|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I got my copy of Ultimate Combat and…
It is both an absolutely wonderful and necessary edition to my library and somewhat of a disappointment.
When it is good, Ultimate Combat is really good. Many of the Archetypes are amazing. I expect to see a ton of Archeologists appear in games, along with the brilliant monk and Magus variants. The feats seem on first look really interesting and exciting. I would say without reservation that sections of the book are among the best work Paizo has put out.
But at times…well I’ll just say it, I don’t think the writers had their heart in it. I felt reading it that the writers were really excited about some sections, and other sections they kind of just threw something in because there would be an expectation to have something for martial/combat classes.
And since that was the point of the book, the fact that the things added for these classes were in my opinon, lackluster. Well, that is disappointing. It wasn’t that I was looking for a power bump, but I was looking for variations and creative flavor options. And while I found that for some classes (see above) I feel like the APG was a far superior book for martial classes.
Now to be fair, maybe the best ideas they had were already put in the APG and so what was left were the castoffs that didn’t make the APG or Ultimate Magic cut. Which isn’t a good sign for the future of crunch.
Looking at specific sections, I am not going to beat a dead horse about the new classes, but I will say I for one was disappointed how little changed between the play tests and the final result. Many great suggestions were ignored (I’m looking at you Samurai mount alternative) and as a result none of the new classes interest me much or (again in my opinion) really fit well.
The ninja and Samurai are basically archtypes, and the Gunslinger is a great idea with clunky execution. I don’t expect them to show up in games very often, relative to other classes, which is a major part of how I judge class quality. By contrast the classes from the APG and the Magus were much, much more interesting options. Which is a shame since all three concepts should be interesting options.
I also feel like for an “Ultimate Combat” book it seems like a lot of attention was given to caster classes. To the point were it seemed as if the Devs really didn’t want to do a combat book, but were doing so because it was “expected”. The fact that it is a “combat” book feels like an afterthought at times.
The variant rules section I am equally of two minds about. I liked the ideas, I don’t feel they were fleshed out well, perhaps because of the deadlines and the fact that they were somewhat peripheral to the main concept of the book (or at least what should have been the main concept of the book, given the title.)
And I think this is the central problem with the book for me. It wasn’t “Ultimate Combat” as much as it was “Ultimate Cool ideas we want to try out, with Combat stuff”.
I feel like if they had stayed more focused, it would have been better at the main intent of the book. But I don’t know that the Devs were that interested in the main intent of the book at the time they were writing it. I get the impression the Devs were more interested in variant rules, cool things arcane classes could do with guns, steampunk worlds, etc…
And I’m not opposed to the later. I found that interesting. I would buy a book for that purpose, call it “Ultimate Steampunk” or include it in an Alkanstar book. Or even “Ultimate Variant Rules” with tons of variant rules that were spelled out in detail rather than given a few somewhat unclearly laid out pages that didn’t dig deeply into interactions with existing rules and seemed as if they had been cut to size rather than expanded to explore implications.
As I said I would buy either of those books.
But it wasn’t what I wanted from “Ultimate Combat”. I wanted a laser-like focus on Martial Classes similar to the focus on caster classes in “Ultimate Magic”. I wanted new classes and variants that were melee focused, or at least weapon focused, and I wanted new weapons and items that would allow more variation, flavor and options for front line combat classes.
And I only kinda got that.
So to sum up, I recommend the book, but it wasn’t the book I wanted.
This has been the case since the CRB imo. The execution leaves something to be desired.
|
I have to agree with a lot of what ciretose said, but I'd like to chip in a few things (not to start a flame war, but just to let Paizo and other potential buyers know).
I feel like the best archetypes in this book were the ones created for magic users. Wizards get the Arcane Bomber and Spellslinger (both AWESOME). Magi get Kensai and Soul Forger. Druids get more shaman-types. Alchemist discoveries and magus arcana are well-done. And there are quite a few spells (most of which give combat bonuses, but still).
Unlike ciretose, I was pleased with the gunslinger's execution. However, I still think the ninja is overpowered, and the samurai could have been much more interesting.
I agree that the feats are really cool. I was pleased with vehicle rules, and was okay with the variant rules as presented (I will never use them, mostly because they'd confuse the heck out of me, but they seem balanced). LOVE the new weapons, new materials, and dueling system.
To sum up: I wasn't disappointed with what I got. In fact, I'm very pleased with it. I was surprised that the book wasn't as purely combat-oriented as expected, and maybe a little disappointed that there were no prestige classes. But as a whole, I think the product's very good--just wanted to clarify that it feels like more of an "advanced rules guide" than a pure combat guide.
Once again, Paizo delivers the goods--just not the way I expected them to.
I am on the other end of the spectrum here, I never play magic classes so I skipped those right out, and went to the fighter and monk archetypes which are amazing except for missing feats on pg 61.
and I could care less about vehicle stuff, I have never taken a point in ride And I most likely never will.
I loved the new feats, seemed very trip heavy though (I am a grapple kinda guy) but they did do a lot of concepts that I was working on in my mind just not the way I would of done it.
I think the weapons are okay same with the armor basicly there is only so many armor class numbers that you can mix and match and at some point it becomes a flavor issue " I am not wearing full plate I am wearing samurai armor"
I liked the new weapons with all the new abilities that they added on like Deadly, and grapple and such.
the New Combat system IS a dream come true for me I think most of my character types are one on one combat fighters and the call of the cheering crowd is now useful.
While I do agree that an open playtest of the new classes is important, I wish they'd do an open playtest of the little rules subsystems more. While they did a very limited playtest of the words of power system, I feel that the whole was lacking. But vehicles could have really benefited from an open playtest. I tried to make a complete vehicle from the rules and I can't. I was not able to find a way to add up GP, nor was I able to find a way to determine the base saves. Many others things could have much more explicitly stated.
The ninja and Samurai are basically archtypes
Well, they were advertised as alternate archetypes. And that's what we got. Perfectly reasonable.
The ninja is in fact not more powerful than a rogue, since both can take each other's tricks/talents. The ninja has an easier time with ki, but the rogue can actually get *more* ninja tricks (due to the "Extra Rogue Talent" feat that can be used to take multiple ninja talents, which has no "Extra Ninja Trick" correspondent).
The Samurai and Horse concept are very strongly tied; having the base Samurai archetype not have a mount would be silly. Naturally the job here is to have cavalier archetypes that replace only the mount (or only mount and other shared class abilities) - since the Samurai can take those archetypes as well.
|
|
The ninja and Samurai are basically archtypesWell, they were advertised as alternate archetypes. And that's what we got. Perfectly reasonable.
The ninja is in fact not more powerful than a rogue, since both can take each other's tricks/talents. The ninja has an easier time with ki, but the rogue can actually get *more* ninja tricks (due to the "Extra Rogue Talent" feat that can be used to take multiple ninja talents, which has no "Extra Ninja Trick" correspondent).
The Samurai and Horse concept are very strongly tied; having the base Samurai archetype not have a mount would be silly. Naturally the job here is to have cavalier archetypes that replace only the mount (or only mount and other shared class abilities) - since the Samurai can take those archetypes as well.
They were and they weren't. As it stands you have given base class space in the book to archtype material for classes many of us felt deserved full class treatment. I would have preferred they either make it a normal archtype or go full class, as splitting the baby didn't work, IMHO. Both are "fine" as archtypes, but frankly they aren't different enough from a normal archtype design to warrant the treatment given in the book, and now they are "The" ninja and samurai.
For comparison, a pirate archetype in the book that is "a" pirate, but not "the" pirate. That would have been a better way to go if they weren't willing to commit to a full base class.
As to Samurai, the iconic Samurai movie I think most would agree was "Seven Samurai".
The bandits were on horseback, and they were on foot.
This is not to say that an iconic samurai isn't mounted, but rather to say "The" iconic samurai isn't specifically tied to the mount conceptually in the way the Cavalier is.
I have similar issues with the ninja being ties to the rogue, but that was already fought out on the play test messageboards. The fact that now the rogue can be more ninja than ninja only reinforces that is should have been a simple archetype rather than the bastardized "Advanced" archetype they put out.
Hopefully that is the last we will see of those type of archetypes. Paizo's regular archetypes are brilliant compromises between prestige and base classes. They have been a great addition to game. But if you are going to take up as much space in the book as a class, it should be something so different it requires the space.
Space that could be better filled with more clearly written variant rules or vehicle building rules.
I like the flavor of the ninja. but I have a soft stop in my heart for them. i was a little mad that they gave rouges the ability o use ninja tricks and have a ki pool. like having a barbarian using a machine gun
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People, you are SERIOUSLY overestimating the Ninja. Is a rogue with few tricks more. Seriously.
Said this, I think is sad there are not mountless archetype for Cavaliers, Westerns or Easterns. People asked vocally for them and in my opinion could have expanded a lot more the class (just call it Knight, marshal or whatever).
I wait to see the book to see more, anyway. The previews intrigued me more than the UM ones.
People, you are SERIOUSLY overestimating the Ninja. Is a rogue with few tricks more. Seriously.
Said this, I think is sad there are not mountless archetype for Cavaliers, Westerns or Easterns. People asked vocally for them and in my opinion could have expanded a lot more the class (just call it Knight, marshal or whatever).
I wait to see the book to see more, anyway. The previews intrigued me more than the UM ones.
oh i completely agree i just love ninjas so i am biased they can walk on lave you know
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The presence of archetypes for caster classes doesn't bother me. In fact, I'm glad for it. After all, it is "Ultimate Combat", not "Ultimate Fighter, Barbarian, and Rogue". Pathfinder isn't 4E with clearly defined 'power sources' and appropriate books.
Paladin, ranger, monk, inquisitor, magus, alchemist, they all got archetypes in Ultimate Magic. They're both combat and magical classes.
Nearly of the caster archetypes presented had something to do with the new rules presented in the book or were combat-oriented. Clerics, druids, and bards straddle the line between 'magic' and 'combat' nearly as much as some other classes, so it would have been unfair to exclude them entirely. The new Wizard archetypes were based on new rules presented in the book (siege weaponry and guns), though the Mad Bomber was new, though served to fill space.
Note that the Sorcerer, Oracle, and Witch, all pure casters, didn't get squat.
I'm honestly glad that they didn't just make a book with a whole crapton of archetypes only for the more 'martial' classes (fighter, rogue, barbarian, ranger, cavalier, paladin). Even if it had meant more material per class, the book as a whole would have appealed to a lot less people.
The more classes you can support in a book, the more people are likely to use it, if it covers their favorite class. Otherwise, the book would have very little appeal to anyone who didn't just play Big Dumb Fighter types.
So far the impression is a good one (although i have barely scrathced the surface).
On archetypes, what i have seen this far is:
there are some good archetypes, some that allow you to play a class differently, some that allow you to add flavor without really losing anything too important and of course some really bad archetypes.
So far the impression is a good one (although i have barely scrathced the surface).
On archetypes, what i have seen this far is:
there are some good archetypes, some that allow you to play a class differently, some that allow you to add flavor without really losing anything too important and of course some really bad archetypes.
There is no such thing as a bad archetype, only 'interesting'. I've played some to much amusement of my entire group.
My only complaint is that it seems like the vast majority of new feats were either feign or Improved Unarmed Strike. I love Monks and love all the Love they got in this book (GO STYLE FEATS!!). But I feel like if you're not a rogue or unarmed fighter you kind of take a back seat a bit.
There is no such thing as a bad archetype, only 'interesting'. I've played some to much amusement of my entire group.So far the impression is a good one (although i have barely scrathced the surface).
On archetypes, what i have seen this far is:
there are some good archetypes, some that allow you to play a class differently, some that allow you to add flavor without really losing anything too important and of course some really bad archetypes.
No there are, in fact there are 3 kinds of bad archetypes:
1) Having a flavor that seriously limits their ability to be played by a PC (if i were any arcane caster i wouldn't want an inquisitor with any of the UC archetypes).2) Trading good powers for bad and/or situational ones and ending up dead weight.
3) A combination of the above two.
No there are, in fact there are 3 kinds of bad archetypes:
1) Having a flavor that seriously limits their ability to be played by a PC (if i were any arcane caster i wouldn't want an inquisitor with any of the UC archetypes).
2) Trading good powers for bad and/or situational ones and ending up dead weight.
3) A combination of the above two.
Could you explain number one more clearly? I'm interested in your example with the inquisitors and arcane casters.
Could you explain number one more clearly? I'm interested in your example with the inquisitors and arcane casters.
No there are, in fact there are 3 kinds of bad archetypes:
1) Having a flavor that seriously limits their ability to be played by a PC (if i were any arcane caster i wouldn't want an inquisitor with any of the UC archetypes).
2) Trading good powers for bad and/or situational ones and ending up dead weight.
3) A combination of the above two.
First i am going to offer a few examples of number one:
1) Geisha archetype (bard archetype). Am i going to go slaying dragons, fighting unspoken terrors, looting dungeons and saving the world from evil against all odds with a freaking geisha? i don't think so2) Warden archetype (ranger archetype). Am i going to trust my life to someone who is a loner, survivalist, probably nuts who spents most of his times away from anyone else and is inside wild areas and it's not even a druid? i don't think so.
Now to explain the example about arcane casters and inquisitors with any of the 3 new archetypes.
First i will go with the iconoclast.
Let's say i am wizard, i will not want to travel and place my life in someone who might think that a powerful (intelligent) artifact we found is heretical just because it's intelligent and trying to destroy it? no magic item will be safe and must be screened by him first because it might be heretical according to his church and/or himself? seriously when poeple of the church start using the word heretical bad things happen, take a look at Mendev. No i would not want to go adventuring with someone who has special training and believes that can be heretical magic items but also uses them as much as the next guy but his magic items are "blessed" or "approved" or anything by Iomidae or any church he is in.
Now with the spellbreaker.
Let's say i am wizard, i won't go adventuring and for all purposes and effects place my life into someone who has special training and powers to resist magic, my magic and one good morning turn against me for any reason (he thinks i am heretic, someone fooled him into seeing me as evil) and eventually turn my powers against me (think mord sith from the legend of the seeker series). At least the paladin's divine powers won't work against me if i am not truly evil (in the fooled by someone else case).
Now with the witch hunter.
Let's say once again i am a wizard. Seriously i am going to travel and sleep when i have at my side whose job is to hunt arcane spellcasters in the name of his faith/church? A guy whose description can very well be burning arcane spellcasters just because they aren't sanctioned by the church and/or their powers have questionable origins? Again look at what is happening to Mendev.
To surise two of those archetypes (especially the witch hunter) is like the ranger in 3.5 who could track and hunt arcane spellcasters only because they were just using arcane magic.
I am not saying anything about mechanical "goodness" of these archetypes, i am just talking from a roleplay point of view.
And archetypes that have serious issues and difficulties to be played in a party are bad archetypes in book.
P.S. I used spoilers in order to avoid wall of text and make this post an easier reading.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimate Combat continues in the grand tradition of being an excellent book for wizards and a fairly good book for clerics to boot. Awesome buff spells? No, bards don't get those. Hilarious avoidance spells that harm others while defussing damage? No, magus doesn't get those. Great curse with auto-scaling DC to daze enemies when they crit and damage them when they attack? If you think the class that gets this is called "witch" you would be wrong. Wizards can now not only supplement but outright equal most full-BAB classes at combat maneuvers, much less the non-full BAB ones.
Wizards are the best at buffing. They're the best at avoiding damage. A wizard/fighter can entirely replace the Magus now and do the job better to boot. There's more will spells then ever targetted at fighters! And most of the spells other classes get? They also get - and earlier, at that! Paizo, just because a spell is level three for clerics and paladins doesn't meant they get it at the same time! They're the best at using firearms. Really? You introduce the Gunslinger and then replace him in the very same book?
What happened here? There's a lot of great stuff for non-casters, and I'll admit I was excited through most of the book right up until I hit a) the spells, and b) the options for clerics (Know what clerics need? auto-scaling huge initiative. Wait no, that is the opposite of what they needed. ) You gave monks a bunch of sweet stuff for grappling, and then introduced a spell - a Level 1 instantanious interrupt spell, verbal component only - that gives you double your caster level to escape artist. What's that, people think summoner is more powerful then wizards and clerics? We'll introduce a wizard/cleric spell only that targets summoners only and makes them take double damage.
Why did Ultimate Combat become yet another goodie bag for casters? You gave fighters literally nothing in Ultimate Magic. It seems my fears that were expressed during the playtest were all entirely founded in reality.
Niche protection? That means "wizards can do it too," right? Anyways, here's a book devoted almost entirely for wizards and nothing at all for fighters. And here's a book that fighters and wizards get to share. Now we're all fair. Just to make sure it's extra fair, in the book about fighters and barbarians and rangers, we'll give wizards a spell that lets them auto-succeed at casting defensively.
Edit: Seriously you knew this post was coming
@ProfessorCirno
From what i have heard Jason Bulman (lead designer) is a great fan of wizards and James Jacobs (creative director) is a great fun of clerics. If those are true i am pretty sure that we are going to be seeing at least something for those two classes very often. Since the other classes also get good stuff i have no problem with that, as long as we don't go to too much power creepness.
Now i haven't (yet) read most of the things you mention but divine strategist cleric? seriously? give up one domain, channel energy (which is a life and money saver at low levels), in order to get a lame ability that lets me help a concentration check of another (divine at first any later) caster by being next to him and using my action, a mediocre and little situational ability that is based on an ability score (INT) that i usally don't have and a (indeed) very powerfull ability that gives me and my allies an initiative boost? i know very well the benefits of high initiative but to me the costs are way too much and high for the benefits.
Edit: Seriously you knew this post was comingYes. The book could have contained one feat selectable by casters and two pages of spells, and still, it would have happened. I did, in fact, know.
Only if those two pages held the kind of spells that let wizards auto-escape grapples or auto-defend against AoO for spellcasting!
Also, let me be clear.
My problem is not that the book has spells. More spells for bards, magus, paladins, rangers, inquisitors, even summoners, that's awesome. totally behind that 100%.
My problem is with almost all of those spells also being for wizards. They don't need it. They shouldn't have it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to make sure it's extra fair, in the book about fighters and barbarians and rangers, we'll give wizards a spell that lets them auto-succeed at casting defensively.
To be fair, though, in the book about wizards and clerics, they gave fighters and barbarians auto-succeed insult-comic-dog mind control. So, there's that.
@ProfessorCirno
From what i have heard Jason Bulman (lead designer) is a great fan of wizards and James Jacobs (creative director) is a great fun of clerics. If those are true i am pretty sure that we are going to be seeing at least something for those two classes very often. Since the other classes also get good stuff i have no problem with that, as long as we don't go to too much power creepness.
I personally feel this book went too far into power creepness.
As I said, Ultimate Magic was a long song for wizards. Fighters didn't get jack. So why do fighters have to share their book when wizards didn't?
Now i haven't (yet) read most of the things you mention but divine strategist cleric? seriously? give up one domain, channel energy (which is a life and money saver at low levels), in order to get a lame ability that lets me help a concentration check of another (divine at first any later) caster by being next to him and using my action, a mediocre and little situational ability that is based on an ability score (INT) that i usally don't have and a (indeed) very powerfull ability that gives me and my allies an initiative boost? i know very well the benefits of high initiative but to me the costs are way too much and high for the benefits.
I'm sure others will disagree, but I feel the huge gains to initiative alone would outweigh the cost. Being guranteed to go first in a fight is a really big deal, especially as a spellcaster.
|
No there are, in fact there are 3 kinds of bad archetypes:
1) Having a flavor that seriously limits their ability to be played by a PC (if i were any arcane caster i wouldn't want an inquisitor with any of the UC archetypes).
2) Trading good powers for bad and/or situational ones and ending up dead weight.
3) A combination of the above two.Could you explain number one more clearly? I'm interested in your example with the inquisitors and arcane casters.
First i am going to offer a few examples of number one:
1) Geisha archetype (bard archetype). Am i going to go slaying dragons, fighting unspoken terrors, looting dungeons and saving the world from evil against all odds with a freaking geisha? i don't think so
2) Warden archetype (ranger archetype). Am i going to trust my life to someone who is a loner, survivalist, probably nuts who spents most of his times away from anyone else and is inside wild areas and it's not even a druid? i don't think so.Now to explain the example about arcane casters and inquisitors with any of the 3 new archetypes.
First i will go with the iconoclast.
** spoiler omitted **
Now with the spellbreaker.
** spoiler omitted **...
Now you are just being, like epic level silly and lacking imagination.
1) Geisha archetype (bard archetype) = and what is the difference with a bard, who is singing while his friends are fighting the big dragon ? "Geisha" is a generic term to define a "zen artist" archetype, not a frail and useless commoner NPC wit one rank in representation.
2) Warden archetype (ranger archetype) = If you are going to go through the wildest environments and the guy isn't a chaotic evil, hermit rapist, then f$~% yeah I'll follow him instead of dying in the first coming nest of giant monsters I didn't know about. If there is no druid around here and I have to choose between the guy from Man Vs Wild, or going in the huge forest without indication, I'd follow the hermit drinking water from camels stomachs without any problem.
Iconoclast/Spellbreaker/Witch Hunter :
Poor wizard. Looks like everyone is against him, especially archetypes made to resist spells. :'(
Hey, also I wonder why the fighter is keeping the puny wizard around him. What if he betrays him in the morning and cast spells against his lower saves ?! The fighter would not be able to do anything ! So wizards are bad classes for roleplay, they can beat you just by moving a finger if they choose to do so and thus you can't trust them because they can force you to do whatever they want. Same for vanilla monks, the wizard will never be able to do anything if the monk decides magic is bad for the world and wants to kick the spellcaster's ass. Monks are bad !
So your only complain about these archetypes is that the pooooor wizard faces people he could not stop, and also a bit because you consider their roleplay to be worthless ? A wizard is supposed to have friends ; and, you know, Intelligence, to deal with this kind of potential menace.
A wizard is a fighter killer, a monk is a wizard killer, a fighter is a monk ass-kicker. And a class based around beating spellcasters is bad for roleplay ? If your character isn't searching for his teeth in the grass right now, it's probably because the inquisitor is hunting evil wizards, or users of black magic. Not "any existing spellcasting class". So I don't see why you are suddenly hit with paranoia some morning and believe you'll die.
@ProfessorCirno
From what i have heard Jason Bulman (lead designer) is a great fan of wizards and James Jacobs (creative director) is a great fun of clerics. If those are true i am pretty sure that we are going to be seeing at least something for those two classes very often. Since the other classes also get good stuff i have no problem with that, as long as we don't go to too much power creepness.
I personally feel this book went too far into power creepness.
As I said, Ultimate Magic was a long song for wizards. Fighters didn't get jack. So why do fighters have to share their book when wizards didn't?
Because fighters aren't magical but everybody gets punched in the face often in this universe.
Because fighters aren't magical but everybody gets punched in the face often in this universe.@ProfessorCirno
From what i have heard Jason Bulman (lead designer) is a great fan of wizards and James Jacobs (creative director) is a great fun of clerics. If those are true i am pretty sure that we are going to be seeing at least something for those two classes very often. Since the other classes also get good stuff i have no problem with that, as long as we don't go to too much power creepness.
I personally feel this book went too far into power creepness.
As I said, Ultimate Magic was a long song for wizards. Fighters didn't get jack. So why do fighters have to share their book when wizards didn't?
You don't see the double standard there?
The fighter is, you know, built around fighting. It's all he does. The wizard is (supposedly) built entirely around magic. So why does the wizard get to delve into fighting but the fighter doesn't get to delve into magic?
I mean, Ultimate Combat has a plethora of spells that are all about neutralizing fighters. It would be like throwing on several feat chains built around neutralizing spellcasters with ease in Ultimate Magic. Which, you know, didn't happen.
It would be like throwing on several feat chains built around neutralizing spellcasters with ease in Ultimate Magic. Which, you know, didn't happen.
Instead we just got Antagonize, which is lolarious against casters.
hmm... it is concerning that wizards and clerics get some new toys, potent ones too. To be honest, they have enough toys.
It's inevitable that when new spells are introduced, wizards and clerics get better. When new feats get introduced, fighters get better. It's the direct result of the power of the classes being so directly tied to either spells or feats. As such, they are going to get more out of any new book than any other class, because the have the ability to utilize the material the most.
And maybe some people don't want to play wizards, couldn't give a rats ass what wizards want, and are excited for all the new feats, archetypes, and expanded/variant rules for combat-oriented classes.
Wizards alter reality. It's their shtick. They're intended to be powerful. But it's hard to give most spells to other classes without wizards having at least some sort of valid claim over it.
And what about sorcerers? Nobody thinks they're overpowered, but you can't give spells to sorcerers without wizards getting them, too.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be like throwing on several feat chains built around neutralizing spellcasters with ease in Ultimate Magic. Which, you know, didn't happen.Instead we just got Antagonize, which is lolarious against casters.
Actually, Antagonize could be a feat chain, that would go like this:
Mild Denigration
Insult
Improved Insult
Greater Insult
Antagonize
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be like throwing on several feat chains built around neutralizing spellcasters with ease in Ultimate Magic. Which, you know, didn't happen.Instead we just got Antagonize, which is lolarious against casters.Actually, Antagonize could be a feat chain, that would go like this:
Mild Denigration
Insult
Improved Insult
Greater Insult
Antagonize
Hmmmm.... but I came here for an argument. Where's that in the feat chain?
It's inevitable that when new spells are introduced, wizards and clerics get better. When new feats get introduced, fighters get better. It's the direct result of the power of the classes being so directly tied to either spells or feats. As such, they are going to get more out of any new book than any other class, because the have the ability to utilize the material the most.
The main difference is that fighters choose feats, wizards learn spells.
Wizards alter reality. It's their shtick. They're intended to be powerful. But it's hard to give most spells to other classes without wizards having at least some sort of valid claim over it.
And what about sorcerers? Nobody thinks they're overpowered, but you can't give spells to sorcerers without wizards getting them, too.
It's actually really easy. See, in that spot where you designate who can cast the spell, you don't write "Wizard." Heck, 3.5 had sorcerer only spells. And Pathfinder has wizard only spells.
I see absolutely no reason why Heroic Invocation is a wizard spell and not a bard spell. None.
If the wizard's niche is supposed to be "power over all reality" then they should simply be honest and state that all classes are a shadow of the wizard.
@Maxximilius
As i said the wizard was only an example, any arcane caster is in the same fate.
Now although the fighter can be more dangerous to a wizard than an inquisitor with those archetypes from a mechanical point of view (i have't really checked the crunch in the archetypes), but it's not specifically against arcane casters and have powers/special training to fight them, it's just a soldier/merceneray/warrior etc. so arcane casters won't feel threatened from those who will travel with them than they will fear any other soldier. So from a roleplaying point of view my arcane caster is more afraid of the witch hunter inquisitor (even one made and played from the least rules-savvy player table) than a THF falchion or nodachi using fighter (created by eihter me or the other more rules-savvy player in my table).
The same goes with the monk.
On the warden, even faced with the situation you described i would try to find a druid or any other ranger/hunter/guide etc. than trust the (probably) nutcase, if the situation is so urgent and nessecary and/or i can't find anyone else then the DM is pigeonholing the rest of the party to accept it this doesn't strike as "good" to me. BTW this archetype is a no.3 and not 1 because it has not only roleplaying (again for a PC) difficulties but also is a fighter with no bonus feats, no good special abilities and istead has good reflex saves, more skills and some highly situational abilities.
On the geisha, if i have in my party then i have someone in armor with a real weapon that during battles is upping my spirit/focuses my energy and/or anger, sounding the drums of war and stuff, not some chick who can make some very good tea.
Let me emphasize something - my irritation with the wizard stuff is due to there being plenty of good non-wizard stuff in there. I have my gripes with different archtypes and classes, but, for the most part, it's a fairly good book. A mixed bag in some places, but overall better then Ultimate Magic.
...Right up until you hit the spells.
Edit: I mean come on, the intro to this book is a book HOORAH FIGHTERS OWN SCREW MAGIC SPELLS LET'S KILL THINGS WITH SWORDS.
Where did this go wrong?
To be 100% honest, I don't see the problem with the magic stuff that was put into UC.
And infact, I'd say it's too new to call anything overpowered. Especially because this book makes me excited about playing a martial character again. If Wizards get more tricks, that's fine, I have what I want/need.
|
|
You don't see the double standard there?
The fighter is, you know, built around fighting. It's all he does. The wizard is (supposedly) built entirely around magic. So why does the wizard get to delve into fighting but the fighter doesn't get to delve into magic?
I mean, Ultimate Combat has a plethora of spells that are all about neutralizing fighters. It would be like throwing on several feat chains built around neutralizing spellcasters with ease in Ultimate Magic. Which, you know, didn't happen.
While I agree with your main point, there was some anti-caster love given to some classes (Eater of spells rage power comes to mind in addition to others)
My main issue was that this was the time for the martial classes to get a showcase, and it didn't really happen. Meaning it probably won't be happening. Which is disappointing.
So far it is a good book, but it's kind of another APG. Which is fine, if it wasn't supposed to be "the" combat book. Kind of like the ninja and samurai would be fine as a way to make "a: kind of ninja or samurai, but it kind of disappointing as "the" way to do them.
On the geisha, if i have in my party then i have someone in armor with a real weapon that during battles is upping my spirit/focuses my energy and/or anger, sounding the drums of war and stuff, not some chick who can make some very good tea.
In the Geisha's defense, she's actually really quite good. She loses her weapon and armor proficiencies (a big hit) and the basic Bardic Knowledge but that's really it. In return for that she gets:
-Scribe Scroll. This is not so big a deal on a bard but it's pretty good nontheless.
-Tea Ceremony. This is situational, but perfect for when your allies aren't going to be able to see you for the entire duration of your knowledge. It's also useful for when one or multiple combats are in your future within the next 10 minutes (something that happens fairly regularly) and it's easy to complete one of these from the safety of a Rope Trick or something else like that. It also is a bonus that doesn't require you to keep being able to see/hear the Geisha which means Silence and Darkness can't negate it. (And also, killing the bard is no longer a valid solution vs Tea Ceremony) I like it, and the Geisha can still do NORMAL Bardic Performance if she needs to.
-Geisha Knowledge. Oh. My. God. Maybe it's just because I like social characters, but +1/2 your level to Diplomacy and (effectively) bluff+disguise/Sense motive (Just pick Act or Sing as your type) is a very good bonus.
They basically give up their armor to get some nice perks and trade their knowledge skills for some INSANE party face skills. It's a worthwhile trade, at least in my view.
But I digress, this is not a topic to figure out if the Geisha is worthwhile. But she would totally be able to use Antagonize on a Wizard.
EDIT: Typo'd 'disguise' as 'intimidate.' What the heck, me.
Also, Cirno, how is a wizard better at using a gun than the gunslinger or a fighter?
@Trinam
I am not arguing the mechanical effectiveness of the geisha, i am torn about the trades being fair or not but that's not my point, i am saying that a geisha isn't material for the classical adventurer group.
The abilities might be good but the flavor of the archetype doesn't say "adventurer".
@Trinam
I am not arguing the mechanical effectiveness of the geisha, i am torn about the trades being fair or not but that's not my point, i am saying that a geisha isn't material for the classical adventurer group.
The abilities might be good but the flavor of the archetype doesn't say "adventurer".
Oh, then I'm just a moron.
Carry on, sir.
Also, Cirno, how is a wizard better at using a gun than the gunslinger or a fighter?
They have ever spell that effects firearms. No other class gets this. And those spells can easily make up for gunslinger and/or fighter bonuses. Heck, one of them gives you a free threat right off the bat - fighters don't get that until level 20.
Of course, if you make a wizard/fighter/EK or something like that, things get extra obscene.
@Trinam
I am not arguing the mechanical effectiveness of the geisha, i am torn about the trades being fair or not but that's not my point, i am saying that a geisha isn't material for the classical adventurer group.
The abilities might be good but the flavor of the archetype doesn't say "adventurer".Oh, then I'm just a moron.
Carry on, sir.
I am sorry but sarcasm is difficult to detect on the internet.
Are you being sarcastic or insultive (although veiled)? If it's the second then i am sorry if i isulted you in any way in my previous post, i didn't had any such intentions.
@leo
Oh. I am acknowledging that I have completely missed the point, and am a moron for it.
Carry on, as that point makes significantly more sense, as Geishas generally don't want to be wandering around in the middle of a ruins.
Hey ya'll, just trying to help confine UC stuff to a single thread, so I have a question for you that have the book already:
Can a gunslinger use Vital Strike at the same time as Dead Shot?
I'm still absorbing it, and I've had the PDF for a few days, my big gripe is with a variant. I will never use the Armor as DR as written by them, Collossal creatures ignore all DR?? Not by STR, not by Size comparison, just by size? Like a Colossal creature doesn't cause enough dmg without IGNORING ALL DR?
I'd say, the smaller a creature is the easier it is to avoid the DR.
Size-2 instead of large
Size-3 huge
Size-4 gargantuan
So when the Medium Fighter enlarges versus the goblins, well he may have reach and higher Natural Armor, but his Armor is going to be less potent, because the little buggers can more easily hit the large unarmored spaces.
Also, there's nothing about armor size, a giant in platemail 3 inches thick should have a huge amount of DR from that armor. Thus the conundrum of the armor as DR system. In addition, there's no accounting for material other than adamantium. I'll have to think on this sytem and convert it if I ever decide to run it.
I do like the called shot system though.
|
|
It would be like throwing on several feat chains built around neutralizing spellcasters with ease in Ultimate Magic. Which, you know, didn't happen.Instead we just got Antagonize, which is lolarious against casters.Actually, Antagonize could be a feat chain, that would go like this:
Mild Denigration
Insult
Improved Insult
Greater Insult
Antagonize
If that actually existed, I might stop complaining about it. That's about an accurate assessment of it's power.