Why does Ultimate Combat have more support for Wizards and other casters than it does for noncasters?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

It's a bit misleading to call the book Ultimate Combat, isn't it? It should be Ultimate Magic 2 or something.


Any specific areas you're talking about? Because I'm a little confused. The feats chapter, a huge chunk of the book, has almost nothing for wizards. It has a pretty good amount of stuff amount for hybrid caster/melee characters like bard, inquisitor, and magus but it tends to focus on magical enhancements to combat-related abilities, not actual spell casting.

Other major features of Ultimate Combat:

The Gunslinger and firearms rules.
Vehicles.
Performance combat.

All of these have as much or more use for non-casters than casters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Original observation is original.

Shadow Lodge

I think you are misunderstaning, (unless new books have come out). Ultimate Wizard/Inquisitor/Magus is has a tiny, tiny bit for other classes, while Ultimate Monk has a wider variety of tiny, tiny little bits for other classes (more if they multiclass Monk, go figure. . .) and a huge amount of oriental stuff thats better all around than any of the core or added material.


Answer to the question posed in the thread title: it doesn't. And pretty obviously so as well.

Shadow Lodge

Actually, I agree with him. Ultimate Monk has more stuff for arcane casters than it does for nonMonk martial characters, and a lot fo the martial stuff is for crossbows and ranged combat. I think both are fairly disappointing in all honesty.


Beckett wrote:
Actually, I agree with him. Ultimate Monk has more stuff for arcane casters than it does for nonMonk martial characters, and a lot fo the martial stuff is for crossbows and ranged combat. I think both are fairly disappointing in all honesty.

It's...it's almost as if they tried to make previously-poor combat styles better! Well, previously poor options and then archery.

People who thought it was going to be about non-casters are dumb. It never was meant to be that. It was meant for Martial types. And anyone who has read it can see that's what it's for.

So, in the interest of keeping my faith in humanity, I'm going to assume this is a troll thread.

Shadow Lodge

um, Cheapy, the PF Core book made archery and even crossbow Fighting the best in the game. It really didn't do much for most combat type characters except for Monks and really increase the already best archery styles. It really has nothing to do with Combat, and is a very misleading title.

Obviously, opinions vary. But I'm not trolling (I hate that, and the fact that people that do like something find that the easiest responce to complaints). I honestly, even reexamining and trying to like these books months later) am still very disappointed with both of them. They are not Ultimate anything. They do not really even do what the basic premise of the line is meant to, and they are very specific class centric, rather than trying to bring all the classes in line with that theme.

Liberty's Edge

Count me in a someone who was dissapointed with see new magic stuff in a book called Ultimate Combat. Its still a decent book I could have lived without the extra magic stuff. Not to mention how about a similar book to Inner Sea Magic exzcept for combat.

Shadow Lodge

The differences when compared to Ultimate Magic are rather stark. Ultimate Magic gave non-casters virtually nothing. Ultimate Combat, on the other hand, gives the already full-caster Cleric, Druid, and Wizard new archtypes, and about 50 pages or so worth of new spells.


POPS POPCORN.


I can see how it happened. All these new spells were made up, and the staff decided they just can't leave them out, purpose and title be dam'd.

We really need a book to fix Rogues.


People would point you toward Ninja for that it seems, but I don't buy it.

Also guys, let's not forget the spell-less ranger variant in Ultimate Magic.


In defense of UC: Many of the new spells were designed to deal with new mechanics, such as guns. Many others, such as returning weapon or ablative barrier, where designed for combat related applications.

In non-defense of UC: There were spells that weren't terribly combat related, or whose combat use was not as likely to come up. Qualm, Air bubble, communal spell concept, I'm looking at you.

I grumbliness: In my opinion, most books end up with too many spells. Some are super neat, and add differentiation or flavor (Litanies, Inspirations, most stuff from race related books, etc). But most are just additional options, which is the last thing that casters need. Rogues could use more (stronger) talents, martials could use more feats, and everyone could use more elaborate, out there archetypes. But casters? They kind of have enough versatility as it is, thanks. I love the occasional flavor spell (<3 Enhance Water), but adding more combat relevant spells just increases the gap between casters and non-casters by giving casters options that fill power-limiting gaps that previously existed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like more non-caster stuff than caster stuff in Ultimate Magic, and more caster stuff than non-caster stuff in Ultimate Combat. Not a big fan of either book. How do things like Antagonize make it to print? I'd still like to know.

Good people have bad days, so I've just accepted that great companies can have less-than-perfect products.


Azten wrote:
Also guys, let's not forget the spell-less ranger variant in Ultimate Magic.

I'd rather remember the variant by Marc Raddle in (I can't remember which issue in) Kobold Quarterly.


memorax wrote:
Count me in a someone who was dissapointed with see new magic stuff in a book called Ultimate Combat. Its still a decent book I could have lived without the extra magic stuff. Not to mention how about a similar book to Inner Sea Magic exzcept for combat.

Yeah, never mind they completely dropped any non-magic class stuff in ultimate magic. Sort of a double standard, but thems-the-breakes.


I think the problem isn't so much the amount of material for magic classes (though that was worrying), but how often that material cancelled out the actual "Combat" part of ultimate combat.

Like, "Here's a new classes that uses guns and new rules for guns! Now here's a bunch of spells that make guns and that class irrelevant!"

Or my personal favorite, Ultimate Combat introducing a level 2 spell that lets spellcasters become immune to AoO's while casting spell!


Because otherwise the "god wizards" (or whatever they are called) players would have b$~@*ed at Paizo until the end of days.

Obvious Troll Is Obvious wrote:
Original observation is original.

Cut it out. This is not 4chan.

Shadow Lodge

ProfessorCirno wrote:
Like, "Here's a new classes that uses guns and new rules for guns! Now here's a bunch of spells that make guns and that class irrelevant!"

Not really sure just how true that is (in the case of guns specifically). Guns where kind of forced anyway, but that's neither here nor there.

Most of the magic seems to either allow other classes to at least be okay with guns or to enhance the gun wielders, not obsolete them.

Pixel Cube wrote:
Because otherwise the "god wizards" (or whatever they are called) players would have b~+**ed at Paizo until the end of days.

Not really sure how many "god-wizard" players there are here that would have an issue, really. More of an imagined or percieved thing.

Grand Lodge

I have to agree with the OP. Ultimate Magic was pointed in concentrating on spellcasters and ignoring non-casters, but Ultimate Combat had as much material for spellcasters as non-spellcasters as well as a bunch of extraneous material (Firearms & Eastern weapons, feats, and archetypes - I'm looking at you).


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Clearly magic is the ultimate combat.

Seriously, how could 'ultimate combat' ever mean its a book for sword swingers O.o ... sword swinging and bow shooting is not ultimate. Throwing fireballs and turning people into frogs is ultimate.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pixel Cube wrote:

Because otherwise the "god wizards" (or whatever they are called) players would have b+!+@ed at Paizo until the end of days.

Obvious Troll Is Obvious wrote:
Original observation is original.
Cut it out. This is not 4chan.

It's a gaming message board. and gamers are posting.

Mature, reasoned content only comes as a bonus surprise.

Shadow Lodge

Pixel Cube wrote:

Because otherwise the "god wizards" (or whatever they are called) players would have b+@*!ed at Paizo until the end of days.

Obvious Troll Is Obvious wrote:
Original observation is original.
Cut it out. This is not 4chan.

oh dude, i'd be careful, he might get the legion onto you, and then, oh god the horrors when legi... wait what does happen? do they just converge outside your house in masks and prank call your phone?


Skerek wrote:
Pixel Cube wrote:

Because otherwise the "god wizards" (or whatever they are called) players would have b+@*!ed at Paizo until the end of days.

Obvious Troll Is Obvious wrote:
Original observation is original.
Cut it out. This is not 4chan.
oh dude, i'd be careful, he might get the legion onto you, and then, oh god the horrors when legi... wait what does happen? do they just converge outside your house in masks and prank call your phone?

They order costly things in your name and send prostitutes to your house, if they're really going at it.


It had to do SOMETHING to make up for Spell Sunder.


Trinam wrote:
It had to do SOMETHING to make up for Spell Sunder.

How overpowered is it?


Considering that I count Inquisitors, Clerics, Druids, Maguses, Bards, Paladins and Rangers among those who are considered "combat" characters I think spells were not only fine but absolutely necessary.

You can gripe about it all day but the section was relatively small for what it was.

This book also did not add any metamagic feats or sorcerer variants. Oddly enough it added a wizard variant that came down to "wizard with gun" which was weird but whatever.


TarkXT wrote:

Considering that I count Inquisitors, Clerics, Druids, Maguses, Bards, Paladins and Rangers among those who are considered "combat" characters I think spells were not only fine but absolutely necessary.

You can gripe about it all day but the section was relatively small for what it was.

This book also did not add any metamagic feats or sorcerer variants. Oddly enough it added a wizard variant that came down to "wizard with gun" which was weird but whatever.

I reckon Sorcerers and Rogues are the most neglected of the classes in Pathfinder.


FiddlersGreen wrote:
Rogues are the most neglected of the classes in Pathfinder.

Who?


Because anything that can be done mundanely can be done by anyone including spell casters while only spell casters can cast spells.

So any material is for spell casters while non-spell casters get limited benefit from material for spell casters specifically.

It's obvious really.

Spell caster material = spell caster specific + mundane

Non spell caster material = mundane

Gee I wonder why one is bigger?


What got me was the lack of Pure Awesome for fighters.

One fighter only feat. One.

We need to up the ante on fighter only feats to be on the level with rage powers and some of the better rogue talents.

Stuff like:
Neauseating Blow- by taking a -5 to attack rolls your opponent must save or be neauseated for 1 round.
Preq: Fighter 6

On your back: If you hit a for twice in succession, they must make a reflex save vs your BAB or be knocked prone. Any melee attacks you have left after the second hit are made against the targets AC -4 for being prone
Preq: Fighter 6

Get out of my Head: Whenever the fighter fails a Will save spell he can reroll the save with a bonus equal to his Charisma modifier. Success means the effect that triggers the will save has no effect and if the trigger was a hostile spell or SLA from a creature the fighter identifies as the source, the fighter recieves a Bonus to attack and damage and saves vs the hostile creature equal to 1/4 his fighter level for 3rounds.
Preq: Iron Will, Fighter 10

Second Wind: Once per combat a fighter can take an immediate action, to recover his strength. He heals HP equal to his Constitution Modifier + his character level and recieves a new fort save vs any ongoing effect that allowed a fort save to reduce the effect.
Preq: Con 12, Fighter 8

Greater Dodge: Your quick moves and parries make it harder to hit you.
Anytime a foe misses you in combat, you gain a dodge bonus against that opponent improves by +2 for every miss he makes per round. This bonus lasts until your next turn.
Preq: Dodge, Fighter 6.

Weapon Group Mastery: Your familiarity with a particular weapon extends to all similar weapons. When you take this feat, any weapon from the weapon group that your favored weapon belongs to counts as your favored weapon. You also recieve +2 to attack and damage rolls with all weapons from that group. For example, if you posess weapon focus, weapon specialization: Longsword, these feats also work with any weapon from a weapon group that includes longswords. You make attacks with any weapon from that group with a +3 to attack and +4 to damage.
Preq: Wpn Fcs, Wpn Spl, Fighter 8.

Fighters need better fighter-only feats and they got One...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
STR Ranger wrote:

What got me was the lack of Pure Awesome for fighters.

One fighter only feat. One.

Just because a feat isn't "fighter" only doesn't mean it's not pure awesome for Fighters. They still can pick up more combat feats than anyone. You might have been looking for more buffs for two-handed fighters, but they were sick enough already.

Shadow Lodge

Off topic, but honestly, I hope that there are never any more Fighter ONLY feats. The only thing that does is screw over other concepts that the Feat would really benefit, not improve the Fighter in any way.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There are two funny things about the thread:

1. The OP didn't bother to turn up after his post.

2. And he really does seem to be one of those that just can't make up their mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
STR Ranger wrote:

What got me was the lack of Pure Awesome for fighters.

One fighter only feat. One.

Just because a feat isn't "fighter" only doesn't mean it's not pure awesome for Fighters. They still can pick up more combat feats than anyone. You might have been looking for more buffs for two-handed fighters, but they were sick enough already.

Not just 2 handed fighters, (I prefer TWF) but fighters in general. While I think that the 'Kirthfinder' fighter is too much it does kick fighters back to awesome.

They don't need more DPR. Pretty much ANY dedicated melee class can do 300 or more with a full attack in the right circumstances. No fighters need more stuff they can do (THAT AINT MAGIC), just cause they are badass.

Call them 'Fighter forms' if you want. Some people don't like calling them fighter only feats.
Some of the Resolve type condition removal the samurai gets is a good example.
Or TOB stuff from the Iron Heart school. Adamantine hurricane was awesome.

There's plenty of stuff in Literature fighters do by virtue of being badass. Stuff that feats don't cover. It ain't nice that there MAIN class feature is something everybody else has access to. Feats, I mean.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
STR Ranger wrote:


There's plenty of stuff in Literature fighters do by virtue of being badass. Stuff that feats don't cover. It ain't nice that there MAIN class feature is something everybody else has access to. Feats, I mean.

It's not really a problem, because Fighters can build feat packages COMBINED with their own unique class features, that no other class can hope to duplicate.

Yes, maybe the wizard can theoretically choose Power Attack. You consider that a real problem?


Nah, I just consider it a problem that not only are fighters the
most easily replaced class, they haven't got much in the way of things only they can do.

Look at the Groups in the PBP boards. I hardly see any fighters.

I see alot of Pally's. Why? Cause Pally's can fight AND heal AND shrug off magic AND cast.

I see alot of Rangers. Why? Cause Rangers can fight AND heal AND cast and get a flank buddy.

I see alot of Invulnerable Rager Barbarians. Why? Cause Barbarians are better at combat than the fighter. They can get higher to hit AND can Laugh of Magic AND be the best at manuveres AND get more skills.

I see quite a few Samurai. Why? Cause Samurai can fight AND reroll alot of saves AND shrug off magic AND more skills AND get a flank partner.

When you whole CV is DO DAMAGE you wanna have ways to do it that nobody else can do. If it's just about the numbers, you're easily replaced.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
STR Ranger wrote:

Nah, I just consider it a problem that not only are fighters the

most easily replaced class, they haven't got much in the way of things only they can do.

Look at the Groups in the PBP boards. I hardly see any fighters.

Most likely because a lot of shiny new class toys have come out in the last couple of years and people want to try them out. Fighters are well represented in PFS and home games from what I've seen.


LazarX wrote:


Most likely because a lot of shiny new class toys for the other classes have come out in the last couple of years and people want to try them out.

Fixed.

Don't get me wrong. I love what Paizo has done to 3.5, it's why I switched. I have liked every product I've ever bought off them. They boosted fighters in the CRB as they did all the classes.
Monks, Barbs, Fighters and Rogues were still lacking.

So far they've fixed Monks and Barbs...

Shadow Lodge

STR Ranger, that is not my experience at all in PbP. Where did you get this idea, can I ask?

I see a lot of martial classes in general, Barb, Ranger, and Fighter in particular, but I think that's more that PbPing a caster is more difficult AND because generally in PbP, RP doesn't have to follow the rules for the seperation of Int/Wis/Cha between the player and the character so much.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
STR Ranger wrote:

Nah, I just consider it a problem that not only are fighters the

most easily replaced class, they haven't got much in the way of things only they can do.

What they do have is pretty significant.

1. Full mobility and increased flexibility in heavy plate armor.

2. Weapons Training

3. Increased number of combat feats selectable

4. The Combat Expertise options (for those of us who want to play Fighters with intelligence better than a slug). a.k.a. the Roy Greenhilt model) got a major boost.


The PBP thing was an example because it's something we all have access to on the boards, rather than giving an 'In MY Games' example.

I play in 4 PBP's and read a hell of alot more of them. I see plenty of classic casters and plenty of Melees, other than fighter.

Personally I think because of all the extra time you get between posts, having heaps of time to scope the map and template your spell areas etc.
People, even players who prefer melee, would rather play an Inquisitor or Barb or Ranger or Paladin or any class that is just as competent at doing HP damage, whilst having other stuff they can do.

I'm not saying give fighters heaps of skills or anything for outside of combat. They are fighters, that's what they do. But have them be able to master more cool moves than anybody else.

If say a fighter wants to be able to Whirlwind (an awesome trick), he has to put alot of rescources into it. There should be a Adamantine Hurricane feat instead for fighters only.

Improved Iron Will? It's a feat tax everybuild needs to not suck. How about a feat that only has Fighter 6 as a preq and makes your Bravery ability apply to ALL will saves and grant 1 reroll/day.

Give fighters some 'super fighter only' feats to make being one feel 'special' instead of a guy who swings a sword REALLY well.


LazarX wrote:
STR Ranger wrote:

Nah, I just consider it a problem that not only are fighters the

most easily replaced class, they haven't got much in the way of things only they can do.

What they do have is pretty significant.

1. Full mobility and increased flexibility in heavy plate armor.

2. Weapons Training

3. Increased number of combat feats selectable

4. The Combat Expertise options (for those of us who want to play Fighters with intelligence better than a slug). a.k.a. the Roy Greenhilt model) got a major boost.

1. Nice but not at all FANTASTIC feeling.

2. Good power, but again special ain't just about the math.

3. Fine. But I'm advocating better FIGHTER FEATS.

4. Why should combat expertse be a tax? I don't tank INT but I have NEVER needed Combat Expertise. And Roy is funny but not awesome


STR Ranger wrote:

What got me was the lack of Pure Awesome for fighters.

One fighter only feat. One.

We need to up the ante on fighter only feats to be on the level with rage powers and some of the better rogue talents.

...

Many of these things are in one form or anoher present. Various archetypes specialise on weapon groups, Nauseating blow can be handled via Dirty Trick Combat Maneuver and so on.

Besides, Roy is damn good.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zmar wrote:

Besides, Roy is damn good.

I know that you're writing about a different Roy, but ... *twithces* never again *twitches*


Gorbacz wrote:
Zmar wrote:

Besides, Roy is damn good.

I know that you're writing about a different Roy, but ... *twithces* never again *twitches*

Something's telling me that I'm glad that I don't know which other Roy you mean :D

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
STR Ranger wrote:
LazarX wrote:
STR Ranger wrote:

Nah, I just consider it a problem that not only are fighters the

most easily replaced class, they haven't got much in the way of things only they can do.

What they do have is pretty significant.

1. Full mobility and increased flexibility in heavy plate armor.

2. Weapons Training

3. Increased number of combat feats selectable

4. The Combat Expertise options (for those of us who want to play Fighters with intelligence better than a slug). a.k.a. the Roy Greenhilt model) got a major boost.

1. Nice but not at all FANTASTIC feeling.

2. Good power, but again special ain't just about the math.

3. Fine. But I'm advocating better FIGHTER FEATS.

4. Why should combat expertse be a tax? I don't tank INT but I have NEVER needed Combat Expertise. And Roy is funny but not awesome

Would you call Power Attack a tax to get Cleave? Combat Expertise is a good alternative to the standard mechanic of fighting defensively. I don't think of it as a tax but as a gateway. The feats that opens are not ones that should be takeable by the standard Int 6 fighter that many like to build.

As one might tell, I find the term "feat tax" bandied about way too loosely.


Glad to know we need fighters to have 11 higher Int than most animals to trip as safely as they do IE no AoO.

And power attack is not a Tax as it is heavily used by people who take it a good number of expertise players only take it because they have to to get to the feats they want for their build such as trip or disarm and hardly ever use it because it makes said manuever harder to get off.


Now make it work like Power attack and i would bet you would see alot more use from it.

1 to 50 of 69 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why does Ultimate Combat have more support for Wizards and other casters than it does for noncasters? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.