I think as a whole it's not optimizers folks here dislike, but the attitude and other types claiming to be optimizers such areas tend to bring in. Many so called optimizers are really powergamers looking to abuse the game not make it run smoother. And there are a few posters here and even some that are no longer here that have put a bad taste in folks mouths with the whole thing. Not a few posters have came here from elsewhere already partly because of such folks. All in all once you have been burned it's harder to put up with folks that clam to be optimizers without going into warmod.
Not fair to the good ones, but it is what it is.
And I've had to deal with the other side of the coin - people who tell me that my character is bad because he isn't mechanically terrible. I've had people say I'm a poor roleplayer because my cleric doesn't heal until the fight ends, or that I'm a "roll-player" because I have more then one prestige class.
But I don't go around bashing people over the head about it.
Edit: I think what gets a lot of people irate from my end is when others talk down at them for things they're wrong about. I use the cleric example because it's recent and annoying as hell. When someone says your game is bad or your DM is doing it wrong, and then goes on to say something that's wrong, it's frustrating. In this case, I was being told that a cleric who doesn't cast Cure Lesser Wounds in battle was a bad cleric. It wasn't a "Oh, this is what I think" either, it was "you're doing it wrong." Don't act as if "optimizers" are the only ones who claim others are jerks who tell others they do it wrong.
You yourself, shadow, said I was a munchkin and "not a roleplayer" when I disputed that someone could take a class and refluff it, for god's sake.
|
And lets not forget the my gish issues thread where I was basically complaining about a rule that makes binding two handed weapons useless and was called a munchkin because I wanted the option to bind a REALLY sub optimal choice that was really cool on flavor. Oh my god, I´m choosing something that fits my character concept...I must SOOOO be a munchkin. I wanted a feat that lets me do something that should be, even by seeker´s call, something you should just be able to do and I got called a munchkin for asking that a FEAT be available to do so. So seeker´s call of just house rule it isn´t munchkin...but my suggestion that somatic weaponry as a feat printed so it can be used in society game is a munchkin move...yeah that makes sooo much sense *rolleyes*. So yeah, excuse me if I don´t believe that the ¨roleplaying¨ side ain´t slinging mud because I have stains to prove otherwise.
Your never get that as 3 people can't set down and decide just what an Arcane warrior type should be. To me it should be built around a bard frame. 3/4th BAB, light armor, 3/4th caster like a bard and so on. Others will say full BAB and full casting, or full BAB and 1/4 caster
Ya simply can not please everyone. But that is a good starting point, but one doomed to fail I think as it never gains real traction.
|
I wasn't super active outside a few boards on Wizards but here on the Paizo boards the only thing gish seems to have traction with is starting stupid threads about what a gish is. Heck YOU started one. This is about the 5th one and they seem never ending.I've seen it used here, on the 3.5 CO Boards and somewhat on the 4e CO Boards, at GITP, a couple times on rpg.net, and many times on ENWorld. Only here have I seen a great deal of pushback against it as a term, but then again only here have I seen a great deal of pushback against fluff and crunch. I would speculate that the causes are related.
I suspect the fact that the Pathfinder Brand was targeted for a long time towards GMs almost exclusively has a big influence on the sort of forum regulars here. WotC and GitP are much more general forums. Maybe the grognard per capita is higher here.
|
|
Your never get that as 3 people can't set down and decide just what an Arcane warrior type should be. To me it should be built around a bard frame. 3/4th BAB, light armor, 3/4th caster like a bard and so on. Others will say full BAB and full casting, or full BAB and 1/4 caster
Ya simply can not please everyone. But that is a good starting point, but one doomed to fail I think as it never gains real traction.
ANY of those can work...what matters is what else does the class get and what is the spell list. You can have half BAB and 1/4 casting...but if you get wish as a 1st level spell or can wail of the banshee as an EX ability at level 1...well that´s kinda broken now ain´t it. The BAB and CL is the LEAST important aspect...despite that is what people tend to get stuck on. Quite frankly, I just want an AA version for melee.
while I hate to derail the discussion/argument. i'd like the board to decide what we at large want in a gish. ftr/mage, whatever. 16 bab and 9th level casting is already possible but in a base class. the new inqiusitor is a great divine concept in this vein. so id say bard chassis with spell channel thrs?u weapon and a limited use 'smite/rage/judgement' type power.
thoughts?
I've said it before, I'll say it again: just make a duskblade-alike and you've got a pretty good gish chassis. :D
Thanks for the words of wisdom, 0gre. They've been duly recorded.
|
|
I've said it before, I'll say it again: just make a duskblade-alike and you've got a pretty good gish chassis. :Dwhile I hate to derail the discussion/argument. i'd like the board to decide what we at large want in a gish. ftr/mage, whatever. 16 bab and 9th level casting is already possible but in a base class. the new inqiusitor is a great divine concept in this vein. so id say bard chassis with spell channel thrs?u weapon and a limited use 'smite/rage/judgement' type power.
thoughts?
Well I do agree that is good for the base class people. So I think duskblade-alike and a melee version of the AA and we would be set...and somatic weaponry feat.
A melee AA prc would be cool
I've said it before, I'll say it again: just make a duskblade-alike and you've got a pretty good gish chassis. :Dwhile I hate to derail the discussion/argument. i'd like the board to decide what we at large want in a gish. ftr/mage, whatever. 16 bab and 9th level casting is already possible but in a base class. the new inqiusitor is a great divine concept in this vein. so id say bard chassis with spell channel thrs?u weapon and a limited use 'smite/rage/judgement' type power.
thoughts?
I agree. The class was deceptively balanced. Give it a D10 hit die and I think you are good as is compared to the other classes now. With the upgrades it probably is underpowered, but that can be tested and fixed later.
A melee AA prc would be coolReally?
Straight up no. Drop 2 more caster levels trim the hell out of the talents and it might be ok. I would not allow as is.
|
|
Straight up no. Drop 2 more caster levels trim the hell out of the talents and it might be ok. I would not allow as is.A melee AA prc would be coolReally?
I take it you don't allow EK either then?
That thing is way more powerful then the EK.
It is a bad thing. While I see what you have done I would not allow it as it falls into the 3.5 PRC trap of being hands down just better then both the 2 current arcane warrior PRC's and a straight class. It's just to good.
It is still to good, to many talents really. It's cherry picked. Which might work fine for what Kirth has done but not for a game that does not use all the sweeping changes hes has made.
The bottom line is it's better then the EK and better then the AA as it uses all the abltys of both classes with no drawbacks. Which makes it an issue.
What is a gish?
A gish is a concept that sucks the life out of a forum and spurs its community into a senseless frenzy of wordy carnage. Armed with a barrage of terms only employed to levy arguments on the internet such as vitriolic, obstructionist, false argument, and strawman, posters will wage a war of uselessness. The gish is a subtle Typhoid Mary of dissension.
Used as a verb...
I gished up that forum so bad the argument spilled into every crevice of the message board.
You think that is too many abilities, and we don't.
Nah it's fine for your game, where it replaces AA and EK and the fighter, cleric and who knows what else has been rebuilt. But it's power level is off the charts with the core rulebook.
|
|
You think that is too many abilities, and we don't.Nah it's fine for your game, where it replaces AA and EK and the fighter, cleric and who knows what else has been rebuilt. But it's power level is off the charts with the core rulebook.
Yeah, most everything has or is being rebuilt. I think 'off the charts' is perhaps a little unwarranted tho. It can't do all that much more than a regular AA or EK. Still limited by action economy.
I really do not think it is unwarranted, ya obsoleted a core class and 2 PRC's in one blow :)
As I said it works great for your game, poor for a mostly core game as it blows power level out of the water. I just could not allow anything that is just hands down better then a core class and 2 existing PRC's
heh, yeah. Lets not go down that one :)
|
|
A melee AA prc would be coolReally?
Umm...wow, I´d have to say no as well to that. The talent system with that list is just WAY too much cherry picking. A trimmed down list might help...but a trimmed down list with more CL loss would make this a dip PrC where you go for a few levels to pick the best talents of the bunch. What is needed is the talent system on tiers. So you lose one CL at 1, 4, and 7. Have the talents be least, lesser, greater, capstone. Before level 4, you can only pick least, before level 7 you can pick least or lesser and before level 10, you can pick least, lesser or greater. At 10, you can pick one capstone talent...or any of the other ones.
|
|
You did notice the part where some of the talents require other talents or a minimum level, right?
Yes, but the improved spell progression is available at 5 so you effective can only lose out 1 CL and get quite a few of the best gish abilities of 3.5 still. I still think a tier system is the way to go. Improved spell progression should be a capstone talent to make it a once only deal.
|
|
You did notice the part where some of the talents require other talents or a minimum level, right?Yes, but the improved spell progression is available at 5 so you effective can only lose out 1 CL and get quite a few of the best gish abilities of 3.5 still. I still think a tier system is the way to go. Improved spell progression should be a capstone talent to make it a once only deal.
All martial weapon proficiencies are required. That's your second caster level loss. Provided you don't take more levels of your Full BAB class to reach the entry faster. So FTR1/WIZ8, or WIZ3/FTR4 are your options. Note the +5 BAB requirement.
|
|
And I honestly can't see what cherry picking you're talking about. Jump in for the first two levels only? Well alright, but you're still down two caster levels.
Umm 4 level to get 3 talents. Since you don´t lose a CL til 5, you might as well go to 4. Spell channel was an ability that made you give up 9th level spells to do and it was almost worth it. Giving spell channel and 9th level spells is not a good idea...and yes there was a 3.5 way to do it...and it is still not a good idea. Celerity casting is also quite good.
|
|
Celerity casting, allowing you to quicken one spell per day, of up to 2nd level, without increasing the spell slot used? Have you perhaps heard of the Sudden Quicken feat? Cause that's what that is, only the feat has no spell level restriction.
Channel Spell? So channeling a 9th level spell through your weapon once per day is overpowered? If you say so man.
Once again, you're losing two caster levels, one before you get in, and one once you get in. No getting around that.
|
|
All martial weapon proficiencies are required. That's your second caster level loss. Provided you don't take more levels of your Full BAB class to reach the entry faster. So FTR1/WIZ8, or WIZ3/FTR4 are your options. Note the +5 BAB requirement.You did notice the part where some of the talents require other talents or a minimum level, right?Yes, but the improved spell progression is available at 5 so you effective can only lose out 1 CL and get quite a few of the best gish abilities of 3.5 still. I still think a tier system is the way to go. Improved spell progression should be a capstone talent to make it a once only deal.
Fighter 3/wizard 4 can work too...or fighter 1/wizard 5/EK 2...which leads to fi 1/wizard 5/EK 2/AW 10/EK 2 for a BAB of 17, CL 17 with some of the best gish abilities of 3.5.
|
|
Fighter 3/wizard 4 can work too...or fighter 1/wizard 5/EK 2...which leads to fi 1/wizard 5/EK 2/AW 10/EK 2 for a BAB of 17, CL 17 with some of the best gish abilities of 3.5.
Doesn't work. I'm sorry, somehow the notation that the Arcane Warrior replaces the Arcane Archer and Eldritch Knight classes got left out. That's my fault. You can't take EK2 then AWX because it is the same class.
|
|
Fighter 3/wizard 4 can work too...or fighter 1/wizard 5/EK 2...which leads to fi 1/wizard 5/EK 2/AW 10/EK 2 for a BAB of 17, CL 17 with some of the best gish abilities of 3.5.Doesn't work. I'm sorry, somehow the notation that the Arcane Warrior replaces the Arcane Archer and Eldritch Knight classes got left out. That's my fault. You can't take EK2 then AWX because it is the same class.
That only makes it fine til the next fi/mage PrC comes out though...even then, fi 2/wizard 8/AW 10 will still get 9th level spells with some of the best that the gish options of 3.5...like spell channeling and anything worthwhile from the swift blade...both of which did require the loss of 9th level spell.
|
|
That only makes it fine til the next fi/mage PrC comes out though...even then, fi 2/wizard 8/AW 10 will still get 9th level spells with some of the best that the gish options of 3.5...like spell channeling and anything worthwhile from the swift blade...both of which did require the loss of 9th level spell.
And I'm okay with that, because if you put in the effort to stick with it, you should be satisfied with the results. And you make it sound like we NEED another F/M PRC. That's the whole point of this one. Never needing another one.
That only makes it fine til the next fi/mage PrC comes out though...even then, fi 2/wizard 8/AW 10 will still get 9th level spells with some of the best that the gish options of 3.5...like spell channeling and anything worthwhile from the swift blade...both of which did require the loss of 9th level spell.And I'm okay with that, because if you put in the effort to stick with it, you should be satisfied with the results. And you make it sound like we NEED another F/M PRC. That's the whole point of this one. Never needing another one.
Just, ya know, a base class :)
It is a bad thing. While I see what you have done I would not allow it as it falls into the 3.5 PRC trap of being hands down just better then both the 2 current arcane warrior PRC's and a straight class. It's just to good.
Not to comment on the class itself, but EK is rather obsolete even without any other arcane/martial class PrCs :p. Saying it's better then EK ain't saying much.
Actually, any new PRC that had worthwhile class features would get murdered and have its features stolen and turned into AW talents. XD
Which is why this is the way I think we should approach any community built prestige class.
There are several different styles that one can try to fill with a gish/arcane warrior class, and if you have a base class that isn't as flexible and malleable as a fighter or wizard or rogue then it will fail and people will just cannibalize it for parts.
Your never get that as 3 people can't set down and decide just what an Arcane warrior type should be. To me it should be built around a bard frame. 3/4th BAB, light armor, 3/4th caster like a bard and so on. Others will say full BAB and full casting, or full BAB and 1/4 caster
Ya simply can not please everyone. But that is a good starting point, but one doomed to fail I think as it never gains real traction.
I'd be happy with one of each actually. More option is always good in my opinion.
As the designer of the much-maligned Arcane Warrior that TOZ linked, I have to agree with some of the other posters -- it was intended for a FAR more "martial-friendly" home game. It is NOT in any way "balanced" for use in a standard 3.X game in which full casters are supposed to outcompete everyone at higher levels.
|
As the designer of the much-maligned Arcane Warrior that TOZ linked, I have to agree with some of the other posters -- it was intended for a FAR more "martial-friendly" home game. It is NOT in any way "balanced" for use in a standard 3.X game in which full casters are supposed to outcompete everyone at higher levels.
Yes, the class needs to be usedin conjunction with all the other rewritten classes in the ruleset. The design philosphy behind these classes are that martial characters be able to stand alongside casters, and when possible class options will be added to a class to allow customization of a character rather than creating an entirely new class. This keeps prestige class dipping and multiclassing from becoming the problem it could be in 3.5 because there isn't a swiftblade and an eldritch knight and an arcane archer and an abjurant champion - there's only the single arcane caster / fighter prestige class.
When I have a hard time tearing myself away from the awesomeness of the next fighter level to take an additional level of wizard, I feel the design goals of this system have been met. :)
As the designer of the much-maligned Arcane Warrior that TOZ linked,
Kirth, the reason that is much maligned is simply he linked it as a Melee AA as if it fit in a standard game. You guys are simply not playing the same rule set as anyone else. It works great for your game as it is "balanced" with the almost total ruleset rewrite you have done. But TOZ kinda ploped it in here as if it would work in anyone's game and it just will not.
When matched up with the core rules it's just way overpowered. If used with your ruleset it works fine but not with core rules alone. That was the issue, it was kinda thrown down as something that worked with core and it just does not.
|
|
I threw it down as an example. I made no claim as to balance until you reacted completely negatively. If you had said 'a good idea, but I would pare down the talents and caster progression to match core' I wouldn't have felt compelled to argue. Yes, I should have been a better man, but you know how I love to argue.
Well ya see you made the assumption that everyone would know it was used with a rebuilt system. It really will not work at all with core without well rebuilding it with core assumptions.
Ya put it down as a melee AA which ya know it is not. So yeah I reacted to that, I didn't know till later it was made for your rebuilt game. I was going off it being a melee AA and well its not in the same league as the AA but a few levels above and beyond it. If I had known from the get go it was 'balanced" with the other class rebuilds I would have reacted differently.
As for Arguing, I don't mind that really.