I just downloaded it and am giddy!
:)
I wonder how awesome this could be in gameplay...hmmmm:
Barbarian Rage Power:
Spell Sunder (Su): Once per rage, the barbarian can
attempt to sunder an ongoing spell effect by succeeding
at a combat maneuver check. For any effect other than
one on a creature, the barbarian must make her combat
maneuver check against a CMD of 15 plus the effect’s caster
level. To sunder an effect on a creature, the barbarian
must succeed at a normal sunder combat maneuver
against the creature’s CMD + 5, ignoring any miss chance
caused by a spell or spell-like ability. If successful, the
barbarian suppresses the effect for 1 round, or 2 rounds if
she exceeded the CMD by 5 to 9. If she exceeds the CMD
by 10 or more, the effect is dispelled. A barbarian must
have the witch hunter rage power and be at least 6th level
before selecting this rage power.
I just downloaded it and am giddy!
Test...Your...Might...
This is awesome.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Spell Sunder seems like it should use the Caster Level target when targetted against a spell effecting yourself, rather than CMD... i.e. if you are trying to Spell Sunder a Slow effect that is on you. Probably that should go for willing targets, i.e. allies as well... Not that it isn´t beneficial to target CMD vs. a low CMD ally. Personally, I think I will miss out because Superstitious is too inconvenient for me, but a very cool power that should be popular :-)
Spell Sunder seems like it should use the Caster Level target when targetted against a spell effecting yourself, rather than CMD... i.e. if you are trying to Spell Sunder a Slow effect that is on you. Probably that should go for willing targets, i.e. allies as well... Not that it isn´t beneficial to target CMD vs. a low CMD ally. Personally, I think I will miss out because Superstitious is too inconvenient for me, but a very cool power that should be popular :-)
There are actually quite a few nice powers that build off superstition now, such as Eater of Magic :)
Awesome. This is an example of anti-magic ability in a martial class. And the idea the barb is striking so hard magic goes away is cool.
There is something on the anti-magic or anti-caster field for other classes? I'm intrigued.
Awesome. This is an example of anti-magic ability in a martial class. And the idea the barb is striking so hard magic goes away is cool.
There is something on the anti-magic or anti-caster field for other classes? I'm intrigued.
All of the Inquisitor archetypes are anti-magic in some way or another. I believe that's about it though.
All of the Inquisitor archetypes are anti-magic in some way or another. I believe that's about it though.Awesome. This is an example of anti-magic ability in a martial class. And the idea the barb is striking so hard magic goes away is cool.
There is something on the anti-magic or anti-caster field for other classes? I'm intrigued.
I hoped for more but for my gameworld this is nevertheless quite interesting and useful.
SPELLSLINGER!
Is it wizards/sorcs only?
How do they cast in armour?
What's the prereqs?
Do they forget about grit?
When can they qualify?
Wizard Only. It's an archetype, not a PrC.
Can't cast in armor.
Loses most cantrips. Loses arcane bond. Loses arcane school. No grit whatsoever (unless they take Amateur Gunslinger, I guess)
Opposition schools.
|
Well the Spellslinger IS Wizard-only, but if you notice, none of the abilities scale with the wizard's level and it never says it HAS to be wizard spells that are cast through the guns - just arcane spells. So technically any arcane caster could take a one level dip in wizard and get all the abilities of the spellslinger, and have them function with his/her spells.
And yes, they do get Firearm proficiency (Gunsmith too). No grit abilities though. And then there's plenty of REALLY cool spells that compliment the archetype.
EDIT: I retract part of that statement: it doesn't even say the spells have to be arcane, although using the spellslinger to cast divine spells would be a bit cheesy for my taste. I'm sure it wasn't intended to be used that way.
|
|
It's just an archetype, actually. You swap out Arcane Bond, Cantrips, Scribe Scroll, and take two additional prohibited schools for the Spellslinger abilities. Those extra spells are just normal Sorc/Wizard spells, not something special for the archetype. A few other classes get them too.
After a re-read I noticed it doesn't even say you have to use arcane spells with the Spellslinger abilities. Seems kind of cheesy, but per RAW you could take a one level dip into Wizard from ANY casting class and gain all of the Spellslinger abilities, thus allowing you to shoot your spells out of a gun or sacrifice them for enhancement bonuses.
I just received the book in the mail today, and I am so bloody disappointed.
For a book that calls itself "Ultimate Combat", there are about 5 whole pages useful for my beloved Fighter class (at least the traditional, Western fantasy Fighter class). Once again, Fighters get absolutely no love. Well, maybe a little love, more than Rogues get anyway.
To think that I'd been waiting for months, giddily anticipating this book. Ah well, what a shame. I guess Paizo was bound to disappoint me one day, because I have really liked all of the other corebooks for Pathfinder and have always thought Paizo did brilliant work.
The problem with UC is that unless you're interested in an Eastern-themed campaign, there's practically nothing in there for you. Sadly, there's more in that book for spellcasting classes like Inquisitor and Magus than there is for the Fighter. Otoh, for all the Monk players out there, rejoice! Your class got plenty of love in this book.
Well Paizo, you can make it up to me by making the Advanced Race Guide completely brilliant, like most of your products have been.
After reading about the antipaladin archetype, my interest is peaked. What does the antipaladin lose in order to put one foot in the grave?
I'd also be interested to know if any advanced technology is mentioned in the book (laser weaponry, mech armor, etc.). If not, I'll just alter firearms, but I am curious.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh just an archetype... because that makes it so much better that ultimate COMBAT has wizard crunch in it.
Glad I didn't get my hopes up for this book.
I was also completely outraged that this book had material for almost every class. Clearly it's expansive coverage makes it worthless.
I was also completely outraged that this book had material for almost every class. Clearly it's expansive coverage makes it worthless.Oh just an archetype... because that makes it so much better that ultimate COMBAT has wizard crunch in it.
Glad I didn't get my hopes up for this book.
+1 roflmao
Oh just an archetype... because that makes it so much better that ultimate COMBAT has wizard crunch in it.
Glad I didn't get my hopes up for this book.
There was huge demand for a gunmage type, and Paizo delivered that.
The only other main casters that got stuff were druids and clerics, and those are basically fighters anyways. What did all the other "pure casters"? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. The wizard was the only pure caster to get stuff, due to that aforementioned demand.
I'm sorry, I thought that when Paizo brought up the idea of a martial book and a magic book that one of them wouldn't be all about giving casters more toys.
Casters got Ultimate Broken, and non-casters are left with Ultimate Disappointment.
hmm its kind of funny i didn't think ultimate magic added alot to casters while just form what people have said about ultimate combat the martial arts style feats new weapons and new archtypes for all the martial classes i am pretty downright happy about it and can't wait to get it. i think gun mage is martial enough anyways :P
I'm sorry, I thought that when Paizo brought up the idea of a martial book and a magic book that one of them wouldn't be all about giving casters more toys.
Casters got Ultimate Broken, and non-casters are left with Ultimate Disappointment.
Have you even read Ultimate combat?
And what is broken about Ultimate Magic? It's been very well received, balance wise.
I'm honestly confused where you're getting your twisted perceptions from.
I'm sorry, I thought that when Paizo brought up the idea of a martial book and a magic book that one of them wouldn't be all about giving casters more toys.
Casters got Ultimate Broken, and non-casters are left with Ultimate Disappointment.
Have you even read Ultimate combat?
And what is broken about Ultimate Magic? It's been very well received, balance wise.
I'm honestly confused where you're getting your twisted perceptions from.
i wanna agree with cheapy here
I'm honestly confused where you're getting your twisted perceptions from.I can see you're honest in wanting my opinion, and not in any way looking for more to mock.
well thats probably true for cheapy me however...
Aww, man.....Ultimate Disappointment.....*snif* I had such.....dreams, such yearnings for this book.....*sniff* I have nothing to live for, but the Conan movie now,.....and the hope that Lucas will make the final trilogy some day.....
but he won't. I, like fighters, can never have nice things.
It's just an archetype, actually. You swap out Arcane Bond, Cantrips, Scribe Scroll, and take two additional prohibited schools for the Spellslinger abilities. Those extra spells are just normal Sorc/Wizard spells, not something special for the archetype. A few other classes get them too.
After a re-read I noticed it doesn't even say you have to use arcane spells with the Spellslinger abilities. Seems kind of cheesy, but per RAW you could take a one level dip into Wizard from ANY casting class and gain all of the Spellslinger abilities, thus allowing you to shoot your spells out of a gun or sacrifice them for enhancement bonuses.
Spell-Slinger Magus <3
So what is it, just mostly guns and chi then?
No, there is a lot of things in there, but just like with Ultimate Magic's Vow of poverty and antagonize there has to be something to cry about even if the rest is rather fine. UM didn't have much to give to non-casters (insert rage), UC has something to give to casters as well (insert completely different rage).
Developer
|
So what is it, just mostly guns and chi then?
Nah, plenty of love all around, actually. Some of the rogue stuff is great, and there are plenty of feats for the non-monk, just to name a few things. I actually like the fighter archetypes, too. Is there a lot eastern-themed. Yes. Is there more apart from that? Hell yes.
This thing just made a cavalier I was building even more fun. There's not a whole lot of bad in here, really I haven't read anything I dislike.
The book is great for many classes. If you were expecting "50 pages things only for Fighters", you will of course be disappointed.
|
I'm sorry, I thought that when Paizo brought up the idea of a martial book and a magic book that one of them wouldn't be all about giving casters more toys.
Define 'all about giving casters more toys'. Because to me that sounds like '100% casters options' which Ultimate Combat is certainly not.
The Wounds/Vigor and Armor as DR sections are pretty much not caster toys.
The book is great for many classes. If you were expecting "50 pages things only for Fighters", you will of course be disappointed.
I do need to ask though, is their half a page of things for fighters? As much has been said about the book I haven't heard anything fighter oriented except archtypes that allow it to use the new mechanics.
The book is great for many classes. If you were expecting "50 pages things only for Fighters", you will of course be disappointed.I do need to ask though, is their half a page of things for fighters? As much has been said about the book I haven't heard anything fighter oriented except archtypes that allow it to use the new mechanics.
Well the book has very sizeable parts of Eastern flavoured stuff and Firearms rules, which are also for fighters.....
In addition, there are many, many feats. Now some are quite monk specific, but there are plenty of other feats and no class profits as much from extra feat options as the fighter......
Is is a fighter only book? No. Has it interesting things for fighters? Yes, but also for e.g. rangers, rogues, cavaliers, gunslingers, wizards, etc.
|
|
The book is great for many classes. If you were expecting "50 pages things only for Fighters", you will of course be disappointed.I do need to ask though, is their half a page of things for fighters? As much has been said about the book I haven't heard anything fighter oriented except archtypes that allow it to use the new mechanics.
Wound/Vigor rules. Fighters can now get almost ALL their HPs back in one nights rest.
Well the book has very sizeable parts of Eastern flavoured stuff and Firearms rules, which are also for fighters.....
In addition, there are many, many feats. Now some are quite monk specific, but there are plenty of other feats and no class profits as much from extra feat options as the fighter......
Is is a fighter only book? No. Has it interesting things for fighters? Yes, but also for e.g. rangers, rogues, cavaliers, gunslingers, wizards, etc.
The fighter doesn't benefit from extra feat options with prerequisite "Not a fighters class feature" haven't been spoiled with much that doesn't force the fighter to multi-class to benefit.
I already mentioned firearms, everyone got a way to use firearms, I don't really count that. Other archtypes I've seen seem like they either pump AC one way or another or are more situational weapon bonuses then weapon training already is.
Wound/Vigor rules. Fighters can now get almost ALL their HPs back in one nights rest.
Sounds interesting, can't wait to read about it, although from what it sounds like unless you have a group of martial characters this HP system will get vetoed every time.
For a book that calls itself "Ultimate Combat", there are about 5 whole pages useful for my beloved Fighter class (at least the traditional, Western fantasy Fighter class). Once again, Fighters get absolutely no love. Well, maybe a little love, more than Rogues get anyway.
I haven't seen it yet, but just based on the previews: A fighter's primary ability is a feat every other level. Everything other than that is just bonus on top. That's why archetypes don't alter that. (The same way no archetype takes away a monk's flurry, a wizard's ability to cast spells, or a rogue's sneak attack - they might get modified or restricted, but they still keep the ability in general.) So a book which has so many combat-oriented feats there's 9 pages of tables for them has to have a lot of options for a plain fighter. Unless every single feat in there requires some ability that fighters don't get as a prerequisite.
Fighters have always been powered by the Feats chapter, not their class entry. I think the 3.5 fighter class fit in three columns, including their full 1-20 progression table, where every other class was 3-4 pages.
For a book that calls itself "Ultimate Combat", there are about 5 whole pages useful for my beloved Fighter class (at least the traditional, Western fantasy Fighter class). Once again, Fighters get absolutely no love. Well, maybe a little love, more than Rogues get anyway.
I haven't seen it yet, but just based on the previews: A fighter's primary ability is a feat every other level. Everything other than that is just bonus on top. That's why archetypes don't alter that. (The same way no archetype takes away a monk's flurry, a wizard's ability to cast spells, or a rogue's sneak attack - they might get modified or restricted, but they still keep the ability in general.) So a book which has so many combat-oriented feats there's 9 pages of tables for them has to have a lot of options for a plain fighter. Unless every single feat in there requires some ability that fighters don't get as a prerequisite.
Fighters have always been powered by the Feats chapter, not their class entry. I think the 3.5 fighter class fit in three columns, including their full 1-20 progression table, where every other class was 3-4 pages.
Bob, you are correct in that Fighters are powered by feats, not class abilities. The issue I had with UC is that most of the feats (at least in my view) are for specific classes and are not in the "general" category of feats that Fighters can pick from. And the ones that can be chosen by Fighters have such a lengthy list of pre-requisities that they only appeal to very specific and narrow builds of Fighter.
I certainly didn't expect an entire book devoted to Fighters, and I also didn't expect Paizo to shut out the caster classes either, but I was sorely disappointed by how little there was in the book for the Fighter class (imho).
Boar Style (Combat, Style)
Your sharp teeth and nails rip your foes open.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, Intimidate
3 ranks.
Benefit: You can deal bludgeoning damage or slashing damage with your unarmed strikes—changing damage type is a free action. While using this style, once per round when you hit a single foe with two or more unarmed strikes, you can tear flesh. When you do, you deal 2d6 bleed damage with the attack.
2d6 bleed at level 3? Ouchies :D
The only thing I'm slightly disappointed about from all the early reports is that there's plenty of Chow Yun-Fat and Toshiro Mifune (not that I dislike this on its own, I intend to make heavy use of the Samurai!), but no Johannes Lichtenauer. I was sort of hoping there'd end up being some rules for nailing your opponent with a mordhau, half-swording, wrestling at the sword, and all that fechten goodness.
Although its somewhat abstract, you might consider the improved dirty trick line from the APG. Gripping your sword by the blade and clocking someone in the head with the hilt, sounds like a dazzling attack made with dirty trick.
But I agree, I wish there was a little more Langschwert-lovin'. Don't know how much you house-rule, but I'd say that you could use Two Weapon Feint with a cape or cloak and give it the "distracting" weapon feature. Oh-lay!
Aren't actually atypical uses of ANY weapon already caught under improvised weapon rules? Catch off-guard line of feats would definitely make a fighter a lot like that in connection with various maneuvers, wouldn't it?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Oh just an archetype... because that makes it so much better that ultimate COMBAT has wizard crunch in it.
Wizards engage in COMBAT. Just like every other class.
Glad I didn't get my hopes up for this book.
If your hopes were that some classes would not be included in the book at all despite engaging in combat, then probably so.
If your hopes were that the book should have been awesomely full of all kinds of neat and interesting things about combat, however, then your hopes would have been well-served by getting up.
It's a shame that 2 pages out of a 256-page book (or whatever the final count was) would so taint your ability to enjoy the remainder.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'm sorry, I thought that when Paizo brought up the idea of a martial book and a magic book that one of them wouldn't be all about giving casters more toys.
You thought correctly. I think that's why your complaints seem so baffling.
Ultimate Combat *IS* a book that is not "all about giving casters more toys." I'm puzzled why you would think otherwise, unless you haven't seen it nor availed yourself of the 600+ post spoiler thread about it that gives out quite a bit of information about its contents.
Casters got Ultimate Broken, and non-casters are left with Ultimate Disappointment.
?
A statement such as this suggests you are trolling rather than voicing a concern based on actual evidence. What specifically is disappointing to you about Ultimate Combat, other than the fact that it includes spellcasters as characters that engage in combat?
BTW, I should also point out that "Combat" includes large sections on issues around combat that transcend any kind of caster/martial divide. Things like siege weapons and fortifications or vehicular combat or wounds and vigor or armor as DR or piecemeal armor or reworking armor and weapons lists based on campaign setting (giving examples of primitive weapons, gladiator weapons, and yes, the dreaded "eastern" weapon list as well).
I wonder: Are sections like that disappointing for a fan of martial characters, because they don't seem like something your character would use?
I wonder how that would compare to the sections in Ultimate Magic on constructs, spell creation, words of power, sample spellbooks, and other items that a given player's magical character might likewise not feel are something they would ever use.
Some of the contents of a rulebook will be direct-application adventurer material. Other stuff, though, is going to be organic-world-level material that adventurers may not use all that much, but is there to round out how to play the game in those kinds of peripheral zones.
So again I ask, what exactly is the nature of your disappointment in the book?
Dang, I saw NotMousse being mostly ignored and thought everyone had seen through his blatant trolling.
YOU'VE SHATTERED MY DREAMS, NELSON