Balance matters


Round 1: Magus

251 to 290 of 290 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
According to the Pathfinder bestiary, a hill giant can throw rocks.........120 ft. That is a very heavy assumption that no damage was taken, Ciretose.

Roll the attack, AC 20

I've got enough hit points, and the point is I can beat an equal CR monster fairly easily, showing the Magus isn't underpowered.

Liberty's Edge

Kryzbyn wrote:

I like what you're doing here, and I understand the point you're trying to make here, which unless I'm mistaken is Magus is a worthwhile class. That having been said...
In the above example you didn't fight that giant like a magus...you fought it like a wizard or sorcerer, only waiting till the end to close in and use the class' signature ability. So, in a way you kind of proved Cartigan's point. IMHO, of course.

I think we are on the same page, and based on Cartigan's more recent posts I don't even think we disagree that much.

My point is it isn't underpowered. It isn't supposed to out-melee a Fighter, Barbarian or a Paladin, and it isn't supposed to out-cast a Wizard or Sorcerer. If it did those things, it would make the other classes obsolete, which was the problem with 3.5 at the end. Playing the original classes put you at a disadvantage vs the newer classes. It got unbalanced.

The Magus is supposed to be versatile, and I think it is. You aren't as vulnerable as a wizard, but you can still cast powerful spells. You aren't as limited in options as a fighter, but you can still hit stuff and take a few hits in melee.

I could focus on buff spells and run into Melee, and I have spells that could do that in the build (shield, haste, enlarge person) but it was a hill giant and it made no sense to melee.

I think it needs tweaks at low levels (I think making combat casting part of the 1st level build would do fine), and probably a better capstone (I have no idea on that) but a lot of people keep saying it's underpowered, and I don't see that at all if you actually roll one up and look at all the bonuses included in the class.

Liberty's Edge

Velderan wrote:


People want the magus to be a better class BECAUSE balance matters. If you think a full BAB warrior with 6th level spells is going to break pathfinder, you and I haven't been playing the same game.

I don't know why any time somebody wants a fighter/mage character to work, people must insist they want to play 'god mode.' We've seen it from both forumites and developers, and it's really holding the class...

Make a Fighter and a Magus of the same class and compare them, taking all of the spells into consideration, and I think it's clear why giving it full BAB would outshine a fighter.

There have to be limits to counter advantages. You can make a fighter to show me I'm wrong, but when you consider Paladin and Rangers only get 4th level divine spells with the full BAB, going to 6th level Arcane spells is a big difference.

What penalties would the Magus have to have to make this balanced, in your opinion? Or would you argue that it would be balanced at that point?


ciretose wrote:
My point is it isn't underpowered. It isn't supposed to out-melee a Fighter, Barbarian or a Paladin, and it isn't supposed to out-cast a Wizard or Sorcerer. If it did those things, it would make the other classes obsolete, which was the problem with 3.5 at the end. Playing the original classes put you at a disadvantage vs the newer classes. It got unbalanced.

That never happened.

The wizard never became overshadowed or obsolete. Fighter-mages never took over the cleric or the druid.

Oh, sure. They outdid fighters, barbarians, and paladins, but that's because those three classes sucked.

You're talking about something in 3.5 that never existed.

Grand Lodge

ciretose wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:

Okay for the cartigan and ciretose, how about you all try to kill a hill giant and see who can so in the the shortest amount of time while taking the least amount of damage? Assume the encounter happens at 100 ft away. The giant will lose initative. It's the greatclub wielding giant...and he is stupid and will charge/full attack with melee if he can and throw rocks if he can not. Use whatever tactics you want, damage done will be average based on % to hit.

Sound like a good list of parameters to both of you?

Round 1 I cast fly and get above the giant so he can only throw rocks, and try to stay out of his throwing range.

Round 2 lightning bolt (empowered, range 120) avg 31 damage.

Round 3 Magic Missile (Range is medium) avg damage 9.

Round 4 Cast invisibilty

Round 5 Cast shocking Grasp

Round 6-until I'm in melee range...Close in while invisible and attack with Spell Combat and Spell Strike. Average damage if I hit with attack will be 1d8 +7 (11) + 5d6 for shocking grasp (avg 15) plus scorching ray (ranged touch, need a 19 concentration, so I need to roll above a 5, with a chance to re-roll once a day with another +4 bonus) for 8d6 damage, avg of 24.

I've done 90 damage, he's dead, I'm unharmed.

You didn't account for lightning bolt being save against. The giant may have only a +2 ref save, but against your DC, it's hardly a sure thing that you will do full damage with the lightning bolt. Now as for the giant damage...it can hit your AC of 20 on 14 or higher for an average of 14.5 damage. So your taking 5.075 damage for the first 3 rounds. Half that for rounds 4 and 5. So asuming the giant fails the save, you do it in it 6 rounds while taking 20.3 damage. If the gaint does save, i'm sure you can do something to do the remaining HP on round 7, but you will take an additional 21.85 damage. Oh and you have a 25% chance that your gonna have to use your once per day ability on this.

So now that is the mark that cartiagn has to beat...and really shouldn't be that hard.

Liberty's Edge

Cold Napalm wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:

Okay for the cartigan and ciretose, how about you all try to kill a hill giant and see who can so in the the shortest amount of time while taking the least amount of damage? Assume the encounter happens at 100 ft away. The giant will lose initative. It's the greatclub wielding giant...and he is stupid and will charge/full attack with melee if he can and throw rocks if he can not. Use whatever tactics you want, damage done will be average based on % to hit.

Sound like a good list of parameters to both of you?

Round 1 I cast fly and get above the giant so he can only throw rocks, and try to stay out of his throwing range.

Round 2 lightning bolt (empowered, range 120) avg 31 damage.

Round 3 Magic Missile (Range is medium) avg damage 9.

Round 4 Cast invisibilty

Round 5 Cast shocking Grasp

Round 6-until I'm in melee range...Close in while invisible and attack with Spell Combat and Spell Strike. Average damage if I hit with attack will be 1d8 +7 (11) + 5d6 for shocking grasp (avg 15) plus scorching ray (ranged touch, need a 19 concentration, so I need to roll above a 5, with a chance to re-roll once a day with another +4 bonus) for 8d6 damage, avg of 24.

I've done 90 damage, he's dead, I'm unharmed.

You didn't account for lightning bolt being save against. The giant may have only a +2 ref save, but against your DC, it's hardly a sure thing that you will do full damage with the lightning bolt. Now as for the giant damage...it can hit your AC of 20 on 14 or higher for an average of 14.5 damage. So your taking 5.075 damage for the first 3 rounds. Half that for rounds 4 and 5. So asuming the giant fails the save, you do it in it 6 rounds while taking 20.3 damage. If the gaint does save, i'm sure you can do something to do the remaining HP on round 7, but you will take an additional 21.85 damage. Oh and you have a 25% chance that your gonna have to use your once per day ability on this.

So now that is the mark that cartiagn...

I'm invisible in rounds 4 and 5, and moving. But fine, lets see what Cartigan's cleric does. I still beat a same CR creature straight up.

Liberty's Edge

ProfessorCirno wrote:
ciretose wrote:
My point is it isn't underpowered. It isn't supposed to out-melee a Fighter, Barbarian or a Paladin, and it isn't supposed to out-cast a Wizard or Sorcerer. If it did those things, it would make the other classes obsolete, which was the problem with 3.5 at the end. Playing the original classes put you at a disadvantage vs the newer classes. It got unbalanced.

That never happened.

The wizard never became overshadowed or obsolete. Fighter-mages never took over the cleric or the druid.

Oh, sure. They outdid fighters, barbarians, and paladins, but that's because those three classes sucked.

You're talking about something in 3.5 that never existed.

And you are forgetting that playing a 1st level wizard was a nightmare. You want to talk about a class that needed a low level bump,1d4 hit points, 0 bab, 3 - 0 level spells and 1 - 1st level spell.

That was an class underpowered at low levels vs a Fighter or Barbarian.

They are trying to fix that, so the classes stay closer to balanced at all levels. Casters are still somewhat weaker at low levels and fighters are still somewhat weaker at high levels.

Standard wizards were overshadowed by specialists and prestige class variants. Some of the stuff in complete arcana and the spell compendium were ridiculous.

You just admitted that 3 of the 10 base classes sucked. They only sucked in comparison to the other classes. A goal, if not the goal is to achieve parity with variety.


ciretose wrote:


1. Since everyone was running from the Otyugh and it was standing in the middle of the street in front of an open pit, there is no cover I can see.
2. I already posted the Magus I am using, with all of the prepared spells, prior to this post.
3. Why do I need a dungeoneering check to shoot at a think that popped out of the ground?
4. Fair enough on range, if you are a hardcore DM, I just made a PC error, play on.

1. I wasn't entirely sure that everyone was indeed able to get away from it.

2. Yeah, sorry didn't look back far enough in the thread.

3. You don't, but you always get a knowledge check (if neither of you have the skill its moot) to see what you're up against.

4. Nah, take it back or move forward and do it. Range is 40' and you're 60' away.

-James

Liberty's Edge

james maissen wrote:


1. I wasn't entirely sure that everyone was indeed able to get away from it.

2. Yeah, sorry didn't look back far enough in the thread.

3. You don't, but you always get a knowledge check (if neither of you have the skill its moot) to see what you're up against.

4. Nah, take it back or move forward and do it. Range is 40' and you're 60' away.

-James

In that case, if there is cover I'm casting shield and moving up 20 (all I can do in a breast plate.

That will kick my AC up to 24, and put me 40 away from big ugly. Now both of us are 40 away with 1 1st level spell burned.

Grand Lodge

Poke cartigan, you have 6 rounds and 20ish damage to kill the hill giant to out right win. 7 round and 40ish damage to have it be toss up...you can do it.


ciretose wrote:

And you are forgetting that playing a 1st level wizard was a nightmare. You want to talk about a class that needed a low level bump,1d4 hit points, 0 bab, 3 - 0 level spells and 1 - 1st level spell.

That was an class underpowered at low levels vs a Fighter or Barbarian.

This is the rare "12 int" wizard, then? Even at level 1 wizards could expect to have 3 level 1 spells. Int bonus, specialization. Given that the "standard" working day was four combats and even at level 1 he could throw down spells that literally just ended the fight right then and there, that means he had one battle in which he was hurting.

Quote:
Standard wizards were overshadowed by specialists and prestige class variants. Some of the stuff in complete arcana and the spell compendium were ridiculous.

Specialists and the problem that created prestige classes were from the core book though. And specialists are still wizards. Hell, prestige class wizards were still wizards, that's why they were so ungodly powerful.

As for complete Arcana and Spell Compendium, Shapechange is still a PHB spell, as is Time Stop. Oh, other books offered very potent spells, I don't deny that...but the big guns? Those came from the core book. The book Natural Spell was in.

Liberty's Edge

Cold Napalm wrote:
Poke cartigan, you have 6 rounds and 20ish damage to kill the hill giant to out right win. 7 round and 40ish damage to have it be toss up...you can do it.

He posted his build, someone else can run with it. I don't see it happening.

Liberty's Edge

ProfessorCirno wrote:


Specialists and the problem that created prestige classes were from the core book though. And specialists are still wizards. Hell, prestige class wizards were still wizards, that's why they were so ungodly powerful.

As for complete Arcana and Spell Compendium, Shapechange is still a PHB spell, as is Time Stop. Oh, other books offered very potent spells, I don't deny that...but the big guns? Those came from the core book. The book Natural Spell was in.

4 hit points + con, average of 2 hit points a level + con, no armor.

And the first level wizard spell list was not full of game changers, even if you had 3 of them a day...

http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/s oveliorsage/wizardSpells.html

You are absolutely right about wizards at higher levels, although I don't know how you are using Natural spell since Wild Shape is a prereq...


ciretose wrote:
I still beat a same CR creature straight up.

Why do you act like this is such a big deal? Arcane casters do this all the time, it's only a problem for little fighting men to do so, too.


ciretose wrote:

And you are forgetting that playing a 1st level wizard was a nightmare. You want to talk about a class that needed a low level bump,1d4 hit points, 0 bab, 3 - 0 level spells and 1 - 1st level spell.

That was an class underpowered at low levels vs a Fighter or Barbarian.

They are trying to fix that, so the classes stay closer to balanced at all levels. Casters are still somewhat weaker at low levels and fighters are still somewhat weaker at high levels.

Standard wizards were overshadowed by specialists and prestige class variants. Some of the stuff in complete arcana and the spell compendium were ridiculous.

You just admitted that 3 of the 10 base classes sucked. They only sucked in comparison to the other classes. A goal, if not the goal is to achieve parity with variety.

Those poor underpowered Wizards, only able to instantly win two or three fights a day out of four. So weak... Oh wait...

Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins sucked compared to their opposition. They were dead weight in the party because everyone on the field, friend and foe was better than them. Unless 'them' means Bard, Ranger, or Monk, then they were in the same situation. Rogues were a little better off, but everything that made them good got nerfed in PF.

Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
Mistah Green wrote:
Which is why if you compare an NPC level 9 melee anything to a Frost Giant, the Giant has better stats all around. And if you're worse than the generic level 9 melee opponent, you're not really level 9. Simple to understand.
You are aware that a CR 9 creature is supposed to be an average encounter for a party of four PC's, right? It isn't supposed to be dealt with by a single PC. Much like how that CR 19 ancient red dragon with 362 HP and the full abilities of a 15th level sorcerer on top all the other abilities isn't meant for a single 19th level character to deal with.

A level 9 anything is theoretically equal to a CR 9 anything.

The Magus should go 50/50 against a Frost Giant because he's supposed to be just as strong as it is.

I'm not sure where the four Frost Giant thing is coming from, but they outclass him so bad 3 can ignore him and he'll still lose hard. After all every time that Frost Giant swings he's all but guaranteed to hit, and do up to 31 damage or so with mid 20s being most common. Meanwhile the Magus has to struggle hard just to dent the thing.

And as for red dragons, the main meaningful class feature is spellcasting. An actual 19th level wizard, or sorcerer wins easily because they have 8th and 9th level spells. Clerics and Druids do it too. Everyone else loses hard, but it's no secret full casters > anything else.

Of course this assumes the red dragon sticks to the real spells. Which for it means defensive and offensive buffs, movement abilities, and save or lose spells. If it just flies around and casts Fireball or some other such turn wasting action it might as well be committing suicide.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mistah Green wrote:
Rogues were a little better off, but everything that made them good got nerfed in PF.

Are we living on the same planet ? How is making undead/constructs sneak-able and giving rogues some abilities that matter (such as limited spellcasting) a nerf ?


Gorbacz wrote:
Mistah Green wrote:
Rogues were a little better off, but everything that made them good got nerfed in PF.
Are we living on the same planet ? How is making undead/constructs sneak-able and giving rogues some abilities that matter (such as limited spellcasting) a nerf ?

Here are the things that made Rogues good:

Ability to touch attack consistently while sneak attacking, by virtue of throwing some manner of alchemical flask at them.

Ability to consistently get sneak attacks in the first place, done by a Ring of Blinking at higher levels and a Wand of Grease at lower levels.

Ability to overcome the inherent weakness of dual wielding via the wording of their special class feature, which allowed them to take Perfect Two Weapon Fighting at level 10.

Without any of these things, Rogues aren't playable anymore. Without all of them, they're a joke class. They all got nerfed out of existence, therefore they are a joke class. And adding in some class features that are meaningless either because they don't do much, or because they already had them does not change this. As Rogues already could just use Gravestrike, or Golemstrike and not care, they already had those features.

Now you might be tempted to say something to the effect of 'Oh, but we didn't use the rulebook with those spells'. Thing is, making a playable non caster requires raiding a bunch of different books for various features you need to do that. So if they can't get some, or all of their combo it's the same as saying that they cannot play that character.


We are not going into the sheer idiocy that is the flask rogue :|


Mistah Green wrote:


Ability to overcome the inherent weakness of dual wielding via the wording of their special class feature, which allowed them to take Perfect Two Weapon Fighting at level 10.

This is the first time I have ever seen such shenanigans being pulled, ever, even considering a bunch of rogue optimization books and threads. Mr Mistah, I believe the standards you compare rogues to are flawed.


Mistah Green wrote:
Ability to overcome the inherent weakness of dual wielding via the wording of their special class feature, which allowed them to take Perfect Two Weapon Fighting at level 10.

It's funny, because

3.5 PHB wrote:
Feat: A rogue may gain a bonus feat in place of a special ability.

is taken to mean that he can take any feat without having to meet the prerequisites.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Synapse wrote:
Mistah Green wrote:


Ability to overcome the inherent weakness of dual wielding via the wording of their special class feature, which allowed them to take Perfect Two Weapon Fighting at level 10.
This is the first time I have ever seen such shenanigans being pulled, ever, even considering a bunch of rogue optimization books and threads. Mr Mistah, I believe the standards you compare rogues to are flawed.

Flawed indeed.


Synapse wrote:
Mistah Green wrote:


Ability to overcome the inherent weakness of dual wielding via the wording of their special class feature, which allowed them to take Perfect Two Weapon Fighting at level 10.
This is the first time I have ever seen such shenanigans being pulled, ever, even considering a bunch of rogue optimization books and threads. Mr Mistah, I believe the standards you compare rogues to are flawed.

My standards are 'level 10 and higher enemies'. They're all capable of performing far beyond normal human capability. If you aren't able to follow suit, you can no longer participate in the adventure. Which means you need to be able to do stuff just as crazy.

And the only way Rogues could do that is 10 touch attack sneak attacks a round.

Everyone who tells you something to the effect of 'Rogues are an average class' is telling the truth, provided all three of the conditions I set are true. Because they are only average, they are barely on the side of playable, so losing anything knocks them down to below par. And losing any of those, or especially all of them knocks them down rather far.


I'm calling it flawed because you believe a rogue that can do "6 touch sneak attacks per round"(note that Perfect TWF does not give you 4 offhand attacks. It gives "as many as main hand") is just barely playable. With just the bit where they consistently sneak attack (#2 of your 3 conditions) they are already well within the "as good as anything that isn't a 3/4 or full caster" range.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Malaclypse wrote:
Mistah Green wrote:
Ability to overcome the inherent weakness of dual wielding via the wording of their special class feature, which allowed them to take Perfect Two Weapon Fighting at level 10.

It's funny, because

3.5 PHB wrote:
Feat: A rogue may gain a bonus feat in place of a special ability.
is taken to mean that he can take any feat without having to meet the prerequisites.

OH! Just like fighters can ignore all prereqs on THEIR bonus feats! Gotcha.

Thppp.

=Aelryinth


Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting feat at level 10?

Is that the one that has Dexterity 25, Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting as prerequisites on top of it being an Epic feat?

If so, how is this possible exactly?


F. Castor wrote:

Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting feat at level 10?

Is that the one that has Dexterity 25, Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting and Greater Two-Weapon Fighting as prerequisites on top of it being an Epic feat?

If so, how is this possible exactly?

The wording of the ability does not state they must meet the prerequisites. As bonus feats are considered to not require you to meet the prerequisites unless stated otherwise, and it does not state otherwise...

Otherwise this would be a useless ability.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/clericDomains.htm#warDomain

Among other examples.

The sad thing is dual wielding is so sad that even getting some high level feat for it much sooner, and for free still only makes it a ho hum ability.

As for Fighters...

Quote:

Bonus Feats

At 1st level, a fighter gets a bonus combat-oriented feat in addition to the feat that any 1st-level character gets and the bonus feat granted to a human character. The fighter gains an additional bonus feat at 2nd level and every two fighter levels thereafter (4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th, and 20th). These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats. A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums.

Hi Welcome

Synapse wrote:
I'm calling it flawed because you believe a rogue that can do "6 touch sneak attacks per round"(note that Perfect TWF does not give you 4 offhand attacks. It gives "as many as main hand") is just barely playable. With just the bit where they consistently sneak attack (#2 of your 3 conditions) they are already well within the "as good as anything that isn't a 3/4 or full caster" range.

Confused level 10 with level 16. Fine, 6 attacks. Each is doing about 25 damage or so. Level 10 enemies average 136 HP, and even as touch attacks it's not likely all six will connect. If even one of them misses it gets to counterattack, and as Rogues are even squishier than Fighters (yes, you heard me right) this will not end well for him... Luckily by this point he has a Ring of Blinking as his means of consistently sneak attacking.

Level 11? He gains about 5 damage per attack, and enemies gain 28 HP. So it's about the same.

If he loses the ability to get PTWF he loses at least one attack, and more than one at later levels. Since he's barely on the edge of viability, yes this does drop him off the map. If he has to attack as normal attacks instead of touch attacks he starts missing a lot more often even with the +2, vs flat footed from Blink. And melee attacks will take a 20% miss chance with Blink automatically whereas ranged attacks do not. So either he burns cash on Ghost Touch for both his short swords or whatever, or he goes into melee range with a bow. Neither of which work nearly as well as flasks + SA.

So yes, I stand by my statement of 'without any of those, he's no longer at par, and without all of them he's a joke class... and since PF nerfed all of them, Rogues are no longer on the map'.


I should think quite the opposite. One might say that bonus feats require you to meet the prerequisites unless stated otherwise.

For example, the ranger, when granted the Archery or Two-Weapon Fighting feats is explicitly stated to get those feats even if he does not meet the prerequisites.

If what you are saying is true, the 3.5 rogue just became the most unbalanced class ever after the publication of the Epic Level Handbook.

Edit:

Mistah Green wrote:
As bonus feats are considered to not require you to meet the prerequisites unless stated otherwise,

Where is this written? Because it seems like the mother of all loopholes game- and rules-wise.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

I think you all are forgetting something on this Magus vs Hill Giant.

#1) If it was a wizard he would be even more hosed. Why? Because the situation is the same, and the wizard doesn't have optimal spells, and he's got fewer hit points and a worse AC.

#2) The Magus is a prepared caster. Every wizard example subconsciously assumes the wizard gets to prepare his ideal spells against any given foe...that's his shtick over a sorcerer. If the wizard cannot do that, then the sorcerer is by far a better caster...carries around more spells known, on average, and can cast them repeatedly more times a day.

As soon as the Magus above knows he's fighting a hill giant or a bunch of frost giants, he can retool his spells to maximize his effectiveness. The wizard can do the same. The encounter will look very different if the Hill Giant is eating a pair of 72 pt Scorching Ray attacks from a Metamagic Rod. Indeed, the fight might be over before it gets to act. The same case can be made with the frost giants...if they are close together, two maximized fireballs, one in the surprise round and one in the next, will do base 90 dmg to each, and could wipe them out cold. If they are lined up, a fire-variant lightning bolt could do the same.

Don't get me wrong...I believe the magus needs more spell slots in order to be effective in melee combat. OR, it needs to be able to do something with Arcane Strike to up its dmg to a respectable level.

I like the Duskblade and spon caster path because of the extra spell slots, but I like the Magus able to swap out spells. Combine both, and I think you've a winner on the class. Yeah, the low-level concentration check mechanic might have to be reworked...or maybe you just temporarily take a feat to make it work, who knows?

And don't forget, you get to spend the extra gold you aren't spending on your weapon...wisely.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

F. Castor wrote:

I should think quite the opposite.

For example, the ranger, when granted the Archery or Two-Weapon Fighting feats is explicitly stated to get those feats even if he does not meet the prerequisites.

If what you are saying is true, the 3.5 rogue just became the most unbalanced class ever after the publication of the Epic Level Handbook.

This is correct. Read any feat, and it is assumed you MUST meet the pre-reqs UNLESS you specifically are told you do not have to, not the other way around.

Clearly, someone was taking great liberties with this ability. The default for bonus feats is that they are treated just like all other feats, unless specifically told they don't have to. And, it's worth noting, when this is done, it's usually a VERY specific feat (monk feats, Ranger fighting styles) or from an extremely small list, just to prevent this kind of abuse.

The only open end basis feats are Fighters, and they MUST meet pre-reqs.

==Aelryinth


F. Castor wrote:
Mistah Green wrote:
As bonus feats are considered to not require you to meet the prerequisites unless stated otherwise,
Where is this written? Because it seems like the mother of all loopholes game- and rules-wise.

Read the edit. Weapon Focus requires BAB 1. Yet the War Domain gives it to Clerics. Yes, even level 1 Clerics. Who have 0 BAB.

It might be a more meaningful loophole if two weapon fighting was a good combat style. But it isn't.

If you found someone who had not played D&D, and explained to them what Perfect Two Weapon Fighting did, and then let them look at the rules for dual wielding and for using a two handed weapon they'd say something like 'Wait, I need to pay a feat to do the damage I could do for free with a Greatsword?'

And then they realize the truth is more like they'd have to pay six feats, and still be worse than the free Greatsword.

'Someone must have really hated Driz'zt.'

And Wizard vs Hill Giant... Eh. Any Will save based effect that works on Hill Giants will end the encounter on the spot. No specifics are required other than this. The only way the Wizard is losing is if he ignores his superhuman intellect to load up on Fireballs instead of taking the good stuff. But I already know that it's possible to lose if you throw the match, so that doesn't mean anything.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
We are not going into the sheer idiocy that is the flask rogue :|

Why are you calling it idiocy. It doesn't seem stupid.

1) touch attack
2) Area attack (splash damage)
3) Sneak attack

Those seem to add up to being very smary options for a rogue.

Alchemy flask are fairly cheap as well.


Starbuck_II wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
We are not going into the sheer idiocy that is the flask rogue :|

Why are you calling it idiocy. It doesn't seem stupid.

1) touch attack
2) Area attack (splash damage)
3) Sneak attack

Those seem to add up to being very smary options for a rogue.

Alchemy flask are fairly cheap as well.

The area attack only does 1 damage and does not deliver sneak attacks. Only the direct hit does that. It's not a factor at any level.


Mistah Green wrote:

Read the edit. Weapon Focus requires BAB 1. Yet the War Domain gives it to Clerics. Yes, even level 1 Clerics. Who have 0 BAB.

It might be a more meaningful loophole if two weapon fighting was a good combat style. But it isn't.

I read it and I am not sure how this proves your point. The War Domain gives a very specific pair of feats in accordance with its theme (War), just like the ranger gets Track at 1st level and Rapid Shot or Two-Weapon Fighting at 2nd, or how the monk gets Improved Unarmed Strike at 1st and so on and so forth. It is more like a class ability, a very specific one, rather than choosing any bonus feat in general.

That is a long way from being able to choose an Epic feat with half a dozen prerequisites at 10th level. Even disregarding the prerequisites themselves, the feat actually requires being an Epic character, a fact it does not really list among the prerequisites. Yet it is a given because of the type or category of feat.

Furthermore, at least in my opinion anyway, being granted an extra feat because of a class ability is far from useless. After all, if one does not find a feat he wants, there are the actual rogue special abilities to choose from, such as Improved Evasion.

Regardless, I find your logic a little flawed, that just because something that most -if not all- players and DMs consider to be a given is not explicitly stated, you interpret it the way you do. In fact, I cannot think of a gaming table where such a thing could actually take place, but you never know... :-)

And it is actually one hell of a loophole, or rather it would be, because the rogue would not be limited to Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting, but could instead choose any feat and any Epic feat he wanted. Regardless of what one thinks of the Epic feats and their effectiveness, they could be potentially game-breaking at, say, level 10.

But, of course, to each their own I suppose. You like it that way, you have a DM that allows it, then by all means use it. Fun is the main factor here, as this is a game. :-)


F. Castor wrote:
Mistah Green wrote:

Read the edit. Weapon Focus requires BAB 1. Yet the War Domain gives it to Clerics. Yes, even level 1 Clerics. Who have 0 BAB.

It might be a more meaningful loophole if two weapon fighting was a good combat style. But it isn't.

I read it and I am not sure how this proves your point. The War Domain gives a very specific pair of feats in accordance with its theme (War), just like the ranger gets Track at 1st level and Rapid Shot or Two-Weapon Fighting at 2nd, or how the monk gets Improved Unarmed Strike at 1st and so on and so forth. It is more like a class ability, a very specific one, rather than choosing any bonus feat in general.

That is a long way from being able to choose an Epic feat with half a dozen prerequisites at 10th level. Even disregarding the prerequisites themselves, the feat actually requires being an Epic character, a fact it does not really list among the prerequisites. Yet it is a given because of the type or category of feat.

No statement of needing to meet the prereqs = no statement of needing to meet the prereqs.

Quote:
Furthermore, at least in my opinion anyway, being granted an extra feat because of a class ability is far from useless. After all, if one does not find a feat he wants, there are the actual rogue special abilities to choose from, such as Improved Evasion.

Improved Evasion is a terrible ability. Granted, most feats aren't really any better. But feats are notoriously weak, with few exceptions.

Quote:
Regardless, I find your logic a little flawed, that just because something that most -if not all- players and DMs consider to be a given is not explicitly stated, you interpret it the way you do. In fact, I cannot think of a gaming table where such a thing could actually take place, but you never know... :-)

I can think of about 2 dozen very easily. Because I personally know 20 something DMs that have a good enough grasp on the game to realize that dual wielding is woefully underpowered and even the best TWF feat is barely worth giving away.

Of course I can think of a lot more that would try to house rule it out as a kneejerk reaction stemming from their lack of game mechanics. But that is an unfortunate side effect of most people not being aware of the finer workings of their game.

Quote:

And it is actually one hell of a loophole, or rather it would be, because the rogue would not be limited to Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting, but could instead choose any feat and any Epic feat he wanted. Regardless of what one thinks of the Epic feats and their effectiveness, they could be potentially game-breaking at, say, level 10.

But, of course, to each their own I suppose. You like it that way, you have a DM that allows it, then by all means use it. Fun is the main...

They would be game breakers... except the other Epic feats don't offer a whole lot either. The only thing epic about them is the meh response they elict. Kind of like a certain game that spawned a certain greeting based catchphrase.

Hi Welcome

Let's see...

Extra magic item slot was already remade as a non epic feat.

Ooh, +1 AC. Now enemies can hit me on a negative 9 instead of a negative 10!

Hey, I can make flasks do 2d6 base damage if I pay 5 times as much and hit a DC in the 40s! Oh wait, I have sneak attack. Nevermind.

Ooh, I can cast spells I don't actually have as a Swift action! Or without Verbal or Somatic components!

Hey, I can make my weapon Bane against a Favored Enemy! Except I still don't have any favored enemies, so it doesn't do anything!

Hey, I can get half the effect of the Boots of Speed I already have! Wait, what am I doing?

...I could keep going, but it's a bunch of feats that either would literally do nothing for a Rogue because they don't have the right features to use them anyways or a bunch of very minor and decidedly non epic abilities.


ciretose wrote:


In that case, if there is cover I'm casting shield and moving up 20 (all I can do in a breast plate.

That will kick my AC up to 24, and put me 40 away from big ugly. Now both of us are 40 away with 1 1st level spell burned.

The creature attacks three different citizens. The first one with a tentacle at 10' killing them, the next with a bite at 10' killing them as well, and finally a tentacle at 15' hitting then grabbing the victim who then falls at the creature's feet.

The creature moves 5' forward towards more panicked citizens in your direction.

The remaining citizens flee, with the creature only taking one AOO that hits, grabs then kills the victim.

You are 35feet away with the area between you covered with little debris from the fleeing people who have run past you in their hurry to safety.

-James


Aelryinth wrote:


#1) If it was a wizard he would be even more hosed. Why? Because the situation is the same, and the wizard doesn't have optimal spells, and he's got fewer hit points and a worse AC.

He also has Greater Invisibility.

Game, set, match.

Liberty's Edge

QUOTE="james maissen"]

ciretose wrote:

The creature attacks three different citizens. The first one with a tentacle at 10' killing them, the next with a bite at 10' killing them as well, and finally a tentacle at 15' hitting then grabbing the victim who then falls at the creature's feet.

The creature moves 5' forward towards more panicked citizens in your direction.

The remaining citizens flee, with the creature only taking one AOO that hits, grabs then kills the victim.

You are 35feet away with the area between you covered with little debris from the fleeing people who have run past you in their hurry to safety.

-James

Load shocking grasp into my sword and move me up (10 would be half movement)


james maissen wrote:
ciretose wrote:


In that case, if there is cover I'm casting shield and moving up 20 (all I can do in a breast plate.

That will kick my AC up to 24, and put me 40 away from big ugly. Now both of us are 40 away with 1 1st level spell burned.

The creature attacks three different citizens. The first one with a tentacle at 10' killing them, the next with a bite at 10' killing them as well, and finally a tentacle at 15' hitting then grabbing the victim who then falls at the creature's feet.

The creature moves 5' forward towards more panicked citizens in your direction.

The remaining citizens flee, with the creature only taking one AOO that hits, grabs then kills the victim.

You are 35feet away with the area between you covered with little debris from the fleeing people who have run past you in their hurry to safety.

-James

I have no idea where we were or what I did and this is getting buried in this thread and there is something with a Hill Giant.

But I think I was going to charge either one so let's go with that.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

Hey there all,

It seems that every time we have a playtest there needs to be a lengthy and largely pointless thread performing hypothetical comparisons of the class to other classes (who have different goals and talents) or to single monsters without group support (which is not how the game itself is played).

While useful for a bit, these threads are ultimately not all that productive. They are certainly not as useful as actual playtest data. They almost always devolve in to bickering and trolling.

This one has run it's course. Do not start another

This thread is locked.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

251 to 290 of 290 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Magic Playtest / Round 1: Magus / Balance matters All Messageboards
Recent threads in Round 1: Magus
Board closed