|
Kaiy, stop treating the game like a competition, because it's not. You can't win the game, and optimizing in a real game is near impossible unless your DM gives you way more insight on the plot and encounters you will be doing than he should.
The optimization trend started in 3rd ed and it has only done bad things to the game, sure you character may be slightly more powerful but it adds no more value to the experience for the fact that you can squeeze out another 3-4 damage, or that you can be more careless when handling a slightly more fragile AC. All I've ever seen a powergamer or "optimizer" bring to a table is longer turns, forced complicated ruling, and frustration amongst the rest of the players.
I don't say what I say because I treat the game as a competition.
I say what I say because i stuck with 3.5 and then PF because rules and fluff were no disjoined. Hence, if a druid is a leader of the pack and brings with him the cast of "Watership Down", there is something wrong.
If feats and archetypes are useless, are wasted space on a book. And UM has several cases, I'm sorry.
I don't want "competition", I'm a quite P***** OFF CUSTOMER.
Really, it irks me that every time someone points out a flaw, it's an optimizer and optimization ruins the game. I want products of quality, and meaningful choice. I edited my previous post with a fighter example. Read it PLEASE.
And again, what's your opinion about the boomerang?
I love how you keep ignoring that there is a perfectly good utility use of the archetype Kaiyanwang, but I'll answer the boomerang question. It's an interesting option that's mostly fluff but could occasionally reward a player who had them. In a game like Pathfinder you will have players who want the stats on a Boomerang - so there they are. Not optimized, especially compared to the Chakram, but a way that a strong character could get in some good damage against DR 5/bludgeoning enemy at range.
I love how you keep ignoring that there is a perfectly good utility use of the archetype Kaiyanwang, but I'll answer the boomerang question. It's an interesting option that's mostly fluff but could occasionally reward a player who had them. In a game like Pathfinder you will have players who want the stats on a Boomerang - so there they are. Not optimized, especially compared to the Chakram, but a way that a strong character could get in some good damage against DR 5/bludgeoning enemy at range.
I would agree with you on the boomerang.. if not for the exotic weapon proficency. Too little gain for a feat.
And again, one can obtain something from anything. Even the 3.5 S&B fighter could shield bash. This does not mean that was SANE go S&B in core 3.5. The same is Tiger + Owl + Watership Down cast* option.
I put it this way: if the game is fine regardless the quality of options, why switch to PF? Just stuck with 3.5.
I point out these things because PF is considered (and IS, in my opinion) an improvement over 3.5. One should keep an eye on the reasons, because it seems to me that book after book are going to be forgotten.
*barring General Woundwort. I can see him yelling "come back here cowards! Pit Fiends are not dangerous!".
But if you leave the boomerang out of the book, people will complain that they want stats for a boomerang. It is an exotic and not particularly powerful weapon. It is in the book because folks will want it in the book. It has the power level it does because that is a reasonable power level for a boomerang compared to other weapons.
Create a deity that favors boomerangs in an undead-heavy campaign and suddenly you can have a Cleric doing the whacky-kersmacky thing on animated bags of bones. It's all about options - the more the game offers, the more life it breathes into home-brew campaigns.
Tiger/Owl/Watership Down gives me much better environmental awareness and abilities than bigger Tiger. I'll do less damage in a straight up fight, but I may very well be better able to choose my ground and timing to keep it from being a straight up fight. That benefits me and the rest of my party.
Here's where I will agree with you. The game shouldn't have things that are ALWAYS, in any possible scenario, a worse option than a single other thing. For example, there shouldn't be a Burning Hands and a Scorching Hands spell both at level 1 and identical except that one is 1d4 and the other is 1d6. There is no possible scenario in which you are better off knowing/preparing the 1d4 version. So far, in my opinion, Pathfinder has supplied a lot of options without falling into that particular trap.
Yeah, that's the point - the always. You say that more companions have better benefits - it's fine, and I like frankly a lot this diversity of "utility". Nevertheless, to mantain meaningfulness stuff must be fine tuned and if needs a feat in a 3rd book there is something wrong. Other parts of the book follow this route - see the paladin oaths.
On the boomerang I just disagree. I don't care if is there for people who wants the boomerang: of you create a boomerang rule, you do it right, or you don't create it at all. Boomerang rules like that means you (not Aldin, you writer) are mocking me.
"let's gave the idiots their sucky boomerang". Well no thank you very much.
I hate flat, repetitive choice. But if i spend my money on the book instead of homebrew, I want meaningful and diverse (by power or, as you said, by situation) choice.
Or, at least, that you support the game with errata and more care. Again, otherwise, why just not stuck with 3.5 if I have to homebrew half of the equipment or spells since are poorly thought?
Additional Watership Down scene, OT:
Fighter: you want to face the dragon.. with THEM?
Druid (smiling, confident): dude, you don't get it. They are the Owsla.
I am not disputing that you arent better off with just the straight animal companion. You are. But that doesnt mean the other option is worthless. Are you weaker? Yes, but it isn't useless, its just less than optimal. There are tons of ways any character class with any archetype can be made less then optimal. That doesnt mean the options shouldnt exist.Especially when what is the difference between a first level ferret animal companion and say .. a ferret animal?
Remember an animal companion doesn't start really being an animal companion until a few levels in. So running around with a first level animal companion and a 19th level animal companion.. You are better off running with a 20 level animal companion and some animal you picked up for pocket change.
My thing is, you can do all the flavor and all that just running 25 gp guard dogs.
and still, you are running into a mech battle, naked, armed with knife. Now if there was some total badass feats and things you could take for this, you may not be optimal compared to the mechs, but you actually have the ability to use the flavor of your character in combat instead of being punked.
And I can either use the spell magic weapon, or buy a +1 sword, there are different ways to acheive the same or similar effects. Some of them work better then others.
And you arent naked with a knife, you just have an assualt rifle instead of an m60. Heck, the druid would still be armed and equiped if it had NO animal companion, it isnt a weak class teatering on the edge of uselessness. And not all options need to be useful in combat. They just need to have a purpose. Having a small flying or burrowing animal companion has applications that are not combat oriented. And it is not outrageous for certain options to sacrifice combat ability for usefulness elsewhere.
One more thought on utility? The penalty to dismiss and acquire a new companion is pretty minimal in PF. Not only could this archetype normally have a tiger 15th + 5 levels worth of situation/terrain appropriate companions, but it could also dismiss the 15 and the 5 in favor of a 20 should the need for sheer combat utility arise. Lots of ways to skin the cat... errr... *ahem* accomplish the goals.
One more thought on utility? The penalty to dismiss and acquire a new companion is pretty minimal in PF. Not only could this archetype normally have a tiger 15th + 5 levels worth of situation/terrain appropriate companions, but it could also dismiss the 15 and the 5 in favor of a 20 should the need for sheer combat utility arise. Lots of ways to skin the cat... errr... *ahem* accomplish the goals.
This is a good point. Now, could have been so difficult add something increasing the HD, or improving this smart move?
This is what I mean for care. I don't want the boomerang deal 2d6 17-20/x4, but being wort the feat at least for some funny, special effect, even the silly comeback.
I don't want the falcata d6 20/x2, i want it as is one hand only, so can be specific for certain styles, shortens the gap between TWF and THF, and is not a no brainer for every non-crit build.
This is my point.
Does it really matter if there's a boomerang in the game that nobody sensible would choose to learn the proficiency for? Not everything has to serve a valid tactical function. It's more realistic this way than boomerangs being powerful. (Do you think an army armed with boomerangs would have been a match for an army armed with longbows?)
They can still add flavour - for example the party could be attacked by boomerang-wielding kobolds. The kobold chief has a really powerful magic returning boomerang, giving the PCs a reason to learn the feat.
And I can either use the spell magic weapon, or buy a +1 sword, there are different ways to acheive the same or similar effects. Some of them work better then others.
And you arent naked with a knife, you just have an assualt rifle instead of an m60. Heck, the druid would still be armed and equiped if it had NO animal companion, it isnt a weak class teatering on the edge of uselessness. And not all options need to be useful in combat. They just need to have a purpose. Having a small flying or burrowing animal companion has applications that are not combat oriented. And it is not outrageous for certain options to sacrifice combat ability for usefulness elsewhere.
Buying a guard dog works pretty much no worse than having a 1 level animal companion. Magic weapon vs a +1 sword though is different. One has a time limit the other doesn't.
yes it isn't a "weak class" because it is a DRUID. Like an archtype for a wizard that replaces his hair on his right eye brow for an extra toe on his left foot, He still is a wizard. He can still cast fireballs and magic missiles.
But throwing together several paragraphs for this wizard archtype and calling it a Arch Mage, all so you could give up a bit of hair on your eyebrows for extra toes, or give up toes for extra eyebrow hair..
Of perhaps an archetype that gives you multiple familiars but they don't give you the master bonuses. We'll call it the Petshop Owner archetype for wizard. You get extra familiars, but you don't get the master bonus unless you spend 24 hours of concentration on that familiar to replace the previous one. You have to split your HP pool amongst your familiars, your int pool and your natural armor bonus.
You'll sit there and say something about it being less than optimal but not useless and how its all about options.
Its not uselessclass because it is STILL a wizard, but as an archetype it is useless. Its ability can be more faithfully created through adding a new chapter in a pathfinder companion book on purchasing trained animals/pets.
Does it really matter if there's a boomerang in the game that nobody sensible would choose to learn the proficiency for? Not everything has to serve a valid tactical function. It's more realistic this way than boomerangs being powerful. (Do you think an army armed with boomerangs would have been a match for an army armed with longbows?)
They can still add flavour - for example the party could be attacked by boomerang-wielding kobolds. The kobold chief has a really powerful magic returning boomerang, giving the PCs a reason to learn the feat.
The flavour there is magic, not the weapon. And reread, is not a matter of power, but of significance. Too much or too few and makes meaningless the rest, or is meaningless.
and frankly, force the player to take EWP for a crappy weapon is not the way to go.
|
|
Having survived 1st, 2nd, and pre-3.5 3rd edition, playing the occasional Druid (or Ranger) who had nothing but lower HD critters following them around, and almost never anything 'level-appropriate' like the Animal Companion, I'm pretty sure it's not 'worthless' to be able to replicate that with this Archetype.
Being as it's only relatively recently (over the course of the game's existence) that a CR-relevant Animal Companion has even been an option, I haven't really had time to get all entitled about it. (My Druids had to walk to school! In the snow! Uphill! Both ways!)
If the wolf pack is most useful for giving people +2 bonuses through Aid Other and providing flanking bonuses, it's quite possibly still outperforming the Bard or the Monk.
Considering that everything before 3rd creatures stopped really gaining hp at around 10 hd.. And I'm not sure about ac
In 3rd edition.. You had the beastmaster PRC.
You would have a 20th level, 17th level, 14th level, and 11th level animal companion by the end of it.
Your animal companion has about the same stats in pathfinder as it did back in 3rd.