|
That to me does not fulfill my idea of a gish, to be honest I think the duskblade is my ideal gish, so if it does not get spells at 1st level I generally don't want to play it. However the class looks really good.I agree, a PF gish, should be in line with a paladin. Full bab 2 good saves, D10 hit dice, and a bunch of x/day abilities that make it to par with all paladin's abilities. You get more uses, but they are not as good, but you are more versatile at dealing with different enemies.
check Tejon's Iron Mage
'findel
I think the problem is, if you want casting from first level, a lot of people are going to want to shoehorn the character into the bard chassis: 3/4 HD, 6th level spells, some class features, d8 HD.
If you want full BAB, class features, d10 HD, they're going to offer the paladin spell progression.
One of my beefs with 3x/Pf is the rigid "everything has to fit inside of a certain paradigm" unified system. Exceptions to that are difficult to sell to people who think the system is "sacred" or something.
Eh.
I think, as long as you spread the spell progression out, allow full CL and limit the spells to 4th or 5th level, d10 HD, full BAB and class features along with casting from 1st level is ok.
I fall into the catagory of looking at the Duskblade, whenever a new arcane stabby comes out or is made by someone, or even multi-classed. I want the spells preferabbly first level, but i can live till 2nd. :) I would love to see a melee based version of the Warlock, with water down spells of course, but being able to do melee or spells all day long.
That to me does not fulfill my idea of a gish, to be honest I think the duskblade is my ideal gish, so if it does not get spells at 1st level I generally don't want to play it. However the class looks really good.
I was mainly addressing the "should be in line with the paladin" part of the message. I find Tejon's Iron Mage to be a close sister class to the paladin on many levels, but its not a replacement of the Duskblade (not that Tejon ever pretended it would be).
As he says, his class fills the missing arcane semi-spellcasters niche that the ranger and paladins occupy in the divine realm of magic.
If the inquisitor had been arcane he would have worked well.
The it is simply not the class for you. Not everyone has the dislike for it you do. But it is a step in the right direction for an arcane warrior class.
Gish are like Saturdays.
It's more like a non arcane bard. But it is a good frame. Medium BAB 2/3rds caster simple weapons with one or two other weapons put in some light armor with no ASF and such and ya got a pretty good arcane warrior class base frame.
I would place something along the lines of say being able to make your weapon do 1d6 fire, cold, electric or acid damage say 3+INT mod time a day. Have it increas every other level of every 3 or something on something like SA
The spell list is really the tricky part and one few folks can agree on. Most "lists" I have seen are very cherrypicked with the very best spells of every level. Something that needs avoided.
Anyhow just random thoughts at 3 am
It's more like a non arcane bard. But it is a good frame. Medium BAB 2/3rds caster simple weapons with one or two other weapons put in some light armor with no ASF and such and ya got a pretty good arcane warrior class base frame.
I would place something along the lines of say being able to make your weapon do 1d6 fire, cold, electric or acid damage say 3+INT mod time a day. Have it increas every other level of every 3 or something on something like SA
The spell list is really the tricky part and one few folks can agree on. Most "lists" I have seen are very cherrypicked with the very best spells of every level. Something that needs avoided.
Anyhow just random thoughts at 3 am
Not very best spells, just spells that interact well with melee combat. Why on earth would I want soften earth and stone as an arcane warrior, I'd want stuff like Bulls Strength, True Strike, Shield, Fire Shield, Stoneskin, Greater Magic Weapon, Heroism, Haste. Things an arcane caster are more likely to put on other characters than themself. Keep your secret chest, leomund's tiny hut, flaming sphere, stoneshape, etc.
Personally i don't think inquisitor is gonna cut it. 1)not arcane 2)3/4 BAB. Blech.
It's more like a non arcane bard. But it is a good frame. Medium BAB 2/3rds caster simple weapons with one or two other weapons put in some light armor with no ASF and such and ya got a pretty good arcane warrior class base frame.
I would place something along the lines of say being able to make your weapon do 1d6 fire, cold, electric or acid damage say 3+INT mod time a day. Have it increas every other level of every 3 or something on something like SA
The spell list is really the tricky part and one few folks can agree on. Most "lists" I have seen are very cherrypicked with the very best spells of every level. Something that needs avoided.
Anyhow just random thoughts at 3 am
Not very best spells, just spells that interact well with melee combat. Why on earth would I want soften earth and stone as an arcane warrior, I'd want stuff like Bulls Strength, True Strike, Shield, Fire Shield, Stoneskin, Greater Magic Weapon, Heroism, Haste. Things an arcane caster are more likely to put on other characters than themself. Keep your secret chest, leomund's tiny hut, flaming sphere, stoneshape, etc.
Personally i don't think inquisitor is gonna cut it. 1)not arcane 2)3/4 BAB. Blech.
I was playing around with Inquisitor builds the other day, and overall I thought it was decent. The judgement ability is pretty good, and the bane weapon ability is nasty. Pick up the "destruction" domain for some smiting on top of it all. It's not a "gish" thing, but I like lots of skills too.
A number of "gishy" type spells are on their spell list:
Divine favor, bless, protection from X, align weapon, resist energy, greater magic vestment, divine power...
and a number of "gishy" spells that Clerics do not get:
... expeditious retreat, true strike, invisibility, heroism, keen edge, greater invisibility, stoneskin...
My main concern[s] with the Inquisitor are:
a) Runs out of gas too soon. The "Bane" weapon ability is only one round per level, the spells have very limited castings/day, "Judgement" follows a "Smite evil" like progression, and any offensive boosts from the domain choice will also be limited times per day.
That means you either are so-so for every battle, or really good for one battle and pretty bad for the rest.
b) off topic - but from a roleplaying perspective I don't like the idea that an inquisitor of a good god cannot be evil. Aren't inquisitors supposed to be all about hypocrisy?
Personally i don't think inquisitor is gonna cut it. 1)not arcane 2)3/4 BAB. Blech.
3/4 BAB is not a gamebreaker if other factors (like judgement and Bane) close that gap.
However, I agree that a "Gish" needs to be arcane by definition. Also, although I like many of the ideas presented in the Inquisitor, I think ultimately it's going to be a difficult class to play.
Way too many X# of uses abilities that CHANGE in effect every round. It's been made needlessly overly complex to keep track of everything.
It's not a "step in the right direction," either. It's the cleric with less spells and more class abilities. Unless the goal is an arcane warrior who casts +X buffs on himself and then goes into melee, just like a cleric, then the inquisitor isn't accomplishing your goal.
If you want that gish, make the cleric an arcane caster with no ASF. I assume we don't, since we already have that.
I'm pretty sure Inquisitor offensively outpaced the Cleric builds on DPR correct?
Hummm for an arcane warrior is the summoner or the alchemists spell list closer to folks ideal?
So the argument is that the duskblade is overpowered beacause it can do a lot of damage.
No, the argument is that the duskblade can do a lot of damage in melee AND do damage at range AND cast disabling spells AND buff/debuff with minimal effort. Basically, the duskblade is more powerful than any other core class except the dedicated spellcasters (cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard).
I will ask again: Why does the duskblade need to be better than any core "hybrid" (spellcasting) class? Why are "arcane paladin (PF RPG version)" (full BAB, 4th level spells) or "Evocation bard" (3/4 BAB, 6th level spells) as the basic class concept so undesirable? Why the poutrage over "if it's not full BAB and at least the bard's spell progression it sucks?"
We're slightly off topic but I think the numbers above would be a better measuring stick for a Arcane Gish, rather than a Bard. An Inquisitor would kick a bard's A$$. (Something a Arcane Gish SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO!!)
Cheers.
More bard hate... If you're playing pathfinder without 3.5 material the bard may well be the best gish around. 8 bard 8/2 arcane archer/10 EK loses 2 caster levels, 2 bab with inspire courage and magical knack has essentially 18 BAB with +2 from inspire, 18th caster level with +2 from traits, +5 damage from arcane strike, needs to shoot 6 arrows a round, can take quicken SLA imbue arrow to get 3 free quickens a day(sadly doesn't combo with arcane strike) Sure you don't get wizard/sorcerer spells, but you get a lot of good gish spells as a bard, can cast in armor, and can do a ton of damage, have skills, and gosh darn people like you!
More bard hate...!We're slightly off topic but I think the numbers above would be a better measuring stick for a Arcane Gish, rather than a Bard. An Inquisitor would kick a bard's A$$. (Something a Arcane Gish SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO!!)
Cheers.
I don't think that is Bard hate at all. An inquisitor is tougher one on one than a Bard - that's a simple statement of fact.
The inquisitor centers on self buffing, while most of the Bard's buffs are whole party buffs.
Doesn't make the Bard a bad class or weaker than the inquisitor - it does however mean that Ardenup recognizes that the inquisitors abilities are more geared towards making it individually tougher than the Bard's.
More bard hate...!We're slightly off topic but I think the numbers above would be a better measuring stick for a Arcane Gish, rather than a Bard. An Inquisitor would kick a bard's A$$. (Something a Arcane Gish SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO!!)
Cheers.
I don't think that is Bard hate at all. An inquisitor is tougher one on one than a Bard - that's a simple statement of fact.
The inquisitor centers on self buffing, while most of the Bard's buffs are whole party buffs.
Doesn't make the Bard a bad class or weaker than the inquisitor - it does however mean that Ardenup recognizes that the inquisitors abilities are more geared towards making it individually tougher than the Bard's.
Having done self-buffing I find it kind of..boring, and combat can be over before you're ready to start. Buffing others, buffing the group including your-self, and controlling the flow of combat is much more valid in my mind.
If you are talking quickened buffs and buffing maybe 1 round then yes I will concede that that is an alright tactic.
I don't think that is Bard hate at all. An inquisitor is tougher one on one than a Bard - that's a simple statement of fact.More bard hate...!We're slightly off topic but I think the numbers above would be a better measuring stick for a Arcane Gish, rather than a Bard. An Inquisitor would kick a bard's A$$. (Something a Arcane Gish SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO!!)
Cheers.
Perhaps.
Half-Elf Bard 9/Fighter 1 -> Eldritch Knight
22 Str (15 +2 race +1 level +4 belt), 14 Dex (13 +1 level), 12 Con, 10 Int, 8 Wis, 16 Cha (14 +2 headband)
Racial Traits: +2 Any one score (Str); Medium Size; Speed 30 ft; Low-Light Vision; Adaptability (Skill Focus as bonus feat); Elf-Blood; Elven Immunities (immune to magic sleep effects, +2 vs. Enchantment); Keen Senses (+2 Perception checks); Multitalented (two favored classes- Bard, Fighter)
Class Features: Bardic Knowledge (+5), Bardic Performance (23 rounds/day, move action, Countersong, Distraction, Fascinate DC 18, Inspire Courage +2, Inspire Competence +3, Suggestion DC 18, Dirge of Doom, Inspire Greatness), Cantrips, Versatile Performance (Dance- Acrobatics, Fly; Oratory- Diplomacy, Sense Motive), Well-Versed (+4 saves vs. bardic performance, sonic, language-dependent effects), Lore Master (take 10 on Knowledge checks, take 20 1x/day); Bonus Feat (1)
Skills*: Climb 1 (+8/+10), Disable Device 10 (+14/+16), Knowledge (Local) 4 (+12/+14), Perception 10 (+14/+16), Perform (Dance) 5 (+11/+13), Perform (Oratory) 8 (+14/+16), Spellcraft 5 (+8/+10), Stealth 4 (+8/+10), Use Magic Device 9 (+15/+17)
Feats: Arcane Strike, Cleave, Improved Initiative, Power Attack, Skill Focus (Disable Device), Vital Strike, Weapon Focus (Greatsword)
Spells*: Bard (CL 9); 1st-6, 2nd-5 (4), 3rd-4
Spells Known: dancing lights, daze, detect magic, mage hand, prestidigitation, read magic; animate rope, cure light wounds, feather fall, hideous laughter, identify; cat's grace, glitterdust, heroism, rage; cure serious wounds, dispel magic, fear, haste
Gear: +2 mithral breastplate (+8 AC, +5 Max Dex, -1 Armor Check; 8,200 gp), +1 composite longbow (+6 Str bonus) (3,000 gp), +2 greatsword (8,350 gp), ring of protection +2 (8,000 gp), amulet of natural armor +2 (8,000 gp), belt of giant strength +4 (16,000 gp), cloak of resistance +2 (4,000 gp), handy haversack (2,000 gp), headband of alluring charisma +2 (4,000 gp), 450 gp of miscellaneous gear
Combat*: AC 24 (touch 14, flat-footed 22), 69.5 avg. hp, +15/+10 (+17/+12) greatsword (2d6+11 damage, 19-20/x2), Fort +8 (+10), Ref +10 (+12), Will +7 (+9), Init +6, CMB +13, CMD 25
*- second values include the effects of heroism (90 min duration; +2 morale bonus on attack rolls, skill checks, and saves)
Combat: Round 1- activates Inspire Greatness* on self as a move action (+2d10+2 hp- avg. 13, +2 competence bonus on attack rolls, +1 on Fort saves) and casts haste as a standard action (9 round duration; +30 ft enhancement bonus to speed, +1 dodge bonus to AC and Ref saves, one extra attack on full attack action), Round 2- maintains Inspire Greatness as a free action, draws greatsword and moves toward opponent(s) at 60 ft speed as a move action, activates Arcane Strike as a swift action (weapon gains +2 enhancement bonus on attack rolls and damage), and Power Attacks (-2 on attack roll, +6 on damage rolls) with either Cleave or Vital Strike, Round 3+- maintains Inspire Greatness as a free action, activates Arcane Strike as a swift action, and Power Attacks with a full-attack action. This can occur up to 4 times per day (haste), for up to 5 rounds average per fight (Bardic Performance); Arcane Strike and Power Attack are unlimited.
AC 25 (touch 15, flat-footed 22), 82.5 avg. hp, +20/+20/+15 greatsword (2d6+18 damage, 19-20/x2), Fort +11, Ref +13
*- Inspire Courage will increase damage output (+2 competence bonus), but grant no additional hit points or a bonus on Fort saves. Pick which one you want.
If you want a straight bard, instead of trying for eldritch knight, a half-orc with a +1 keen falchion is about the same as far damage potential goes. You loose Low-Light Vision, Adaptability, Elven Immunities, and Keen Senses, but gain Darkvision, Intimidating (which makes Dazzling Display more attractive), and Orc Ferocity.
And nobody would argue otherwise...which is why so many of us gish fans have such an issue with the EK. The EK SUCKS...we agree with you there. But what does this have to do with duskblade?!?
Half-Elf Bard 9/Fighter 1 > Eldritch Knight
That should probably read Bard 9/Fighter 1 -> Eldritch Knight. <fixed>
Basically, the character will be moving into the eldritch knight PrC at the next level increase (mostly for the BAB, although the bonus feats/Diverse Training are nice, too). Bard 9/fighter 1/eldritch knight 10 is a decent way in PF core to get an "arcane warrior" with +17 BAB at 20th level (+2 for heroism), while only losing 2 levels of bard spell progression.
I never said the eldritch knight sucks. However, it won't turn a sorcerer or wizard into a great melee combatant, either. There are trade-offs between spellcasting and combat ability. Especially with arcane spellcasting. As far as the duskblade goes, it has too few trade-offs (IMO) between its spellcasting and combat ability (see my earlier posts).
So the argument is that the duskblade is overpowered beacause it can do a lot of damage.No, the argument is that the duskblade can do a lot of damage in melee AND do damage at range AND cast disabling spells AND buff/debuff with minimal effort. Basically, the duskblade is more powerful than any other core class except the dedicated spellcasters (cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard).
I will ask again: Why does the duskblade need to be better than any core "hybrid" (spellcasting) class? Why are "arcane paladin (PF RPG version)" (full BAB, 4th level spells) or "Evocation bard" (3/4 BAB, 6th level spells) as the basic class concept so undesirable? Why the poutrage over "if it's not full BAB and at least the bard's spell progression it sucks?"
The Duskblade cannot do damage in melee, and range, and cast disabling spells and buff/debuff in the same round because of action economy. It is doing, at most, two of those things at once at higher levels. It has an extremely limited selection of spells, the higher levels of which it gets far later than his pure casting counterparts. The duskblade is better IN COMBAT than some core classes in some situations. I agree. Even you say he's not as powerful overall as sorcerer, cleric, wizard, or druid. personally I'd put him about on par with a Bard. Bard uses magic in a different way (i.e. not to stab people) and is more focused on skill uses, which means he will therefore be FAR more useful out of combat.
Ask yourself this: Why is it not okay to have a warrior class that can do things other than just stab? Why is it the damage dealer's lot in life to be, even by your own admission, less powerful intrinsically than all casters? Why can't Fighters have nice things?
We will answer again. They don't need to be and they AREN'T. The Duskblade is NOT better than core "hybrid" classes. It is better than some of those classes, sometimes, at doing damage. It is far worse than a bard at charming or party buffing, far worse than a ranger at tracking and scouting, far worse than a paladin at detecting and smiting evil.
The main reason why we don't think duskblade is overpowered is because doing damage isn't the most efficient way to resolve combat. Having spells that give him a bonus to damage is no different than having feats that give him a bonus to damage. It solidly slots him in that role of stabbity guy, and keeps him from changing the universe to suit his will like any full caster. The DB is less powerful overall than 4 full casting classes, you freely admit. He is about on par, arguably greater or weaker than Bard, situationally better than Ranger. Do you require every new class to be strictly poorer at everything than every core class? In a game with just core and Duskblade, let's be generous and say he comes in 5th in overall awesomeness. Why is that a problem?
The rest of that is drivel. Either you're purposely setting up a strawman, or you genuinely haven't paid attention this whole time. Full BAB with bard progression would be great. I think most of us could do with Full BAB paladin progression if we got appropriate class features that let us "stab things magically". Mostly it just has to do with some synergy allowing us to use magical power instead of feats to do physical damage. This is not overpowered, it is strictly less powerful than nearly half the core classes.
The Duskblade cannot do damage in melee, and range, and cast disabling spells and buff/debuff in the same round because of action economy.So the argument is that the duskblade is overpowered beacause it can do a lot of damage.No, the argument is that the duskblade can do a lot of damage in melee AND do damage at range AND cast disabling spells AND buff/debuff with minimal effort. Basically, the duskblade is more powerful than any other core class except the dedicated spellcasters (cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard).
I will ask again: Why does the duskblade need to be better than any core "hybrid" (spellcasting) class? Why are "arcane paladin (PF RPG version)" (full BAB, 4th level spells) or "Evocation bard" (3/4 BAB, 6th level spells) as the basic class concept so undesirable? Why the poutrage over "if it's not full BAB and at least the bard's spell progression it sucks?"
No, but it can do any one of those.
The bard has almost no way of causing damage other than weapon attacks.
The paladin has no debuff (except dispel magic), direct damage (except cure spells vs. undead), disabling spells (except dispel chaos or dispel evil against chaotic or evil other-planar creatures).
The ranger has no debuff or direct damage spells (except for cure spells vs. undead).
It has an extremely limited selection of spells, the higher levels of which it gets far later than his pure casting counterparts.
This is not a comparison of the casting ability of the duskblade against pure spellcasters. This is a comparison of the casting ability of the duskblade against the core "hybrid" spellcasters. By the fact that the duskblade has more spell slots and more options (buff/debuff, damage, disabling, AND utility), it's a better spellcaster than any core "hybrid" class. It's abilities make is an equal or better combatant than any of them as well. That's the problem I have with the class. It fights as well or better than a paladin or ranger AND casts better than a bard. Why does the duskblade get to do this?
Skills: The duskblade's casting is Int based, which means it will have a minimum of 14-16 Int. A bard doesn't need an above average Int at all. Also, the bard has more calls on its skills: multiple Knowledges to take advantage of Bardic Knowledge, multiple Performs for Bardic Performances and Versatile Performance, as well as Spellcraft, etc. The duskblade needs Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft; everything else is gravy.
The main reason why we don't think duskblade is overpowered is because doing damage isn't the most efficient way to resolve combat.
Yes, damage is not necessarily the most efficient way to resolve combat, but the duskblade can do damage in melee, do damage at range, disable, AND buff/debuff (whichever is desired at the moment) with only minimal effort in planning and feat selection. It can do it all, with the only "limitation" being pure spell casters can out-cast it.
I think most of us could do with Full BAB paladin progression if we got appropriate class features that let us "stab things magically"
Then quit holding the duskblade up as the standard of comparison.
stuff
Well okay. Paladin has no debuffs, however he can heal and turn undead and is immune to a bajillion things and grants people who snuggle with him bonuses to this and that. He has pretty insane saves, gets a horsie too. These things he gets instead of the modicum of versatility afforded to the Duskblade. I want to point out that Paladin is a pretty weak class in 3.5 compared to even the fighter in most situations, but even he gets a whole mess of fun toys the DB doesn't get.
The bard gets a lot of skills. In 3.5 remember it's just as much about class skills because otherwise you're paying double for your ranks. He can cast in armor too, has UMD, and dispite having few or no direct damage spells (which we have said are crap) has a pretty excellent selection of buff, debuff, and utility spells. I feel that the Bard is a better caster than the duskblade because too much of the duskblade's spell selection (remember he only gets 20 spells known, unlike the bard) is focused on damage because HE NEEDS those to keep up with a barbarian or fighter in combat ability. That's his shtick.
In a point buy system, no, a Duskblade is not likely to have more than a 15 int at max levels because he still needs Str Dex and Con since he's a frontline fighter
Let's even say that I concede, however, that the Duskblade is the next best thing to a real spellcaster (which he absolutely isn't, not even in the same ballpark) why is that so horrible? He doesn't get any of the nice toys of the ranger, paladin, or bard. He uses spells to do damage. The paladin uses smite to do damage, and less things are going to resist/save against/be immune to that than duskblade spells. His only class abilities are a bandaid on the schism of action economy and how it distinctly separates martial and magical actions let alone classes (except divine or bard when you get a free pass).
A duskblade is almost as good as a full caster in doing things they really ought not be doing i.e. nuking. So what?
I have admitted before that there are some design flaws that I see in the duskblade, and I will expand upon that now. I do think that they get an obnoxious amount of spells per day. Personally I think that a bard progression would have sufficed fine, even with the same spell selection and fewer spells known. I think that the arcane channeling ability didn't really scale right. He goes from doing nothing but one attack with a channeled spell, to a full attack with that channeled spell against everyone at level 13, a big leap to being obviously more powerful than a fighter. The quick cast ability should have been restricted to self/party buffs so he can't nova so much.
That should probably read Bard 9/Fighter 1 -> Eldritch Knight. <fixed>
I gotta think you are better off going into Dragon Disciple (for 4 levels anyways) before EK.
Could someone show me the disabling spells the Duskblade has that are on par with the bard? What about the skills that are on par with the bard? What about the class abilities? What are those awesome buffing and debuffing spells that the Duskblade gets? And how are they doing all of this with just 20 spells?
Duskblade isn't better then bard. I'd rate them both at being about equal. They handle completely different roles. You say it takes minimal planning, but the Duskblade only has 20 spells - I'd say that requires a hell of a lot of planning.
Yes, Duskblade is better in combat then fighter, barbarian, ranger, paladin, and monk. Most classes are. These were not well built classes in 3.5. It's not much of a comparison. Duskblade is also better then NPC classes, and I don't see you making that comparison. BUT OMG NPC CLASSES ARE FROM CORE!
Rogue is trickier. Duskblade is better in combat, rogue better outside of combat.
Bard though is flat out equal in combat, and then bard is better outside of combat.
Your problem is twofold. 1) You keep comparing to Core, even though Core is drastically unbalanced. 2) You continue to put all the importance in damage. As above stated, yes, the Duskblade could almost equal a caster in doing damage if he novas. If your caster is doing nothing but damage, they're a waste of space. Congrats on almost equaling a waste of space while spending ALL your resources to do so. The two most limited things in 3.5 were AC and pure damage.
Your problem is twofold. 1) You keep comparing to Core, even though Core is drastically unbalanced. 2) You continue to put all the importance in damage. As above stated, yes, the Duskblade could almost equal a caster in doing damage if he novas. If your caster is doing nothing but damage, they're a waste of space. Congrats on almost equaling a waste of space while spending ALL your resources to do so. The two most limited things in 3.5 were AC and pure damage.
The problem with your last argument is that dealing damage is part of the Glass Cannon and BSF department, BSF being the Duskblade department. Blasting is even considered as a good option for a wizard when the damage is lethal, and a novaing duskblade sure can be lethal.
My point is that dealing damage does matter.
Humbly,
Yawar
|
But if nobody can just ignore DCP when his argument rests on silly claims like Enervate at 13th level being equivalent to Suggestion at 4th and Fear at 7th or 3.5 Polar Ray being just as good...
Well, to be fair, Enervate blows the craps out of Suggestion, Suggestion, Fear, and Polar Ray. It only has two real defences (Death Ward or being immune like with Undead), and never really becomes a weak spell. All the rest, both ways is completely dependant on your individual game styles, and nothing more.
Personally, the fix I thik that Duskblade needs is for it to drop a few things like Armor Proficiency and Combat Casting, and make them options that the players need to take if they want. Dropping Spell per Day a tiny bit later on, as well.
|
|
No "game style" makes giving a dude -2.5 to checks better than AOE save or die, especially when AOE save or die comes six levels earlier. It's a good spell for duskblades, since it comes at a low opportunity cost, but it's not the sort of I Just Win The Fight spell that Mass Suggestion/Charm Monster and Fear tend to be.
Certainly. For example, I have gamed with up to 10 different groups at one time. Each has a very different view of what is fun and what is broken, near broken, cheesey, OP, Ok, and underpowered. In some games, Save or Dies never, as in on no occasion ever work, because the DM rolls behind the screen and thinks that it is unfun for an encounter to be over in 1 round or for their pet monster/NPC to drop, fair or not, that fast. Under this GM, I have only ever once seen a Save or Die/Save of Suck spell work, and completely by accident, and against the party, when he ddidn't take into account that one party member had a LA that put him under he wire for no save.
Now, on the othe hand, in games where note-passing, interparty secrets are encouraged, skill points are better than spells (no metagaming), because most DM's (in my varied experience favor Rogues).
In games where treasure and encounters are random, and you can't just walk into own and sale anything to purchase what you want next upgrade, you can't depend on builds, DPR calculations, or beliefs that this Spell/Feat/Class is fundementally better than another, because you will be proven wrong. For example, in encounters with many lesser CR baddies, Evocation doesn't look bad at all.
It all depends on a groups playstyle.
Personally, I think you need to justify these decisions instead of making lots of mindless, reasonless mathematical fiddling, preferably without using waffleword BS like "playstyle."
It is an opinion, and honestly, who are you to say any sort of descriptor for them? That is both extremely rude as well as arrogent. Playstyle is the most important factor for implementing something in a game, light years beyond tiers, mathmatical breakdowns, RAW, and Char Op consenses.
The reason I don't think that all Duskblades should automatically get those abilities are along the same lines that other classes do not. No class in existance should have Combat Casting as a bonus Feat moreso than the Cleric, who no matter what style of Cleric you play, will need to be in close combat and casting at some point. It could be emergincy healing, or party buffs, or one of the majority of spells requiring a touch, or becaue the area needs to affect the whole party, or all targets.
Along the same lines, PF's ideal is that Fighters and Paladins need to be special in having Heavy Armor, and like the Cleric losing it, so does the Duskblade now, in order to keep Fightrs and Paladins a step above, and completely different than the Duskblade. It is, after all "just one Feat. . .". :)
PF offers all characters more feats, and Duskblades already have a large amount of class features, but do not ave an inborn need to make a choice between features, like a Ranger Fighting Style, Domains/School/Bloodline, etc. . . Making Duskblades need to invest in those feats would start down that road. It was also mentioned just how little Duskblades need to plan, and that is something that should be added.
Certainly. For example, I have gamed with up to 10 different groups at one time. Each has a very different view of what is fun and what is broken, near broken, cheesey, OP, Ok, and underpowered. In some games, Save or Dies never, as in on no occasion ever work, because the DM rolls behind the screen and thinks that it is unfun for an encounter to be over in 1 round or for their pet monster/NPC to drop, fair or not, that fast. Under this GM, I have only ever once seen a Save or Die/Save of Suck spell work, and completely by accident, and against the party, when he ddidn't take into account that one party member had a LA that put him under he wire for no save.
Under that playstyle game mechanics doesn't really matter, because its basically playing ¨Choose Your Own Adventure¨ in the best case escenario where you have decision power.
Now, on the othe hand, in games where note-passing, interparty secrets are encouraged, skill points are better than spells (no metagaming), because most DM's (in my varied experience favor Rogues).
If the GM is diabased towards a class, or a player, those characters will rule the game. Nothing you can do about it. But thats like saying that Druids are OP because you are playing a wilderness campaing and Paladins suck because all your foes have been chaoticneutral or true neutral and never been targeted by a fear effect.
Certainly. For example, I have gamed with up to 10 different groups at one time. Each has a very different view of what is fun and what is broken, near broken, cheesey, OP, Ok, and underpowered. In some games, Save or Dies never, as in on no occasion ever work, because the DM rolls behind the screen and thinks that it is unfun for an encounter to be over in 1 round or for their pet monster/NPC to drop, fair or not, that fast. Under this GM, I have only ever once seen a Save or Die/Save of Suck spell work, and completely by accident, and against the party, when he ddidn't take into account that one party member had a LA that put him under he wire for no save.
Under that playstyle game mechanics doesn't really matter, because its basically playing ¨Choose Your Own Adventure¨ in the best case escenario where you have decision power.
In games where treasure and encounters are random, and you can't just walk into own and sale anything to purchase what you want next upgrade, you can't depend on builds, DPR calculations, or beliefs that this Spell/Feat/Class is fundementally better than another, because you will be proven wrong. For example, in encounters with many lesser CR baddies, Evocation doesn't look bad at all.
You will be proven wrong because the GM would fudge things against you so the Monk 2/Sorcerer 2/Fighter 3 can shine?
By the way Locate City is a great spell to have as a sorcerer if the everything is infested with teleport-the-whole-party-to-the-middle-of-nowhere traps and the DM has nerfed Knowdledge(geography).
Everything can be made useful if the GM deceids to make it useful.
It all depends on a groups playstyle.
Wich are to varied to be taken into account individualy so we must use our common base, the rules, to make arguments, unless decided otherwise. If not we can have arguments like CON is a dump stat to Melee Fighters, because level up HD is enough because in my group we roll maxed HP.
It is an opinion, and honestly, who are you to say any sort of descriptor for them? That is both extremely rude as well as arrogent. Playstyle is the most important factor for implementing something in a game, light years beyond tiers, mathmatical breakdowns, RAW, and Char Op consenses.
The problem is that A Man in Black was right, but his tone was disrespectful and inapropiate.
The reason I don't think that all Duskblades should automatically get those abilities are along the same lines that other classes do not. No class in existance should have Combat Casting as a bonus Feat moreso than the Cleric, who no matter what style of Cleric you play, will need to be in close combat and casting at some point. It could be emergincy healing, or party buffs, or one of the majority of spells requiring a touch, or becaue the area needs to affect the whole party, or all targets.
So does the Wizards, Sorcerer, Witch, Summoner, Bard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, etc, but none is as hard-wired to cast in melee as the Duskblade so your point is invalid.
Along the same lines, PF's ideal is that Fighters and Paladins need to be special in having Heavy Armor, and like the Cleric losing it, so does the Duskblade now, in order to keep Fightrs and Paladins a step above, and completely different than the Duskblade. It is, after all "just one Feat. . .". :)
The removal of Heavy Armor Proficiency for Clerics was a balancing decision to nerf the battle-preist wich was a better figther than the Figther.
PF offers all characters more feats, and Duskblades already have a large amount of class features, but do not ave an inborn need to make a choice between features, like a Ranger Fighting Style, Domains/School/Bloodline, etc. . . Making Duskblades need to invest in those feats would start down that road. It was also mentioned just how little Duskblades need to plan, and that is something that should be added.
Ah! That's the reason! You wanted to make Duskblade on par with the multiple choice class feature's we all love from Pathfinder by removing the class features and giving nothing... wait WHAT?!
Humbly,
Yawar
|
|
The problem is that A Man in Black was right, but his tone was disrespectful and inapropiate.
Actually, no, he called an opinion wrong, which is not possible. An opinion can be a bad one, and this one is not, but it can not be right or wrong.
The reason I don't think that all Duskblades should automatically get those abilities are along the same lines that other classes do not. No class in existance should have Combat Casting as a bonus Feat moreso than the Cleric, who no matter what style of Cleric you play, will need to be in close combat and casting at some point. It could be emergincy healing, or party buffs, or one of the majority of spells requiring a touch, or becaue the area needs to affect the whole party, or all targets.
So does the Wizards, Sorcerer, Witch, Summoner, Bard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, etc, but none is as hard-wired to cast in melee as the Duskblade so your point is invalid.
Actually, no, even moreso than Duskblades, Clerics as a class need to be casting in battle. While it is possible to beild one that do not focus on this, the generic class itself is centered around this. I'm hesitent to go further into ths, simply because Cleric (in concept) is (was!!!) my favorate class, and I don't want others to get the impression that that is why I feel the Duskblade would need to change, as all thre things seemed to use the Cleric nerfs as an example.
Along the same lines, PF's ideal is that Fighters and Paladins need to be special in having Heavy Armor, and like the Cleric losing it, so does the Duskblade now, in order to keep Fightrs and Paladins a step above, and completely different than the Duskblade. It is, after all "just one Feat. . .". :)
The removal of Heavy Armor Proficiency for Clerics was a balancing decision to nerf the battle-preist wich was a better figther than the Figther.
It was part Cleric nerf, but also mostly to elevate the Fighter and to add a distinction between the Cleric and Paladin. Same should hold true with the Duskblade, who should be less martial than a straight Fighter.
PF offers all characters more feats, and Duskblades already have a large amount of class features, but do not ave an inborn need to make a choice between features, like a Ranger Fighting Style, Domains/School/Bloodline, etc. . . Making Duskblades need to invest in those feats would start down that road. It was also mentioned just how little Duskblades need to plan, and that is something that should be added.
Ah! That's the reason! You wanted to make Duskblade on par with the multiple choice class feature's we all love from Pathfinder by removing the its class features and giving nothing... wait WHAT?!
Hey, that is the PF way. Not every class got something new and cool, and a few lost a lot of what they did have.
It has extra feats now, so exatly like the remarks against the Cleric losing stuff, it is only one feat away. But what exactly could you add, without stepping on others toes? How about Paladin like abilities that only affect allies in 10 ft?
To be honest, the only thing I can think of would be to add a few more spells known choices, maybe two levels after the Duskblade gets a new spell level, they can add a single Wizard spell of that level to their known spells. This sort of serves both sides, allowing for personalization of the Duskblade into other schools/areas of spells like debuffs, but also doesn't greatly increase the classes overall power.
I mean th Duskblade must be a different path than the Bard, the EK, the Arcane Archer, and an other existing "Gish". If not, your inviting all the same problems that 3E had, (which personally, didn't, so could honestly care less about the Duskblade). And that is also why I think my opinion holds a little more water than most, because I am completely neutral on the subject. But, it is just my opinion.
|
|
Um, no, not realy. That is kind of the point of an opinion. You sound pretty confussed. If you say "your favorate color is blue", and I say "no, your wrong", well that is pretty dumb now isn't it. But anyway, this is what I am saying.
If you fight a lot of lesser HD/CR creatures rather than single greater HD/CR creatures, than Evocation area effects are stronger than other types of spells. It is all about playstyle.
Also, what I am saying about random treasure and not having the ability to purchase the exact gear you might want, than specific builds that might be based on a fighting style, like a Fighter going TWF Kukris becomes less and less plausable as a good choice. For example, at level 10, having to deside between a +2 Shocking Short Sword and +1 Viscious Handaxe, or a +1 Kukri and a Masterwork Kukri when you have Weapon Focus, Spcialization, Improved Crit Kukri is a poor choice. Your build might otherwise be strong, but you might not be able to use it effectively.
Notice that the player still "controls" this situation. They have the freedom to foresake thier feat build and go with a weapon that is better, or to continue to play without proper tools, and maybe get them later. But, if your basing the idea soley on what the player does control, as you said, then any build can still be weak in the right, (and I do mean RAW and RAI, perfectly legal) circumstances, and those circumstances might be the norm in a given campaign or group or setting.
Um, no, not realy. That is kind of the point of an opinion. You sound pretty confussed. If you say "your favorate color is blue", and I say "no, your wrong", well that is pretty dumb now isn't it
What you're stating is more of a belief than an opinion. I can say "it is my opinion that the moon is made of cheese" and I would be wrong.
Even in a situation where you are fighting several lower CR creatures, something like Slow, Stinking Cloud, Fear, walls, etc. will still likely net you more than straight damage.
Think about it this way, an average 10th level (max) fireball will do 35 damage. To have an even reasonably good chance of one-shotting a mass of creatures, they would have to be CR3. 3. Freaking 3. So yeah if your DM throws waves of stock CR3 monsters at you (other than fire elementals, natch) then you might do OK by tossing fireballs. Still probably better hasting the party or throwing up a wall though IMO.
But this is neither here nor there.
Um, no, not realy. That is kind of the point of an opinion. You sound pretty confussed. If you say "your favorate color is blue", and I say "no, your wrong", well that is pretty dumb now isn't it. But anyway, this is what I am saying.
If you fight a lot of lesser HD/CR creatures rather than single greater HD/CR creatures, than Evocation area effects are stronger than other types of spells. It is all about playstyle.
Also, what I am saying about random treasure and not having the ability to purchase the exact gear you might want, than specific builds that might be based on a fighting style, like a Fighter going TWF Kukris becomes less and less plausable as a good choice. For example, at level 10, having to deside between a +2 Shocking Short Sword and +1 Viscious Handaxe, or a +1 Kukri and a Masterwork Kukri when you have Weapon Focus, Spcialization, Improved Crit Kukri is a poor choice. Your build might otherwise be strong, but you might not be able to use it effectively.
Notice that the player still "controls" this situation. They have the freedom to foresake thier feat build and go with a weapon that is better, or to continue to play without proper tools, and maybe get them later. But, if your basing the idea soley on what the player does control, as you said, then any build can still be weak in the right, (and I do mean RAW and RAI, perfectly legal) circumstances, and those circumstances might be the norm in a given campaign or group or setting.
So basically this dm doesnt like martial characters? As a DM if you dont provide access to the weapons your characters are using IE the fighter with all his specific feats, or a way to change it (feat retraining for instance), you are a being a jerk. And martial classes will be atrocious. If this makes you happy and everyone enjoys it great, but this is not the world the rest of us live in.
The 3.5 magic item compendium basically layed out that DMs SHOULD make items the players want available within whatever treasure level you set for your campain for a reason. If you arent doing this, you are deviating from a basic assumption of the game's design (wealth by level and appropriate gear). Therefore that game no longer has a bearing on the analysis of the ruleset. You are playing the game OUTSIDE THE RULES OF THE GAME, therefore, your experiences are not based on the rules themselves. So what you should be saying is, in my homebrew subset of the rules, evocation is powerful. Which is true. With the rules as written, you are incorrect.
|
|
So basically this dm doesnt like martial characters? As a DM if you dont provide access to the weapons your characters are using IE the fighter with all his specific feats, or a way to change it (feat retraining for instance), you are a being a jerk. And martial classes will be atrocious. If this makes you happy and everyone enjoys it great, but this is not the world the rest of us live in.
The 3.5 magic item compendium basically layed out that DMs SHOULD make items the players want available within whatever treasure level...
But, that is not true. Many prewriten adventures already have treasure in them, and the point is that the game uses the random generated treasure. This is within the rules, and actually one of the basic concepts of the game as written. Opinion, that is the opinion of the DMs (I've seen a few that do this), really has no part in it. YOur also approaching this like there is a distinct good and bad DM style, but that is based soley on your person preference. Also, don't take this to mean I believe or perfer one way or the other, I just understand that there are other ways, an I mean other valid ways, to do things.
(Off topic, but I also am of the opinion that MIC was the worst book that WotC ever made for 3E, great potential, crap material).
Also, it actually hurts casters as much, if not more than Fighters, because it is the same for everyone, but casters are even more gear dependant. Finding wands of Cure Light, Lesser Restoration, Remove Anything are all rare, and not likely to be purchased. Expensive components are also harder to come by, though it is a bit easier to go to a wizards shop to purchase some of them, at higher levels.
The issue here is you are equating your game style to be the norm, which it simply is not. Neither is it more right than others. It is just the way you play, (and I have also played quite often, mind you), but that doesn't make it more correct or better. Just different. Anyway, I'm shipping out in an hour, so that's it from my side.
The 3.5 magic item compendium basically layed out that DMs SHOULD make items the players want available within whatever treasure level you set for your campain for a reason. If you arent doing this, you are deviating from a basic assumption of the game's design ...
This is complete and utter baloney.
Also, it actually hurts casters as much, if not more than Fighters, because it is the same for everyone, but casters are even more gear dependant. Finding wands of Cure Light, Lesser Restoration, Remove Anything are all rare, and not likely to be purchased. Expensive components are also harder to come by, though it is a bit easier to go to a wizards shop to purchase some of them, at higher levels.
The issue here is you are equating your game style to be the norm, which it simply is not. Neither is it more right than others. It is just the way you play, (and I have also played quite often, mind you), but that doesn't make it more correct or better. Just different. Anyway, I'm shipping out in an hour, so that's it from my side.
GWAH? Casters are more gear dependant then martial characters? What planet do you live on? That is special kinds of not true. A wizard does not need a magic anything for his spells to hit. A stat boosting item is nice, but it is martial characters that are completely reliant on the big six magic items, not casters. You have it backwards. Unavailable costly components restrict SOME of his spells. Unavailable magic weapons restricts EVERYTHING the fighter does. This is not an equal reliance on magic gear.
I am not equating MY game style, I am equating the one the designers used when creating the system. They include standard sale prices with every item, this implies there is a way to sell items (and likewise to buy them or have them made). The book on magic items (whether or not you like its content) recommends this style of play. Modules and adventure paths have items in them because they have to include something. I would love for every module to explicately recommend that you alter treasure to match your party needs but that isnt going to happen. With any luck, the upcomming gamemastery guide will recommend it as a general practice, and the dms who like tormenting their poor martial characters will at least be advised to change their ways.
The 3.5 magic item compendium basically layed out that DMs SHOULD make items the players want available within whatever treasure level you set for your campain for a reason. If you arent doing this, you are deviating from a basic assumption of the game's design ...This is complete and utter baloney.
The wealth by level guide of the game is a core assumption about player power. If you do not allow that wealth to actually aid your player. IE giving the fighter with weapon focus, weapon spec, greater weapon focus, imrpoved crit longsword, nothing but hand axes, you are not actually giving them usable wealth. This deviates from that core assumption of player ability in the game. Saying a player has his wealth because he has a weapon he cannot use is being a jerk. And it is a dm intentionally being antagonistic with his players.
Now mind you i am not talking about DM's with a low magic setting where they specifically hold back magic items (and compensate for it in some way). I am talking to dms who either deliberately dont give useful items to their players or strictly adhere to random tables with no way for players to exchange them by selling and buying/commissioning new items. This is a negative behavior that will interfere with game balance as quickly as the worst munchkin. Since we are having a discussion on what an opinion is, yes this is an opinion (the part about it being a bad practice not the part about wealth being a core assumption of the game), but it is a well founded one.
It's nice to see that one can go away for a few weeks and come back to everything being pretty much the same.
One of these times I expect I will return from vacation and end up completely flabbergasted by the new Fighter/Mage-type options that the good folks at Paizo have just released.
Until that day comes, though, I will take solace in the many hours of reading the lastest thread(s) rehashing these arguments will provide.
It's nice to see that one can go away for a few weeks and come back to everything being pretty much the same.
One of these times I expect I will return from vacation and end up completely flabbergasted by the new Fighter/Mage-type options that the good folks at Paizo have just released.
Until that day comes, though, I will take solace in the many hours of reading the lastest thread(s) rehashing these arguments will provide.
Sometimes going through the motions (rehashing old ideas) is worthwhile. Occassionaly you discover something new, or at least remember things you have forgotten. But its true that the basics of the argument will be around for a LONG long time.
Just throwing this out there, because it was one my DM put together once, and I had a blast with it.
d8 hps, one quarter the bonus feats of a fighter, full babs, fort/will strong, light armor, martial weapons, and had the eldritch blast and invocations of a lock up to the max of 15th lvl, which started at lvl 3
alittle bit overpowered, maybe, but fun fun fun, and it really didnt feel too out of whack compared to the other people, since i didnt have all the swift action feats, and the warlocks invocations are not the best selections
edit: had to correct the number of feats, and armor