Enchanter Tom wrote: Why is this the popular opinion around here? Clerics can kick the crap out of the magus, but people think that giving the magus full BAB is OMG OVARPOWERED. That's ridiculous. It's because full BAB is incredibly overrated. In actuality it's a near meaningless class feature, worth about as much as such gems as 'At level 20, you can Feather Fall at will' and 'At level 17, you are immune to a minor status effect'.
If it's something you have to pay for, the result is a bunch of weak full BAB classes, and good 3/4th and 1/2 BAB classes. Sound like 3.5? That's because that's exactly the reason 3.5 has so many balance problems - they charged the full BAB classes 50 US Dollars for a McDonalds hamburger.
For example, take this guy.
Aelryinth wrote: uh huh.
Take full BAB away from the Duskblade. What happens to it?
It blows.
Why isn't the bard an awesome combat class? It doesn't have full BAB.
What would the Barbarian be without full BAB? Rage would never make up for it.
Add BAB to the Psychic Warrior. It was already good...it would TOWER over other fighting classes.
Give the Monk Full BAB. His DPR effectively DOUBLES. COmbined with all his other class benefits, he'd put other Melees from 3.5 to shame (which is why Pathfinder Monk flurry is so much more powerful then 3.5 Flurry in DPR)
You don't acknowledge the importance of BAB because you're so myopically focused on 'spells, spells, spells.' I don't care about spells because anyone can have access to the spells that help you hit. BAB is extremely hard to replace for the long run (and that cleric with Divine Power begging for a Dispel doesn't count), and has major reverberations over the course of a fighting career, from forcing suck when taking PrC's without full BAB, to me hitting on my second attack as easily as you can on your primary.
The Magus' spell list has considerably more utility then the Duskblade. It shouldn't be quite as good on offense. Plus you are not considering the power of the arcane bond freeing up 150k in gold for the Magus to use as he pleases. 150k buys a lot of useful toys and effects, and MUST be calculated into class balance.
========
People wouldn't be whining for full BAB if it didn't make a considerable difference, i.e. it's valuable, and no, you don't give it away.
===Aelryinth
He obviously doesn't understand this. Which is why the answer to his questions is as follows:
Duskblade: Made after the WotC designers started to realize full BAB doesn't mean that much, consequently he wouldn't lose much, just an attack that will miss anyways.
Bard: A Bard with lots of books is an awesome melee combatant. Of course one that lacks those books isn't, but the same is true for anyone who tries to melee. Between a +14 song, Knowledge Devotion, and the Bard's defensive buffs you're almost as good as a true gish while being much more straightforward to make and to play. Making up that trivial +1 to +5 to hit is no problem at all. Such a build would manage among the highest to hit numbers actually, and boosting up the whole party (let's say 2 CoDzillas and a Wizard) to boot.
The Barbarian is a sucky class because at the time it was made people believed full BAB actually meant something. So if it lost full BAB then, it probably would have gained some class features that actually mattered, making it objectively better. If it just lost the full BAB without compensation it would be a sucky class, except that it already was off the consideration list so that does not matter.
Likewise the Psychic Warrior ended up being a good melee class mainly because it did NOT have full BAB - if it did, they would have made the rest of the class suck. But if they did give it full BAB without crippling it... yay, Psychic Warriors now have marginally higher to hit!
Even if full BAB doubled a Monk's damage, given that his damage before was somewhere between 'Hey, keep fanning me, that feels good.' to 'Stop it, that tickles.' even doubling is not enough to make him playable. Try quadrupling, at the minimum.
People only clamor for full BAB because they don't realize it's overrated, which in turn proves that it is overrated, else they wouldn't try so hard to get something so weak. And then they fork over 50 bucks for a synthisammich and don't get what they pay for.
Oh and it isn't exactly hard to make yourself immune to Dispel. Especially since PF nerfed it.
BenignFacist wrote: Enchanter Tom wrote: Since the other thread got locked, I'm going to ask seekerofshadow to put up or shut up: prove to me that full BAB + 6th level spells is overpowered. Prove that it is not. Hi Welcome
Enchanter Tom wrote: Since the other thread got locked, I'm going to ask seekerofshadow to put up or shut up: prove to me that full BAB + 6th level spells is overpowered. You are making a positive claim and you need to provide proof. I'm claiming that it's not overpowered, which is a negative claim, and you can't darn well prove a negative. The burden of proof rests upon you. This is the so crazy. You made the claim in the topic. It seems you are using the premise that "I am right always, you must prove me wrong"
EDIT: You are also hostile and combative. Try to tone it down please. That is not helping your case or helping the playtest at all
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote: I give a bit more weight to professional game designers than I do to rude arrogant troll posters. Name calling much? His post isn't exactly hug friendly, but I don't think it deserves the vitriol your post exudes. Even if it did, do you really want to sink to that level of immaturity? You could just as easily have said "I give a bit more weight to professional game designers than I do other posters."
Shar Tahl wrote: You are also hostile and combative. Try to tone it down please. That is not helping your case or helping the playtest at all I agree. Tom, you need to take it down a notch or five if you want to make it here.
Enchanter Tom wrote:
You don't really into logic.
lolololololololololololololololololololol!
The reason why Full BAB on a bard progression arcane caster is too powerful is pretty simple.
Imagine the the Fighter with bonus feats at level 10.
Now imagine a Fighter Replacement with fewer feats but the ability to cast Enlarge Person (good self buff) 6-7 times a day (5+1-2 from high int), or Grease (good control spell) 5/per day, or you know color spray (low level SoS of doom) 5/day.
In terms of second level spells he's got 5 casts of decent self buffs (blur, bear's endurance, mirror image, etc), a couple of good control spells (web, fog cloud), a few movement spells (spider climb, levitate), plus nice utility spells (invis, minor image).
Once you start factoring in 3rd level spells- Displacement, GMW, Fly, Slow and of course everyone's favorite buff Haste things get interesting. A 10th level Magus can get 4 castings of haste per day pretty much 1 per encounter if he wants.
He's only got 1-2 4th level spells but he can still win many fights with a use of Black Tentacles or raise a defensive barrier with a Wall of Fire or Ice.
So the question is this: Would you ever take a Fighter when you have access to a full BAB martial character that can self buff with arcane spells like those listed above? That's before you even factor in stuff like Magus Arcana and Spellstrike.
Of course not, the Magus would easily be superior in terms of brute strength and more importantly party utility to the fighter.
Unless Jason is clearly going for a fighter replacement, which he's shown absolutely no interest in pursuing or articulating, then it's pretty clear we won't be seeing a Fighter replacement out of the Magus.
Given that the goal is to provide a supplemental caster/martial character rather than a fighter replacement, i.e. a fifth wheel the question is how do you make a 3/4 BAB martial arcane caster feel as valuable as the Bard is?
Just a FYI, gish is a generic term for a fighter-magic user. the 'ideal' for a Gish is +16 BAb and 9th level spells. That is by NO means a REQUIREMENT. A Bard is effectively a gish and does the job pretty well.
As for class abilities of the EK...Full BAB and full spell progression, basically. That's pretty solid class abilities from where I stand, ignoring armor wearing and stuff.
or are you going to be ignoring spellcasting as a class ability, too?
==Aelryinth
Mistah Green wrote: Enchanter Tom wrote: re powerful then 3.5 Flurry in DPR)
Stuff
And your examples keep falling down for one good reason.
You keep harping about all those bonuses that can replace BAB. That's great.
Except all those bonuses STACK with BAB, and they are much better employed on the Fighter then on the Bard.
Give Knowledge Devotion to the Fighter, and lo, he gets some monstrous boosts too! Bad example...one feat gives the same benefits to everyone.
Playing his bardsong buffs the Fighter too...and so the Fighter will continue to outperform him.
That's the power of BAB...temporary spells and bonuses stack atop it, they don't sub for it.
==Aelryinth
vuron wrote: The reason why Full BAB on a bard progression arcane caster is too powerful is pretty simple. And the solution to that problem is a tight spell list that doesn't let him do everything you just mentioned.
vuron wrote: The reason why Full BAB on a bard progression arcane caster is too powerful is pretty simple.
Imagine the the Fighter with bonus feats at level 10.
Now imagine a Fighter Replacement with fewer feats but the ability to cast Enlarge Person (good self buff) 6-7 times a day (5+1-2 from high int), or Grease (good control spell) 5/per day, or you know color spray (low level SoS of doom) 5/day.
In terms of second level spells he's got 5 casts of decent self buffs (blur, bear's endurance, mirror image, etc), a couple of good control spells (web, fog cloud), a few movement spells (spider climb, levitate), plus nice utility spells (invis, minor image).
Once you start factoring in 3rd level spells- Displacement, GMW, Fly, Slow and of course everyone's favorite buff Haste things get interesting. A 10th level Magus can get 4 castings of haste per day pretty much 1 per encounter if he wants.
He's only got 1-2 4th level spells but he can still win many fights with a use of Black Tentacles or raise a defensive barrier with a Wall of Fire or Ice.
So the question is this: Would you ever take a Fighter when you have access to a full BAB martial character that can self buff with arcane spells like those listed above? That's before you even factor in stuff like Magus Arcana and Spellstrike.
Of course not, the Magus would easily be superior in terms of brute strength and more importantly party utility to the fighter.
Unless Jason is clearly going for a fighter replacement, which he's shown absolutely no interest in pursuing or articulating, then it's pretty clear we won't be seeing a Fighter replacement out of the Magus.
Given that the goal is to provide a supplemental caster/martial character rather than a fighter replacement, i.e. a fifth wheel the question is how do you make a 3/4 BAB martial arcane caster feel as valuable as the Bard is?
All you have done is proven how easy it is to replace the Fighter. Even low level spells offer more than he does. Whether said caster does, or does not have full BAB isn't even a factor in the discussion. What is a factor is that if the Fighter is your baseline, everything not named Monk is overpowered. Whereas in actual play the Fighter has a lot more friends in the piker box. Which is why you should never attempt to use the Fighter as a baseline, unless your goal is to make everyone weak to the point of being unplayable.
Aelryinth wrote: And your examples keep falling down for one good reason.
You keep harping about all those bonuses that can replace BAB. That's great.
Except all those bonuses STACK with BAB, and they are much better employed on the Fighter then on the Bard.
Give Knowledge Devotion to the Fighter, and lo, he gets some monstrous boosts too! Bad example...one feat gives the same benefits to everyone.
Playing his bardsong buffs the Fighter too...and so the Fighter will continue to outperform him.
That's the power of BAB...temporary spells and bonuses stack atop it, they don't sub for it.
==Aelryinth
Because Fighters have 5-6 skill points per level, all Knowledge skills as class skills, and meet the prerequisites for Knowledge Devotion? Oh wait...
And why is the party taking the Fighter again? The Bard does everything he does, except better and more. They can take some other class that can contribute on its own instead of piking off others. Or they can take no other class and just run as Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Bard.
I mean really. He's getting outclassed by a spoony bard. Why would the party do anything but laugh at him when he tries to join?
Enchanter Tom wrote: Why is this the popular opinion around here? Clerics can kick the crap out of the magus, but people think that giving the magus full BAB is OMG OVARPOWERED. That's ridiculous. Full BAB isn't needed. 3/4 BAB classes generally get something boost their attack up to Full BAB in a restricted manner. Take the Inquisitor as an example with the Judgment ability to add up to +5 by 20th level so many times per day for the duration of the encounter. Then there is the Bard with Inspire Courage for X rounds a day to give +4 at 17 but affects his allies as well. The Magus gets this too with magic arcana, they can burn 6th level spell for +6 to hit. My only issue is it last one round and burns a 6th level spell. Much too costly for what it does. This is what the Magus needs to like the other 3/4 BAB classes.
Mistah Green wrote: Enchanter Tom wrote: Why is this the popular opinion around here? Clerics can kick the crap out of the magus, but people think that giving the magus full BAB is OMG OVARPOWERED. That's ridiculous. It's because full BAB is incredibly overrated. In actuality it's a near meaningless class feature Your chance to hit has more impact than you're giving it credit for, unless perhaps your typical mode of playing Dnd is powerful characters vs loads of mooks that even the wizard can hit with his staff on a 2 or better.
Coriat wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Enchanter Tom wrote: Why is this the popular opinion around here? Clerics can kick the crap out of the magus, but people think that giving the magus full BAB is OMG OVARPOWERED. That's ridiculous. It's because full BAB is incredibly overrated. In actuality it's a near meaningless class feature Your chance to hit has more impact than you're giving it credit for, unless perhaps your typical mode of playing Dnd is powerful characters vs loads of mooks that even the wizard can hit with his staff on a 2 or better. Nah, hitting is never a problem unless your build is totally screwed. Such as any Monk. Hitting hard enough to make the enemy care he has been hit is another story. And in any case there is no shortage of to hit bonuses, which is all BAB past 15 really does.
Now there are some other people around here that assume typical D&D is your party vs a bunch of mooks, which is how they try and justify Fireball and such as not wasting turns. But those people are not me.
TriOmegaZero wrote: vuron wrote: The reason why Full BAB on a bard progression arcane caster is too powerful is pretty simple. And the solution to that problem is a tight spell list that doesn't let him do everything you just mentioned. I'm not sure anyone really wants to play a Full BAB caster with only low level evocation spells (because that's really the maximum power level you can have without totally making the fighter obsolete). Buffs and Control spells definitely make this theoretical class too good in comparison to the fighter.
While I agree that a tight spell list arcane martial character, i.e. an Arcane Paladin or Hexblade is a currently underrepresented character option it's pretty clear that they were going for the F/MU Bladesinger archetype with this class.
Full BAB, delayed casting, cool class features, limited spell list (debuffs + blasts) would be a very fun class to play. In fact I think they should consider including it in a future product.
However I think Paizo feels that a 3/4 BAB Arcane Duelist is more in keeping with what people want from the Ultimate Magic book and in an arcane caster/martial hybrid. I assume they have some reason for this decision (I suspect the countless "EK is the suxxor!" threads probably contributed to the decision).
Mistah Green wrote:
Now there are some other people around here that assume typical D&D is your party vs a bunch of mooks, which is how they try and justify Fireball and such as not wasting turns. But those people are not me.
Well, the game is for both of them, so your ideas are worth about as much as their ideas.
On the "encounter balance" perspective, I have seen games being incredibly improved by dropping the "4 cr-appropriate encounters per day" dogma. Games were much more enjoyable with numerous lower cr fights (they were faster too), with the occasional cr-appropriate fight for the elite mooks and the over-cr fight for big bads.
Cold Napalm wrote:
If they get crap spells and no class ability...they would be too weak. So instead of bugging the devs for a duskblade, which is a bloody fightery/sorcerer guy, why not ask for a GOOD spell list for the magus so that he can be a balanced fighter/wizard. Which is the design parameter of this class and the BLOODY BOOK IT IS IN. I'm sorry, but what books is the magus coming in again? Ultimate MAGIC was it? Why are people so bloody insistant on making a fightery/mage in a MAGIC based book. Go capaign for it in the ulrimate combat...sheesh.
Because if we get the magus now, what purpose would another fighter/mage have? And if he then gets full bab 3/4 casting, this same argument will break out. It's too powerful, blah, blah, blah. So we will then end up with another hexblade. A full bab half caster who can't beat a ranger's animal companion. Or at best, an arcane paladin, which might be a great class, but hardly a true fighter/mage. May as well let our voices be heard now.
vuron wrote:
I'm not sure anyone really wants to play a Full BAB caster with only low level evocation spells (because that's really the maximum power level you can have without totally making the fighter obsolete). Buffs and Control spells definitely make this theoretical class too good in comparison to the fighter.
Let me clarify: everything you just mentioned at once. Apologies for the confusion.
A little bit of evocation so you can throw a fireball when you feel like it, and maybe one or tow other areas.
Mistah Green wrote: [All you have done is proven how easy it is to replace the Fighter. Even low level spells offer more than he does. Whether said caster does, or does not have full BAB isn't even a factor in the discussion. What is a factor is that if the Fighter is your baseline, everything not named Monk is overpowered. Whereas in actual play the Fighter has a lot more friends in the piker box. Which is why you should never attempt to use the Fighter as a baseline, unless your goal is to make everyone weak to the point of being unplayable. While the 3.x design team clearly made it so that martial classes were losers that trailed far behind the casters in terms of power, it's pretty clear that Pathfinder is attempting to keep all of the core classes, even the Fighter as relevant (the Monk is probably doomed even with APG love).
As such it's a bad design to come out with new classes that totally obsolete the base classes (especially in roughly a year after the core book was released).
I understand that people still feel that Pathfinder is still caster edition with a few nerfs around the edges but I think others definitely don't want to see the Fighter become the NPC Warrior+ class. I think a full BAB bard progression arcane caster does that. I think it basically says to Fighter enthusiasts "Hey your favorite class just became irrelevant... again".
While balance issues with 3.x made a fighter replacement (warblade, duskblade, psy warrior) pretty much required I'd really prefer if Pathfinder didn't go down that road already especially after the APG made the Fighter more relevant than it's ever been.
But if you absolutely have to have a Fighter Replacement why not just incorporate 3.x material into your home game. Basically the failure to include a warblade/duskblade fighter replacement only really impacts Pathfinder Society games and games which are Pathfinder only.
Synapse wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
Now there are some other people around here that assume typical D&D is your party vs a bunch of mooks, which is how they try and justify Fireball and such as not wasting turns. But those people are not me.
Well, the game is for both of them, so your ideas are worth about as much as their ideas.
On the "encounter balance" perspective, I have seen games being incredibly improved by dropping the "4 cr-appropriate encounters per day" dogma. Games were much more enjoyable with numerous lower cr fights (they were faster too), with the occasional cr-appropriate fight for the elite mooks and the over-cr fight for big bads. So your solution is to make combats a series of unengaging and easy fights as a means of making them more engaging? How does this work again?
Because that's what happens when you throw out an easy encounter. The party just says yeah, whatever and goes on auto pilot. And if you keep doing that don't be surprised if attention goes elsewhere.
Mindless flash and slash only works as a side thing, in moderation.
vuron wrote: Mistah Green wrote: [All you have done is proven how easy it is to replace the Fighter. Even low level spells offer more than he does. Whether said caster does, or does not have full BAB isn't even a factor in the discussion. What is a factor is that if the Fighter is your baseline, everything not named Monk is overpowered. Whereas in actual play the Fighter has a lot more friends in the piker box. Which is why you should never attempt to use the Fighter as a baseline, unless your goal is to make everyone weak to the point of being unplayable. While the 3.x design team clearly made it so that martial classes were losers that trailed far behind the casters in terms of power, it's pretty clear that Pathfinder is attempting to keep all of the core classes, even the Fighter as relevant (the Monk is probably doomed even with APG love).
As such it's a bad design to come out with new classes that totally obsolete the base classes (especially in roughly a year after the core book was released).
I understand that people still feel that Pathfinder is still caster edition with a few nerfs around the edges but I think others definitely don't want to see the Fighter become the NPC Warrior+ class. I think a full BAB bard progression arcane caster does that. I think it basically says to Fighter enthusiasts "Hey your favorite class just became irrelevant... again".
While balance issues with 3.x made a fighter replacement (warblade, duskblade, psy warrior) pretty much required I'd really prefer if Pathfinder didn't go down that road already especially after the APG made the Fighter more relevant than it's ever been.
But if you absolutely have to have a Fighter Replacement why not just incorporate 3.x material into your home game. Basically the failure to include a warblade/duskblade fighter replacement only really impacts Pathfinder Society games and games which are Pathfinder only.
Afraid not. If they wanted a balanced game, they'd have never buffed the god tier classes, and never nerfed everyone else. Since they did the only conclusion that can be drawn from their actions is they aren't at all concerned about class balance, and are instead aiming for an Ars Magica type approach. Except that only works when you outright say everyone is either a caster, a servant of a caster, or a potential servant of a caster. That way no one gets any funny ideas about Fighters, or Rangers, or what have you being equals.
So I load up my Pathfinder side game when I just want some mindless flash and slash fun with godmode on as a Cleric, a Druid, or a Wizard traveling with more of the same. Most of the time though I prefer at least a little more balance, and a lot more challenge so all of my serious games will remain 3.5 until this is changed.
As for the base classes and going obsolete, they already were at the time they were printed because of the opposition they face. Same as the 3.5 versions of those classes. The list is actually longer in PF (Rogues could potentially be viable in 3.5, for example). The only difference between having a replacement ready and not having a replacement ready is that in the latter case you have nothing to offer someone who likes what those classes are supposed to represent.
So if someone likes the idea of Fighters, all not being able to offer them a Warblade does is tell them they can't play the character they want here. Which isn't exactly good for getting said people to stick around. If Warblades are available, you can say 'Hey, this does what you want but actually works' and then they cheer and write in Warblade.
To those people who don't want to see Fighters become a Warrior+ good. Maybe they'll manage to get a class rewrite done. But until then it already has become irrelevant... again.
I thought it was pretty obvious why a magus (i.e. fighter/wizard) gets 3/4 BAB from a mechanics standpoint:
Fighter = full BAB
Wizard = half BAB
Thus: Fighter/Wizard = 3/4 BAB (average of the two)
If BAB doesn't really "mean" much, what's the big deal then? Keep the 3/4 BAB and make the class work around it.
anthony Valente wrote: I thought it was pretty obvious why a magus (i.e. fighter/wizard) gets 3/4 BAB from a mechanics standpoint:
Fighter = full BAB
Wizard = half BAB
Thus: Fighter/Wizard = 3/4 BAB (average of the two)
If BAB doesn't really "mean" much, what's the big deal then? Keep the 3/4 BAB and make the class work around it.
The problem is the biggest outcry against it is 'it's super special and the best thing you could possibly give them!' Except it isn't. Not even close. If it does get added under the pretense full BAB is worth anything, then the class will turn out even worse than it already is. If it doesn't get added under the pretense that it's anything significant, then the class is being hindered by poor judgment. The exact same poor judgment that led to 3.5 class balance. Except without the publishing history to release bug fixes.
Interesting
BAB is worthless meaningless and has no point in the game...
...so let me have it.
Sounds a lot like
That cake is the worst cake you'll ever have, it shouldn't even wualify as cake...
...so I will eat it for you
Aelryinth wrote: Just a FYI, gish is a generic term for a fighter-magic user. the 'ideal' for a Gish is +16 BAb and 9th level spells. That is by NO means a REQUIREMENT. A Bard is effectively a gish and does the job pretty well.
==Aelryinth
Umm no gish does not mean any fighter magic user...otherwise the paladin and ranger would be a gish. The cleric and druids are however considered a gish (well divine gish, but whatever). You need a certain level of magical prowess before you are considered a gish and the duskblade did not have that. The magus can be made into something like the duskblade...but then it should not be in THIS book but ultimate combat as it is a fighter type character at that point and not a gish.
Frerezar wrote: Interesting
BAB is worthless meaningless and has no point in the game...
...so let me have it
Not worthless. Worth less than people think.
Frerezar wrote: Interesting
BAB is worthless meaningless and has no point in the game...
...so let me have it.
Sounds a lot like
That cake is the worst cake you'll ever have, it shouldn't even wualify as cake...
...so I will eat it for you
I'll go buy a McDonald's hamburger, you give me 50 bucks for it. Deal?
Aelryinth wrote: Just a FYI, gish is a generic term for a fighter-magic user. To correct this, a gish is a very specific term referring to a githyanki fighter/magic-user of 4th/4th level.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mistah Green wrote: Afraid not. If they wanted a balanced game, they'd have never buffed the god tier classes, and never nerfed everyone else. Lets see class changes in brief.
Fighter... got class abilities, armor and weapon training, in addition to the bonus feats they had, got the ability to move at full speed in heavy armor and offset armor class penalties.
Spellcasters. Druid Codzilla has been reduced to an animal costume, Save or Die spell given the major nerf treatment, and Clerics don't get free plate proficiency any more.
Now who got buffed again?
LazarX wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Afraid not. If they wanted a balanced game, they'd have never buffed the god tier classes, and never nerfed everyone else. Lets see class changes in brief.
Fighter... got class abilities, armor and weapon training, in addition to the bonus feats they had, got the ability to move at full speed in heavy armor and offset armor class penalties.
Spellcasters. Druid Codzilla has been reduced to an animal costume, Save or Die spell given the major nerf treatment, and Clerics don't get free plate proficiency any more.
Now who got buffed again? Are you serious?
Kthulhu wrote: Aelryinth wrote: Just a FYI, gish is a generic term for a fighter-magic user. To correct this, a gish is a very specific term referring to a githyanki fighter/magic-user of 4th/4th level. That might of been it's original usage but language shifts even in very secluded subgroups and the term Gish has become a popular term for any arcane caster/ martial character hybrid for at least the past decade. While it's curious that the community chose to settle on a specific term from the 1e Fiend Folio to describe this archetype, especially when there are a ton of more descriptive alternatives it's become a common term for better or worse.
It's a shame that the Kuo-Toa Monitor and Whip didn't become more popular. I blame lingering anti-Deep One sentiment.
Mistah Green wrote:
Are you serious?
Friendly pointer. Asking that adds nothing to the discussion. Just makes us wait longer to hear your rebuttal.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mistah Green wrote: LazarX wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Afraid not. If they wanted a balanced game, they'd have never buffed the god tier classes, and never nerfed everyone else. Lets see class changes in brief.
Fighter... got class abilities, armor and weapon training, in addition to the bonus feats they had, got the ability to move at full speed in heavy armor and offset armor class penalties.
Spellcasters. Druid Codzilla has been reduced to an animal costume, Save or Die spell given the major nerf treatment, and Clerics don't get free plate proficiency any more.
Now who got buffed again? Are you serious? Yes I'm serious. Now the D20 system in it's nature is not going to eliminate the disparity between casters and noncasters, but the changes that Pathfinder made went a long way to addressing the gap and give a lot of flavor to the original base classes as well.
I'm running a Fighter in PFS now... compared to the Fighter I leveled up in Living Greyhawk, it's like a new age dawning.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
vuron wrote:
That might of been it's original usage but language shifts even in very secluded subgroups and the term Gish has become a popular term for any arcane caster/ martial character hybrid for at least the past decade. While it's curious that the community chose to settle on a specific term from the 1e Fiend Folio to describe this archetype, especially when there are a ton of more descriptive alternatives it's become a common term for better or worse.
It was the vorpal silver blades.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Frerezar wrote: Interesting
BAB is worthless meaningless and has no point in the game...
...so let me have it
Not worthless. Worth less than people think. The only things Full BAB really offers over 3/4 or 1/2 BAB is the following:
1) Feat Pre-requisites. You need a certain level of BAB for certain feats. First level you can't take Power Attack with out full BAB for example. You have to wait for spring attack, vital strike, the improved two weapon fighting and so on.
2) Feat scaling, Power attack and Combat expertise are based off you BAB. If your BAB progresses slower you don't scale as fast. Take Power attack as example. It's -1 for +X damage at 1st and at 4 BAB it's -2 for +2X. As Full BAB you get that 4th, the 3/4 BAB guy gets that at 6th and the 1/2 BAB guy gets it at 8th.
3) That 4th attack and by 20th it's a decent attack.
It's definitely not worthless and if you don't care about feats as much as some builds don't then it certain can be worth less than others think. It really depends on what you want to do and if you need what BAB offers.
I agree about the feats, but the 4th attack doesn't come in to play until late in the game and for the first half the difference between attack bonuses is less than the difference between rolling average scores and good scores at chargen.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
Are you serious?
Friendly pointer. Asking that adds nothing to the discussion. Just makes us wait longer to hear your rebuttal. I was hoping he was joking, because the alternative was that he meant that seriously.
Power Attack got nerfed hard. That alone kneecaps any and all melee characters past, present, and future. Adding some little flavor text abilities doesn't offset this. Not even close. They still went from their 3.5 status of barely able to keep up in DPS if they are perfectly optimized and built with a grocery list of specific things required to being unplayable even then. And even with that damage output, there were so many things that could stop you from dealing that damage that you were still easily the weakest party member.
Don't like DPS? The control build got nerfed just as hard. If not more so.
Don't like either of those? Too bad, that's all the Fighter had, and nothing new got added.
Meanwhile on the caster side as long as you have even one good save or lose spell at any level you're not any weaker. You're less interesting if you always spam the same save or lose instead of using two or three different ones, but you're not any weaker. And because of that whole backwards compatible thing you can just snatch completely untouched spells from any other book, and combine them with your now higher casting stat and features to be stronger. Not that you need to, but the option is there.
On the melee side? Even if you pull in other feats, all the DPS stuff is going to build off Power Attack and all the control stuff is going to build off of Improved Trip, so you can't sidestep the melee nerf at all.
In short the core of melee viability was nerfed hard. And there's no fixing that except by reverting that entire section. By the way, they still wouldn't be good even if you completely reverted the melee nerfs, while letting them keep the other flavor text abilities.
Mistah Green wrote: Frerezar wrote: Interesting
BAB is worthless meaningless and has no point in the game...
...so let me have it.
Sounds a lot like
That cake is the worst cake you'll ever have, it shouldn't even wualify as cake...
...so I will eat it for you
I'll go buy a McDonald's hamburger, you give me 50 bucks for it. Deal? Can I pay you on Tuesday?
Dragonborn3 wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Frerezar wrote: Interesting
BAB is worthless meaningless and has no point in the game...
...so let me have it.
Sounds a lot like
That cake is the worst cake you'll ever have, it shouldn't even wualify as cake...
...so I will eat it for you
I'll go buy a McDonald's hamburger, you give me 50 bucks for it. Deal? Can I pay you on Tuesday? Today is Tuesday. Pay up, then you can has cheeseburger.
Mistah Green wrote:
I was hoping he was joking, because the alternative was that he meant that seriously. I understand. For future ref, everyone around here is serious when they say things like that. Except Sebastian.
Mistah Green wrote: Today is Tuesday. Pay up, then you can has cheeseburger. Hm... you have a point, but I'd prefer Rally's! ;)
Oh man, I haven't had Rally's in forever!
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mistah Green wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
Are you serious?
Friendly pointer. Asking that adds nothing to the discussion. Just makes us wait longer to hear your rebuttal. I was hoping he was joking, because the alternative was that he meant that seriously.
Power Attack got nerfed hard. That alone kneecaps any and all melee characters past, present, and future. Adding some little flavor text abilities doesn't offset this. Not even close. They still went from their 3.5 status of barely able to keep up in DPS if they are perfectly optimized and built with a grocery list of specific things required to being unplayable even then. And even with that damage output, there were so many things that could stop you from dealing that damage that you were still easily the weakest party member.
Power attack was effectively boosted for low-mid level. Instead of trading 1 for 1 I'm effectively getting 2 for 1 in terms of damage for accuracy. More importantly at 7th level, I'm moving at a full 6 squares on a move action across the battlefield instead of being limited to 4.
I have Step Up and it's associated feats that assure me of being a real pain to an archer or a mage once I'm in his face. Weapon training gives me a damage and attack boost without any other cost.
As a Fighter in 3.5 what did I get? A bonus feat every other level. in Pathfinder I get also a class feature at every other level plus one if I make it to 20. Are you seriously going to say that Armor Training, Weapon Training are trivial boosts, that the new combat feats don't offer anything to the fighter?
As to the Power Attack change. In old 3.5 a Power Attacking Fighter at 12th level, would get 12(or 18) points of bonus damage for trading 12 pts of BAB. In the current Pathfinder game that same Fighter trades 4 pts of BAB to get +8(or 12) pts of damage. This is at least partially offset from an additional +2 from weapons training bringing that total up to +10 (or 14) And I'm retaining more of my BAB than the 3.5 fighter would have to sacrifice to get my basic bonus to damage. In short I'm trading 4 pts of BAB to get 10 pts of damage, whereas 3.5 fighter would have to trade more than twice as much.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
I was hoping he was joking, because the alternative was that he meant that seriously. I understand. For future ref, everyone around here is serious when they say things like that. Except Sebastian. I wouldn't say everyone. But a disturbingly high percentage.
Dragonborn3 wrote: Mistah Green wrote: Today is Tuesday. Pay up, then you can has cheeseburger. Hm... you have a point, but I'd prefer Rally's! ;) Anyways the point I was making is that if you charge 50 dollars for a 1 dollar ability, people aren't likely to go along with it. Because you're overvaluing it.
LazarX wrote: Power attack was effectively boosted for low-mid level. Instead of trading 1 for 1 I'm effectively getting 2 for 1 in terms of damage for accuracy. More importantly at 7th level, I'm moving at a full 6 squares on a move action across the battlefield instead of being limited to 4. 1:1 returns means you're using a one handed weapon. No one that knows better does this. Two handers are the only viable choices due to too much inherent suck in one hand and shield, and one hand and light. A large part of the reason why the Magus class is so bad is because it has to use a one handed weapon. The class would instantly become at least 50% better if it could use a two hander like everyone else.
And you're not going to have a relevant AC at level 7, so why would you take armor that does nothing but slow you down?
Quote: As a Fighter in 3.5 what did I get? A bonus feat every other level. in Pathfinder I get also a class feature at every other level plus one if I make it to 20. Are you seriously going to say that Armor Training, Weapon Training are trivial boosts, that the new combat feats don't offer anything to the fighter? Not nearly as much as what they lost. The value of a feat is directly proportional to the strength of feats. It also suffers from diminishing returns, as you'll naturally go for the good ones first. Feats are diluted in PF and are therefore weaker. It's like a store that stealth raises their prices by 30% and then offers a 10% off sale - on the surface, they seem to be giving you a better deal. Shop around, and you'll realize how false this initial impression is.
Quote: As to the Power Attack change. In old 3.5 a Power Attacking Fighter at 12th level, would get 12(or 18) points of bonus damage for trading 12 pts of BAB. In the current Pathfinder game that same Fighter trades 4 pts of BAB to get +8(or 12) pts of damage. This is at least partially offset from an additional +2 from weapons training bringing that total up to +10 (or 14) And I'm retaining more of my BAB than the 3.5 fighter would have to sacrifice to get my basic bonus to damage. In short I'm trading 4 pts of BAB to get 10 pts of damage, whereas 3.5 fighter would have to trade more than twice as much. No, a plain old level 12 Fighter would get 24 damage for -12 attack. But a plain old level 12 Fighter is 6 levels past his expiration date.
So here's what he's really doing:
Power Attack to the max. Leap Attack. Shock Trooper. Pounce (which actually means Fighter 11/Barbarian 1, but whatever).
He's now full attacking, doing +48 damage per hit on top of everything else, and the -12 penalty is being applied to his AC instead. Which doesn't really matter, as everything at level 12 would hit him anyways. And since enemies at this level average close to 200 HP, and his damage would be nowhere near that without the boost he needs it to keep up. Every last bit of it.
So what are you doing with the nerfed PA? Half that damage output? Less? Yeah, it's safe to say Fighters got nerfed out.
LazarX wrote:
As to the Power Attack change. In old 3.5 a Power Attacking Fighter at 12th level, would get 12(or 18) points of bonus damage for trading 12 pts of BAB. In the current Pathfinder game that same Fighter trades 4 pts of BAB to get +8(or 12) pts of damage. This is at least partially offset from an additional +2 from weapons training bringing that total up to +10 (or 14) And...
The trick to effective power attack was Shock Trooper, meaning you didn't really care that your AC was in the negatives because it meant hitting really hard. It also rewarded magically getting bonuses to attack, like true strike, offensive precognition and the like.
Also, power attacking with a 2h is a 1:2 ratio, not 1:1,5
As far as total output goes, old PA is much better. Considering the tricks that can be used to gain attack bonus (or drop the enemy's ac), old PA could also be used at a high yield configuration almost all the time.
Mistah Green wrote:
1:1 returns means you're using a one handed weapon. No one that knows better does this. Two handers are the only viable choices due to too much inherent suck in one hand and shield, and one hand and light.
Is this really the style of argument you want to present to and the impression you want to leave on the rest of the people using this message board?
Synapse wrote:
As far as total output goes, old PA is much better. Considering the tricks that can be used to gain attack bonus (or drop the enemy's ac), old PA could also be used at a high yield configuration almost all the time.
I loved how much power attack helped bards do damage in 3.5. the old Power Attack made bards that much more awesome, because it allowed the martial characters to buff their power attack up higher.
I had a 3.5 Bard/Paladin that took knowledge domain (and Devoted PErformer, of course) exalted feats and song boosting feats to shoot her attack bonus through the roof. Then she could dump it all into Power attack and actually make a decent meleer, while boosting her friends. The intelligent paladin/bard fighter. :D She was a fun and flavorful character to play. In game I didn't really use her to her full potential in combat unless the party got in trouble...then she would max everything out to hurt the enemy and draw their ire (and draw their attention away from the rest of the party). I cannot make this character in Pathfinder - which has always made me a little sad.
Bill Dunn wrote: Mistah Green wrote:
1:1 returns means you're using a one handed weapon. No one that knows better does this. Two handers are the only viable choices due to too much inherent suck in one hand and shield, and one hand and light.
Is this really the style of argument you want to present to and the impression you want to leave on the rest of the people using this message board? If someone is going to be offended that pointing out that a type of weapon that is that obviously weak is weak in a game they play in their spare time, then I wonder how they get through their day to day lives and deal with the more serious subjects that come up there. Such as having the things they actually do called into question.
I suppose this is a forum for all ages, and if I do offend any children then I apologize to them. But any teenager or adult should be fine with it.
And although I didn't include any Paladin levels, that is the Bard build I've alluded to earlier Jess.
Is this thread really going anywhere???... Had I not checked the top header I could have sworn I was looking at youtube comments. Chill people...but then again how much of an intelligent conversation can you have when the thread was started by someone who :
-calls Jason incompetent
-says things like: put up or shut up: prove to me that full BAB + 6th level spells is overpowered.
-or better yet: Was I talking to you? No? Then go away.
Where's the locksmith when you need a thread locked?
M
While it's probably true that the big trio (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) didn't get nerfed enough in the transition to Pathfinder for a variety of reasons (save DC math still sucks, pounce form druids are still too powerful, clerics are still probably too good of melee combatants) the goal of restoring balance to the core classes wasn't a complete failure.
Clerics with Righteous Might and Divine Power are still good (although nerfed some) but as long as you avoid bringing DMM over from the darkside it's a limited duration configuration that expends party resources rapidly.
Druids with pounce forms are still too powerful but honestly the the problems with them can largely be removed by nerfing pounce some or making it so that pounce + rake is no longer compatible. 3 natural attacks at 3/4 BAB is still decent but no where near as nice as 5 natural attacks at 3/4 BAB.
Wizards could still use a nerfbat taken to some of their more egregious SoS spells. The failure to fix the Save vs Save DC issue in the transition is frustrating but it's not a major fix to fix save progressions to make single target SoS/SoD spells less intimidating.
However what you are asking for is for Paizo and the rest of the Pathfinder community to basically give up on x number of base classes because they are "hopeless" in your opinion. I'm not saying that the Fighter and Rogue are perfect at present (Fighter suck out of combat, Rogues have limited configurations that are DPR worthy) but they are definitely superior to their 3.x cousin and within "reasonably" close proximity to the Pathfinder casters. At least close enough that with selective nerfing and tinkering it's possible to close the gap.
Considering Jason has been completely clear with his intentions to keep the Magus at 3/4 BAB, the question is basically what combination of other features is required to keep this class competitive with the core classes and the new APG base classes?
vuron wrote: While it's probably true that the big trio (Cleric, Druid, Wizard) didn't get nerfed enough in the transition to Pathfinder for a variety of reasons (save DC math still sucks, pounce form druids are still too powerful, clerics are still probably too good of melee combatants) the goal of restoring balance to the core classes wasn't a complete failure. Point 1: A melee CoDzilla is weaker than a caster CoDzilla. Yeah, they can swing their weapons or claws around. And they're better off in close quarters than an actual Fighter, which is a testament to the weakness of Fighters. But melee is not the road to power. No matter how good you are at it. Spells are where it's at. As such any changes to either of these classes' ability to melee doesn't really make much of a difference.
Quote: Druids with pounce forms are still too powerful but honestly the the problems with them can largely be removed by nerfing pounce some or making it so that pounce + rake is no longer compatible. 3 natural attacks at 3/4 BAB is still decent but no where near as nice as 5 natural attacks at 3/4 BAB. Point 2: Most viable DPS builds in 3.5 had Pounce. It's not that Druids can Pounce, it's that other classes can't. Give every class Pounce at BAB 6, and they'll be a lot better for it.
Quote: Wizards could still use a nerfbat taken to some of their more egregious SoS spells. The failure to fix the Save vs Save DC issue in the transition is frustrating but it's not a major fix to fix save progressions to make single target SoS/SoD spells less intimidating. Even if you nerfed every single spell, players would just pull in spells from other sources that Pathfinder cannot touch. Good luck doing even that much though.
Not to mention that in the current state where only casters can keep up, nerfing caster's ability to keep up doesn't suddenly mean Fighters and Monks shine. It just means everyone gets the honor of painting the floor red, as there is no longer anyone who can deal with the opposition they are expected to face.
Quote: However what you are asking for is for Paizo and the rest of the Pathfinder community to basically give up on x number of base classes because they are "hopeless" in your opinion. I'm not saying that the Fighter and Rogue are perfect at present (Fighter suck out of combat, Rogues have limited configurations that are DPR worthy) but they are definitely superior to their 3.x cousin and within "reasonably" close proximity to the Pathfinder casters. At least close enough that with selective nerfing and tinkering it's possible to close the gap. 3.5 Fighters and Rogues are stronger than PF Fighters and Rogues. 3.5 Clerics, Druids, and Wizards are weaker than their PF counterparts. The gap is wider, not narrower.
With that said, I never said anything about giving up on base classes. No, they aren't at all viable as they are. That doesn't mean they can't be viable. If you completely disregard the PF melee nerfs then they aren't any worse off. Then you just have to make them better. So fixing them is relatively simple. Mark through the altered Power Attack and Improved Trip feats, then get to work on things that improve those classes, keeping in mind the ways they worked before for ideas.
Quote: Considering Jason has been completely clear with his intentions to keep the Magus at 3/4 BAB, the question is basically what combination of other features is required to keep this class competitive with the core classes and the new APG base classes?
Take a long hard look at the Psychic Warrior.
Am I the only one who detects a whiff of The Gaming Den in the magus playtest threads? Sure, playtest stuff gets heated, but there seems to be a taint of incivility in various thread titles and so on. Am I off base?
Zo
DigMarx wrote: Am I the only one who detects a whiff of The Gaming Den in the magus playtest threads? Sure, playtest stuff gets heated, but there seems to be a taint of incivility in various thread titles and so on. Am I off base?
Zo
Yes. There are more undesirables on the internet than just the ones at TGD. It is the internet after all.
|
