|
Perhaps it should be looked at this way. Most of the answers (those whose answers do not include builds providing some leeway for ranged combat) do not address the problems specific to the Fighter class (instead, many replies use universal resources that can be accessed by most other classes which means that are not indicative of the personal capacities of the Fighter class). As an example, recommending for a Fighter to take the Leadership feat is not an answer to this discussion as it is an option available to any other character (who meets the requisite level) and, most often, grants access to an ally who exist to specifically address the weaknesses of the character who took the feat.
As to answer the questions listed.
- The fault of the Fighter class is most often found in its need to specialize in order to succeed. By investing in something that does not strictly improve his or her area of specialization, a Fighter is choosing to lower his or her personal capabilities in exchange for variety.
- Because it is not indicative of the Fighter class if the preparations are largely dependent upon other classes.
- Because not all situations are specifically tailored to the strengths of a character.
As an example, recommending for a Fighter to take the Leadership feat is not an answer to this discussion as it is an option available to any other character (who meets the requisite level) and, most often, grants access to an ally who exist to specifically address the weaknesses of the character who took the feat.
To which I say.
This is silly.
Having tons of feats is indicative of the fighter class. It's their main feature. If you cut off the vast portion of their main feature than yes you will run into problems.
Now you can remove leadership from the equation certainly but only because it tends to skew results. But you cannot say that I cannot take Improved Iron Will because any class can take it.
I will say that fighters have their issues. All classes do. But in this case I think it has more to the limited system mastery and imagination of those who try it rather than any one thing about the class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In short.
L2P; less QQ, more pew-pew.
|
|
Are you sure you understood my point? Fighter feats (Combat feats) are indicative of the personal capabilities of the class - it is feats, skills (cross-class, typically), and magic items that are not reflective of the class' personal abilities that do not add to an assessment of the class itself.
To work with your example of Improved Iron Will. While the Improved Iron Will feat may be useful for the Fighter class, Improved Iron Will's benefits are not reflective of the Fighter class' capabilities itself (well, in a sense, it is, but in a "deficit" sort of way).
[Edit]
As a 3.5 example, Iron Heart Surge or Moment of Perfect Mind are indicative of the Warblade class' ability to overcome a weakness of the class. A Warblade taking Iron Will or working to gain Use Magic Device is not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Baka Nikujaga: With your logic I could also say, the Wizard is crap, because it has low Hitpoints and can wear no Armor. Or the Paladin is bad, because it can't turn invisible.
You say, that you have to specialize in order to become good: Just as I said in my last post, if you're specializing while totally neglecting everything you don't specialize into, it's your fault, not that of the game.
That would be the same as a Wizard, who specializes into the Sloth-school of the Thassilonian (hope i did spell it right) schools to get maximum performance out of it and then complaining because he can't cast Invisibility (because it's in his prohibited schools). It's not the fault of the Wizard class, but of the build the player chose.
Are you sure you understood my point? Fighter feats (Combat feats) are indicative of the personal capabilities of the class - it is feats, skills (cross-class, typically), and magic items that are not reflective of the class' personal abilities that do not add to an assessment of the class itself.
To work with your example of Improved Iron Will. While the Improved Iron Will feat may be useful for the Fighter class, Improved Iron Will's benefits are not reflective of the Fighter class' capabilities itself (well, in a sense, it is, but in a "deficit" sort of way).
I understood it perfectly. My point is that the view is narrow minded and paints a poor picture of what the class actually does. As a class that gets so many feats having those extras that would not normally be available to the class are indicative to the class. Every combat feat I'm taking is one more general feat I have freed up. This isn't rocket science. I can get fly with sufficient charisma and level without items. There's a feat for that.
Just because it's available to the lowest common denomination does not mean it's out of the argument. It means you have to consider where it sits in the scheme of things. Fighters have an easier time picking up things like Iron Will or Skill Focus purely because most of their combat ability is built in through their abilities and combat feats. To sit there and tell me that im nothing but my narrow selection of feats is trying to tell me that the game only exists in this narrow tunnel when it is far from that.
This being said it is nigh impossible to argue can or cannot. Because unless you are talking about specific builds schroedingers character can always possibly do it. The only argument you can make is that of efficiency. Yes, I can plan to get wings, buy positions of fly or work on getting a cloak of the bat. But none of these things are efficient compared to a cleric casting air walk or a wizard casting mass fly. Therefore in this situation the wizard is more efficient. However the argument is whether the fighter can or cannot deal with flying enemies. And the answer is a resounding yes. Just because the op wants to blithely ignore 90% of the answers given him because they do not match some arcane criteria that is at once profound and imperial nonsense does not change the fact that the majority of players here agree that you can simply blast the buggers out of the sky because you have a good bab, a high strength and by golly you are going to use them to put bits of wood and iron right through their eyes.
|
|
To TarkXT,
Paragraph 1: UMD Monk does not solve the issues of the actual chassis no matter how many times the argument is attempted or what shape the argument manifests itself in.
Paragraph 2: If the argument was "how to resolve a situation in which enemies are flying" as opposed to "one of the weaknesses of the Fighter class itself is its inability to fly without reducing available gold and using actions to activate items purchased via that gold," then yes, you have a valid point. However, from the first post of this thread, that is not the case.
Paragraph 3: Attempting to address the actual capabilities of the class without factoring in items is not an archaic or alien criteria. You even used this criteria yourself when referring to how casters would resolve the situation ("the Wizard would cast Fly" or "the Cleric would cast Air Walk").
To snejjj,
By my logic, the Wizard is still grand because the actual strength of the Wizard class is its ability to cast spells (specifically, from the Sorcerer/Wizard list) without being largely restricted to a small number of spells with only a few ways to increase it (the Sorcerer). Why? Because that's using an actual class feature.
Similarly, by my logic, the various Thassilonian specializations would be gauged individually and judged by what they're sacrificing in exchange for their perceived benefits (which means that they would have varying degrees of recommendation - something clearly visible in Handbooks when referring to choices available).
An example of claims:
A Wizard is great at winning Initiative because it can choose to specialize in the Divination school, access to a familiar that grants an additional initiative bonus, Anticipate Peril spell (and similar spells), and still has all other options that other characters have available in order to further improve its Initiative value (such as Improved Initiative).
Similarly, a Fighter's claim could be:
A Fighter is good choice when attempting to winning Initiative because it has access to the Tactician archetype which improves its Initiative bonus before taking Improved Initiative into consideration.
However, if I were to weigh both:
The Wizard is much better at winning initiative over the Fighter class because the bonuses inherent to the class provide a much greater advantage over those granted by the Tactician archetype and the Wizard has to make a much smaller commitment by way of the sacrifices it makes.
Are you sure you understood my point? Fighter feats (Combat feats) are indicative of the personal capabilities of the class - it is feats, skills (cross-class, typically), and magic items that are not reflective of the class' personal abilities that do not add to an assessment of the class itself.
To work with your example of Improved Iron Will. While the Improved Iron Will feat may be useful for the Fighter class, Improved Iron Will's benefits are not reflective of the Fighter class' capabilities itself (well, in a sense, it is, but in a "deficit" sort of way).
[Edit]
As a 3.5 example, Iron Heart Surge or Moment of Perfect Mind are indicative of the Warblade class' ability to overcome a weakness of the class. A Warblade taking Iron Will or working to gain Use Magic Device is not.
Still, let's say someone claims:
"wizards only have 3 hp/level and no armor! they'll die all the time!"to which someone responds "well don't dump you constitution, have at least a 12 and if you're afraid of dying, maybe pick up toughness?"
Now, saying that "toughness and high con is available to anyone, so that shouldn't be taken into account!" is kind of... meh. Like all characters, you have to spend some of your general resources (point buy, wbl, feats, skill points) towards shoring up your weaknesses. Whether it's putting a few extra points into constitution or dexterity for hp/ranged attack bonus or getting toughness/leadership/rapid shot doesn't really matter - it's a basic mechanic of the game.
Saying "the fighter can't fly" because leadership is available to everyone is like saying "the fighter can't know jack sh*t about a profession" because profession is available to everyone.
The fighters weakness is ze's mundanity. This means ze has to spend more resources on magical gadgets than others, and find other ways such as ranged attacks to compensate for mundanity.
And really - to contribute meaningfully to an appropriate-CR encounter you don't need much investment. At level 10, it's like two feats (point blank shot, rapid shot) and having a decent (~14) dex (which you shouldn't often have anyway - it's a VERY useful stat). Since you've got two weapon trainings, the second should be put into some ranged weapon (because why not?). A masterwork composite bow costs next to nothing and you might as well get a couple of +1 arrows for the occacion. So for the minimal investment of two of eleven feats and some spare change you end up with an attack of +12/+12/+7. Or simply go firearms.
|
|
Still, let's say someone claims:
"wizards only have 3 hp/level and no armor! they'll die all the time!"
to which someone responds "well don't dump you constitution, have at least a 12 and if you're afraid of dying, maybe pick up toughness?
Except that the complaint is considered to be valid when addressing the chassis and the workarounds are not included as components of the Wizard class (again, something that is often highlighted in Handbooks).
I didn't read this thread past the first few posts, and I am not going to.
With respect to the Title and the OP: Have you never heard of a bow?
^ It's like being part of the Justice League, except your Wendy or Marvin, not Batman.
@deuxhero: Let me ask you a question: How would you fix the fighter so that he can fly? Thinking about that might be more productive than whining in two threads about that he can't.Some 3.5 magic items would be a good step, as at least then they are only spending a decent chunk of WBL instead of a hideously large one or 1/3 of the fight.
Of course, then you might as well replace Fighter with Warblade and take a Crown of the White Raven variant or Martial Study/Stance to get some of the Swordsage abilities that let you fly or Crusader stuff that forces things not to ignore you, or even just the various Jump based things.
Sorry, that's not fixing the Fighter. You were complaining about the class itself. Please do make a bit of an effort. It's your thread, and it's your problem. Offer a solution.
|
|
Except that when one refers to the capabilities of the chassis of a class when attempting to establish the baseline a class possess - you won't find many willing to state a specific build for why a Wizard is of a higher Tier than a Fighter. Instead, you'll receive answers explaining a number of different decisions a Wizard may make in order to effectively break the game. While a discussion revolving around a Fighter will discuss many possible combinations but with the acknowledgement that a Fighter must specialize and cannot switch his or her feats each day (as opposed to a prepared casters spells).
To prosfilaes,
A Cleric's divine focus is not inherently a magical item and neither is a spell component pouch.
|
|
Whether or not you believe in or agree with the Tier system doesn't particularly matter (as I don't care if you choose to ignore terms used to describe differences in capabilities). However, once you make the statement that "the classes don't stand on their own," you couldn't be considered more wrong. There will be situations in which a particular character will be caught alone and in those times that character has to stand on his or her personal merits - an issue that ties in directly to the class of the character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Got bored of reading the argument as the OP is not listening to logic.
I go with the Bow and this.
A fighter is someone who excells over all forms of combat and would use tactics to help him/her win a fight. So surley said fighter would know how to adapt to a situation involoving a flying creature of some sort, ie a ranged weapon, lasso, bolas around the wing etc to try and bring the beast down to fight it on a level ground. Maybe I'm missing something here but as people have pointed out potion of fly etc and not all classes builds are built for flying. if not then you are not playing a fighter right even a melee build would ahve a contingency plan.
Think of it another way, modren soldiers are trained to adapt to any situation, they don't just go in firing in gun at the nearset enemy, they think and use TACTICS and work as a group not on their own.
Who cares if a wizard can fly or not in one round, if said wizard goes head to head with a beastie on his own he will more than likely end up serously hurt.Hence the wizard would be buffing himself first for the combat ahead before casting fly and heading in so he would have wasted a round too.
Yes fighters cant fly and they cant hit what they cant hit but they can adapt and use tactics to make sure they do, to say fighters are useless against flying creatures is not logical at all.
Got bored of reading the argument as the OP is not listening to logic.
I go with the Bow and this.A fighter is someone who excells over all forms of combat and would use tactics to help him/her win a fight. So surley said fighter would know how to adapt to a situation involoving a flying creature of some sort, ie a ranged weapon, lasso, bolas around the wing etc to try and bring the beast down to fight it on a level ground. Maybe I'm missing something here but as people have pointed out potion of fly etc and not all classes builds are built for flying. if not then you are not playing a fighter right even a melee build would ahve a contingency plan.
Think of it another way, modren soldiers are trained to adapt to any situation, they don't just go in firing in gun at the nearset enemy, they think and use TACTICS and work as a group not on their own.
Who cares if a wizard can fly or not in one round, if said wizard goes head to head with a beastie on his own he will more than likely end up serously hurt.Hence the wizard would be buffing himself first for the combat ahead before casting fly and heading in so he would have wasted a round too.
Yes fighters cant fly and they cant hit what they cant hit but they can adapt and use tactics to make sure they do, to say fighters are useless against flying creatures is not logical at all.
This, but specifically the bolded part.
To Baka Nikujaga:
So you're saying that a character always has to be able to stand on his own?
Yes, then a fighter without ranged weapon (which is btw a defining feature of the base class) having to go against a flying enemy with ranged combat is screwed.
But so is a wizard against any foe in an antimagic field.
Take an important class feature away and every character/class is screwed.
So yes, a fighter can't fly. If you see that as a flaw, simply don't play fighter.
If you're just interested in being able to hit flying foes, then you shouldn't neglect the main class feature built in to accomplish that!
Except that the complaint is considered to be valid when addressing the chassis and the workarounds are not included as components of the Wizard class (again, something that is often highlighted in Handbooks).Still, let's say someone claims:
"wizards only have 3 hp/level and no armor! they'll die all the time!"
to which someone responds "well don't dump you constitution, have at least a 12 and if you're afraid of dying, maybe pick up toughness?
There's really no point in discussing the "chassis" in a vacuum. If you don't take other things into consideration, the discussion is meaningless. Sure the fighter as a class doesn't have a counter to flying opponents but on the other hand, there ARE no flying opponents if we're just discussing the fighter.
In a way, the whole game is the chassis - or at least the game is the car. Just discussing the chassis and saying "this can't go anywhere" is pointless if you ignore the wheels.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heh... 171 posts so far and the winner is still:
"Get a dang bow!"
Note that if just discussing the chassis, all characters that start below level 4 just are pointless, since there's nothing in the class stating that it creates ground to walk on so they can't move at all.
Also, most classes will always die within minutes of lack of air (and all classes if starting at level 6 or below), that's what happens when you compare classes in a vacuum.
To Baka Nikujaga:
So you're saying that a character always has to be able to stand on his own?
Not only that - but a CLASS has to, without any outside aid from race, feats, or equipment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's exacerbated by the fact that you should probably be using a bow at every opportunity, not merely against flying opponents.
With archery being as great as it is in this game, melee really ought to be considered "the defensive option" for when the melee-only enemy has closed the gap.
|
It's exacerbated by the fact that you should probably be using a bow at every opportunity, not merely against flying opponents.
With archery being as great as it is in this game, melee really ought to be considered "the defensive option" for when the melee-only enemy has closed the gap.
Hence a switch-hitter build that just grabs Power Attack and then the rest are archery feats and Quick-Draw.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't truck with the belief that there's one build to rule them all. But in any case, the claim that somehow something is broken because melee isn't always the best choice is clearly bunk. The world owes nothing to melee (hence the last 500 years of warfare), and the game rules don't either. That's part of what makes it so cool to be a dedicated melee character!
Because dispel magic doesn't work that way anymore?
Okay, I had something wrong there. But according to the PFSRD, you can still dispel the flight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still not getting why a wizard..or other caster class..spending an action to assist a fighter (and it does not even have to be fly..say cat's grace, or the like) is a waste of an action that could be spent "helping another party member"... why does the fighter have to be solo?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the original question-
Play a fighter capable of thinking creatively. Doesn't have to be a genius. Just someone who's personality is such that bursts of inspiration are believable.
Then, think like Batman. Carry expendable/specialized gear to cover your weaknesses.
Flying enemies be come FUN to fight when instead of copy-pasting your usual attack routine, you're instead harpooning/netting the jerk and wrapping the trailing rope around a tree before trying to tug-of-war them to the ground.
I also like Cape of the Montebank and a Feather Fall item. Then you can Dimension Door onto things backs and try to ride them into the ground like a champ. If you get tossed, break out a lasso, net or bow while you start to harmlessly float to the ground.
The masterclass trick involves managing to activate/attach an Immovable Rod right in front of/on a flying creature. This tends to ruin their whole day.
|
|
So basically you're defining the problem in such a way that it exists. Exclude this, don't exclude that, count this, don't count that.
In a sense it could be considered that way? I stated earlier that "it is feats, skills (cross-class, typically), and magic items that are not reflective of the class' personal abilities that do not add to an assessment of the class itself." In other words, in an assessment of only the class' chassis, it is not conducive to begin invoking workarounds as if it were part of the class itself (unless they use features that are a part of the class, but that should be a given).
In any case, a magic item-less wizard all alone, with almost no AC or HP, is quite vulnerable. A fighter or rogue, given first shot, can probably kill the wizard in one full attack.
Again, if the argument was to "solve a situation," then yes, that would be an addressable point. But the argument is not to "solve a situation" but rather a discussion about the chassis, which means magic items do not come into consideration.
Yes, then a fighter without ranged weapon (which is btw a defining feature of the base class) having to go against a flying enemy with ranged combat is screwed.
Having a ranged weapon is fine - I have never argued against that, only against attempting to use magic items as if they are a class feature (now that I reread it a bit more, I didn't even argue against using Alchemical items), a portion of the chassis. Which is why my argument is not "we should ignore everything that is not directly contained within the text of the class" and instead "we should ignore feats, cross-class skills, and magic items that are not reflective of a class' personal abilities that do not add to an assessment of the class itself."
So yes, a fighter can't fly. If you see that as a flaw, simply don't play fighter.
And there we go, the actual topic of the thread - "a fighter cannot fly." It only took us four pages to have a shorter rewording of deuxhero's "Fighters are one of the few without some inmate method of reaching flying foes short of blowing WBL AND actions on activating flight."
Not only that - but a CLASS has to, without any outside aid from race, feats, or equipment.
Because we aren't attempting to "solve a scenario" or even compare builds aside one another. We are looking at the chassis of one class (the Fighter) and addressing the issue of whether it possesses the innate capability of flight as issued by its chassis (to which is "no, the Fighter cannot fly of its own power").
Heh... 171 posts so far and the winner is still:
"Get a dang bow!"
And they're still answering a question that isn't present. D8
A bow does not equate to flight, even if a bow can overcome flying enemies.
So then there's another question that answers the original one:
Why should a fighter need flight, if he has a bow?
|
|
Due to the presence of anything that blocks sight for the character but not the enemy (image spells above silent), anything that specifically blocks ranged weapons (if the enemy likes to cast spells), hostile environments, cover, etc? I'm not sure if that's the intent of deuxhero, but those are possible situations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ALTERNATIVELY, BARBARIAN CORDIALLY SUGGEST DIRE BAT.
I was more of the thought that, actually calculating hit chance and damage vs average AC and HP (instead of just insisting it works), "just use a bow" is a horrible option for a melee primary due to how feat intense "competent" archery is and how your dex is +2 AT BEST as a melee fighter. Half a chance (assuming they are within 110 feet, it's even worse otherwise) to deal 1/6th (assuming no DR) a foe's HP is not really all that useful.
All the more reason to not neglect ranged combat. Someone who specializes to the point where they are useless in any other condition is planning to fail. At that point it's not the game's fault the character is useless.
Last I checked, Fighters get at least 10 feats by 10th level. Spending 3 of them (Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim) on ranged combat shouldn't break the bank and makes him all around effective. And it leaves 70% of his feats for melee.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ALTERNATIVELY, BARBARIAN CORDIALLY SUGGEST DIRE BAT.I didn't think AM BARBARIAN ever did ANYTHING cordially, let alone make suggestions. I guess I was wrong about you, AM BARBARIAN.
I guess I was wrong about all barbarians.
BARBARIAN HAVE COLLEGE DEGREE. AM USED TO DOING MANY THINGS CORDIALLY. AM WHEN BARBARIAN GRAB PERSON WITH CORD AND CHOKE TO DEATH, RIGHT?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To TarkXT,
Paragraph 1: UMD Monk does not solve the issues of the actual chassis no matter how many times the argument is attempted or what shape the argument manifests itself in.Paragraph 2: If the argument was "how to resolve a situation in which enemies are flying" as opposed to "one of the weaknesses of the Fighter class itself is its inability to fly without reducing available gold and using actions to activate items purchased via that gold," then yes, you have a valid point. However, from the first post of this thread, that is not the case.
Paragraph 3: Attempting to address the actual capabilities of the class without factoring in items is not an archaic or alien criteria. You even used this criteria yourself when referring to how casters would resolve the situation ("the Wizard would cast Fly" or "the Cleric would cast Air Walk").
Do yourself a favor and please read what you are replying to you are ignoring entire paragraphs and dividing the post in your mind how you choose.
First, no one said anything about any UMD on any monk. The discussion was not about monks. However if it were I'd agree UMD would not solve all their issues. They have the sort of issues that the rest of the system can't help to fix. However since the concern was about dealing with flying enemies it has been agreed that a fighter can do it. The fact that anyone could with the ideas suggested does not suggest a weakness of the fighter but the non-threat that flying poses to intelligent groups.
Second, you missed the point I was making with that argument entirely. The point was about efficiency. We could easily argue that the summoner is even more efficient than either the cleric or the wizard since his eidolon can fly, full attack, and have haste cast on him all in the same round against said flying opponent. I could do away with haste entirely and win the action economy and resource economy flat out. What the OP wants is an absolute win like the summoner.
And yes it is silly to discount the things I have mentioned. They exist. They shall be used. Ignoring them is to ignore the vast portion of the game in order to make a pointless argument that, by the reading of this thread, has nothing to do with how it works at the table. And I'm not only referring to items. I'm referring to feats (which you discount adn the op ignores). I'm referring to traits (which have not been mentioned). And I'm referring to mundane tactics and items that anyone can use (which are discounted purely because anyone can use them).
For once. Just once. I'd like a discussion that used the rules in its entirety. But that would mean bringing Ashiel and RD into the thread. And I shudder at the thought.
|
|
Do yourself a favor and please read what you are replying to you are ignoring entire paragraphs and dividing the post in your mind how you choose.
Hmm? I stayed true to the entire summation of your argument.
First, no one said anything about any UMD on any monk. The discussion was not about monks. However if it were I'd agree UMD would not solve all their issues. They have the sort of issues that the rest of the system can't help to fix. However since the concern was about dealing with flying enemies it has been agreed that a fighter can do it. The fact that anyone could with the ideas suggested does not suggest a weakness of the fighter but the non-threat that flying poses to intelligent groups.
- The reference to UMD Monk (also known as Giacomo's Monk) was that throwing in items do not fix the problems of the base chassis (of the Monk class). This also holds true to the Fighter, hence the reference.
- No, the topic is, and has been, whether or not the Fighter possesses the innate ability to fly or not. To which, as noted by myself and st00ji and inferred by snejjj, to say otherwise is a red herring (one of which many a number of people have been persistent in tackling though...).
Second, you missed the point I was making with that argument entirely. The point was about efficiency. We could easily argue that the summoner is even more efficient than either the cleric or the wizard since his eidolon can fly, full attack, and have haste cast on him all in the same round against said flying opponent. I could do away with haste entirely and win the action economy and resource economy flat out. What the OP wants is an absolute win like the summoner....
- I know that the argument was about "efficiency" but that "efficiency" is directly related to native abilities of the class. Hence why I referred to it.
- One could indeed argue that if this were a class comparison thread rather than the dissection of a single class.
- And if deuxhero wants an absolute win, then that's deuxhero's position. I don't care, just stop addressing a pseudo-topic.
And yes it is silly to discount the things I have mentioned. They exist. They shall be used. Ignoring them is to ignore the vast portion of the game in order to make a pointless argument that, by the reading of this thread, has nothing to do with how it works at the table. And I'm not only referring to items. I'm referring to feats (which you discount adn the op ignores). I'm referring to traits (which have not been mentioned). And I'm referring to mundane tactics and items that anyone can use (which are discounted purely because anyone can use them).
Of course they will be used? But they will (or rather, should) be referred to in threads that are attempting to resolve theorized situations or problems - not for threads that are critiquing the chassis.
I'd like to point out that if a chassis can use the gun, that gun is effectively a feature of the chassis.
And if the chassis has access to UMD, we should assume that it has access to every spell in the game?
DUH. THEREFORE EVERY CLASS AM HAVING EVERY SPELL AND ONLY REMAINING THING MATTER AM NONSPELL ABILITIES. ALL OTHER CLASSES AM BALANCE.
RAGE POWER AM BETTER THAN EVERTHING, BONUS FEET AM BETTER THAN NOT BONUS FEET.
ARGUMENT AM OVER, BARBARIAN FIGHTER GEESH AM WINNER.
|
|
Hyperbole much? If the chassis has access to UMD, we should assume that it has access to spells.
Unfortunately, it's an argument that has actually been made for why the UMD classes should be ranked similarly as the actual casting classes themselves (and eventually ended up as "Anyone with UMD can equal a Wizard!").