Arg... gish issues


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

501 to 550 of 801 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

I'll just leave this here for study

contingency


Freddy Honeycutt wrote:

The semantics are "affect your person"

heal, fly, displacement, teleport all affect your person....

What is the PF SRD definition of "affect your person"? Does it have to be a "target" spell that targets you? Silence would work, then. Is it personal only? That would negate Fly.

There are multiple interpretations of what this could mean.


Freddy Honeycutt wrote:

Why then does the spell go to the lengths of stating the spell

"must be one that affects your person"

by that logic any spell in the contingency would in some way meet the criteria of affecting ones person.....

There are several restrictions built into the spell.........
probably to prevent abuses....

If you are using that interpretation of the text, then wouldn't it have been easier and clearer to write

Contingency wrote:


The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person and be of a spell level no higher than one-third your caster level (rounded down, maximum 6th level).

as

Modified Contingency wrote:


The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one has a range of personal and a target of you and be of a spell level no higher than one-third your caster level (rounded down, maximum 6th level).

?


Abraham spalding wrote:
stuff

Abraham, I think the problem with the gish at low levels is that it only casts. EK requires 5 caster levels minimum. That means at 7th lvl you start taking it you are mostly mage, have lost your max spell level, and are not as good at fighting or have as many spells as a bard. You are all arround a Bard's inferior, except in your spell list.

What I would like to see is a class with 3/4 BAB, Bard spell progression, and a spell list that will compliment melee fighting. I would then give it some bonuses to make up for the loss of high level spells, 1 BAB, and fighter feats, but I would keep these bonuses in line with the Bards.


Ok, here's my take on an EK that can meet an ancient black dragon and hold his own (at least I think he can). This could definitely be better optimized, I just put together a character I think I'd like to play. If this character worked in 4 levels of dragon disciple to replace 4 levels of sorcerer, it loses 1 caster level, but gains 1 bab and +4 strength.

NotSeltyiel
male human barbarian 1/sorcerer 8/eldritch knight 10/fighter 1
CG Medium humanoid (human) (Huge with Giant Form II up)
Init +4; Senses Perception +27
DEFENSE
AC 37, touch 14, flat-footed 32 (+11 armor, +5 deflection, +6 NA, +4 Dex, +1 insight) (additional situational modifiers: +4 AC with Giant Form II up, +1 AC with haste up, +4 AC with shield spell, -2 AC while raging)
hp 218 (+60 hp with Giant Form II active, +1d10+10 with False Life active, +40 hp raging, +17 divine power)
Fort +23, Ref +16, Will +18
OFFENSE
Speed 40 ft. (60 ft with Giant Form II active)
Melee +4 holy shocking elven curved blade +32/+27/+22/+17 (1d10+1d6+2d6vs evil +19/15–20) [Giant Form II, hasted, raging: +37/+37/+32/+27/+22 (3d8+1d6+2d6vs evil+28/15-20)] [add +4 damage when using swift action for Arcane Strike, Power Attack would give -5 attack and +15 damage, divine power cast from a limited wish gives +5 attack & damage]
Spells Prepared (CL 17th) (15% spell failure unless arcane armor training is used, then 5%)
8th (4/day)—giant form II, maze
7th (6/day)—giant form I, limited wish, power word blind
6th (7/day)—greater dispel magic, contingency, anti-magic field
5th (7/day)—teleport, wall of force, overland flight, cloudkill
4th (7/day)—dimension door, stoneskin, greater magic weapon, greater invisibility
3rd (7/day)—dispel magic, fly*, haste, nondetection, protection from energy
2nd (7/day)—resist energy*, invisibility, mirror image, false life, darkvision, web
1st (7/da)—mage armor*, magic missile, shield, enlarge person, expeditious retreat, ray of enfeeblement,
0 (at will)—detect magic, mage hand, mending, ray of frost, read magic
STATISTICS
Str 28 (14, +2 race, +5 levels, +1 inherent, +6 enhancement) [+8 size with Giant Form II, +4 morale while raging], Dex 18 (12, +6 enhancement), Con 20 (14, +6 enhancement) [+6 size bonus with Giant Form II, +4 morale bonus when raging], Int 16 (10, +6 enhancement), Wis 14 (8, +6 enhancement) , Cha 22 (16, +6 enhancement)
Base Atk +16; CMB +25; CMD 39
Feats Arcane Strike, Arcane Armor Training, Critical Focus, Eschew Materials, Exhausting Critical, Exotic Weapon Prof (elven curved blade), Extra Rage, Greater Weapon Focus (elven curved blade), Improved Vital Strike, Quicken Spell, Power Attack, Staggering Critical, Tiring Critical, Vital Strike, Weapon Focus (elven curved blade), Weapon Specialization (elven curved blade)
SQ spell critical, rage (12 rounds/day, +4 str, +4 con, -2 AC, +2 will saves), Dragon Resistances (fire resistance 5, +1 natural armor)
Combat Gear cube of force, lesser empower metamagic rod(for empowering ray of enfeeblement); Other Gear +1 holy shocking elven curved blade, +5 mithril breastplate of heavy fortification, belt of physical perfection +6, boots of speed, cloak of resistance +5, headband of mental perfection +6, ioun stones (pale green prism (+1 competence attack, saves, & skills bonus), dusty rose prism(+1 insight AC bonus)), ring of protection +5, amulet of natural armor +5, luck stone (+1 luck bonus to saves & skills), ring of counterspells (dispel magic), used tome for +1 inherent strength bonus. (total gear value is 719,500gp, which is well short of the wealth by level for a 20th level character..and the equipment could also be optimized better)

Typically NotSeltyiel puts false life up and casts greater magic weapon on his elven curved blade (making it +4) since both spells last for 17 hours. He has a contingency spell up which will cast stoneskin on himself the first time he gets hit in combat (the contingency has a 17 day duration). When preparing for combat, he will attempt to cast giant form II, shield, greater invisibility, and haste if time permits. In very difficult encounters, he may use a limited wish to cast divine power on himself giving him +5 attack and damage luck bonuses and 17 temporary hit points. If not he may quicken any of his 1st to 4th level spells as he feels is needed. Generally he does not use his arcane strike feat, preferring to try for a critical with his elven curved blade and use his spell critical ability. He will activate his rage ability if he feels he can win the fight by not wasting any more of his spell resources. If he rages, he also uses arcane strike as the rage doesn’t allow him to use his spell critical ability. When he does land a critical blow, he uses Staggering Critical first and only uses Exhausting Critical if the opponent is already staggered.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Freddy Honeycutt wrote:

Why then does the spell go to the lengths of stating the spell

"must be one that affects your person"

by that logic any spell in the contingency would in some way meet the criteria of affecting ones person.....

It eliminates all the attack/damage spells, the save or die/suck spells. The spell must target the caster is how I read it, so cure spells, heal, fly, displacement, antimagic field, dimention door, teleport are all acceptable spells to be placed in contingency.

Fireball, disintegrate, etc are not acceptable.

Well, I suppose that if you wanted a disintegrate spell to be the contingency with yourself as the target, hmm, 36d6 damage with no save, a spectacular way to commit suicide?
:)

Freddy Honeycutt wrote:

There are several restrictions built into the spell.........

probably to prevent abuses....

I am not sure what abuse you are seeing in having spells that either have a target of you, creature touched (yourself) or a range of personal as being acceptable as the companion spell for a contingency spell.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I'll just leave this here for study

contingency

I am ashamed to admit that I watched that clip (I am blaming the meds that I am on), but still can't see your point.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Caineach wrote:
What I would like to see is a class with 3/4 BAB, Bard spell progression, and a spell list that will compliment melee fighting. I would then give it some bonuses to make up for the loss of high level spells, 1 BAB, and fighter feats, but I would keep these bonuses in line with the Bards.

That does sound interesting. Have you looked at the 3rd party examples that have been bandied about in this thread? Have you considered making your own and posting it for review/critique?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Caineach wrote:
What I would like to see is a class with 3/4 BAB, Bard spell progression, and a spell list that will compliment melee fighting. I would then give it some bonuses to make up for the loss of high level spells, 1 BAB, and fighter feats, but I would keep these bonuses in line with the Bards.

The bard actually already does this. Adding more spells to compliment melee fighting to the bard spell list (which, I believe, is something we're STRONGLY considering for the Advanced Player's Guide) would probably solve this problem... but probably not for true powergamers, I guess...

There's always Unearthed Arcana's gestalt rules, in any event...


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Caineach wrote:
What I would like to see is a class with 3/4 BAB, Bard spell progression, and a spell list that will compliment melee fighting. I would then give it some bonuses to make up for the loss of high level spells, 1 BAB, and fighter feats, but I would keep these bonuses in line with the Bards.

The bard actually already does this. Adding more spells to compliment melee fighting to the bard spell list (which, I believe, is something we're STRONGLY considering for the Advanced Player's Guide) would probably solve this problem... but probably not for true powergamers, I guess...

There's always Unearthed Arcana's gestalt rules, in any event...

I think part of the issue for some is less the powergaming side than not wanting the performance side of the bard, but having something else to replace that aspect, something that was officially part of the game (as perhaps an option on the bard built in the APG - keeps fingers crossed).


The way it is written
I am not to defending the way contingency is currently written.

Must be one that affects your person
AKA
Must affect your person

not:
must affect you personally

The must is also an imperative, ie in no other way.

I think the spell might need some errata or correction,

Yes teleport affects your person
displacement
heal
fly
cure
restoration

cue music
"I don't want to let you down or hurt you"


Caineach wrote:
What I would like to see is a class with 3/4 BAB, Bard spell progression, and a spell list that will compliment melee fighting. I would then give it some bonuses to make up for the loss of high level spells, 1 BAB, and fighter feats, but I would keep these bonuses in line with the Bards.

I actually think the Inquisitor is shaping up very well to fill this roll. Their spell list is very "Batman" more than pure Cleric spells, and Judgement, Bane, Tactical Feats make them very combat-relevant.


Mistwalker wrote:
Caineach wrote:
What I would like to see is a class with 3/4 BAB, Bard spell progression, and a spell list that will compliment melee fighting. I would then give it some bonuses to make up for the loss of high level spells, 1 BAB, and fighter feats, but I would keep these bonuses in line with the Bards.
That does sound interesting. Have you looked at the 3rd party examples that have been bandied about in this thread? Have you considered making your own and posting it for review/critique?

Like this?

Oh, and the spell list.


Quandary wrote:
Caineach wrote:
What I would like to see is a class with 3/4 BAB, Bard spell progression, and a spell list that will compliment melee fighting. I would then give it some bonuses to make up for the loss of high level spells, 1 BAB, and fighter feats, but I would keep these bonuses in line with the Bards.
I actually think the Inquisitor is shaping up very well to fill this roll. Their spell list is very "Batman" more than pure Cleric spells, and Judgement, Bane, Tactical Feats make them very combat-relevant.

Yes, The Inquisitor is shaping up to be my favorite class. The Alchemist is also a great self-buffing gish. And the Summoner, despite what most people seem to think, is quite capable at melee on his own, without big E. I agree with you, one of the biggest problems people have with the bard is his singing.

And I would like to add again in case Mr. Jacobs is reading, 2 feat ideas I posted earlier. I think they are what a lot of people are looking for in a gish:

I would like to see 2 improved arcane strike feats. These, I feel, would fill the gap of of being unable to combine magic and physical combat.
Imrpoved Arcane Strike: Full round action: cast a spell with a single target and make a melee attack. You do not provoke an AoO from the target.
Prereq: arcane strike, BAB + 6
Greater Arcane Strike. When using Improved Arcane Strike, increase the save DC of the spell by 4.
Prereq: improved arcane strike, BAB + 11


If I was wanting a more melee focused gish I would probably use Barbarian as my martial entry point. The BAB is still down a little at first (it picks up in two levels so I don't consider this a huge thing, and it is only down by a point at the 7~9 range) but the rage covers what you need in the mean time, while the extra skill points and move rate are always nice... you won't really want more than medium armor probably so I don't see the lack of heavy proficiency as a bad thing.

Also my spell casting (with the wizard 6) really isn't worse than the bards. It's ahead in spells (the bard has 4/3/1 compared to my wizard 6/*class 1* build's 3/3/2 before specialization which would put me at 4/4/3... much better than the bard's and I still have mage armor to make up for the armor loss and shield for the shield loss to a large degree at these levels) barely behind in BAB (one point and I can rage for that), and has two levels it's not even on BAB (after which it immediately surpasses the bard). I would suggest wizard 6/ martial 4 if you are going to try and keep the two classes even, though again I'm always a fan of wizard 6/ martial 1/ EK 10/ Wizard 2/ martial 1 (levels in that order) due to ninth level spells.

Generally I would go with Still Spell for a martial character over the arcane armor training feats. Yes this would put me a spell level further behind, however it preserves my switch action and allows better armor choices (this would generally be for taking fighter levels over the other martial class choices) and the use of whatever shield or weapon I want without worrying about freeing my hands (since I don't need them for the spells).

However I will say I would generally start out playing as a wizard of some flavor, then work my way into the martial end later since this gets me past the hardest levels the easiest without making me useless at any point. The precise combination of stuff I would take depends on what type of Gish I'm wanting though (and honestly I'm not afraid of using the bard to play a Gish if he ends up being closer to what I'm looking for).


Dabbler wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:
Caineach wrote:
What I would like to see is a class with 3/4 BAB, Bard spell progression, and a spell list that will compliment melee fighting. I would then give it some bonuses to make up for the loss of high level spells, 1 BAB, and fighter feats, but I would keep these bonuses in line with the Bards.
That does sound interesting. Have you looked at the 3rd party examples that have been bandied about in this thread? Have you considered making your own and posting it for review/critique?

Like this?

Oh, and the spell list.

will have to come back later when not at work


Freddy Honeycutt wrote:

Must be one that affects your person

AKA
Must affect your person

I take that to mean "must have an effect of target, and that target must be you, or by a spell specifically targeting you". Antimagic Field has an effect specifically targeting "you".

I mean, it ONLY effects the area you are in. How much more "affects your person" does it need to be? You can't leave it, can't cast it on something else, it's just you. It's as static in effect as any "personal" spell.

Any spell X that must be centered on you, cannot be left or targeted elsewhere, and puts you under the effect of the spell certainly must "affect your person". It is lunacy otherwise.


Abraham spalding wrote:

...Also my spell casting (with the wizard 6) really isn't worse than the bards. It's ahead in spells (the bard has 4/3/1 compared to my wizard 6/*class 1* build's 3/3/2 before specialization which would put me at 4/4/3... much better than the bard's and I still have mage armor to make up for the armor loss and shield for the shield loss to a large degree at these levels) barely behind in BAB (one point and I can rage for that), and has two levels it's not even on BAB (after which it immediately surpasses the bard). I would suggest wizard 6/ martial 4 if you are going to try and keep the two classes even, though again I'm always a fan of wizard 6/ martial 1/ EK 10/ Wizard 2/ martial 1 (levels in that order) due to ninth level spells.

I forgot about specialization, so your not as far back as I thought, but you are about to lose a level in casting going into EK, so you should compare them at next level, when you are 4-4-3 to the bards 4-4-2, and you have the bonded item. The Bard at that level also has a +2 inspire courage, putting him at +3 to hit over you much of the time. You do have 2 bonus feats though, but if you want armor you are probably using 1 of them.

Quote:


Generally I would go with Still Spell for a martial character over the arcane armor training feats. Yes this would put me a spell level further behind, however it preserves my switch action and allows better armor choices (this would generally be for taking fighter levels over the other martial class choices) and the use of whatever shield or weapon I want without worrying about freeing my hands (since I don't need them for the spells).

However I will say I would generally start out playing as a wizard of some flavor, then work my way into the martial end later since this gets me past the hardest levels the easiest without making me useless at any point. The precise combination of stuff I would take depends on what type of Gish I'm wanting though (and honestly I'm not afraid of...

I personally don't like the idea of meta-magicing all my spells. It seems very counterproductive to me, and I would rather drop my AC by 3 (1 if your dex is high enough) than lose a spell level virtually accross the board.


Mirror, Mirror wrote:
PF SRD wrote:
The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person and be of a spell level no higher than one-third your caster level (rounded down, maximum 6th level).
I do not think this is meant to say that spells with an AoE are not applicable. See Magic Circle vs Evil. I think Anti-Magic Shell is perfectly applicable.

I do not believe that one could cast 'contingency' for fireball, for example. You claim that this is possible (as long as you are in the area of effect).

I disagree, and was what I meant when I suggested it in the first place.

Also the scenario has all the wizards (4 of them) within a 10' radius. That's contrived a bit to begin with. But actually to trap them within a wall of stone and anti-magic shell they have to be even closer together (say within 7 specific squares).

Bottom line this is a poor defense for the PrC. But then again most of the gestalt PrCs don't do a fair job of representing their new component classes under their Paizo revisions.

-James


james maissen wrote:

I do not believe that one could cast 'contingency' for fireball, for example. You claim that this is possible (as long as you are in the area of effect).

Oh no. Not at all. Fireball can be targeted anywhere. Not the same thing at all. Anti-magic Field can ONLY be targeted on you. How exactly can that NOT be a spell that "affects your person"?


james maissen wrote:
Mirror, Mirror wrote:
PF SRD wrote:
The spell to be brought into effect by the contingency must be one that affects your person and be of a spell level no higher than one-third your caster level (rounded down, maximum 6th level).
I do not think this is meant to say that spells with an AoE are not applicable. See Magic Circle vs Evil. I think Anti-Magic Shell is perfectly applicable.

I do not believe that one could cast 'contingency' for fireball, for example. You claim that this is possible (as long as you are in the area of effect).

I disagree, and was what I meant when I suggested it in the first place.

Also the scenario has all the wizards (4 of them) within a 10' radius. That's contrived a bit to begin with. But actually to trap them within a wall of stone and anti-magic shell they have to be even closer together (say within 7 specific squares).

Bottom line this is a poor defense for the PrC. But then again most of the gestalt PrCs don't do a fair job of representing their new component classes under their Paizo revisions.

-James

I'm pretty sure you can use fireball if you center it on yourself...I can even see an interesting contingency based off casting protection from energy: fire...

And have you looked at some of the other posts in this thread. The EK does just fine.


The EK can hold his own. The character isn't quite a good as they could be single classed and focused but I could definitely build 20th level EK that could pull his weight in party of 4 against 4 CR 16 black dragons.

Of course I do think a straight fighter would be better as long as the wizard and cleric through few buffs my way.


James Jacobs wrote:
Caineach wrote:
What I would like to see is a class with 3/4 BAB, Bard spell progression, and a spell list that will compliment melee fighting. I would then give it some bonuses to make up for the loss of high level spells, 1 BAB, and fighter feats, but I would keep these bonuses in line with the Bards.

The bard actually already does this. Adding more spells to compliment melee fighting to the bard spell list (which, I believe, is something we're STRONGLY considering for the Advanced Player's Guide) would probably solve this problem... but probably not for true powergamers, I guess...

There's always Unearthed Arcana's gestalt rules, in any event...

As we have tried to point out before, its not about power gaming. For many the bard just doesnt fit the image we have of the sword mage. Personally i dont like the whole performance aspect, and would see it replaced with something that combines magic and fighting along the lines of the old duskblade cast a spell with an attack deal. Doesnt have to be exactly like this, but something that says this class is about stabbing dudes magically.

The other problem is there are some real classic and well liked fighting buffs that are simply not on the bard's list. Enlarge person for instance is one that comes to mind. There is a whole lot of focus on illusion and enchantment in the bard list, which is fine, thats what bards are about, but it doesnt fit alot of peoples image of a fighter mage.

Take the performance and such out of the class, replace it with something else, and shift the spell focus away from enchantment and illusion and more towards buffs and maybe some evocation and you have what people are looking for. We dont want something more powerful then the bard, just having a different focus.

Edit:

Every class has a cup that is filled up with features. A good chunk of the bard is filled with things that do not directly lend themselves to a fighter mage (the enchantments/illusions, most of the performance abilities, and bardic knowledge, the large skill list and significant skill ranks). Giving more transmutations and evocation spells over enchantment and illusion spells does not make a class better or more powerful, just differently focused. Giving a class combat class features instead of performance buffs is also not making it more powerful, but pointing it in a different direction. The bard already has a very strong direction, and a long layed foundation of how it is to be played in alot of groups. Without a complete redesign that mold is not going to be broken. A new class is required.

Its not about being better or more powerful. The bard is a screwdriver, the fighter mage is a wrench. We arent asking for a better screwdriver, but something different, and hopefully equally useful.

It is clear that some of the paizo staff like the bard, but alot of people do not (at least not from the perspective of a fighter/mage mixed class). I would appreciate if you did not insinuate that anyone who does not agree with your assesment is a powergamer that wants a single base class that behaves like a gestault character. It has lead to alot of wrongly held beliefs about what people who'd like a fighter mage base class are actually asking for. I would appreciate if you stopped contributing to that misconception.

2nd Edit:

If you want examples of what those of us looking for a fighter mage base class actually want, please have a look at the Genius Guides Archon, and the Homebrew Iron Mage class that is still floating around here on these boards. Those are the two categories being asked for Bard progression with a different focus in the spell list as well as new and unique class features [the archon] and what is essentially an arcane version of the paladin with 4 spell levels, full BAB and d10 hd [the iron mage].


Kolokotroni wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Caineach wrote:
What I would like to see is a class with 3/4 BAB, Bard spell progression, and a spell list that will compliment melee fighting. I would then give it some bonuses to make up for the loss of high level spells, 1 BAB, and fighter feats, but I would keep these bonuses in line with the Bards.

The bard actually already does this. Adding more spells to compliment melee fighting to the bard spell list (which, I believe, is something we're STRONGLY considering for the Advanced Player's Guide) would probably solve this problem... but probably not for true powergamers, I guess...

There's always Unearthed Arcana's gestalt rules, in any event...

As we have tried to point out before, its not about power gaming. For many the bard just doesnt fit the image we have of the sword mage. Personally i dont like the whole performance aspect, and would see it replaced with something that combines magic and fighting along the lines of the old duskblade cast a spell with an attack deal. Doesnt have to be exactly like this, but something that says this class is about stabbing dudes magically.

The other problem is there are some real classic and well liked fighting buffs that are simply not on the bard's list. Enlarge person for instance is one that comes to mind. There is a whole lot of focus on illusion and enchantment in the bard list, which is fine, thats what bards are about, but it doesnt fit alot of peoples image of a fighter mage.

Take the performance and such out of the class, replace it with something else, and shift the spell focus away from enchantment and illusion and more towards buffs and maybe some evocation and you have what people are looking for. We dont want something more powerful then the bard, just having a different focus.

I was about to make a post just like this, only you said it much better.

A very big +1!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

If folks stop using the word "gish" I'll stop suggesting bard as a good choice for that niche. :-)


I’m not a bard. I’m a Githyanki f/mu!


James Jacobs wrote:

If folks stop using the word "gish" I'll stop suggesting bard as a good choice for that niche. :-)

Fighter-mage?


James Jacobs wrote:

If folks stop using the word "gish" I'll stop suggesting bard as a good choice for that niche. :-)

Just whos ideal was it to use that word in the mag James? You need to beat them with the core rulebook


Combat capable caster who uses magic enhancements? CCC for short!


I think the only problem Inquisitor has to fit this role isn't it's spell-list, which seems to have most of what an 'arcane fighter' should have (with extra divine stuff thrown in), but the flavor (and mechanical) aspect connecting it to the gods/ divine.

I could see a 'full arcane' version of Inquisitor, ditching any connection to divinity, swapping any explicitly-cleric-y spells out for better arcane spells, removing 'smite-like' effects (bane seems like smite-lite) and the domain powers, and replace them, say with Wizard School Powers and some extra arcane goodness... let's say Super-Powered Arcane Strike? (also providing to-hit?) Scaling 'pool' providing a re-configurable floating bonus applicable to a wide range of stats (saves, stats, touch ac, attacks, skills, etc). ...What else? But it seems the basic structure of Inquisitor could very well work for this type of thing.

Only thing... when might Paizo do something like this? In conjunction with material on Nex? Osirion (Nethys magic b/g)? In new lands like Vudra or Kelish Empire or further afield?

Sovereign Court

James Jacobs wrote:

If folks stop using the word "gish" I'll stop suggesting bard as a good choice for that niche. :-)

I guess I don't understand the hatred for the word gish. It's useful shorthand. While its current meaning as some sort of martially capable (usually melee focused) arcane magic user doesn't match up with its entymology, that doesn't remove its usefulness in an attempt to have a clear conversation.

I guess you can force everyone here to say fighter mage if it really offends you, but I don't see how using a widely accepted shorthand for a clear character concept is equivalent to saying everyone that is interested in playing the archetype should be perfectly happy with no other options than the bard or they're an evil optimizing munchkin gestalt playing jerk.

I like paizo staff and products a lot. I'm investing a significant amount of my personal time to promoting your products to my friends, aquaintances, and the local community through PFS, personal games and recruiting non-gamers I know, in addition to the regular purchases and subscriptions I get from you. It's hugely disappointing to hear that important paizo staff thinks a concern with problems in the mechanical aspect of representing a popular character archetype is fundamentally beneath their notice because anyone with that concern is nothing but a selfish optimizer that doesn't know how to roleplay.


Caineach My choice on the Still spell would be if I want to preserve the swift action. In this case I'm unlikely to use arcane strike probably because I'm full attacking and counting on a critical hit to see a quickened spell being cast. I would use Arcane Strike in the case that I'm only taking a standard attack or I don't expect to be able/need a quickened spell.

Of course all this comes down to what type of Gish (EK sorry JB...) I'm playing again -- If I'm spellcasting often I'll probably go with the arcane armor training due to the fact I can use my higher level spells and am more likely to have other defenses prepared. In some cases I might do an EK without armor at all relying on the standard magical defenses a wizard would employ while doing ranged combat when I'm not casting spells (there are plenty of nice ways to do a ranged martial arcane character currently IMO).

On the point about the bard's inspire courage:
If I go with the more likely senerio of using Barbarian to get into EK at 8th level I'm looking at +5 BAB (+4 Str and Con due to rage when I full attack) So the rage evens the conversation with Inspire Courage (though Inspire courage is more useful for the party -- that doesn't really factor yet) and I could match the bonus to hit with my extra feat that he doesn't have in weapon focus -- the bard's major advantage in BAB at this point isn't that he's much more than me, it's that he gets an additional hit when he full attacks.

However the conversation needs to be extended beyond BAB and spell slots to include feats, and spell choices. The bard is going to have Good Hope at this level which is a beautiful buff (it really is... it makes me want to cry at how good of a third level spell it is) however I'm going to have access to spells the bard can't match: From stinking cloud, greater magical weapon, fly, Ray of Exhaustion, Vampiric touch, and so forth.

At the next level I'm again ahead of the bard in spells known and spell level, and I'm drawing even with his BAB at +6. Past this point he's going to be behind me or even in BAB, he's not going to be able to touch my spell list, he's not in the same ballpark of spells per day, and my buffing capacity still matches his.

At the end of the day the bard is an excellent choice -- I will never say otherwise in pathfinder -- HOWEVER the EK can still be a very valid and even choice too, due to the advantages of spell list, spell levels, feats, and entry choices.

All of which goes back (again) to the question of what do you want from your arcane knight (happy JB?) that will dictate how you go about getting into the class and what you'll want to focus on getting there.


Mirror, Mirror wrote:
james maissen wrote:

I do not believe that one could cast 'contingency' for fireball, for example. You claim that this is possible (as long as you are in the area of effect).

Oh no. Not at all. Fireball can be targeted anywhere. Not the same thing at all. Anti-magic Field can ONLY be targeted on you. How exactly can that NOT be a spell that "affects your person"?

Because it effects everything within a radius, much like a ground zero fireball would!

That you happen to also take effect from it doesn't make it work for the contingency.

Contingency should be tied to spells that are limited to the caster's person, rather than effects that happen to include the caster.

You could have a contingency to feather fall yourself should you fall, but you could not have a contingency to feather fall yourself and others should you fall. Likewise you could have contingency give yourself waterbreathing when you're immersed in water, but you could not share this with others, unlike a standard casting of the spell.

Now either of these spells, which can be cast upon others (the former at a range) could be valid companion spells. But the restriction is that they affect your person, not have an effect that simply includes your person.

-James


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
james maissen wrote:
Also the scenario has all the wizards (4 of them) within a 10' radius. That's contrived a bit to begin with. But actually to trap them within a wall of stone and anti-magic shell they have to be even closer together (say within 7 specific squares).

Actually, the scenario has one mage in it, with the possibility of more mages trapped as well.

MiB's test (well, that's how I'm calling it :)) was to be able to melee 1 of 4 level appropriate creatures (he was using ancient black dragons - with the EK taking on one while the rest of the party took on the other 3). So, my scenario had the EK taking on one, and if he was really lucky and the other mages close by, up to three more of them.

In the scenario I also mentioned the EK taking AoOs from the mages minions, so it was not a static, unrealistic scenario (well, in my opinion :)). Please note that the mages had buffs up as well, while the EK likely had mirror image, displacement and expeditious retreat up and running.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
james maissen wrote:

Because it effects everything within a radius, much like a ground zero fireball would!

That you happen to also take effect from it doesn't make it work for the contingency.

Contingency should be tied to spells that are limited to the caster's person, rather than effects that happen to include the caster.

I am having a problem with your interpretation. This isn't like fireball where the caster may, or may not, be in the area of effect. The range is personal, so the spell cannot be cast on anyone else and you are always affected by it.

Where are you getting that it is tied to spell that are limited to the caster's person? I am not seeing that anywhere in the spell description.

Dark Archive

Jess Door wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

If folks stop using the word "gish" I'll stop suggesting bard as a good choice for that niche. :-)

I guess I don't understand the hatred for the word gish. It's useful shorthand. While its current meaning as some sort of martially capable (usually melee focused) arcane magic user doesn't match up with its entymology, that doesn't remove its usefulness in an attempt to have a clear conversation.

I guess you can force everyone here to say fighter mage if it really offends you, but I don't see how using a widely accepted shorthand for a clear character concept is equivalent to saying everyone that is interested in playing the archetype should be perfectly happy with no other options than the bard or they're an evil optimizing munchkin gestalt playing jerk.

I like paizo staff and products a lot. I'm investing a significant amount of my personal time to promoting your products to my friends, aquaintances, and the local community through PFS, personal games and recruiting non-gamers I know, in addition to the regular purchases and subscriptions I get from you. It's hugely disappointing to hear that important paizo staff thinks a concern with problems in the mechanical aspect of representing a popular character archetype is fundamentally beneath their notice because anyone with that concern is nothing but a selfish optimizer that doesn't know how to roleplay.

+1. I'm quite annoyed James thinks playing a gish. Oh wait, am I going to be banned from using that word? I meant magic warrior. I'm quite annoyed James thinks playing a magic warrior is for powergamers. I spent a better part of a month trying to get the awful bladesinger prestige class to work because I haven't played one before and tried desperately to make a decent one that wasn't being carried by the rest of the party due to the uselessness of the character. If I wanted a powerful character, I would have just played an abjurant champion and called myself a bladesinger.


BYC wrote:
Jess Door wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

If folks stop using the word "gish" I'll stop suggesting bard as a good choice for that niche. :-)

I guess I don't understand the hatred for the word gish. It's useful shorthand. While its current meaning as some sort of martially capable (usually melee focused) arcane magic user doesn't match up with its entymology, that doesn't remove its usefulness in an attempt to have a clear conversation.

I guess you can force everyone here to say fighter mage if it really offends you, but I don't see how using a widely accepted shorthand for a clear character concept is equivalent to saying everyone that is interested in playing the archetype should be perfectly happy with no other options than the bard or they're an evil optimizing munchkin gestalt playing jerk.

I like paizo staff and products a lot. I'm investing a significant amount of my personal time to promoting your products to my friends, aquaintances, and the local community through PFS, personal games and recruiting non-gamers I know, in addition to the regular purchases and subscriptions I get from you. It's hugely disappointing to hear that important paizo staff thinks a concern with problems in the mechanical aspect of representing a popular character archetype is fundamentally beneath their notice because anyone with that concern is nothing but a selfish optimizer that doesn't know how to roleplay.

+1. I'm quite annoyed James thinks playing a gish. Oh wait, am I going to be banned from using that word? I meant magic warrior. I'm quite annoyed James thinks playing a magic warrior is for powergamers. I spent a better part of a month trying to get the awful bladesinger prestige class to work because I haven't played one before and tried desperately to make a decent one that wasn't being carried by the rest of the party due to the uselessness of the character. If I wanted a powerful character, I would have just played an abjurant champion and called myself a bladesinger.

James never said that a gish is for powergamers. He asked us to stop using the word "gish". He also said Bard fit what people were asking for quite nicely. I agree with that. The Bard is the the perfect gish in my mind, except for his spell list. The eldrich knight fits pretty much the same exact role in the group, only is less group friendly and slightly more powerful soloing (alot because of his spell list). The Bard doesn't have the problem of being unable to play the style of character you want to in the early game, like the EK does. For his whole career he can be a melee caster.

Lots of people hate the term "gish," including myself. I keep using it though because I love watching Loopy, my GM, squirm. He hatesssesss it more the Golum hates Hobitssess.

Dark Archive

Caineach wrote:

James never said that a gish is for powergamers. He asked us to stop using the word "gish". He also said Bard fit what people were asking for quite nicely. I agree with that. The Bard is the the perfect gish in my mind, except for his spell list. The eldrich knight fits pretty much the same exact role in the group, only is less group friendly and slightly more powerful soloing (alot because of his spell list). The Bard doesn't have the problem of being unable to play the style of character you want to in the early game, like the EK does. For his whole career he can be a melee caster.

Lots of people hate the term "gish," including myself. I keep using it though because I love watching Loopy, my GM, squirm. He hatesssesss it more the Golum hates Hobitssess.

So the bard is perfect...but it's not perfect.

Great...


James Jacobs wrote:
If folks stop using the word "gish" I'll stop suggesting bard as a good choice for that niche. :-)

Wow, I would never have thought to see one of the head designers of a system be so openly patronizing and condescending towards people who play his game.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I'll just leave this here for study

contingency

Congratulations, you are the first person to get me with that clip.


Moro wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
If folks stop using the word "gish" I'll stop suggesting bard as a good choice for that niche. :-)
Wow, I would never have thought to see one of the head designers of a system be so openly patronizing and condescending towards people who play his game.

I can't believe you think his is openly patronizing and condescending towards people who play his game(Pathfinder), but are using a term that came from another game(3.5/Wizards of the Coast DnD). It's like quoting Docter Who in a episode of Spider-Man, or Batman in an episode of the X-Men.


Moro wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
If folks stop using the word "gish" I'll stop suggesting bard as a good choice for that niche. :-)
Wow, I would never have thought to see one of the head designers of a system be so openly patronizing and condescending towards people who play his game.

Ah so you are new here. Welcome Lilith will be by with cookies at some point... you really are lucky you know... I never got cookies...


A Dragon with no Gish-ues wrote:
Moro wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
If folks stop using the word "gish" I'll stop suggesting bard as a good choice for that niche. :-)
Wow, I would never have thought to see one of the head designers of a system be so openly patronizing and condescending towards people who play his game.
I can't believe you think his is openly patronizing and condescending towards people who play his game(Pathfinder), but are using a term that came from another game(3.5/Wizards of the Coast DnD).

I'm not particularly fond of the term myself, I tend to use Fighter/Mage when referring to that type of character.

I also must point out that the entire foundation for his game came from that same other game, and there was never any secret about that.


Moro wrote:
I'm not particularly fond of the term myself, I tend to use Fighter/Mage when referring to that type of character.

It doesn't bother me really. ;)

Moro wrote:
I also must point out that the entire foundation for his game came from that same other game, and there was never any secret about that.

This is true, but it is a different game now, and should have a different term fo a Fighter/Mage, such as the Arcane Blade mentioned earlier.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Moro wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
If folks stop using the word "gish" I'll stop suggesting bard as a good choice for that niche. :-)
Wow, I would never have thought to see one of the head designers of a system be so openly patronizing and condescending towards people who play his game.

The smiley at the end of my post is internet-speak for "don't take my comment too seriously, let's all remember we're trying not to be jerks to each other." AKA: An attempt to lighten the mood of a thread that's got a lot of passion and potential for argumentative stuff going on. Sorry if it still came off as patronizing or condescending... I guess I hoped that my thousands of other posts on these boards where I try NOT to be patronizing or condescending would help support that too. (And now that I've written THAT, this post sounds condescending!)

ANYWAY.

My deal with the word "gish" is threefold. 1) I think the word is silly sounding. It sounds like the a word you might see in a comic book that's spelling out vomit or some other gross bodily fluid gushing out of a person to me. 2) It's technically a Wizards of the Coast word that isn't open content, as far as I know, and if this type of character class is to end up in a Paizo book at some point it can't be called a gish anyway. 3) It's a SPECIFIC type of fighter/wizard. Using the word gish to mean something OTHER than a githyanki of a specific type is like using the word "samurai" to describe a soldier in a modern army.

As for my take on the class... it's part of the game's fundamental design philosophy that you can be great at fighting or great at arcane spellcasting... but that those two skillsets are at polar opposites. Divine spellcasting is sort of the middleground, where you're actually pretty good at fighting AND at spells. And you've ALSO got the bard, which is a good combo class as well. And on top of that, you've got the eldritch knight prestige class that, I think, does a pretty good job at keeping a good BAB + a good set of spellcasting for your character.

My concern with the powergaming element is that folks want the best of both worlds. I think that making a class that has arcane spellcasting as good (or even close to as good) as the wizard and with fighting powers as good (or even close to as good) as the fighter is fundamentally bad for the game. It makes the pure fighting or pure arcanist classes feel lame. It robs the limelight of existing hybrid classes like the bard or, honestly, the druid and the cleric.

If what folks are asking for is basically a cleric but that has the sorcerer/wizard spell list... well, that's just not something that we're all that interested in producing. Because an eldritch knight (or, honestly, a wizard or sorcerer who takes 2 or 3 or 4 levels and that's it) of a fighting class does the job, I think.

If folks are asking for a bard-like character with that level of spellcasting and different focuses... that's a different story. We're trying a few variants of those out already, in fact, with the alchemist and the inquisitor and sort of the witch and the summoner.

If folks are asking for a fighter/wizard type that completely abandons the concept of "you have to earn your way to a point of balance between your two very different classes" and instead presents something that maintains that balance from the start... that's an interesting idea for a class, but it's not one we're quite ready to tackle.


I know what I'd like and I've got an idea for a arcane caster with spell list similar to how the Ranger/Paladin list work but with a twist. I'm not going to go into detail with but I have gaming group with some talent in both game design and artist ability. I'm thinking I might just do up a full class maybe or make it prestige class. Not going to rush it but if I get something that works good I might actually publish it if that's possible. Something I have to look into.


James Jacobs wrote:
1) I think the word is silly sounding. It sounds like the a word you might see in a comic book that's spelling out vomit or some other gross bodily fluid gushing out of a person to me.

I had this awkward moment once when a non gamer friend of mine saw a "gish" thread I was reading and got the Very wrong ideal of what kinda of site I was looking at based off the non-game term "gish"

Look it up.....your both close and so far off from what that term means to a good deal of non-gaming people

I also hate I have to explain what the hell I mean..I can say fighter/mage or warrior/wizard and even non-gamers know what I mean. So yeah James I am so with ya

Paizo Employee Creative Director

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I had this awkward moment once when a non gamer friend of mine saw a "gish" thread I was reading and got the Very wrong ideal of what kinda of site I was looking at based off the non-game term "gish"

Look it up.....your both close and so far off from what that term means to a good deal of non-gaming people

I also hate I have to explain what the hell I mean..I can say fighter/mage or warrior/wizard and even non-gamers know what I mean. So yeah James I am so with ya

In fact that's exactly the meaning I was referring to without coming right out and saying exactly what I meant. ;-) (urbandictionary.com is a good place to go to find a definition without triggering NSFW alarms, by the by.)


And the issue is is not an uncommon term, It seems to be very well known..at lest to younger folks anyhow it seems.

Also I had a female gamers spit pop across a table once when another player talked about making a "gish" as she does not get online much she only knew of the one term.

Grand Lodge

The inquisitor is divine focused and not arcane so it fails as a fighter/mage. The summoner makes for a good one...but the theme is rather limited. Alchemists are also very limited in theme. If I hear another well just use the bard excuse, I´m gonna start banning bards from my game. Bards are NOT it damn it...nor do I wanna see the bard get changed into the fighter/mage. I would like to see a decent spellsword prestige class (the conversion that is floating around is rather horrible and makes for the perfect 3 level dip...which the author says he is working against).

You know what two feats would have kept me from starting this thread? Practiced spell caster and somatic weaponry...actually somatic weaponry would have been just fine. Or I don´t know...allowing the somatic component to be done with the bonded weapon/wand/staff in hand (which is quite thematically appropriate...and should be a non issue as far as balance goes as you have already allowed natural spell...course that doesn´t help the cleric any). Seriously, my gripe wasn´t even about the EK...it was that at the core of it, the rules are written in a very biased manner to not even allow a character to swing a weapon one round and cast the next unless your a druid (fine he´s swing a claw...but whatever)...or you use a very limited selection of options...at which point it really isn´t an option and is a poor rule.

501 to 550 of 801 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Arg... gish issues All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.