level
Sorry, but a spellcasting isn't archery. You're going to have to wait to engage if you cast those spells, if you cast them all once then you're time limit is ticking down (and you're COMPARABLE, not better) and then when the duration runs out you're still not as good.
Even in PFRPG you're not nearly as good as a fighter. Temporarily you may be able to keep up, but not spur of the moment and definitely not quickly. Its much better to go with spells than utilize archery if we're talking about preparing for the single encounter a day that a cleric archer might be useful. All in all, its a kind of useless build.
|
|
Sneaksy I will post a response to your post specifically when I have a little more time.
I thought I would repost this comment I made from another thread as I think it applies here as well.
"I think a lot of the trouble we have here on the forums is due to the fact that some people are looking to 3.5 sources, some to the SRD website and others to the PfRPG rules. Some groups are playing strictly PfRPG rule sets while others are allowing splat books and 3rd party sources. This makes things very difficult when discussing the "rules" as one person does not know what the other person is referencing or "allowing" in their respective games.
Myself? I am always referencing official PrRPG (beta) rules with absolutely no previous 3.5 rules, add-ons, compendiums etc or any other 3rd party sources. Paizo cannot "fix" what came before or was out of their control.
IMO we should be discussing the PfRPG rules first and if we bring in other sources then one should specifically express that in their post.
Just my thoughts anyhow."
|
|
Sneaksy I will post a response to your post specifically when I have a little more time.
I thought I would repost this comment I made from another thread as I think it applies here as well.
"I think a lot of the trouble we have here on the forums is due to the fact that some people are looking to 3.5 sources, some to the SRD website and others to the PfRPG rules. Some groups are playing strictly PfRPG rule sets while others are allowing splat books and 3rd party sources. This makes things very difficult when discussing the "rules" as one person does not know what the other person is referencing or "allowing" in their respective games.
Myself? I am always referencing official PrRPG (beta) rules with absolutely no previous 3.5 rules, add-ons, compendiums etc or any other 3rd party sources. Paizo cannot "fix" what came before or was out of their control.
IMO we should be discussing the PfRPG rules first and if we bring in other sources then one should specifically express that in their post.
Just my thoughts anyhow."
HEAR HERE!
|
|
just giving a timeline of when clerics were better archers from 1-20th level, now they are just better from 3-20th levelSorry, but a spellcasting isn't archery. You're going to have to wait to engage if you cast those spells, if you cast them all once then you're time limit is ticking down (and you're COMPARABLE, not better) and then when the duration runs out you're still not as good.
Even in PFRPG you're not nearly as good as a fighter. Temporarily you may be able to keep up, but not spur of the moment and definitely not quickly. Its much better to go with spells than utilize archery if we're talking about preparing for the single encounter a day that a cleric archer might be useful. All in all, its a kind of useless build.
...lost for words...and trying not to question your experience with archer clerics. calling arching clerics a useless build is truly laughable. I have played more arching clerics than melee clerics, and they are an incredibly effective build. its like saying a rogue two weapon fighter is worse than a Fighter two weapon fighter ( at least i could buy that a little bit more because the twoweapon rogue may draw more aggro and be less likely to survive the creatures retaliation.) I understand if your clerics dont use their spells like some other groups (maybe all are converted to cures, id dont know) I cast one spell and im equal (divine favor) i dont have to cast ANY OTHER SPELLS to be just as good, how many good archery feats are there anyways that are only Paizo created? you can have all the good ones as a 5th level cleric. point blank, precise, rapid shot and deadly aim. your working towards shot on the run, while the cleric is aligning his weapon, casting shatter on your bow (and with your poor will save will probably succeed on you) and has at will, ranged touch attacks that make good use of the archery feats and bypass all those pesky armors. and any buff a Fighter can buy , the cleric can get cheaper ( scrolls vs potions)the trickery and travel domains also give a huge advantage ( create a double as a move action AT WILL, nasty)
I ran them in many by-the-book modules and at least 2 played using paizo. they held up with warforged Warblades (my elven cleric archer). ive played from 1-5 level in the eberron adventure arch (using pathfinder beta rules) and played in a home brew game with a goblin shaman (cleric) archer with the winged template (hes level 8 now) and i havent even reached the sweet levels yet!
|
|
Sneaksy, you're not paying attention to the range on these spells. Shatter is a close-range spell, with a range of 25 ft+5 ft. a level; it's not going to be all that good against another archer (and it presumes the other archer doesn't invest in a +1 bow, which is silly). Most range touch spells have comparable range. If you aren't conducting an arrow fight from beyond charge range, you're doing it wrong.
You're also not factoring in things like surprise situations, time-limit modules, night raids, etc., etc. As always, the fighter has an edge in consistency and durability that is being discounted.
all of the encounters i have played in all of the paizo modules i cant remember having an amount of room that put the archer into the second range increment, meaning, most of thes games happen in hedge surrounded clearings, dungeon rooms, crypts and other small areas. (Normally only large enough to accommodate the size of the monsters within and putting main badguys outside of charge range or line.) im playing archer rogue right now and i rarely get outside of a enemies full move, hence, if an enemy wants to spend a round to get next to me, they can. the only reason this doesnt happen is because there are melee characters in front of me.
|
|
...lost for words...and trying not to question your experience with archer clerics. calling arching clerics a useless build is truly laughable. I have played more arching clerics than melee clerics, and they are an incredibly effective build. its like saying a rogue two weapon fighter is worse than a Fighter two weapon fighter ( at least i could buy that a little bit more because the twoweapon rogue may draw more aggro and be less likely to survive the creatures retaliation.) I understand if your clerics dont use their spells like some other groups (maybe all are converted to cures, id dont know) I cast one spell and im equal (divine favor) i dont have to cast ANY OTHER SPELLS to be just as good, how many good archery feats are there anyways that are only Paizo created? you can have all the good ones as a 5th level cleric. point blank, precise, rapid shot and deadly aim. your working towards shot on the run, while the cleric is aligning his weapon, casting shatter on your bow (and with your poor will save will probably succeed on you) and has at will, ranged touch attacks that make good use of the archery feats and bypass all those pesky armors. and any buff a Fighter can buy , the cleric can get cheaper (...
What I said was that you can make the cleric COMPARABLE, that means roughly equal (give or take a feat, a +1 here or there). Those bonuses don't correspond, however, to making it effective. Every archery cleric I've seen has been outshone by the fighter builds for archery and even the rogue builds for archery. If you want to build an archer there is just so much better you can do than to build a cleric.
What everyone seems to be forgetting, however, is that these spells are TEMPORARY! The Fighter is always this good, the Cleric is only that good for 10 rounds. He even utilized a round to cast the spell, when he could've used that round to make those who're already that good better or call down some divine smack down on his enemies.
We had a guy play an Elf Cleric with a longbow and longsword. With his high Dex build he tried to wear the lightest armor possible. He was fine through the first few levels, but once he realized he had next to no skills, fewer feats than our Rogue-Fighter Archer, fewer HPs, and had to play catch up he became thouroughly pissed at his character. I have to agree, it's a suboptimal build.
By no means do I say a cleric sucks, mind you, just that this build isn't as good as others.
There is one thing I do want to point out however: Shatter only works if that bow is non-magical.
Also, what's going to stop that fighter (with his greater bonus on disarming) from just taking the cleric's bow? :p