|
Paizo, I am sincerely sorry for any part I may have played in making this section of the boards entirely arcane warrior-focused. What's this, five threads now?
Fighters, the class, don't use magic, but there's nothing saying people can't both fight and use magic, and why anyone would want to hold an entire gaming system to such an unnecessary limitation is beyond me. I can see a particular game world without access to such a possibility, but an entire system? What would be the point other than intentionally alienating one group of people who would otherwise play the game?
If you want to fight, and use magic... multi class! It seems rather silly to me to expect paizo to create a base class that would eliminate part of the need for a prestige class (eldritch knight). The niche of which you speak is already covered. The only time a magic using fighter class isn't feasible is at first level and even then... what's in a name? Just take your sorcerer/wizard/druid/cleric/bard level first and your fighter level second.
|
If you want to fight, and use magic... multi class! It seems rather silly to me to expect paizo to create a base class that would eliminate part of the need for a prestige class (eldritch knight). The niche of which you speak is already covered. The only time a magic using fighter class isn't feasible is at first level and even then... what's in a name? Just take your sorcerer/wizard/druid/cleric/bard level first and your fighter level second.
+1
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If you want to fight, and use magic... multi class! It seems rather silly to me to expect paizo to create a base class that would eliminate part of the need for a prestige class (eldritch knight). The niche of which you speak is already covered. The only time a magic using fighter class isn't feasible is at first level and even then... what's in a name? Just take your sorcerer/wizard/druid/cleric/bard level first and your fighter level second.
Actually, based on caster level/spells known/level cast, there is a niche for a spellthane, as I noted here.
If you want to fight, and use magic... multi class! It seems rather silly to me to expect paizo to create a base class that would eliminate part of the need for a prestige class (eldritch knight). The niche of which you speak is already covered. The only time a magic using fighter class isn't feasible is at first level and even then... what's in a name? Just take your sorcerer/wizard/druid/cleric/bard level first and your fighter level second.
PALADIN!
I say we remove the paladin, bard, ranger and cleric classes. Better take out druid too to be safe. I mean if you can cast spells AND fight better than a dead fish out of the box you're OBVIOUSLY OVERPOWERED!!!
It's silly to expect Paizo to create a base class just because you want to fight AND cast divine spells.
Seriously man, think before you type.
If you want to fight, and use magic... multi class! It seems rather silly to me to expect paizo to create a base class that would eliminate part of the need for a prestige class (eldritch knight). The niche of which you speak is already covered. The only time a magic using fighter class isn't feasible is at first level and even then... what's in a name? Just take your sorcerer/wizard/druid/cleric/bard level first and your fighter level second.PALADIN!
I say we remove the paladin, bard, ranger and cleric classes. Better take out druid too to be safe. I mean if you can cast spells AND fight better than a dead fish out of the box you're OBVIOUSLY OVERPOWERED!!!
It's silly to expect Paizo to create a base class just because you want to fight AND cast divine spells.
Seriously man, think before you type.
I am sure you knew what he meant. If the fighter/caster people were asking for was already made he would not have made that statement, and nobody would have made the current fighter/mage threads. Pretending not to understand something does nothing to move the debate along.
Now in case you try to pretend you are still confused, the class concept in question is one that is primarily a figher and a caster, kind of like the duskblade from PHB2.
PS: I did not see him call mention "divine" anywhere in that post.
With that said I don't think any fighter/caster type is needed, but I am not against it either. I now return you back to your regularly scheduled debate.
If you want to fight, and use magic... multi class! It seems rather silly to me to expect paizo to create a base class that would eliminate part of the need for a prestige class (eldritch knight). The niche of which you speak is already covered. The only time a magic using fighter class isn't feasible is at first level and even then... what's in a name? Just take your sorcerer/wizard/druid/cleric/bard level first and your fighter level second.
By that logic there should be no Paladin, just multiclass fighter cleric. There should be no ranger, just multiclass druid fighter. There should be no bard, just multiclass rogue wizard.
Yes the eldritch knight does a descent job at high levels, but it doesnt do anything for low level play. It also doesnt do much to combine the two. All you are is a lower level fighter and a lower level caster.
And before you ask, no i dont want to be as good fighter as a fighter or as good a caster as a wizard or sorc, what I want is to be able to combine the to in an elegant way that allows me to say, enhance my combat prowess with my magic (up to the level of the other combat classes in the right situation).
Paizo, I am sincerely sorry for any part I may have played in making this section of the boards entirely arcane warrior-focused. What's this, five threads now?
I dont think you need to apologize, its an interesting subject, and one that I'd like to see paizo address one day. Paizo staff read these boards, if we talk about it, its much more likely to be addressed one way or another.
I dont think you need to apologize, its an interesting subject, and one that I'd like to see paizo address one day. Paizo staff read these boards, if we talk about it, its much more likely to be addressed one way or another.Like so??
I was thinking more along the lines of
And I probably spoke in haste... some day we might take a stab at doing a duskblade style class, but it won't be equal in power to a gestalt fighter/wizard will be. And in the short run, I'm more interested in exploring the bard and developing it via new spells and feats to allow it to fit this role.
Both of those are closer to what I would want then the nonsense "just multiclass" argument.
I dont think you need to apologize, its an interesting subject, and one that I'd like to see paizo address one day. Paizo staff read these boards, if we talk about it, its much more likely to be addressed one way or another.Like so??
Or, if you read a little further..
|
|
I was thinking more along the lines of
Both of those are closer to what I would want then the nonsense "just multiclass" argument.
And I probably spoke in haste... some day we might take a stab at doing a duskblade style class, but it won't be equal in power to a gestalt fighter/wizard will be. And in the short run, I'm more interested in exploring the bard and developing it via new spells and feats to allow it to fit this role.
Yeah, no, I read that too. A definite maybe.
Personally, I think the "multiclass" argument is one of the more valid answers, hardly nonsense. Of course, I pride myself on taking concepts from the "Complete [Insert Archetype Here]" books and making something better with just the core books and a few levels of multiclassing, so maybe I just have a very biased view on things. And an overactive imagination.
Edit: As an aside, I always liked the feeling of "earning" my 'Baller Status' character instead of just cherrypicking one out of an expanded class list. Probably comes from years of playing Eve Online.
Yeah, no, I read that too. A definite maybe.Personally, I think the "multiclass" argument is one of the more valid answers, hardly nonsense. Of course, I pride myself on taking concepts from the "Complete [Insert Archetype Here]" books and making something better with just the core books and a few levels of multiclassing, so maybe I just have a very biased view on things. And an overactive imagination.
Edit: As an aside, I always liked the feeling of "earning" my 'Baller Status' character instead of just cherrypicking one out of an expanded class list. Probably comes from years of playing Eve Online.
The problem with the multiclass argument is it really doesnt come together untill later. I dont want half the abilities of a wizard and half the abilities of a fighter. I want a combination of their abilities that combine to make an interesting class. Not to mention the fighter/mage type relies heavily on prestige classes, which I dont think is or should ever be the answer.
I have seen first hand what happens when players try this. I played from 1-8 with a guy who was doing wizard-rogue-arcane trickster. Levels 1-5 he was pretty unsatisfied with how his character stacked up. He really didnt do a whole lot in combat and his skills suffered quite a bit from the wizard levels. It wasnt untill he got to arcane trickster that he really started to come into his own, and the campaign ended at level 8. Happens alot in my group, we either start and end in mid levels, or we start in mid range and go into high levels. We switch dms every couple months and sometimes have more then one game going at once. Fighter wizard multiclass into eldritch knight doesnt serve well alot of our games. I played both an eldritch knight and an arcane trickster and at lower levels I really didnt do anything well. And by the time I hit my prestige classes I the campaign was drawing to a close.
I am certain I am not alone in having the majority of my groups gaming at lower levels. It is evident in the volume of published material being bellow level 10. Most people play more time at lower levels, and would like to see that served with base classes as opposed to prestige classe/multiclass options.
Yeah, no, I read that too. A definite maybe.Personally, I think the "multiclass" argument is one of the more valid answers, hardly nonsense. Of course, I pride myself on taking concepts from the "Complete [Insert Archetype Here]" books and making something better with just the core books and a few levels of multiclassing, so maybe I just have a very biased view on things. And an overactive imagination.
Edit: As an aside, I always liked the feeling of "earning" my 'Baller Status' character instead of just cherrypicking one out of an expanded class list. Probably comes from years of playing Eve Online.
The "just multiclass" answer IS nonsense, especially when compared to the old school Fighter/Mages. When you "just multiclass" you end up with a character who cannot land blows in level appropriate encounters, and whose spells are ineffective because their caster level and spell selection is half that of a level appropriate encounter.
In fairness to all, people for the hybrid class, and people against, hasn't it already been stated that Paizo has no plans for this? I read that they wouldn't even be able to start on anything unscheduled for the next year at least. It might be in the works for 2011, but even then maybe not.
I just don't see the point of this debate anymore from either sides. It's starting to read like a Bud Light commercial.
Tastes Great!
Less Filling!
Tastes Great!
Less Filling!
If you want a class like this look to other supplements or design it yourself. Pathfinder has their fighter/mage niche filled and while some might not like it, it is what it is. Maybe some threads on how to clean up and translate some of the 3.5 base classes to Pathfinder? Or some better multi-class builds? Hell I don't know. It just seems like beating a dead horse at this point.
If you want a class like this look to other supplements or design it yourself. Pathfinder has their fighter/mage niche filled and while some might not like it, it is what it is. Maybe some threads on how to clean up and translate some of the 3.5 base classes to Pathfinder? Or some better multi-class builds? Hell I don't know. It just seems like beating a dead horse at this point.
Given that James already said they may look into doing something like an arcane paladin or the duskblade in the future, I dont think its beating a dead horse, its setting up something as a possibility. Certainly not SOON, I doubt we'd see it within the next couple years but it is now far more of a possibility.
Ok, I should have said "for those who want the class ASAP".
|
|
The "just multiclass" answer IS nonsense, especially when compared to the old school Fighter/Mages. When you "just multiclass" you end up with a character who cannot land blows in level appropriate encounters, and whose spells are ineffective because their caster level and spell selection is half that of a level appropriate encounter.
Except that I made a Fighter4/Mage(Abjurer)6/Eldritch Knight 10 with a naked +17 BAB and access to level 8 spells. There is nothing ineffective, pathetic, or even remotely laughable about him, his combat capability, or his spell's general effectiveness; he fits the bill of an Arcane Warrior nicely, especially with Quicken Spell at his disposal. He has less HP and 3 less BAB than a purcelass Fighter (in exchange, he gains access to a wide variety of spells, a bonded weapon, and the Abjurer's special abilities), and is 1 spell level below a pureclass Wizard (in exchange he gains fourteen d10 HD, 7 more BAB, and 3 bonus feats).
I "just multiclassed." Of course, I could be talking nonsense.
Post Script:
Granted, not many games make it to level 20, but once you hit level 7 with my build, you're ALWAYS going to be 3 BAB behind the Fighter and 1 spell level behind the Wizard, which is a penalty I would happily eat in exchange for the versatility.
Ok, I should have said "for those who want the class ASAP".
oh i totally get the not happening soon part. with only 2 rulebooks a year, things will take time, but hopefully are of a better quality because of it. But like MDT wanted with a monster PC book, I would like this on the radar for the future.
|
And before you ask, no i dont want to be as good fighter as a fighter or as good a caster as a wizard or sorc, what I want is to be able to combine the to in an elegant way that allows me to say, enhance my combat prowess with my magic (up to the level of the other combat classes in the right situation).
Not as good fighter as a fighter: 3/4 BAB, Check; Light Armor Proficiency, Check
Not as good wizard as a wizard: Reduced spell progression, check; Smaller list of spells to choose from, Check; Lots of knowledge skills, CheckThings present that make it not fit the bill: Limited Martial Weapon selection; Spell selection doesn't fit theme; Extraneous class ability that doesn't fit theme.
(Hint: its a bard!)
More evo and conjuration spells as opposed to enchantment/illusion would help the spells; Something heavier than a light-martial (Besides LS and Rapier) would help the weaponry. But the biggest change needed is an alternative for bardic song.
|
|
This reminds of the uproar about the "savage species" type of book and the Bestiary not being a player book. I don't really want a core class for every single variation of a single character concept that can be thought of. I feel like the "gish" concept can be very easily handled within the current rules and classes. In fact, in the core book, there are more "gish-ish" PRCs than of any other type. We have the mixed blood Dragon disciple which is a gish concept, we have the Eldritch knight which is a classic gish deal, and then we have the arcane archer, which is yet again gish....
How much more do you need? There cleric didn't even get a PRC (and still does not have one). I don't mind some content every now and again for hybrids, but I don't think it needs to be prevalent, or is even "needed" at all. As it can easily be achieved just using the core book alone.
I would much rather see classes and PRCs that deal with varied content and tropes as opposed to: This is an apple flavored gish prc, this is an orange flavored gish core class, and this gish is about the snozzberries.
love,
malkav
This reminds of the uproar about the "savage species" type of book and the Bestiary not being a player book. I don't really want a core class for every single variation of a single character concept that can be thought of. I feel like the "gish" concept can be very easily handled within the current rules and classes. In fact, in the core book, there are more "gish-ish" PRCs than of any other type. We have the mixed blood Dragon disciple which is a gish concept, we have the Eldritch knight which is a classic gish deal, and then we have the arcane archer, which is yet again gish....
How much more do you need? There cleric didn't even get a PRC (and still does not have one). I don't mind some content every now and again for hybrids, but I don't think it needs to be prevalent, or is even "needed" at all. As it can easily be achieved just using the core book alone.
I would much rather see classes and PRCs that deal with varied content and tropes as opposed to: This is an apple flavored gish prc, this is an orange flavored gish core class, and this gish is about the snozzberries.
love,
malkav
I dont think anyone is asking for more prestige classes we have that, what we want is something that we can use through the characters entire career and not just after level 7. For good measure, I'll say it again, many groups game at low levels, eldritch knight and dragon disciple, and arcane archer do nothing for those characters.
|
|
Take your first level as Wizard (or sorcerer, or whatever else you want) and your second level as something martial. How many gaming sessions will it take you to get to level 2 and have access to both arcane and martial abilities?
I like playing fighter/thief and thief/wizard for the varied options and the concept of a brutish thug, and a deadly arcane assassin. I don't feel that I need a core class to play those concepts, just as I don't feel you need a core class to play your gish concept.
I feel like this gish issue has more to do with the failures of class based RPG game design than it has to do with there being no content or options for "gish" characters. Just because there is not a class that handwalks you through your entire career does not mean "you suck before level 7". I am in a group right now that is level three that has: a fighter 1/wizard 2 as one of the player characters. The toon is a badass and has the best "to hit" ratio in the group. I am just not seeing this whole "sucks before level 7 syndrome", or any apparent lack of gishness from the player (who very much plays the character with the mystique of an arcane warrior. He even got with the DM and made a badass back story about his arcane order and they are working on modifying the arcane archer to fit this order).
But maybe I am just not seeing it. Could you perhaps describe a gish character concept to me that is impossible to make using the current rules, so that perhaps I could better understand your feelings that such options are missing?
love,
malkav
Take your first level as Wizard (or sorcerer, or whatever else you want) and your second level as something martial. How many gaming sessions will it take you to get to level 2 and have access to both arcane and martial abilities?
Honest answer? A long time. We play a given campain at most every 2 weeks. On average we get through 3 encounters a game session. It is an estimated 20 encounters to get from level 1 to 2 (level 1 encounter for 5-6 players is 65 xp each, [fast progression] 1300/65=20). Thats 2 and a half months of real world time. That pattern I believe continues throught levels.
I like playing fighter/thief and thief/wizard for the varied options and the concept of a brutish thug, and a deadly arcane assassin. I don't feel that I need a core class to play those concepts, just as I don't feel you need a core class to play your gish concept.
Do i NEED a base class for this? Ofcourse not. But thats not really the point. I want a base class for it. I dont NEED a base class for a paladin, ranger, or bard. But we have them. Why is this concept somehow an acception?
I feel like this gish issue has more to do with the failures of class based RPG game design than it has to do with there being no content or options for "gish" characters. Just because there is not a class that handwalks you through your entire career does not mean "you suck before level 7". I am in a group right now that is level three that has: a fighter 1/wizard 2 as one of the player characters. The toon is a badass and has the best "to hit" ratio in the group. I am just not seeing this whole "sucks before level 7 syndrome", or any apparent lack of gishness from the player (who very much plays the character with the mystique of an arcane warrior. He even got with the DM and made a badass back story about his arcane order and they are working on modifying the arcane archer to fit this order).
I would agree it works much better for archery then it does for melee combat. But that fighter 1 wizard 2 does not have the HP to stand next to the ogre without going smush. He is entirely dependent on buffs and thus is piss poor when you are not expecting combat, or spends the first few rounds getting ready. Mind you, I dont think he should be independant of buffs but still get them, I would prefer something closer to a bard in martial ability without buffs.
But maybe I am just not seeing it. Could you perhaps describe a gish character concept to me that is impossible to make using the current rules, so that perhaps I could better understand your feelings that such options are missing?
love,
malkav
The best way i can show you what I am missing is by showing you what i want:
With a multiclass concept you end up being a slightly weaker fighter and a slightly weaker wizard, with little way to directly combine the two. I'd like to see a class that provides a mechanic merging the two.
If you want to fight, and use magic... multi class! It seems rather silly to me to expect paizo to create a base class that would eliminate part of the need for a prestige class (eldritch knight). The niche of which you speak is already covered. The only time a magic using fighter class isn't feasible is at first level and even then... what's in a name? Just take your sorcerer/wizard/druid/cleric/bard level first and your fighter level second.
+1
...
PALADIN!
I say we remove the paladin, bard, ranger and cleric classes. Better take out druid too to be safe. I mean if you can cast spells AND fight better than a dead fish out of the box you're OBVIOUSLY OVERPOWERED!!!
It's silly to expect Paizo to create a base class just because you want to fight AND cast divine spells.
Seriously man, think before you type.
These do have some some mechanic OTHER than spellcasting and fighting. If we are to receive a spellcasting fighter, then we are better off with multiclassing. If there is to be a good class combining these two elements, then it needs to be some more gravy around the basic concept. Something more than "full BAB and 6 spell levels".
If you want to fight, and use magic... multi class! It seems rather silly to me to expect paizo to create a base class that would eliminate part of the need for a prestige class (eldritch knight). The niche of which you speak is already covered. The only time a magic using fighter class isn't feasible is at first level and even then... what's in a name? Just take your sorcerer/wizard/druid/cleric/bard level first and your fighter level second.PALADIN!
I say we remove the paladin, bard, ranger and cleric classes. Better take out druid too to be safe. I mean if you can cast spells AND fight better than a dead fish out of the box you're OBVIOUSLY OVERPOWERED!!!
It's silly to expect Paizo to create a base class just because you want to fight AND cast divine spells.
Seriously man, think before you type.
I am sure you knew what he meant. If the fighter/caster people were asking for was already made he would not have made that statement, and nobody would have made the current fighter/mage threads. Pretending not to understand something does nothing to move the debate along.
Now in case you try to pretend you are still confused, the class concept in question is one that is primarily a figher and a caster, kind of like the duskblade from PHB2.
PS: I did not see him call mention "divine" anywhere in that post.
With that said I don't think any fighter/caster type is needed, but I am not against it either. I now return you back to your regularly scheduled debate.
He said if you want to fight and cast spells then multiclass.
I point out the paladin which does both and is a CORE BASE CLASS.Why is it unfair to point this out? Why is it fair that you can have a full BAB divine caster with LOADS of other class perks, but not a full BAB arcane caster?
He didn't mention divine...because he knows that is a weakness to his argument of "you can't have your cake and eat it too" which paladins are able to. I'm not sure you understand the underlying argument being posed on these boards about the power level of such a character, or you wouldn't be so fundamentally baffled at my mentioning of the Paladin.
I wonder how many of those saying arcane paladins are what their wanting actually played hexblades.
My question exactly.
I wonder how many of those saying arcane paladins are what their wanting actually played hexblades.My question exactly.
I did and like the class, a little underpowered though. Is there a point to this?
We have to remember that Paizo's is a business, and it dosen't make good business sense to ignore request for additional feature for too long.
Anyway creating a class from multi-classing is sort of pointless, not everyone who plays the game wants to go anywhere near multi-classing. My personal feelings is it's a completely broken system that forces you to play either a extremely powerful character that has none of the abilities you wanted, but lots of power. Or, a extremely week character that has the abilities and powers you where looking for. Could we just remove this backwards mechanic from the game already, we can use alternative class features, feats and new base classes instead.
Sorry about the little rant.
Priest spells are weaker than Arcane ones, that's one reason why there exists more than one class that combine combat prowess with those spells.
The base classes that fight and have spells (Paly and Ranger) are so damn weak at those spells that they don't even start casting them until they reach 4th level, and thats another reason why they are more common.
I believe that creating a base "gish" class is not impossible, but would steal the thunder of the prestige classes we already talked about. I believe however that some more options should be laied out for such concepts, like a better use of armor and such. Besides that, I think anything is already acomplishable with what we have.
But I do miss the good old days of the bladesinger... now that was really gish...
Could we just remove this backwards mechanic from the game already, we can use alternative class features, feats and new base classes instead.+1. Because it's just that original.
Perhaps something with a point system, where you buy base attack bonus, class features, spellcasting, bonus feats, etc.
I'm sure there's a spreadsheet somewhere lying around Paizo HQ that details a budget for building base classes. The game is too well balanced for there not to be.
Paizo, I am sincerely sorry for any part I may have played in making this section of the boards entirely arcane warrior-focused. What's this, five threads now?
Fighters, the class, don't use magic, but there's nothing saying people can't both fight and use magic, and why anyone would want to hold an entire gaming system to such an unnecessary limitation is beyond me. I can see a particular game world without access to such a possibility, but an entire system? What would be the point other than intentionally alienating one group of people who would otherwise play the game?
+1
If you want to fight, and use magic... multi class! It seems rather silly to me to expect paizo to create a base class that would eliminate part of the need for a prestige class (eldritch knight).Why is it so hard to believe that maybe something is lost by multi-classing or no amount of multi-classing does the concept right? I agree Paizo should not be required to create this base class, but that does not mean the class need not exist.
I agree with this as well.
And before you ask, no i dont want to be as good fighter as a fighter or as good a caster as a wizard or sorc, what I want is to be able to combine the to in an elegant way that allows me to say, enhance my combat prowess with my magic (up to the level of the other combat classes in the right situation).
I believe this is what we are all asking for class wise. It is not unreasonable ether. A great deal of people like this concept that is why it is the #1 class added with any supplements.
With 3.5 we had the failure Hexblade. With the PHII we had the Duskblade.
With Pathfinder we had the Tomb of Secrets Spell Blade.
If we are never going to have this class well I guess I will have to step up and make the class myself, or hope for a better 3rd party than the tomb of secrets.
He said if you want to fight and cast spells then multiclass.
I point out the paladin which does both and is a CORE BASE CLASS.
Why is it unfair to point this out? Why is it fair that you can have a full BAB divine caster with LOADS of other class perks, but not a full BAB arcane caster?He didn't mention divine...because he knows that is a weakness to his argument of "you can't have your cake and eat it too" which paladins are able to. I'm...
Blah blah blah and no.
I didn't mention paladins, or rangers because they aren't even close to the same thing.
They are not "divine gishes" anymore than the hexblade was an "arcane gish" in 3.5.
They both have vastly different flavor, features, and abilities than a "divine fighting man".. however your slippery slope fallacy was expected.
These are not "Full BAB divine casters" They are full BAB classes with weak spell casting... you would have done better to bring up the bard which at least comes close to being a gish (being that at level 20 using it's bardic music to inspire courage gets a psuedo-full BAB, and still casts a relatively full spell list).
He said if you want to fight and cast spells then multiclass.
I point out the paladin which does both and is a CORE BASE CLASS.
Why is it unfair to point this out? Why is it fair that you can have a full BAB divine caster with LOADS of other class perks, but not a full BAB arcane caster?He didn't mention divine...because he knows that is a weakness to his argument of "you can't have your cake and eat it too" which paladins are able to. I'm...
Blah blah blah and no.
I didn't mention paladins, or rangers because they aren't even close to the same thing.
They are not "divine gishes" anymore than the hexblade was an "arcane gish" in 3.5.
They both have vastly different flavor, features, and abilities than a "divine fighting man".. however your slippery slope fallacy was expected.
These are not "Full BAB divine casters" They are full BAB classes with weak spell casting... you would have done better to bring up the bard which at least comes close to being a gish (being that at level 20 using it's bardic music to inspire courage gets a psuedo-full BAB, and still casts a relatively full spell list).
Again. NO ONE is asking for a full BAB full caster. An arcane Paladin IS what is being asked for, or something along the same power level with its own flavor. Duskblade and Hexblade were both good classes, something in the middle is what I'm looking for.
Slippery slope my ass, I used your exact words against you and you have no way to defend your own utter lack of logic.
He said if you want to fight and cast spells then multiclass.
I point out the paladin which does both and is a CORE BASE CLASS.
Why is it unfair to point this out? Why is it fair that you can have a full BAB divine caster with LOADS of other class perks, but not a full BAB arcane caster?He didn't mention divine...because he knows that is a weakness to his argument of "you can't have your cake and eat it too" which paladins are able to. I'm...
Blah blah blah and no.
I didn't mention paladins, or rangers because they aren't even close to the same thing.
They are not "divine gishes" anymore than the hexblade was an "arcane gish" in 3.5.
They both have vastly different flavor, features, and abilities than a "divine fighting man".. however your slippery slope fallacy was expected.
These are not "Full BAB divine casters" They are full BAB classes with weak spell casting... you would have done better to bring up the bard which at least comes close to being a gish (being that at level 20 using it's bardic music to inspire courage gets a psuedo-full BAB, and still casts a relatively full spell list).
Blah blah blah and yes.
Are Paladins and Rangers both full BAB classes? Check.
Do Paladins and Rangers get to cast Divine spells? Check
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you a full BAB Divine casters, whose spells, in addition to other class features, help to balance them out when compared to either a level 20 Fighter or level 20 Wizard!
Those Divine spells are part of their class balance, and they give both the Paladin and the Ranger versatility and options that are equal to that which is provided by the Fighters Armor and Weapon training, and boatload of Feats.
Again. NO ONE is asking for a full BAB full caster. An arcane Paladin IS what is being asked for, or something along the same power level with its own flavor. Duskblade and Hexblade were both good classes, something in the middle is what I'm looking for.Slippery slope my ass, I used your exact words against you and you have no way to defend your own utter lack of logic.
My words:
If you want to fight, and use magic... multi class! It seems rather silly to me to expect paizo to create a base class that would eliminate part of the need for a prestige class (eldritch knight). The niche of which you speak is already covered. The only time a magic using fighter class isn't feasible is at first level and even then... what's in a name? Just take your sorcerer/wizard/druid/cleric/bard level first and your fighter level second.
Your response:
PALADIN!
I say we remove the paladin, bard, ranger and cleric classes. Better take out druid too to be safe. I mean if you can cast spells AND fight better than a dead fish out of the box you're OBVIOUSLY OVERPOWERED!!!
It's silly to expect Paizo to create a base class just because you want to fight AND cast divine spells.
You took a position, moved it to its most extreme position and then used the appeal to sarcasm fallacy in addition to the slippery slope.
My position is a fully acceptable one. If you want to use magic and fight you can always multiclass and it is acceptable to do so. Does this mean it is the only way to fight and use magic? NO. You could use any of the classes you mentioned. OR you could summon monsters and have them fight for you, you could "fight" by using spells such as the fist spells. In fact depending on what the OP means by the word "fight" many many many other options are still open.
NOW if you wanted to say, "Your post and position have absolutely nothing to do with what the Original Poster is asking for" You would be absolutely right in doing so -- however your response was not that, and in fact consisted of logical fallacies, as did you latest response: Ad Hominem.
My turn for an Ad Hominem -- I'm not really worried about all this however since that is your only method of argument -- logical fallacies.
Now if we are done could we move back to the OP question: Would adding a limited resource help increase the appeal of the fighter?
I can go one step farther, I can fully demonstrate why there is no need multi-classing at all, and can go so far as prove that it actually stands in the way of creating a character concept, not simplifying it.
But, to do that I have to separate multi-classing from any other customization system, in other words no feats or alternative class features can be used only multi-classing.
I'll give an easy example the new cavalier class, let recreate it first using feats by itself, next by using alternative class features by itself, next by using a new class (simple enough there already is one), and finally by multi-classing.
Remember a cavalier is a warrior who specializes in mounted combat and buffing his friends, without any need for spell-casting, a big point, people don't want legacy abilities (abilities that are tacked on but they won't use). Light re-flavoring will be necessary in every example, but the more you add the unhappier the would be player will be.
First feats: A little tough, but doable, most of the feats exist already, mounted combat feats and feats that improve the characters skills in diplomacy, ride and handle animal. New feats would have to be created for the group buffs, but it's not to much of a chore. A modest amount of re-flavoring, but not to bad.
Second alternative class features: Easy, take a bard eliminate all of his spell casting and change it out for a better bab, hp, and fort save. Lose the lore and give a special mount. A tiny amount of re-flavoring and you have a happy player.
Next come the cavalier class: This is what the player wanted, and no need to re-flavor anything, too easy.
Lastly is multi-classing: Fighter/bard, spell casting is bad, loses some hp & bab that's bad too, no mount (remember no feats just multi-classing by itself) lore is also a unwanted ability. paladin/bard gets the mount, but has more legacy abilities in smite and channel positive energy added. Not only that you have to some heavy re-flavoring to explain away the holy strike, aura's and alignment limitations. Multi-classing looks like the worst of the lot, after all it's not really the multi-classing that's getting you the character concept, it's the other three systems. They can do far better by themselves.
I hope I've proven my point, so to the question why add new classes, the answer is simple to keep the game from becoming over bloated in feats, and alternative class abilities. It's better to have a mix of the three to have the highest level of customization, since all three work well by themselves.
And please, PLEASE, anyone who wants to respond that multi-classing was designed to work with feats and alternative class feature to eliminate the need for additional classing, remember, that multi-classing is the weakest system for doing this, and consequently the least necessary. It's far more logical to go with what works better, since the other three system can give you want you want with the least amount of hassle, they are by default the strongest options. Removing multi-classing as redundant and unnecessary it is only logical.
Again. NO ONE is asking for a full BAB full caster. An arcane Paladin IS what is being asked for, or something along the same power level with its own flavor. Duskblade and Hexblade were both good classes, something in the middle is what I'm looking for.Slippery slope my ass, I used your exact words against you and you have no way to defend your own utter lack of logic.
My words:
If you want to fight, and use magic... multi class! It seems rather silly to me to expect paizo to create a base class that would eliminate part of the need for a prestige class (eldritch knight). The niche of which you speak is already covered. The only time a magic using fighter class isn't feasible is at first level and even then... what's in a name? Just take your sorcerer/wizard/druid/cleric/bard level first and your fighter level second.
Your response:
PALADIN!
I say we remove the paladin, bard, ranger and cleric classes. Better take out druid too to be safe. I mean if you can cast spells AND fight better than a dead fish out of the box you're OBVIOUSLY OVERPOWERED!!!
It's silly to expect Paizo to create a base class just because you want to fight AND cast divine spells.
You took a position, moved it to its most extreme position and then used the appeal to sarcasm fallacy in addition to the slippery slope.
My position is a fully acceptable one. If you want to use magic and fight you can always multiclass and it is acceptable to do so. Does this mean it is the only way to fight and use magic? NO. You could use any of the classes you mentioned. OR you could summon monsters and have them fight for you, you could "fight" by using spells such as the fist spells. In fact depending on what the OP means by the word "fight" many many many other options are still open.
NOW if you wanted to say, "Your post and position have absolutely nothing to do with what the Original Poster is asking for" You would be absolutely right in doing so -- however your response was not that, and...
Funny your in fallacy yourself, since you fail to address legacy abilities. And, also fail to see that all of these character customization options are easier to do without the multi-classing. Remember the goal is not to eliminate classes, the goal is to provide the best solution for creating a character concept.
|
|
@Kolokotroni
I guess I just don't see that much of a difference in waiting until level 4 to get spells with a class like the paladin and waiting until the level of your choice beyond level 1 to get spells with a multiclass gish.
And as to the necessary buffs for the archer I was talking about. Yes, sometimes he will drop a buff down, but the character is pretty good right out of the box. Break down:+2 BaB from class levels, +3 attack from dex, +1 from weapon focus, A conditional +1 within 30 feet from PB shot, and another +1 from the masterwork bow gives him a total of +8 to hit with 30 ft and +7 to hit otherwise. This is unbuffed. Thats not too shabby and is only a few points below what a single classed archer could do at that level. And then he has several very good spells in his book that he can take to augment his ranged pummeling. There are some great save or sucks at 1st level, a few good rays, and a couple of good terrain situational spells he has to choose from. Added up with the versatility of a bonded item to always make sure he has the one he needs in a pinch.
As far as HP is concerned he has a full fighter hit die at first level giving him 11 HP at level one (including a +1 con bonus) and an average of 6 HP for each of those wizard levels (an average of 4 rolled +1 con, +1 HP for favored class). That is a total of 23 HP at level 3.
Compared to an average fighter with 13 hp at first level (+2 con, +1 favored class and an average of 9 HP per level afterward (and average roll of 6, +2 con, +1 favored class) which gives him a total of 31.
The multi-classed toon can still take hits. Not as many as a single classed fighter, but he also has escape mechanisms and tactical options that are squarely out of the fighters reach. He also has access to the sorc/wiz spell list, which IMO is hands down the best spell list in the game. Paladins and Rangers (and to a lesser extent bards, clerics, and druids)have very focused lists, where his gish will have access to a much wider variety of options.
I guess the point is that I am just not seeing him failing at his role. he is favoring a more arcane gish. But he could qualify for arcane archer with a single level of wizard, and focus more on beefing his HP and defenses in a more martial way. Its just a matter of choices during creation and leveling up. But the options are there.
Heck you could make a real decent gish out of a keen scimitar wielding toon and be lobbing spells as quick actions every time you roll up a crit with the badass EK capstone. That seems like the epitome of gishness to me.
love,
malkav
Again the anti-class people are all making the same fallacy of not seeing the forest through the trees. If multi-classing is a weak and unpredictable system, why are we using it anyway. Isn't it more logical to use a character customization system that works.
|
|
Again the anti-class people are all making the same fallacy of not seeing the forest through the trees. If multi-classing is a weak and unpredictable system, why are we using it anyway. Isn't it more logical to use a character customization system that works.
Could you please clarify the point being missed or the fallacy being wrought? Because it sounds like you just slammed folks because they did not agree with you.
love,
malkav
My earlier post, I questioned the if multi-classing didn't work and used a logical argument to demonstrate that it didn't. It's a long post.