Full casting, 3 / 4 BAB: awesome. 3 / 4 casting, full BAB: BROKEN


Round 1: Magus

151 to 200 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:
The poor cleric, however will it survive?

They even took his heavy armor proficiency. Infidels. What will come next, weapon restriction to bludgeoning only ? ;-)


A few of the people posting on these boards are... strange. I'd say they haven't read the rules of PF correctly.

PF's druid is in no way overpowered. No more Str/Dex/Con 8 druids that just morph into the dire marmot and get instant 40+ strength. If your physical scores are bad, sure, you'll get a nice boost by turning into an animal/elemental, but you're never going to outfight one of the real martial classes. A fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin (depending on your alingment) will turn you into mincemeat in hand to hand, no questions asked. The summoning remains very powerful, we can all agree on that.

PF's clerics remain powerful, but the issue is the same. If you want to make a cleric that can use all his powers (read: turning, going into hand to hand, etc...), and not skip a part of his class, you'll need to invest in str, con, wis AND cha. And you can't really dump DEX either. You could play the Int 7 cleric, but it's a bit of a ludicrous thing IMO. And if you wade into hand to hand, the new concentration rules are going to be kicking your ass. Hard. You are in no way guaranteed an easy casting in melee.

You can of course hang back, but then your armor and BAB become for show only. And no more buffing yourself into a killing machine everyday: contant spell is a thing of the past. And so is consumptive field. So overpowered clerics and druids truly are a thing of the past. They remain very solid class choices, but it's really a matter of playstile. I've been playing a barbarian and have been destroying everything in mostly one shot. That could also be considered overpowered.

As for the Magus. IMO, it's a very meh class. First of all, one thing I liked about PF was that Prestige classes were really... well, prestigious. They fill niches that the core classes do not. Although I will admit the EK and the Magus have somewhat different progressions, they are on the whole extremely similar in terms of content. I find this regrettable, and wonder if a "2 for 1" pack for fighter/mage from level one is really necessary.

But it seems like I am the only one really miffed about this (the overwhelming feeling I get while reading the forum is more about how to improve the class - it seems everybody is glad it was created).


Estrosiath wrote:
And no more buffing yourself into a killing machine everyday: contant spell is a thing of the past.

Persistent Spell. Not actually learning anything about stuff you want to talk about is impolite, you know? And Persistent Speell wasn't needed in the slightest to buff yourself into a killing machine every day and almost every fight (because the published adventures presumed and still presume, that the party will be able to buff freely before at least 90% of the fights). It only cemented supremacy that was already there.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Jason - I believe the problem comes down to the Monk Flaw. Namely, a lot of small abilities do not make up for the lack of anything powerful.

This.

*reads rest of thread*

Hi Welcome

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mistah Green wrote:


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 the melee nerfs, while letting them keep the other flavor text abilities.

Maybe I'm blind but I don't see the DPS nerf, at least not in PFS play where the access to magic is pretty tightly controlled. I'm playing right now a 7th level greatsword Fighter and with weapon training in heavy blades. and the present power attack, no one wants me to hit them when I get a solid connect on my blade. And there were plenty of times even in 3.5 where I saw Power Attack change would would have been a clean hit to a clean miss. And yes since I can't count on getting +4 mithral breastplate, being able to move full speed in my +1 plate armor means a heck of a lot over being stuck at 20. I can Step Up to keep face with the wizard or to keep pace with the rogue who's trying to set up that flank.

A lot of it is also being free of that 3.5 splat book damage. Considerations change quite a bit if you're sticking to Pathfinder Books and not hauling in WOTC's occasionally balanced material.


LazarX wrote:
Mistah Green wrote:


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 the melee nerfs, while letting them keep the other flavor text abilities.

Maybe I'm blind but I don't see the DPS nerf, at least not in PFS play where the access to magic is pretty tightly controlled. I'm playing right now a 7th level greatsword Fighter and with weapon training in heavy blades. and the present power attack, no one wants me to hit them when I get a solid connect on my blade.

There are two big factors that contribute to "3.5 PA > PF-PA".

One of them is the dump factor. If you can dump all your ab into damage, it's easily going to be a bigger gain than PF PA. This is helped by the fact 3.5-PA damage is doubled with a 2hander.
The other is the feat Shock Trooper. With it you can always dump all your ab and convert that dump to ac. So at bab 12 he can drop 12 ac to gain 24 damage.

Because of the ease of stacking hit bonuses, one can get the necessary yield from 3.5-PA for it to beat PF-PA almost all the time.


LazarX wrote:
Mistah Green wrote:


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 the melee nerfs, while letting them keep the other flavor text abilities.

Maybe I'm blind but I don't see the DPS nerf, at least not in PFS play where the access to magic is pretty tightly controlled. I'm playing right now a 7th level greatsword Fighter and with weapon training in heavy blades. and the present power attack, no one wants me to hit them when I get a solid connect on my blade. And there were plenty of times even in 3.5 where I saw Power Attack change would would have been a clean hit to a clean miss. And yes since I can't count on getting +4 mithral breastplate, being able to move full speed in my +1 plate armor means a heck of a lot over being stuck at 20. I can Step Up to keep face with the wizard or to keep pace with the rogue who's trying to set up that flank.

A lot of it is also being free of that 3.5 splat book damage. Considerations change quite a bit if you're sticking to Pathfinder Books and not hauling in WOTC's occasionally balanced material.

Power attack only got nerfed if you have easy access to buffs that will increase your bonus to hit. If you don't have easy access to buffs, it falls pretty close to the optimal point for you to drop your hit in 3.5 to get bonus damage AND it gives you more damage. 3.5 power attack could result in greater damage on various builds, but Pathfinder power attack will be better on more. Given the choice, I would almost always choose the Pathfinder version, since the builds that prefer the 3.5 version tend to be overtwinked and no longer in line with the games normal power curves.


Estrosiath wrote:

A few of the people posting on these boards are... strange. I'd say they haven't read the rules of PF correctly.

PF's druid is in no way overpowered. No more Str/Dex/Con 8 druids that just morph into the dire marmot and get instant 40+ strength. If your physical scores are bad, sure, you'll get a nice boost by turning into an animal/elemental, but you're never going to outfight one of the real martial classes. A fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin (depending on your alingment) will turn you into mincemeat in hand to hand, no questions asked. The summoning remains very powerful, we can all agree on that.

Problems with the Druid pretty much exclusively revolve around the pounce form druids with a pounce form animal companion. PF fixed the problem with total stat dumping but the synergy bonus of a decent strength score boosted with Beast Shaping into a Lion or Dire Lion form becomes one of the top DPR builds in the game.

The key to this is that Charge + Pounce + Rake basically gives the Druid 5 natural attacks at 3/4 BAB which is extremely potent throughout the mid-game.

Considering most martial characters at level 10-11 are taking a 5' step and doing 2-3 iterative attacks this tends to make the fighters cry. High Mobility + hard hitting is really really nice in 3.x.

The pounce forms are so much better than the other forms that it's hard to justify not nerfing them. Personally I'm inclined to say pounce still works (mobility is nice) but that you can't get your rake attacks on a pounce charge only with grapples. That dramatically reduces damage production on the charge while still keeping the druid as a nasty grapple fighter.

Quote:


PF's clerics remain powerful, but the issue is the same. If you want to make a cleric that can use all his powers (read: turning, going into hand to hand, etc...), and not skip a part of his class, you'll need to invest in str, con, wis AND cha. And you can't really dump DEX either. You could play the Int 7 cleric, but it's a bit of a ludicrous thing IMO. And if you wade into hand to hand, the new concentration rules are going to be kicking your ass. Hard. You are in no way guaranteed an easy casting in melee.

The problem is that most people basically go with the formula of 3-4 combats a day the cleric with access to divine power + righteous might generally has enough spell resources to become a battle cleric effectively 3-4 fights a day. Further when discussing the game on the internet the apparent majority of mid-level games seem to revolve around self refuge buffing and then alpha striking a scryed target. It becomes the application of maximum force in the shortest possible duration of time.

Thus it's all selfish battle cleric every fight which becomes frustrating to fighter players who feel like their schtick of being the big stupid fighter is being invaded by this butthead caster.

A ton of problems with clerics disappear if consistent pre-battle buffing is restricted. If clerics are stuck buffing in the first round of the battle their capacity to invade schticks is dramatically reduced. Of course that requires establishing reliable ways of spoiling transport magic, divination magic, and even safe refuge magic so that the pernicious tactic of scry-n-fry is of limited utility.


LazarX wrote:
Mistah Green wrote:


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 the melee nerfs, while letting them keep the other flavor text abilities.

Maybe I'm blind but I don't see the DPS nerf, at least not in PFS play where the access to magic is pretty tightly controlled. I'm playing right now a 7th level greatsword Fighter and with weapon training in heavy blades. and the present power attack, no one wants me to hit them when I get a solid connect on my blade. And there were plenty of times even in 3.5 where I saw Power Attack change would would have been a clean hit to a clean miss. And yes since I can't count on getting +4 mithral breastplate, being able to move full speed in my +1 plate armor means a heck of a lot over being stuck at 20. I can Step Up to keep face with the wizard or to keep pace with the rogue who's trying to set up that flank.

All that means is 'you can't do relevant damage'. It doesn't mean that standards get lowered. Those are set by the enemies, who if anything are harder for melee to take on. It does mean that you go from 'can potentially do enough damage if you really go out of your way to do so' to 'you can't, no matter what'.

And your AC isn't going to be on the RNG anyways, so all heavy armor means is taking a speed hit for no reason.

Quote:
A lot of it is also being free of that 3.5 splat book damage. Considerations change quite a bit if you're sticking to Pathfinder Books and not hauling in WOTC's occasionally balanced material.

They sure do. They change to 'we're playing Ars Magica in everything but name'.

Edit: A Pouncing Druid does just over 80 damage per round at level 10. This is BARELY relevant damage. As in if he lost even a single point, he would drop below the bar. His outperforming other classes is a testament to their weakness.

After all all he's really doing is contributing the minimum benchmark of competence, and moving while doing so. Yes, every other melee is rooted in place if they want to make enemies care they exist. That doesn't mean turning yourself into a statue is a good thing. It means everyone needs to be able to move and still do things that matter, not just the casters.

Scry and Fry involves a lot of buffing. About the only way everyone doesn't get buffed is if there aren't any good buffs that work on other people. Otherwise you're going to see good self only buffs, and good group buffs. Thing is a lot of the good party buffs aren't in core. Bull's Strength isn't worth the ink it's scribed with. Mass Conviction in D&D is like Haste in DDO. Green means go. Now if you don't include the good party buffs and instead stick with core, you should not be surprised your game ends up incredibly unbalanced, because that's what core only means. If you try and limit buffing in any way the casters will just shrug, throw on the long duration stuff only and save or lose it up. Which is more effective than swinging a mace around anyways. The Fighters will fall off the RNG and cry.


Gorbacz wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
The poor cleric, however will it survive?
They even took his heavy armor proficiency. Infidels. What will come next, weapon restriction to bludgeoning only ? ;-)

Hahahad&d!


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.

If you had 3/4 BAB Magus with 9th level arcane spell progression that's all it would have. There might be bonus feat here and minor class feature but that's it. The class be flat out boring. Reducing the casting to 2/3 gives room for interesting class features that give the Magus style. Just like they did with the Inquisitor. The key with Magus is giving the flavorful class feature that actually work to make class viable. That's just a little off the mark at the moment. It's close, a tweak here and there and I think this class will be on the mark.

It still doesn't fit the Full BAB, 4th level arcane class I'm wanting though. I want that because I'd like to run a game where there are two Full BAB casters one divine and arcane with two 3/4 BAB caster one arcane and divine. So party like a Ranger, Magus, Inquisitor, and X. A player suggested this to me a while ago but the Bard was replacing the Magus. But we don't have anything to fill X yet. Where X is the Full BAB/4th level spell caster of the arcane type like the Ranger. I might look at some 3rd party stuff or see if I can find that IronMage that someone posted.


Full arcane spellcasting is several dozen interesting class features at any point in which 9th level spells would come into play.

Hi Welcome

Grand Lodge

But... paladin has a full BaB, casting, two good saves, immunities, access to the best weapons and armor (except the tower shield, but that's not that good an item) and finally it has something that beefs up it's saves even further.


Kais86 wrote:
But... paladin has a full BaB, casting, two good saves, immunities, access to the best weapons and armor (except the tower shield, but that's not that good an item) and finally it has something that beefs up it's saves even further.

And less spells, less levels of spells and less caster levels.


And smite evil, divine bond, mercies, channel energy, lay on hands, etc. The lack of such should be worth 2 levels of spells.

Liberty's Edge

And it has paladin spells, which are pretty much inferior to magus spells. Paladin spellcasting isn't a focus - it's something nice you also get. Magus spellcasting is much more central to the class, and much more powerful.

The Exchange

I don't buy it. The most unbalanced and disruptive PC in my game is a Fighter/Sorcerer.

Maybe for roll players, the cleric overpowers and is unbalanced. For role players like us, I really haven't seen a cleric OR Wizard in 3.5 or PF be a problem.


Ash_Gazn wrote:

I don't buy it. The most unbalanced and disruptive PC in my game is a Fighter/Sorcerer.

Maybe for roll players, the cleric overpowers and is unbalanced. For role players like us, I really haven't seen a cleric OR Wizard in 3.5 or PF be a problem.

That, however, is a personal "non-use clause" of problems your players' classes have. Can't balance around that.


Agreed, I have not had the issue in RL much,as my player do not like playing casters at all. So I never saw much of that codzilla{and I limit splats} that however does not change the fact I know the issue is there.


what do i want to see?

a modular build it yourself yokai blooded template with a mechnic similar to the construction points of animated objects. possibly CR+1 and roughly equal to advanced creature. look to Touhou, XXXholic, and Inu Yasha for inspiration. the former has plenty to work with.

a shrine maiden (a.k.a. miko) base class inspired by Hakurei Reimu, Kikyo, Etc. the former is a really good example.

cheap alchemical items that allow vampires to ignore common weaknesses when applied. such as a special lotion meant to protect them from the effects of sunlight or even the harmful effects of running water. packets of synthetic blood. these alchemical items should be really cheap. and not just affordable by vampiric nobility.

sorry for the threadjack.

Liberty's Edge

Was that what you wanted in general, or what you want from the magus? Because...yeah.

I'm still trying to get over the fact that upthread, there's an arguement about 3.5 fighters being stronger than PF fighters. Someone actually posited that 3.5 fighters were stronger. I'm still recovering.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Jeremiziah wrote:

Was that what you wanted in general, or what you want from the magus? Because...yeah.

I'm still trying to get over the fact that upthread, there's an arguement about 3.5 fighters being stronger than PF fighters. Someone actually posited that 3.5 fighters were stronger. I'm still recovering.

WOW...3.5 fighter with access to 1.3 billion splat books mebbe...


Hi Welcome


Jeremiziah wrote:

Was that what you wanted in general, or what you want from the magus? Because...yeah.

I'm still trying to get over the fact that upthread, there's an arguement about 3.5 fighters being stronger than PF fighters. Someone actually posited that 3.5 fighters were stronger. I'm still recovering.

It's a fairly common viewpoint on some other sites that feel the changes to Power Attack in Pathfinder and the shift to CMD for maneuvers basically nerfs the "competitive" 3.5 fighter builds aka chain gun trippers and THF charger builds using pounce, leap attack and shock trooper.

Basically unless you can spam trip attacks or you can do a pouncing full BAB power attack with a Two-handed Weapon and several force multipliers like a "proper" 3.x CharOp fighter the Pathfinder Fighter is considered a speedbump at best.

Of course the reality is that the vast majority of games don't see CharOp builds and the increase in the baseline from the 3.x fighter to the Pathfinder is seen by many gamers as a net positive.


Ash_Gazn wrote:

I don't buy it. The most unbalanced and disruptive PC in my game is a Fighter/Sorcerer.

Maybe for roll players, the cleric overpowers and is unbalanced. For role players like us, I really haven't seen a cleric OR Wizard in 3.5 or PF be a problem.

I don't buy it.

Maybe for terrible roleplayers there's a big gap between "roll playing" and "roleplayers." For good roleplayers like us, there's a clear gap in potential power between classes.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

The cleric does have full spellcasting and 3/4 bab. But thats about it. There are relatively few other class features to the class. We could have gone 6 level spellcasting and full BAB for the magus, but we would prefer to add interesting and fun abilities to the class (we were stuck with the cleric for compatability)...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I actually prefer classes with good basic progressions and relatively few class features (like the cleric).

I don't devote lots of time to system mastery, I don't work as a game designer, and I usually play in pick-up games. That gives me tens of minutes to familiarize myself with my character's abilities, not hours or weeks. In my case, classes with lots of "fun" features are really just classes that make me spend more time with my head in a book than actually playing the game. Same goes for classes that rely heavily on non-core spells to function.

Give me a class with some respectable combination of BAB progression, bonus feat/class talent progression, and spell progression. Give me an easy-to-use spell list of mostly core spells. Give me one or two simple class features that scale with level. That's the kind of class I can use in a pick-up game, or that I can hand to someone who's never played Pathfinder before. Not one that has twenty different ways to compensate for not having flat bonuses and feats that would have produced a similar end result, anyway.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Ash_Gazn wrote:

I don't buy it. The most unbalanced and disruptive PC in my game is a Fighter/Sorcerer.

Maybe for roll players, the cleric overpowers and is unbalanced. For role players like us, I really haven't seen a cleric OR Wizard in 3.5 or PF be a problem.

I don't buy it.

Maybe for terrible roleplayers there's a big gap between "roll playing" and "roleplayers." For good roleplayers like us, there's a clear gap in potential power between classes.

This.

As for the continued talk of the PF Fighter not being weaker than the 3.5 Fighter - both are so weak, they need 'CharOp' builds just to be playable. The difference is that one has those, and one does not. If the PF Fighter were buffed enough to be competitive these claims would not be truly made. There would also be a large number of people claiming it's 'too strong' if their 15th level Fighter does 150 damage a round consistently, even though a typical enemy at that level has nearly double that amount and is easily capable of killing him in two rounds. So even with his supposedly uber damage, it's still down to initiative.

It's nothing more than a kneejerk reaction to large numbers and effort. These same people would be completely fine with a core only save or lose caster. And we all know how those work. But because they don't require lots of 'Can I have this?' people that don't understand the system assume that it isn't that powerful.

Liberty's Edge

Epic Meepo wrote:
....In my case, classes with lots of "fun" features are really just classes that make me spend more time with my head in a book than actually playing the game.... Give me one or two simple class features that scale with level. That's the kind of class I can use in a pick-up game, or that I can hand to someone who's never played Pathfinder before. Not one that has twenty different ways to compensate for not having flat bonuses and feats that would have produced a similar end result, anyway.

This.


Epic Meepo wrote:


I don't devote lots of time to system mastery, I don't work as a game designer, and I usually play in pick-up games. That gives me tens of minutes to familiarize myself with my character's abilities, not hours or weeks. In my case, classes with lots of "fun" features are really just classes that make me spend more time with my head in a book than actually playing the game. Same goes for classes that rely heavily on non-core spells to function.

Give me a class with some respectable combination of BAB progression, bonus feat/class talent progression, and spell progression. Give me an easy-to-use spell list of mostly core spells. Give me one or two simple class features that scale with level. That's the kind of class I can use in a pick-up game, or that I can hand to someone who's never played Pathfinder before. Not one that has twenty different ways to compensate for not having flat bonuses and feats that would have produced a similar end result, anyway.

I can understand wanting a streamlined character but isn't a streamlined character pretty much out the door once you include spell selection? Even if a limited list of core only spells (and lets be honest there will be UM and APG spells in the spell list) either you have to have familiar with the core spell list (this is definitely a function of system mastery) or you are choosing your spells randomly.

TBH there is really no completely straight forward class in Pathfinder. Even the relatively simple ones like Cleric and Fighter require a good amount of system mastery to avoid the speedbump feats and less useful spells.

I don't want the Magus to be too fiddly (APG introduced some very fiddly classes) but I also don't want the Magus to be exclusively a buff and bash class either.


vuron wrote:


Basically unless you can spam trip attacks or you can do a pouncing full BAB power attack with a Two-handed Weapon and several force multipliers like a "proper" 3.x CharOp fighter the Pathfinder Fighter is considered a speedbump at best.

Of course the reality is that the vast majority of games don't see CharOp builds and the increase in the baseline from the 3.x fighter to the Pathfinder is seen by many gamers as a net positive.

Exactly. For the optimizer, the PF power attack is nerfed because you can no longer take a penalty equal to your full BAB and then use shock trooper or a touch attack.

But for casual play, PA has been revamped, because you obtain more from less, and can use it with off-hand, and stuff.

Furthermore, saying that maneuvers has been nerfed means not understand how to-hit bonuses are obtained or like size and buffs work. Nothing else to say about it.

Scarab Sages

I'm actually more bummed that he has 2+ Skill Pts than the BaB.
My group actually likes using their skills in-game.
Yes, yes, you don't need the Skills on paper for everything, but they actually enjoy skill contests,etc...

Not to side-track (Or back-track), but regarding the comparison to the Cleric, and how over-powered Clerics are perceived to be.
One can't always look at only numbers on the character sheet/in the book to determine power level.

The Cleric, like the Paladin (And the Druid, at least in my games) is beholden to a higher (lower?) Power, one that can strip away powers, spells, influence. Too many folks play their Clerics like Latchkey kids, whose parents just ignore them. Th Gods demand respect, worship, and (Most importantly) their Goals to be met. It is really very easy for a Cleric to lose vial bits of their abilities through bad RPing.
Yes, I advocate RP affecting the crunchy bits, just like I reward good RPing in-game.

Anyways, back to this argument, have at it, folks...

-Uriel


Uriel393 wrote:
The Cleric, like the Paladin (And the Druid, at least in my games) is beholden to a higher (lower?) Power, one that can strip away powers, spells, influence.

Ugh. Purely role-play disadvantages don't balance mechanical advantages very well -- or vice versa. Imagine playing an Aristocrat in a standard game -- you have no hard class features, but you have a manor house and serfs and can act snobby! But those advantages mean nothing in a standard D&D game; as soon as you hit the dungeon, you die. The idea that a super-powered class is OK, because the DM can arbitrarily tell you to stop playing, seems equally wonky to me.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

vuron wrote:
I can understand wanting a streamlined character but isn't a streamlined character pretty much out the door once you include spell selection? Even if a limited list of core only spells (and lets be honest there will be UM and APG spells in the spell list) either you have to have familiar with the core spell list (this is definitely a function of system mastery) or you are choosing your spells randomly.

Exactly. I have limited time for system mastery, and most of that time is already taken up mastering the core rules. So I have no time left for rules that require even greater amounts of system mastery beyond that.

Quote:
TBH there is really no completely straight forward class in Pathfinder. Even the relatively simple ones like Cleric and Fighter require a good amount of system mastery to avoid the speedbump feats and less useful spells.

At a pick-up game, I don't waste time I could be playing avoiding "speedbump" feats and "less useful" spells. I do try to avoid feats and spells that I can't summarize in shorthand on the back of my character sheet.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

The repetitive anti-arguments coming along are always based on off-core results.

80 DPS is 'barely enough'. Riiiiight.

The Fighter will never have a decent AC for his level. Riiiiight.

3.5 Fighter is better then PF fighter, because FEATS changed. RIiight. That's not a class comparison, that's a feat comparison. Then they go right To Shock Trooper, which isn't in PF core as a rewrite, which means PF fighter can use it.

if 3.5 FIghter exists in a game where Fighters can get Pounce, PF Fighter can use the same mechanic. If 3.5 plays in a PF game, he can't get Pounce.

PF fighter blows 3.5 out of the water. Better AC, Better Move, better TH/DMG across multiple weapons.

And arguing that Bards are better then fighters at Melee because of KNOWLEDGE DEVOTION almost made me spew with laughter. I don't care if Bards get more skill points then Fighters...all you need is ENOUGH skill points to make use of the devotion. A Human Fighter using Favored Class gets a base 4/level. 14 Int gets him to 6/level, and headbands take care of the rest at higher levels. ANYONE can max Knowledge/Devotion and abuse it. And then the Fighter gets Full BAB, combat feats, and benefits from the bard's buffs, too! It's the old 'because this splatbook feat/spell exists, my whole class is better then yours!'

BAB figures into the effectiveness of so many class effects and roles it's still funny the nay-sayers are completely ignoring it. THe presumption that save or sucks always work, is funny. The idea that dealing direct damage to something is totally ineffective is funny. The whining about not having the full spell list is funny, the whining about not getting full BAB because 'it's not worth it' is really, really funny, especially because they want it so bad and still call it worthless.

And yes, the Duskblade is a Gish...it's just a Fighter-oriented one, not a mage oriented one. It's certainly not an IDEAL gish, but it is a gish. Spells are a central theme of that class. And the meaning of Gish has expanded since the 1E Fiend Folio!

Personally, I could easily have seen an "Elf" class, with 3/4 BAB and 3/4 spellcasting, with no class abilities at all. It'll always be lagging behind the core classes, and has to rely on flexibility instead of pure power, but it could get the job done. It's just going to suffer the same problem as the bard...the buffs are always better on the other guy then on themselves.

===Aelryinth


Jeremiziah wrote:

Was that what you wanted in general, or what you want from the magus? Because...yeah.

I'm still trying to get over the fact that upthread, there's an arguement about 3.5 fighters being stronger than PF fighters. Someone actually posited that 3.5 fighters were stronger. I'm still recovering.

what i wanted in general. i would also like some new pc races/templates.

i would love to play a pathfinder game as a young japanese noble born vampiric youkai shrine maiden.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Mistah Green wrote:

On the other thread, Mistah Green, you pointed out about TWF and how 'someone must have really hated Drizzt'.

You haven't been around the game long enough:)

Drizzt was a 1E character modified for 3.5, he is not a 3E character. Drizzt is a ranger, because Drow could use elf levels and hit 15+ levels as a ranger, instead of 8-9 as a Fighter. And then they gave him weapon spec and an 'instant kill' ability.

In 1E, the penalty for TWF was -4,+ your Dex bonus. With a 20 Dex, Drizzt had no penalty. You also got the same number of attacks with your off hand as your primary hand. He was very well optimized for dmg output/rd.

Go back and read the very first Drizzt book, and Drizzt rocks because he's an optimized build for 1E (except for his lack of Str bonus). Wulfgar is a much less effective combatant, because he only has one weapon (and is much lower level) who gets by on a powerful weapon, ranged attacks, and a Strength score that should have taken a Girdle of Giant Strength to obtain. 1E melees also had full move and attack, never losing out on # of attacks.

Fast forward to the Drow series in the underdark. What's the primary Drow fighter? A big strong lug who uses a Greatsword...an optimized build for THAT rule set, and totally at odds with the elven fighting style...but optimal nonetheless.

Drizzt doesn't have the normal magic item complement because he's under 1E rules, and can't just go out and buy a Girdle of Giant Str to render himself a godly warrior.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Kaiyanwang wrote:
vuron wrote:


Basically unless you can spam trip attacks or you can do a pouncing full BAB power attack with a Two-handed Weapon and several force multipliers like a "proper" 3.x CharOp fighter the Pathfinder Fighter is considered a speedbump at best.

Of course the reality is that the vast majority of games don't see CharOp builds and the increase in the baseline from the 3.x fighter to the Pathfinder is seen by many gamers as a net positive.

Exactly. For the optimizer, the PF power attack is nerfed because you can no longer take a penalty equal to your full BAB and then use shock trooper or a touch attack.

But for casual play, PA has been revamped, because you obtain more from less, and can use it with off-hand, and stuff.

Furthermore, saying that maneuvers has been nerfed means not understand how to-hit bonuses are obtained or like size and buffs work. Nothing else to say about it.

Agreed. Arguing a class is worthless because it doesn't intrinsically have one or two splatbook feats that the DM is free to let the PF FIghter access is hilarious.

==Aelryinth


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i would love to play a pathfinder game as a young japanese noble born vampiric youkai shrine maiden.

There's already a game that caters to your weird fantasies. It's even d20 based, so it should be easy to pick up. Check out BESM. It'll have all the Anime and Japanese schoolgirls even you can handle.


Epic Meepo wrote:

I actually prefer classes with good basic progressions and relatively few class features (like the cleric).

I don't devote lots of time to system mastery, I don't work as a game designer, and I usually play in pick-up games. That gives me tens of minutes to familiarize myself with my character's abilities, not hours or weeks. In my case, classes with lots of "fun" features are really just classes that make me spend more time with my head in a book than actually playing the game. Same goes for classes that rely heavily on non-core spells to function.

Give me a class with some respectable combination of BAB progression, bonus feat/class talent progression, and spell progression. Give me an easy-to-use spell list of mostly core spells. Give me one or two simple class features that scale with level. That's the kind of class I can use in a pick-up game, or that I can hand to someone who's never played Pathfinder before. Not one that has twenty different ways to compensate for not having flat bonuses and feats that would have produced a similar end result, anyway.

+1

I'm getting turned off by the increased page count of new classes in describing all of their abilities (ex: the new classes in the APG). It's nice to get the entirety of a class in 2-4 pages. More abilities does not necessarily make a "fun" class. I'd rather have a new class described with a few good abilities that define what the class is.


The thing is, most people on this board (no offense meant) have no idea what they are talking about when they speak about how weak this and that class are. They are purely theorycrafting, a sad consequence of people playing too many MMORPGs and using the same type of reasoning for MMORPGs as for table top RPGs. I'm not even going to go into detail as to why it is a bad idea.

But just to take your pouncing druid: sure, he can potentially deal a lot of damage, IF all his attacks hit, and if he has dedicated a lot of strength in his build. And he leaves himself open when charging as a lion/dire lion: his armor class really takes a hit. See, now someone will say 'But the druid will have buffed itself before charging!!!!'. The point is, in real gameplay, you find yourself in situations that cannot be taken into account while posting on a board.

Or someone will say "well, my druid is ALWAYS in Lion form, so he doesn't lose his standard action to transform during a fight". Thus forgetting that not being able to communicate with other group members, or not being able to climb ladders, or a variety of other situations (are you in lion form in a city? Unlikely.)

My experience (I've been playing PF almost every week with a dedicated group since it got out) is that the game mechanics are amazing, and that each class is excellent. The game is much more balanced that the 3.5 edition could ever hope to be, and the druid (or the cleric, for that matter) remain exceedingly solid choices without, however, being the CoDzilla powerhouses they used to be.

Sure, if you always compare the situation with your druid being fully buffed, not surprised, already in lion form and with a clear line for the charge to his enemy, it's not really a surprise people will think the druid is overpowered. But that has almost never happened in my gaming experience. Enemies become either too cunning or tough to take care of at level 10 with 80 damage in a round anyway (and most of them will have dr of some kind, not necessarily the type your lion will be able to overcome).


Estrosiath wrote:
The thing is, most people on this board (no offense meant) have no idea what they are talking about when they speak about how weak this and that class are. They are purely theorycrafting, a sad consequence of people playing too many MMORPGs and using the same type of reasoning for MMORPGs as for table top RPGs. I'm not even going to go into detail as to why it is a bad idea.

Please do so, seeing as how the rest of your post is the same rubbish "Well your wrong, and here are the zero reasons why" that I've seen countless times before.

Here is a challenge to you and indeed no small number of others here. Mathematically tell me why the theorycraft falls about.

"But Cirno, why do I use math?"

Because we're all nerds in the nerdy hobby of tabletop gaming, and D&D has always been built on the shoulders of math, that's why. Because D&D is math. Because as soon as you roll that die - and you do it a lot in D&D! - you're doing math.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Estrosiath wrote:
The thing is, most people on this board (no offense meant) have no idea what they are talking about when they speak about how weak this and that class are. They are purely theorycrafting, a sad consequence of people playing too many MMORPGs and using the same type of reasoning for MMORPGs as for table top RPGs. I'm not even going to go into detail as to why it is a bad idea.

Please do so, seeing as how the rest of your post is the same rubbish "Well your wrong, and here are the zero reasons why" that I've seen countless times before.

Here is a challenge to you and indeed no small number of others here. Mathematically tell me why the theorycraft falls about.

"But Cirno, why do I use math?"

Because we're all nerds in the nerdy hobby of tabletop gaming, and D&D has always been built on the shoulders of math, that's why. Because D&D is math. Because as soon as you roll that die - and you do it a lot in D&D! - you're doing math.

I always thought that when I roll a die I dance with Lady Luck and gamble with Miss Fate. You're shattering my dreams with your Banality.


Gorbacz wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Estrosiath wrote:
The thing is, most people on this board (no offense meant) have no idea what they are talking about when they speak about how weak this and that class are. They are purely theorycrafting, a sad consequence of people playing too many MMORPGs and using the same type of reasoning for MMORPGs as for table top RPGs. I'm not even going to go into detail as to why it is a bad idea.

Please do so, seeing as how the rest of your post is the same rubbish "Well your wrong, and here are the zero reasons why" that I've seen countless times before.

Here is a challenge to you and indeed no small number of others here. Mathematically tell me why the theorycraft falls about.

"But Cirno, why do I use math?"

Because we're all nerds in the nerdy hobby of tabletop gaming, and D&D has always been built on the shoulders of math, that's why. Because D&D is math. Because as soon as you roll that die - and you do it a lot in D&D! - you're doing math.

I always thought that when I roll a die I dance with Lady Luck and gamble with Miss Fate. You're shattering my dreams with your Banality.

"Chance favors the prepared mind. "


ProfessorCirno wrote:

Please do so, seeing as how the rest of your post is the same rubbish "Well your wrong, and here are the zero reasons why" that I've seen countless times before.

Here is a challenge to you and indeed no small number of others here. Mathematically tell me why the theorycraft falls about.

"But Cirno, why do I use math?"

Because we're all nerds in the nerdy hobby of tabletop gaming, and D&D has always been built on the shoulders of math, that's why. Because D&D is math. Because as soon as you roll that die - and you do it a lot in D&D! - you're doing math.

The problem with that is that there are still too many variables in the game, starting with the guy behind the screen. Does he allow splatbooks from 3.5? Does he allow books from 3rd party publishers? Are there a pile of adventure paths laying around with stuff from those for the players too use? Lastly, how does he design his encounters? Randomly based on CR? Is he one of those DM's who thinks the game is a contest, and he is supposed to try and win by killing as many PC's as possible? Is he an easy DM who is a pushover? Somewhere in between?

Theorycraft often fails because there are too many additional variables to account for. It works best when all those other variables are static. Applying it to Gorbacz'z game, or to my game might work, but try to compare his and mine and things start to break down due to the additional variables.

One of the rules of scientific experiments is to remove as many variables as possible in order to get the truest result.


Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

Please do so, seeing as how the rest of your post is the same rubbish "Well your wrong, and here are the zero reasons why" that I've seen countless times before.

Here is a challenge to you and indeed no small number of others here. Mathematically tell me why the theorycraft falls about.

"But Cirno, why do I use math?"

Because we're all nerds in the nerdy hobby of tabletop gaming, and D&D has always been built on the shoulders of math, that's why. Because D&D is math. Because as soon as you roll that die - and you do it a lot in D&D! - you're doing math.

The problem with that is that there are still too many variables in the game, starting with the guy behind the screen. Does he allow splatbooks from 3.5? Does he allow books from 3rd party publishers? Are there a pile of adventure paths laying around with stuff from those for the players too use? Lastly, how does he design his encounters? Randomly based on CR? Is he one of those DM's who thinks the game is a contest, and he is supposed to try and win by killing as many PC's as possible? Is he an easy DM who is a pushover? Somewhere in between?

Theorycraft often fails because there are too many additional variables to account for. It works best when all those other variables are static. Applying it to Gorbacz'z game, or to my game might work, but try to compare his and mine and things start to break down due to the additional variables.

One of the rules of scientific experiments is to remove as many variables as possible in order to get the truest result.

Theorycraft often doesn't need to take those into account, though.

This is if anything a reason why theorycraft is needed next to in-game playing - all your things here are flaws found far more in the vaunted "personal experience" then they are in comparisons between classes.

Everyone's game will be different. The goal of the comparisons between Magus and other classes, or the Magus and creatures of different CRs, is to establish a baseline.


Gorbacz wrote:
They even took his heavy armor proficiency. Infidels. What will come next, weapon restriction to bludgeoning only ? ;-)

No! Blasphemy! That's outrageous, never would that hap...

oh, wait a minute.
Sorry. Nevermind.


Quote:
Why do Jason Bulmahn et al. think that full BAB + partial spells is overpowered but 3/4 BAB + full spells is acceptable? I'm going to wager it's incompetence.

I just would like to say that I'm glad that the wise and insightful guys at Paizo make the design decisions, and not someone who likes to express himself in this manner.


Enchanter Tom wrote:
prove to me that full BAB + 6th level spells is overpowered

Really, you need a list of what 6th level and lower spells would make a melee monkey destroy another melee monkey taht doesn't have those spells? Righteous Might stacked with Divine Power comes to mind. A huge increase in Str, Con, attack, damage, AC, reach and don't forget the DR included in RM as well. That would seem to me to be a little in the favor of full BAB with 3/4 cleric spells in their build.

A mage version could possibly be even more devastating, as it would allow a fighter to haste, blink, displace or even mirror image for self buffs. Also, with a fighter or barb's low will save, even a character with slightly slower than normal spell progression would be able to suggest/dominate the bejesus out of the normal full BAB competition. Even low level spells would almost break the game; expeditious retreat plus Spring Attack would be amazing.

This is just what I could think of as a knee-jerk reaction to your challenge. So yes, a full BAB character plus 6th level spells would be a tad broken

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Has anyone here said that a magus should get suggestion/dominate? That definitely is a wizard thing. And as far as I know, haste, blink, and displacement are all available to the regular fighter as well.


Enchanter Tom wrote:
prove to me that full BAB + 6th level spells is overpowered

It really depends what kind of proof you need. Over at the DPR Olympics I posted a Magus that has very good defenses and a peak damage per round of 120+ - a build that can definitely go front-line. Depending on how aggressive money is spent, the first round of DPR is 60+ or 80+ then scales up to 120 over one or two rounds. That's *very good* for a level 10 character. If you we're to give him full BAB his DPR would increase significantly; unnecessarily so. The only way a Magus with full DPR would be balanced, is if the weapon bond power is removed - and I'd say that weapon bond >> full BAB. It's more versatile and increases DPR more.

Now don't say "that doesn't prove anything - he should spend his resources on bla bla" - the build is solid and does not rely on anybody for help; in context of a party that has some semblance of teamwork, the Magus will spend some resources to help out others rather than himself - and in return will receive resources that he doesn't himself have.

I hope people realize that the Magus playtest is in most ways a full-caster. The Magus 6th level spells are in the same category as Wizard level 8 and 9 spells. He has full caster level progression. What the Magus loses is:

1. spell slots
2. spell DCs

The DCs are relevant if you absolutely want to debuff/nerf enemies, but that isn't really the Magus' forte. It is, essentially, exactly what you'd want for a gish - a high impact melee fighter with a good selection and reasonable capacity for powerful spells.

151 to 200 of 261 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Magic Playtest / Round 1: Magus / Full casting, 3 / 4 BAB: awesome. 3 / 4 casting, full BAB: BROKEN All Messageboards