|
I have a little more time Sneaksy so here goes...
[NOTE: Please keep in mind the following is based entirely using the 3.5 rules and has nothing to do with PfRPG.]
you havent had a powermonkey in your game if you havent seen the 3.5 archer cleric.
I have had a "powermonkey" as you call them, but you see, when a player attempts to rules lawyer his way to certain advantages then I as the DM feel it is my right and duty to apply the rules just as judiciously as the power gamer tries to do. Lets take a closer look at your example.
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.
First up, elf domain. If you are an elf cleric, then yes (but I will have more to say in regards to cat's grace a little later). If you are a human cleric, attempting to worship the elf domain, I would counter with this from the cleric class section regarding Deity, Domains, and Domain Spells (PH page 32):
"If the typical worshipers of a deity include the members of a race,
a cleric must be of the indicated race to choose that deity as his own. (The god may have occasional worshipers of other races, but not
clerics.)"
Even though the text does not explicitly state "deity or domain" I think it would be completely reasonable to rule that this restriction applies to domains as well. Which gods are you worshiping as a cleric of the elf domain if not the eleven gods? If elven gods will not grant spells to non-elves then it isn't unreasonable to rule that they wouldn't allow domain feats, powers and spells granted by said domain to non-elves either.
If you cannot take the elf domain unless you are in fact an elf, then there goes one of your "free" feats you gain by being human.
If you are human, and having then lost the elf domain, I must point out that you have also lost the elven proficiency in bows. Oops. Now you have to spend a feat because human clerics do not start with a proficiency in bows. There goes another feat. Double oops! Mind you, you could worship a deity whose favored weapon is bow. But be careful, if you are going to be a cleric who is aligned to a specific deity (as opposed one who just picks two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations), you need to find a deity with favored weapon bow and one with the war domain as part of it's portfolio. And if I really want to stick it to the powergamer I would point out that the war domain includes the following little bit (PH page 189):
"Granted Power: Free Martial Weapon Proficiency with deity’s
favored weapon (if necessary) and Weapon Focus with the deity’s
favored weapon.
The favored weapons of the war deities are as follows; Corellon,
longsword; Erythnul, morningstar; Gruumsh, spear (or longspear);
Heironeous, longsword; Hextor, flail (light or heavy)."
I don't see bow anywhere on that list. That's because the there is no god with war domain and favored weapon bow. Sure you might find one in the splat books or various campaign settings but without finding one you can't pick bow even if you are a cleric without a specific deity as the wording here is fairly constrictive. Turn around is a b%!+~ huh powergamer?
Things aren't looking so good right now for your cleric archer at this point.
Let me move on to the second part of your claim. The domain spells. Specifically Truestrike and Cat's Grace. First off these come from the elf domain (see above for additional problems). Secondly I don't think you were applying this little nugget from the same section in the cleric class description under domains (PH page 32):
"If a domain spell is not on the cleric spell list (page 183), a cleric can prepare it only in his domain spell slot. "
As Cat's Grace and Truestrike are not cleric spells that means you can cast each of these spells a maximum of once a day. This also means that you cannot cast the other spell from your second domain at this level at all. Cat's Grace is definitely useful for one combat (or two close together) but Truestrike? It takes a standard action to cast (time in which the fighter or you could be firing off arrows), could be interrupted (I know, not probable) and gives you a bonus to the next one arrow you fire (which is already the arrow with the highest BAB anyways). Wow. Call me underwhelmed.
Let's see some more.
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 think I have addressed most of this already. Some of it is erroneous claims. I'm not really sure what summoning has to do with archery specifically. Summoning is always useful, just like the fact that the cleric can cast healing spells, but it has no real relevance in a who is a better archer discussion. Divine Favor is indeed useful. However, it has the same limitations as Cat's Grace (cast during combat) and an even shorter duration, ensuring it will only last one combat. As far as the drop it without a second thought part, I have some comments. You have far from an unlimited number of these spells to throw around. Even a high level single class cleric with a relatively high wisdom score is going to have what? A max of 7, maybe 8 first level spells? You are telling me that this cleric is going to bypass all the other useful first level spells to the exclusion of Divine Favor? Keep in mind in 3.5 you do not have channel energy to rely on for healing so yes those cure light wounds might come into play cutting down the number of Divine Favors you are willing/able to cast. There are other levels than 16th.
Lastly, I will point out that a fighter who wants to excel at archery has only to spread his ability scores over 2 stats (Str and Dex). A cleric who wants to excel at archery and remain a viable cleric has to do so for three stats (Str, Dex and Wis). Con is irrelevant as both classes can benefit from higher Con, and before you throw out Wis for the archer cleric keep in mind this will drastically affect his bonus spells per level. Add to this the drastically reduced number of feats available to the cleric in 3.5 and I am having a hard time seeing the cleric archer being anything more than just a cleric with a bow. Nothing more than that.
In summation, don’t bring your broken, rules bending class builds from previous versions into these forums to substantiate some idea that Pathfinder is itself broken or unbalanced. If we took a look at your cleric build using exclusively Pathfinder rules I’m sure your build would suffer an even worse fate. This is a forum for discussing the Pathfinder rules, let’s do so. I’m not sure what your interest in participating in this beta test is, but I know mine is to help craft the best possible game system given the limitations of being tied to previous editions and the backwards compatibility notion.
By the by, how did you build this super cleric archer in the two and half years between the release of 3.5 and the spell compendium?
Did I miss anything?
Cheers.
Stuff
Too bad, that the only thing a cleric archer needs to completely outshine a figher starting from levels 5-6 is PHB spells and Zen Archery. Apply Divine Metamagic and Persistent spell to multiply the advantage. Other stuff is just icing on the cake for those who want to dominate the game from level 1. Also, a cleric archer was a staple build from times of 3.0.
|
...it seems very odd to me that regular ranged attack would draw AoO, while ranged touch attacks do notA ranged touch is still a spell, presumably? If so, it would draw an AoO. Not that the caster would fail the casting defensively roll, mind you...
When you cast the spell, yeah.
I guess that the difference between a ranged touch attack and a missile weapon, so far as AoO (and threat) is that the ranged touch can still work at melee range and a missile weapon is, modulo feats, at a disadvantage. However, most thrown weapons are also useful in melee...
|
on what page does it say that you cant use Shatter on a magical item?
lord Okoya, if you want to look at the archer as just the ability to gather more archery feats and have a higher bonus to hit, then i can totally understand how you think Fighters make for better archers. but having True Seeing as a spell makes you a better archer, having creatures that stop enemies from entering melee with you makes you a better archer.
Aligning your arrows so they can penetrate the monsters hide, makes you a better archer.
Zen Archery isn't broken (still need dex to pick up archery feats). Divine Metamagic is.
|
|
Zen Archery isn't broken (still need dex to pick up archery feats). Divine Metamagic is.
Persistent Spell is even more broken.
But that's what "they" do. Bring up obviously broken/unbalanced rules/feats from previous dubious splatbooks, that no intelligent GM would allow in their game, to support their position. We get it. 3.5 was broken. That is the reason d'etre for Pathfinder.
How about instead of just talking the talk, you walk the walk? How about you guys submit a cleric archer build using official Pathfinder only rules for us to "see" exactly how they are "superior in every way to the fighter archer"? Pick a level. Pick a stat point buy. How about no magic items, masterwork weapons only? Show us their feats. Show us their "typical combat" progression and spells prepared/cast per day.
How about it? Any takers?
Cheers
|
|
But that's what "they" do. Bring up obviously broken/unbalanced rules/feats from previous dubious splatbooks, that no intelligent GM would allow in their game, to support their position. We get it. 3.5 was broken. That is the reason d'etre for Pathfinder.
Pathfinder is supposed to be compatible with 3.5 so that people can continue to use their 3.5 material (in fact, it is that aim, coupled with the need for there to be a still-in-print 3.x rulesbook so that Paizo can keep making 3.x material, is the real raison d'etre for Pathfinder, rather than 'fixing' 3.5, which is more of a sideshow), so it's not surprising that splats are mentioned by people; they presumably plan to continue using them. Of course there's not much that Paizo can do about the splats, as they are in general not Open Content; they can hardly design the game to nullify parts of the 3.5 opus that are considered to be overpowered, for example, so whilst the effect of 3.5 splats on PFRPG is relevant (and, I believe James Jacobs or Jason Bulmahn has said they want to hear about it in the playtest forums), I agree that it's not central.
On the other hand, the idea that things mentioned here are stuff that "no intelligent GM would allow in their game" probably isn't very helpful, at least not from where I'm standing.
|
Pathfinder is supposed to be compatible with 3.5 so that people can continue to use their 3.5 material (in fact, it is that aim, coupled with the need for there to be a still-in-print 3.x rulesbook so that Paizo can keep making 3.x material, is the real raison d'etre for Pathfinder, rather than 'fixing' 3.5, which is more of a sideshow), so it's not surprising that splats are mentioned by people; they presumably plan to continue using them. Of course there's not much that Paizo can do about the splats, as they are in general not Open Content; they can hardly design the game to nullify parts of the 3.5 opus that are considered to be overpowered, for example, so whilst the effect of 3.5 splats on PFRPG is relevant (and, I believe James Jacobs or Jason Bulmahn has said they want to hear about it in the playtest forums), I agree that it's not central.On the other hand, the idea that things mentioned here are stuff that "no intelligent GM would allow in their game" probably isn't very helpful, at least not from where I'm standing.
I think what Okoya was trying to say is that you don't have to let these things into your game if you think they're going to be problematic.
I'm noticing a trend toward "OMGism" whenever someone discovers something new that is more powerful due to compatibility issues. I would advise that when you stumble on something that you think nerfs or breaks the game that you stop and think before you act on it.
Splatbooks are banned at table all over the place. I can't go to a local game store and find a group playing D&D or Pathfinder that hasn't banned at least one book from their games (typically I see Psionics, Tome of Battle and Magic of Incarnum banned). It comes with the territory.
|
|
I think what Okoya was trying to say is that you don't have to let these things into your game if you think they're going to be problematic.I'm noticing a trend toward "OMGism" whenever someone discovers something new that is more powerful due to compatibility issues. I would advise that when you stumble on something that you think nerfs or breaks the game that you stop and think before you act on it.
Splatbooks are banned at table all over the place. I can't go to a local game store and find a group playing D&D or Pathfinder that hasn't banned at least one book from their games (typically I see Psionics, Tome of Battle and Magic of Incarnum banned). It comes with the territory.
Exactly. Thanks for the clarification Studpuffin. I was merely trying to point out that many of the feats/spells/rules etc introduced in some of the splat books, when used in ways the game designers never thought of and contrary to "the spirit of the game", are game breakers. Part of the reason for this has to do with the fact that most of the splatbooks are written by different authors, who were working largely independent of each other.
On its own Divine Metamagic is OK. Persistent Spell on its own is maybe pushing the envelope. Together? They are game breakers. Chalk it up to lazy editors or what you will, but the "real" problem it creates is left up to each GM to "correct".
The funny thing is WOTC is usually thy are so very good at catching this kind of thing (just look at Magic for an example of excellent game balance), I have to imagine that part of it was due to lack of attention as they were gearing up for 4E.
I also understand the backwards compatibility desire on the part of Paizo, but I for one would be happy to drop that notion, and the baggage it brings with it, if it meant a better game in the end. I mean it wouldn't be the first time that I had to throw out all my old books and start over with all new ones. :)
Cheers
|
|
In short, a lot of these uber-builds that rely on feats from splat books A, B, and C rely on bullying your DM into submission. And quite frankly, that's a game that broken before it ever got started.
I would also like to point out that when there is more than one Rules Lawyer at the table everyone else should duck and cover. When they agree on things, others yell abusive. When they disagree, be prepared for a forum flamewar! Its all a DM can do to stop such aggression is to be as hard a rules lawyer or to totally cave. Few will find a happy medium.
Not a good situation regardless.
Persistent Spell is even more broken.But that's what "they" do. Bring up obviously broken/unbalanced rules/feats from previous dubious splatbooks, that no intelligent GM would allow in their game, to support their position. We get it. 3.5 was broken. That is the reason d'etre for Pathfinder.
How about instead of just talking the talk, you walk the walk? How about you guys submit a cleric archer build using official Pathfinder only rules for us to "see" exactly how they are "superior in every way to the fighter archer"? Pick a level. Pick a stat point buy. How about no magic items, masterwork weapons only? Show us their feats. Show us their "typical combat" progression and spells prepared/cast per day.
Cheers
Even Persist Spell isn't *too* bad on its own if Libris Mortis didn't introduce the horrifically inexpensive Nightstick. +4 Turns per day for 7500 gold just for possessing it? No mention of not stacking with other Nightsticks. OMGWTFBBQ? If you ban Nightsticks suddenly the Cleric can maybe only persist 2 spells unless he wants to spend most of his Feats on Extra Turning.
And as a DM, don't allow easy ways to boost Caster Level so a well timed Dispel Magic can always be a threat to those persisted spells.
Interesting.
So where's this "Zen Archery" feat in Pathfinder?
I couldn't find Divine Metamagic and Persistent Spell in the PDF of Pathfinder; can you give me a page reference?
I'll give you a page reference when you'll give me a reference to the developers, saying that Pathfinder is NOT backwards compatible and is not intended to be.
|
|
I'll give you a page reference when you'll give me a reference to the developers, saying that Pathfinder is NOT backwards compatible and is not intended to be.Interesting.
So where's this "Zen Archery" feat in Pathfinder?
I couldn't find Divine Metamagic and Persistent Spell in the PDF of Pathfinder; can you give me a page reference?
If it helps, I don't think Zen Archery is considered Open Game. Can't verify that, though.
|
|
I don't think that it's OGL, although that's not really very relevant in discussing backwards-compatibility (which is about being able to use 3.5 material you already own). It does, of course, mean that PFRPG can't contain it, although I guess it might be generic enough to include something 'very similar' with a different name.
|
|
I'll give you a page reference when you'll give me a reference to the developers, saying that Pathfinder is NOT backwards compatible and is not intended to be.
Yes. The game is meant to be backwards compatible (something I'm not a big fan of personally), but another of the stated goals was to improve the game. Paizo cannot undo what has been done (read published). There are numerous examples of things that were poorly designed which lead to severe game imbalances. I, for one, am not going to allow these elements to carry forth into my future games "just because they were printed in a book once" as they run contradictory to to "improving the game" part of the stated goals.
Just a quick question FatR, do you plan to use the Pathfinders rules as your primary rulebook and supplement them with previous 3.5 material or do you view the PfRPG rules as "just another splatbook"? In other words, in your game, will you use the most favorable version (read beneficial to yourself/your character, game balance be damned) of spells/feats/skills/etc that happen to exist in more than one version (ie. power attack, polymorph spell...)?
Your answer will help to put into context your past and future comments. For me at least.
Cheers
|
|
I don't think that it's OGL, although that's not really very relevant in discussing backwards-compatibility (which is about being able to use 3.5 material you already own). It does, of course, mean that PFRPG can't contain it, although I guess it might be generic enough to include something 'very similar' with a different name.
Oh, I meant that its not OGC in the sense that it cannot appear in the PFRPG. That's all I wanted to note.
|
|
I don't think that it's OGL, although that's not really very relevant in discussing backwards-compatibility (which is about being able to use 3.5 material you already own). It does, of course, mean that PFRPG can't contain it, although I guess it might be generic enough to include something 'very similar' with a different name.
The relevance of whether it is OGC, I think, has more to do with the Paizo's ability to modify it within the context of the Pathfinder rules. This is important for anything that is not OGL. (I persinally don't have a problem with Zen Archery, and would allow it in my game.) The point is things that are not OGC cannot be "fixed" by Paizo no matter how egregious the rule/feat/spell is and therefore requires gaming groups to "fix" things themselves.
|
|
The relevance of whether it is OGC, I think, has more to do with the Paizo's ability to modify it within the context of the Pathfinder rules. This is important for anything that is not OGL. (I persinally don't have a problem with Zen Archery, and would allow it in my game.) The point is things that are not OGC cannot be "fixed" by Paizo no matter how egregious the rule/feat/spell is and requires gaming groups to "fix" things themselves.
Bang on! Backwards compatible means work for DMs, not that things are going to be perfect exactly as they are. Great point.
|
|
Or to put it another way: If I could create a "broken" cleric build that that used feats from, say, The Book of Erotic Fantasy, does that mean we need to work a celibacy clause into the core Pathfinder fighter class?
Or can the DM just say no to using that sourcebook?
What could you possibly use from the BoEF that could possibly be so broken that a DM would ban... nevermind. :p
|
|
Just cause I'm bored and want to tie up some loose ends. (And I just can't resist.)
lord Okoya, if you want to look at the archer as just the ability to gather more archery feats and have a higher bonus to hit, then i can totally understand how you think Fighters make for better archers. but having True Seeing as a spell makes you a better archer...
A fifth level spell. So that little gem kicks in around what? Level 9 I believe. And then you have one (plus 1 or 2 for high wisdom) per day (until you level of course). Again to the exclusion of the other 5th level spells. Don't get me wrong it is useful, no doubt about it.
One question though. Wouldn't casting Invisibility Purge (a 3rd level spell) which at 9th caster level would give you a 45' radius sphere centered on you, result in much the same thing? I know its not exactly the same and the range of true seeing is 120' by comparison. By your own admission, you rarely engage enemies in large open areas, so range isn't so important after all. Of course the benefit to IP is that it helps everyone in your party see the enemy, not just your archer. If you are talking about using TS to nullify the effects of spells such as Blur or Darkness, I have only this to say. Blind Fighting.
having creatures that stop enemies from entering melee with you makes you a better archer.
Who says they want to get into melee with you?
Besides, like I said before, summoning is very useful, as are many many other things. Anytime you can call in allies to advantage the battlefield it is a good thing. How is this archery specific?
Aligning your arrows so they can penetrate the monsters hide, makes you a better archer.
The answer here is quite simple as well. You use yet another spell slot to create 50 arrows aligned to "good" (or whatever) that expire in 1 min/level and I use a +1 holy longbow. Throw in some adamantine and silver arrows and I'm not really worried about overcoming DR for most of the baddies I expect to encounter.
Cheers
|
|
Also, a cleric archer was a staple build from times of 3.0.
The 3.0 version of Zen Archery was only good for attacks within 30 feet. The prerequisite also required the cleric to be 4th level before he could take it. That meant either delaying his 3rd level feat choice (usually not ideal) or waiting until the next feat slot at 6th level. Using a feat to accomplish what a high Dex fighter archer had already for free and without the 30' restriction. Awesome.
|
|
Too bad, that the only thing a cleric archer needs to completely outshine a figher starting from levels 5-6 is PHB spells and Zen Archery. Apply Divine Metamagic and Persistent spell to multiply the advantage. Other stuff is just icing on the cake for those who want to dominate the game from level 1.
Please Note: All that follows is a parody. No actual characters were created during the course of this post. Enjoy.
[fade in]
[a lone male sits at a desk in the darkened basement of his mother's house. he appears to be 40 years old. he wears a t-shirt which reads "chaotic evil - never having to say you're sorry". all around him are crushed cans of diet coke TM and empty frito lay bags TM. he scribbles furiously on a pad of paper laying on the desk while surrounded by piles of brown hardcover books and scores of dice and little plastic figures. marcy playground's "cloak of elvenkind" plays softly from a nearby stereo.]
[voice over begins]
All this talk of "this feat and that feat" that make the cleric archer so amazing has got me thinking. I want to build one of these bada$$ 3.5 guys myself.
Let's see. Race? Elf. The +2 Dex will come in handy until Zen Archery kicks in. Free Martial Weapon Proficiency with Longbow. Good thing, as clerics don't start with proficiency in bows. Let's see, ah yes. I don't think I shall tie myself down to any particular deity. Elf domain will do nicely. Free Point Blank feat. Let's see... the other domain... I'll need more time to look through the splatbooks to see if I can find something uber cool. Let's leave that for now.
I'm going to skip to the feats right away, I'm really excited to see this wicked feat progression I've heard so much about. Map things out. See where this is going.
Ok, first level. Precise Shot. What self respecting archer doesn't take this?
3rd level. Hmmmmm. Better get this Divine Metamagic / Persistent Spell chain going. So Extend Spell it is (its a prerequisite for Persistent Spell).
6th level. Ah yes. Come to me Zen Archery. Take that fighter dude! I now can use my high Wisdom modifier to hit with my bow! What? You have been using your high Dex since 1st level. Doh! I'll get you yet!
9th level. Persistent Spell baby! Wait! What's this? Spells use a spell slot 6 higher? I can't even use this for 4 more levels and even then it will only work on a 1st level spell (and only a few of those that qualify) while costing me one of my highest spell slots.
Maybe I should rethink this. What archery related feats do I qualify for? Far Shot and Rapid Shot. Just two? Oh and maybe Manyshot if I have a 17 Dex. Doesn't look likely as I will need my best scores in Wisdom and Strength (so my arrows do more damage). Far Shot is pretty weak. Rapid Shot it is. Or maybe I should take Weapon Focus (Longbow). I am really starting to lose BAB to that jerk fighter. I'll decide later.
12th level. Still can't make use of Persistent Spell. I could take one of the feats I don't use at 9th I guess.
15th level. Finally! Persistent Spell. Hey, now I can use it on a limited number of my 1st and 2nd level spells and it only costs me a 7th or 8th level spell slot. That doesn't seem so good to me somehow. Oh well.
18th level. Here it is folks. Divine Metamagic (Persistent Spell)! Now I can use the poorly worded description of this feat to create a loophole in Persistent Spell allowing me to cast spells like Divine Power and Righteous Might with 24 hour durations. This of course would never work with Persistent Spell normally because I wouldn't have a 10th or 11th level spell slot to sacrifice. I'm sure the designers meant for this to happen or they wouldn't have left the Divine Metamagic wording so sloppy.
And just you wait til I pick up some of those Nightsticks I've heard so much about. Look out!
Hey I just realized I don't really have a single feat that would be beneficial to my primary role as a cleric, spell caster, healer and scourge of the undead. Ah, who cares! I am a reasonably decent archer once I spend a few rounds casting some spells on myself. And that is all that counts.
[fade out]
Goodnight!
|
|
so what about the Fighter myth? does the Fighter suck? well all Will save secondary classes are at a SERIOUS disadvantage, but a couple other classes have that same fatal flaw so the fighter isnt alone. I would argue that feats are poor mens class abilities (you gain versatility for a generally weaker product) medium and heavy armors are poorly designed, (except tower shields they are kinda nice) they didnt get a HP bump under Pathfinder. they are still 2+ skill points ( the skill consolidation has helped, but they still have a lackluster list on in class skills,besides Survival) specialization is still a trap (at least let them refocus it like warblades do) powerattack and combat expertise were nerfed (these were abilites that i alway thought should have been bonus feats for fighters in 3.5)everyone gets more feats in the Pathfinder system. and the only two build still worth while is an archer or a spiked chain user.
I really like the armor and weapon training, now the Fighter can dish it out almost as well as a Barbarian, armor training should take away the speed penalty and the Fighter should gain armor training at 1st level and weapon training at third
they should add their CON to will save against fear affects (the bonus is to slowly acquired)
(and why the F&^K, does the Paladin get Will saves in class...charisma wasnt good enough for them? and why is the BARD STILL MORE RESOLUTE than a hardened Fighter? Brave Bards and Cowardly Fighters....)
what is your honest take on what the Fighter gets (dont splice mine apart, write your own! :P)
|
|
so what about the Fighter myth? does the Fighter suck? well all Will save secondary classes are at a SERIOUS disadvantage, but a couple other classes have that same fatal flaw so the fighter isnt alone. I would argue that feats are poor mens class abilities (you gain versatility for a generally weaker product) medium and heavy armors are poorly designed, (except tower shields they are kinda nice) they didnt get a HP bump under Pathfinder. they are still 2+ skill points ( the skill consolidation has helped, but they still have a lackluster list on in class skills,besides Survival) specialization is still a trap (at least let them refocus it like warblades do) powerattack and combat expertise were nerfed (these were abilites that i alway thought should have been bonus feats for fighters in 3.5)everyone gets more feats in the Pathfinder system. and the only two build still worth while is an archer or a spiked chain user.
I really like the armor and weapon training, now the Fighter can dish it out almost as well as a Barbarian, armor training should take away the speed penalty and the Fighter should gain armor training at 1st level and weapon training at third
they should add their CON to will save against fear affects (the bonus is to slowly acquired)
(and why the F&^K, does the Paladin get Will saves in class...charisma wasnt good enough for them? and why is the BARD STILL MORE RESOLUTE than a hardened Fighter? Brave Bards and Cowardly Fighters....)
what is your honest take on what the Fighter gets (dont splice mine apart, write your own! :P)
I would ask myself first and foremost from the roleplay perspective: what is the point of an adventuring party?
The fighter is one of the few non-magical classes, but they're incredibly tough characters. They are the guys that mere mortals look at in terror as they back peddle toward the door. They are the knight who guards the bridge (its only a flesh wound!), the skilled warrior blade or blunt that will beat you mercilessly if you cross him.
But then there are always ways of being defeated by your opponents: accumulation of wounds, deadly traps and poisons, bewitchery... The fighter isn't stupid, he learns to fear these treacherous things. He does know that there are others who can avoid these problems from happening, and if they are willing to ally in order to overcome each of their short comings then what will stop them from setting the world as they see fit?
I hate the idea of setting the classes into definite roles, but there is definitely something to the healer, warrior, mage, scout setup that aids the dungeon delve. The classes overlap in some areas more than others, but the fighter overlaps the least with other classes. He has no class abilities besides feats and (now) gear boosters. He's meant to fill a role, not to stand alone.
--On another note I think that the fighters Will save is fine the way it is. Calling the figher cowardly does not, in my opinon, accurately describe the effects of a magical fear, illusion, or enchantment spell. They're the determined warrior, but would you say that a fighter has much understanding of magic? Do you think he's spent years harnessing his mental powers to put up effective barriers to resist these spells? Perhaps if he's taken Iron Will, but I digress. Will is kind of an abstract term anyway. What is important to note is that its a flavor choice to build the fighter without strong "will".
On another note I think that the fighters Will save is fine the way it is. Calling the figher cowardly does not, in my opinon, accurately describe the effects of a magical fear, illusion, or enchantment spell. They're the determined warrior, but would you say that a fighter has much understanding of magic? Do you think he's spent years harnessing his mental powers to put up effective barriers to resist these spells? Perhaps if he's taken Iron Will, but I digress. Will is kind of an abstract term anyway. What is important to note is that its a flavor choice to build the fighter without strong "will".
Dude, you are 100% correct. I hope that Pathfinder keeps the Will Saves for Fighters just like they are right now. There's nothing I like better then using invisibility and flight to get close to a Fighter so I can cast Dominate Person on them. They have MAYBE a 15% chance to make their save, so I can usually get away with this with little to no risk. 16 Day Slave? Yes, please!
And Fighters really DO make the best slaves. They can carry all of your stuff for you, and they are great at murdering any non-spellcasters that might otherwise bother you and cause you to have to spend some spells. Frankly, I have better things to do then send rabble on their way with a Fireball or two.
And they don't lose their temper or fret over their pets or whatever like other non-spellcasting classes. And thanks to Mind Fog, I can re-Dominate them with a 100% chance of success in just a few weeks time!
I sincerely hope that Pathfinder continues to use spell mechanics that make Fighters little more then slaves and chattel at higher levels.
P.S. Get rid of Improved Iron Will and nerf Iron Will. I mean, come on. Fighters are CLEARLY supposed to be little more then slaves to Wizards once you get past 10th level. If you didn't want to be a slave, you should have picked a class with a high Will save.
/sarcasm
|
|
On another note I think that the fighters Will save is fine the way it is. Calling the figher cowardly does not, in my opinon, accurately describe the effects of a magical fear, illusion, or enchantment spell. They're the determined warrior, but would you say that a fighter has much understanding of magic? Do you think he's spent years harnessing his mental powers to put up effective barriers to resist these spells? Perhaps if he's taken Iron Will, but I digress. Will is kind of an abstract term anyway. What is important to note is that its a flavor choice to build the fighter without strong "will".Dude, you are 100% correct. I hope that Pathfinder keeps the Will Saves for Fighters just like they are right now. There's nothing I like better then using invisibility and flight to get close to a Fighter so I can cast Dominate Person on them. They have MAYBE a 15% chance to make their save, so I can usually get away with this with little to no risk. 16 Day Slave? Yes, please!
And Fighters really DO make the best slaves. They can carry all of your stuff for you, and they are great at murdering any non-spellcasters that might otherwise bother you and cause you to have to spend some spells. Frankly, I have better things to do then send rabble on their way with a Fireball or two.
And they don't lose their temper or fret over their pets or whatever like other non-spellcasting classes. And thanks to Mind Fog, I can re-Dominate them with a 100% chance of success in just a few weeks time!
I sincerely hope that Pathfinder continues to use spell mechanics that make Fighters little more then slaves and chattel at higher levels.
P.S. Get rid of Improved Iron Will and nerf Iron Will. I mean, come on. Fighters are CLEARLY supposed to be little more then slaves to Wizards once you get past 10th level. If you didn't want to be a slave, you should have picked a class with a high Will save.
/sarcasm
/sigh
Protection from Evil. It's a first level spell. Or a 50gp potion if you are one of those "no buffing, non-casters have to provide all their own spells" types.
|
|
Flavourwise, though, it'd be cool to have a fighter with gritty iron will, that'd shrug off the fancy glamours and other spells of the casters, without having to drink a potion or beg for a spell. It's a somewhat specialised build, sure, but I don't think that at the moment the available options are sufficient to make that character.
|
|
The problem with harking to fictional archetypes is that the authors don't have to worry about game balance. Take an example - Elric. He has a totally kick-arse sword, extraordinary magical powers, and he is a really powerful fighter too, all in one gloomy bundle (and women fall over themselves to sleep with him - can't be true, never happened to me). Creating a meaningful character like that is more difficult in a game, especially a class-based game where PCs have to occupy different roles, and yet balance off one another. Unless you are suggesting that a whole series of spells (in effect, those operating off Will saves) be totally nerfed by effectively making all characters immune to them and so hardly used by PCs or NPCs, then I can't really see how this would change. Fighters (and others) are succeptible to Will save effects. <shrug> The game has provided a (partial) means of dealing with it, so I fail to see why this is considered a big problem.
Alternatively, get a fighter with WIS 18 and Iron will as his level 1 feat. Something a sacrifice, but to say that the game doesn't provide for the archetype is arguably wrong, but you have to probably have to sacrifice some fighting power. That happens to be unattractive to min-maxers, of course, but the character could be interesting to roleplay too.
Or get the cleric to cast Protection from Evil on you. It wouldn't kill him. And it is the way the game works - it is rules-based, after all, and those are simply the rules. It certainly isn't a balance issue.
|
|
I obviously understand that you can go for a fighter with 18 Wis, or beg a spell or drink a potion. My point is that I don't want to. Also and fairly critically, as I think that the fighter is too weak anyhow, so I don't think that it would overbalance the game in favour of fighters if they were able, more cheaply and without magic, to get better will saves.
|
|
I obviously understand that you can go for a fighter with 18 Wis, or beg a spell or drink a potion. My point is that I don't want to. Also and fairly critically, as I think that the fighter is too weak anyhow, so I don't think that it would overbalance the game in favour of fighters if they were able, more cheaply and without magic, to get better will saves.
You don't want to /snark. :)
Plenty of the rest of us just want to have fun and don't worry about being perfect. Stuff happens.
What about rogues? Barbarians? Arcane Archers? Assassins? Duelists? Shadow Dancers? All the other prestige classes with low will progression. What you're asking for is a mechanics change that is unnecessary, in my opinion, for the sake of average numbers. I geuss Vegas doesn't sound very fun then. :p
Are we gonna start about Wizards not being good at saving against poisons and disease, since they cannot cast Neutralize Poison or Remove Disease? If we are, then the whole saving throw system needs to be thrown aside. What about wizards and massive damage, they're terrible at surviving that too. Are we gonna have to nerf their saves?
Balance is inherent in the party system. No one person is meant to be perfect, but the group makes it possible for everyone to have fun and to kick @$$.
|
|
And Fighters really DO make the best slaves. They can carry all of your stuff for you, and they are great at murdering any non-spellcasters that might otherwise bother you and cause you to have to spend some spells. Frankly, I have better things to do then send rabble on their way with a Fireball or two.
That sounds like the fighter anyway. Perhaps you could've asked your party's fighter to do that instead of wasting a valuable spell slot on him. Is the guy you're playing with such a dick that he won't help you out? :p
|
Sneaksy (and others), I'm coming over to your side somewhat. I don't think the fighter is hopeless nerfed; he can build up some great feat chains that can let him be a match for anyone else dealing out pure damage per round.
However... that's a pretty pitiful way to keep up! Yes, he can be the DPS and AC master, but that's such a small niche of overall combat and real life in the D&D world! Someone pointed out that every few levels, casters are guaranteed to get new spells, and suddenly have a huge increase in options. A fighter gets, at best, one new trick per level, and maybe that trick is just making one of his old tricks slightly better.
A fighter might build up a feat chain, and get Bleeding Critical. Well, that is a nice ability, but meanwhile the cleric and wizard have like 3-4 spells that can do similar stuff and they can pick and choose which nerfs to throw out that round. The rogue, barbarian, and monk all similarly have more than one ability that nerfs someone or modifies the battle in ways besides "I hit him".
I think Fighter's need more things that consistently get better for them, every level, essentially "for free". Old feats should scale up alongside them getting new feats -- and why not? If I want a fighter who can nerf opponents with various minor effects, why not a "Versatile Critical" feat that lets me start out dazing them, then automatically gives me more options as I get more levels? The caster's spells keep increasing in damage or buffing -- that Divine Favor spell just keeps getting better and better, doesn't it?
For instance, I was pondering Power Attack. It scales either by BAB or Strength -- in PFRPG, usually strength is your limiting factor. Why shouldn't a fighter get a slight bump in use of the feat? Maybe the top tier of how much you can PA is raised as the fighter gains levels, or maybe at (just picking a random number here, haven't analyzed the math) 4th level a fighter w/ PA gets a "free" +1 whenever he PAs (+2 with 2H). So, the barbarian can PA for 3 and get +6 with his greataxe, but when the fighter PA's for 3, he gets +8.
I'm going to wait and see how things shake out in the final edition, but my general thought is to take every fighter bonus feat and tack on some special buff for fighters, and tier those buffs so that fighters continue to get something for that feat selection as they go up in levels. The number of extra feats a fighter gets is his only real special ability, and I think that's the best way to continue to let him keep up with other classes that get a much wider range of stuff they can do. He shouldn't have to rely purely on magic items or casters buffing him to be able to break out of the pure DPS role.
|
|
I obviously understand that you can go for a fighter with 18 Wis, or beg a spell or drink a potion. My point is that I don't want to. Also and fairly critically, as I think that the fighter is too weak anyhow, so I don't think that it would overbalance the game in favour of fighters if they were able, more cheaply and without magic, to get better will saves.
Well, Iron Will is meant to help him do that, although I realize +2 isn't a real game-changer when your Will saves lag so badly. The Improved Iron Will feat doesn't give you enough extra on top of that, but I don't see why there couldn't be a feat chain that does give that fighter a fair shot at making his Will saves catch up with his Fort saves.
If you want a strong-willed Fighter, though, you'd have to at least bump his WIS up somewhat, and take Iron Will.
I'd also probably house-rule in bumps to Bravery that increase the bonus applicability to things besides just fear. Our stout fighter should be to shake off other sorts of mind-affecting things when they get between him and the half-naked girl he needs to save from the evil necromancer.
|
|
I don't understand Mike, you're just concerned about the fighter in this regard? Rogues, Barbarians, Bards, Rangers, Fighters, Paladins, and such all have the problem that the main casters can duplicate their abilities. This isn't to mention the prestige class issues that come up.
The problem is not the fighter.
|
|
I obviously understand that you can go for a fighter with 18 Wis, or beg a spell or drink a potion. My point is that I don't want to. Also and fairly critically, as I think that the fighter is too weak anyhow, so I don't think that it would overbalance the game in favour of fighters if they were able, more cheaply and without magic, to get better will saves.
Well, that's a slightly different point. Or maybe it isn't. Presumably the guy who shrugs off the spells has a high WIS. Maybe he also isn't a total killing machine. And maybe he is a barbarian. What I guess is my point is that, where the game mechanics recognise a problem and deal with it (i.e. in this instance, Protection from Evil) it seems a bit silly to moan about how it doesn't feel right. The mechanic isn't broken - what you feel is your affair, and I don't feel it so I see no reason to alter the mechanics to please you on this one. It's a bit like complaining that you only have enough money for a small car, but it doesn't feel right because you want a limo. Well, they both get you from A to B. If this was a genuine game balance issue, maybe I would have more sympathy.
|
|
Well, that's a slightly different point. Or maybe it isn't. Presumably the guy who shrugs off the spells has a high WIS. Maybe he also isn't a total killing machine. And maybe he is a barbarian. What I guess is my point is that, where the game mechanics recognise a problem and deal with it (i.e. in this instance, Protection from Evil) it seems a bit silly to moan about how it doesn't feel right. The mechanic isn't broken - what you feel is your affair, and I don't feel it so I see no reason to alter the mechanics to please you on this one. It's a bit like complaining that you only have enough money for a small car, but it doesn't feel right because you want a limo. Well, they both get you from A to B. If this was a genuine game balance issue, maybe I would have more sympathy.
No, it's really not like that; also, it's only really a game balance issue if you feel that the game is balanced or that the low-will-save classes are already too powerful.
As for it being 'silly' to prefer things to feel right, I fear that we will have to disagree. I wasn't calling for a change in mechanic, either; indeed, I wasn't advocating any particular way to achieve the end. Better Iron Will-type feats (as mentioned above) aren't a new mechanic, for example, they're a use of an existing mechanic. Of course, the high-will-save classes could also take them, but they already tend to make will saves at higher levels, so they're welcome to if that's a good use of their feats (and as fighters get more feats, it's less painful for them to go this route than for other classes).
|
|
Yes, I see where you are coming from. But have you thought about the impact on the game in terms of spells requiring Will saves? Would that make them redundant (or nearly so)? It might seem simple but as we have seen with other add-ons to the game is that it can have ramifications which haven't been foreseens and which become potentially game-breaking. Do you want to totally nerf enchanters and illusionists? When a simple, discrete fix already exists, why say that you need something with much broader ramifications? And, as someone points out above, why stop at Will saves for fighters? I appreciate that the rules of the game are up for grabs to some extent with the PFRPG Beta, but on the other hand, I don't see the need to change something which works (though that has also happened to some extent in the PFRPG rules too).
|
|
What I guess is my point is that, where the game mechanics recognise a problem and deal with it (i.e. in this instance, Protection from Evil) it seems a bit silly to moan about how it doesn't feel right. The mechanic isn't broken - what you feel is your affair, and I don't feel it so I see no reason to alter the mechanics to please you on this one.
I see Protection From [Alignment] quoted a lot as the solution to Charm effects vs characters with poor Will saves, which it is.
However, I'd rather the solution to powerful spell effects wasn't dependent on an overpowered 1st-level spell. As it stands, it shuts down much of the Enchantment school, and a good deal of the Conjuration school, too. As such, it's a no-brainer spell choice, whatever the mission, and when any spell is a no-brainer choice, it should ring alarm bells that it's possibly too good for its level.
I'd be happy for Protection from [Alignment] to be reigned in, to allow a bonus to saves, or a reroll (a la Slippery Mind), and maybe just increased AC or miss chance vs summoned creatures.
Then, get the balance by amending the actual problem Enchantments, so they have sensible limits on what you can and can't order a target to do, again, with save re-rolls and save bonuses for suicidal or out-of-character behaviour.
The example text for Charm Person has always been awful. Remember the text about 'being persuaded to hold off a charging dragon'? That just sets a bad precedent. What level is the charmed character? How big is the dragon? Sure, my 10th level Fighter Lord with a Frostblade might whack a red hatchling, but a Large White Dragon? What are his new 'friends' doing while he sticks his neck on the line? Looting? Fleeing? Laughing at the stupid charmed guy?
It's just so ...vague. And maybe the writers have an over-optimistic idea of what constitutes 'friendship'. Most PCs are supposed to be friends with the rest of their party, but even they will tell them where to stick it if they think they're being made a gopher or a laughing stock. I don't think I'd keep many friends, if I went round picking fights with strangers, then pushing my 'buddy' in front of me, with the words 'You got a problem? Take it up with him!'.
|
|
I don't understand Mike, you're just concerned about the fighter in this regard? Rogues, Barbarians, Bards, Rangers, Fighters, Paladins, and such all have the problem that the main casters can duplicate their abilities. This isn't to mention the prestige class issues that come up.
The problem is not the fighter.
Perhaps. But I'm wondering if, on observation, other classes get "better stuff" out of their advancement, or at least more variety and options. I can see fighters getting better at hitting stuff and not getting hit, that's not hard to do. But as an example -- rogues get ever-increasing sneak attack dice, and talents, and a good skill progression so higher skill "stunts" are easier for them = more options.
It's quite stark with spell casters, I agree. I'm just not sure if the fighter is still uniquely bereft of options when compared to all other classes or not. I'm starting to think he is, and tweaks to add more feats useful to him and to give existing fighter bonus feats an extra "bump" for fighters might help a lot.
More playtesting in my group would help, but... no one is playing a fighter! (Hmm... wonder why?). So, I'm setting up more encounters for the PCs with various builds of fighters, using as many of the "extra" feats Jason posted here as possible (and a few variants I had already suggested on previous discussions). I'm pretty sure I'll still find things slightly lacking for the fighter, though.
You just shouldn't need a prestige class just to have some cool stuff you can do -- I'd rather see enough customization in the stock character class to enable things like a battlefield control fighter who can hold many enemies at bay while the wizard cranks the spells.
|
|
The example text for Charm Person has always been awful.
Charm Person is far from the only spell to worry about, of course. Hold Person is a real killer, in the strictest sense of the word -- fail a Will save, get coup de grâce'd? I realized that when I was sizing up a CoDZilla versus fighter playtest -- the Fighter's piss-poor Will save made that a 1st round game-ender.
It's very skewed mostly because the fails on Will saves seem to have worse consequences for the warrior types than Fort or Ref failures -- fail on those, you take more damage that you can probably deal with. Fail a Will save, you're often totally out of the combat or you've just become some caster's butt-monkey.
So, yeah... I'm a big fan of Iron Will. In fact, I often take some save-enhancer feat on all my characters to address one of their bad save areas and make that aspect of the game just a bit less painful.