The "pimp my fightah" approach is by far the best expenditure of magic resources when pure damage is the best approach to the problem.
Sometimes it's not.
That's when the difference between martial and casters becomes really apparent.
I suppose the obvious question is, what is wrong with this?
Most - I would wager to say the majority - of encounters are decided bu dealing out raw pure damage. Martial characters absolutely shine in these instances. Why is there a problem with other encounters in which the casters had substantial advantages?
As an anecdotal example:
The last two combats we had in my Saturday night game were, in sequence, a mass combat in which the party obliterated almost a hundred opponents, including a great number of level 2-3 rogues / fighters, half a dozen middle level brute fighters (probably level 8-9), and two specialized opponents. The casters were brutal. Phantasmal web leveled enemies with each casting, while black tentacles, walls of force, walls of force, chain lightning, stormbolts, and horrid wilting exacted a terrible toll. The fighters were able to contribute against the stronger brutes and the specialized opponents, and given enough time would have slaughtered everything else.
The next combat (ongoing) is a brutal slug fest with an epic level fighter using an artifact or two. He's got a gaze attack with a moderately high DC, an extremely high regular and touch AC, excellent saves, lots of hit points, and high SR. In this fight the casters literally have not dealt a single point of damage. Their most effective tactic has been dispel magic on armor, weapons, and shields, while buffing. Not particularly glorious work, even if it has been effective. In the mean time the buffed fighters have dished out damage on an indescribable level. Before using hero points they dished out 500 damage in a single round. After the use of hero points they did over 700. This is an opponent, I should note, who is immune to critical hits. With crits they might have topped 1,000 damage, while inflicting the staggered condition three times over with no save against it. They've also been on the receiving end of enough damage to kill any of the casters outright, and are the only ones capable of saving against his stunning assault.
The point I'm getting at is that the game can fit in both encounters, each of which gives someone a chance to shine. I guess I just don't see the problem. I suppose if a GM lets players walk all over him you could argue casters can abuse things like planar binding or some such to 'break the game'. In the vast majority of instances however this instead provides a moderate ability at a cost.
I just don't get what all the freaking out is about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
:(
ah, LazarX that was where I was going with that other post but forgot halfway through it
is that the whole 'work together' thing can be applied to a bunch of casters just as much as a bunch of martials or a bunch of both all mashed up in one group
This has not been my experience. In a game with three full casters (cleric, sorcerer, wizard), a bard, and two fighters now at 15th level the fighters have consistently been the dominate force on the battlefield. They are consistently capable of overcoming opponents far out of the reach of the casters powers, because as noted they can easily punch well above their weight class, while casters personally find themselves if not helpless, certainly tremendously ineffective against any opponent of higher ECL that is properly constructed.I believe casters are not so overwhelming powerful before 13th level or so...
But once they get those 7th level spells, the gap starts to grow somewhat quickly, assuming the wizard and fighter players have about the same skill.
I've seen high level fighters kill dragon on a single attack (not full attack, a single standard action attack), but I've also seen high level Fighters simply sit out on many situations because the problem could not be solved by swinging swords and shooting arrows. Of course, many times the pkayer would think of something creative, which is nice, but not at all related to his class features.
And casters don't have to pick useless/boring spells just to get the useful/cool ones 3~5 levels later. But martials, even Fighters, still need to grab all those lame feats to get the cool stuff. You can't have Improved/Greater Trip/Disarm/Whatever without Combat Expertise and Int 13 (which BTW, doesn't benefit most martials at all).The feat chains and movement damage issues can be problematic, but it is a problem often solved by patience. Opponents must also often close, and if the fighter delays he can often accept an opponents charge in return for a devastating full attack.
What if the enemy has better reach than you? What if he doesn't want to come close? Maybe he keeps away flinging fireballs and hidding behind cover.
Mobility is a serious issue for pretty much every martial class. As I said before, I like the idea of dealing higher damage if you stand still, because it adds a meaningful choice to the game ("Should I strike first for average damage or take the enemy's attack and retaliate with greater force?"), but the difference is too damn big. To the point where standing still is pretty much the only real option.And let me again emphasize how devastating that full attack is. Virtually nothing within ECL +3 can survive two full attacks from a well built fighter at higher levels. Many cannot survive one.
Yeah, martials can deal tons of damage, specially Fighters. Never disputed that. In fact, if you read my 1st post, you'll note that I said that giving fighters +2 skill points per level would help him much more than doubling his damage.
It feels like the game system activelly punishes martial classes for no reason at all.Don't agree. They are mitigated by the fact that they obliterate things they full attack. Full attack is not expected every round. And lets not forget there are means others can use to set up a full attack. Who gets credit for the 250 damage the fighter did this round when the wizard dimension doored him right on top of an opponent to deliver a full attack? You'd probably say the wizard, while I would disagree.
You believe doing a crapton of damage is good enough. I disagree. That's basically it. It still falls back to "What happens if I can't hit things with my sword?".
Ultimately the game is collaborative, and this is never so much born out as when one examines many spells that provide marginal benefits to casters but enormous ones to martial characters. Fly is great on a wizard if it lets him keep out of trouble, but a better option is probably casting fly on the fighter so he can fly up and murder face the flying opponent. Dimension door is a great get out of jail free card, but a better "rape face" card. Heroism, greater heroism, and so forth are good buffs for casters, but better on martial characters. Similarly with defensive buffs. Displacement is great on a wizard, because it turns an auto-hit from opponents into a 50/50. Better on the fighter though who turns a 50/50 in to a 75/25.
So the game doesn't need to be balanced because martial classes can count on having caster friends? I don't agree with this.
I'd love if a party composed only of martial classes were about as effective as a party composed only of full casters. The way things are right now, I think this is very, very far trom the truth."raping reality" is a rather broad description of what happens, and one that seems designed to generate strong feelings rather than rational discussion. Things are rarely so simple as "the wizard moves, casts hold monster, game over," at least in my experience.
Okay... Let me put in a more... educated... way.
Casters can move freely without any loss of effectiveness. Except in a few cases (such as spells that take a full round to cast). If their speed is 30ft, then they can move 30ft and still do pretty much everything they can do if they stand still.Martials, no matter how high their movement speed, can't move 10ft without giving up much of their effectiveness. Not even when mounted. And on the few ocassions they actually get to move and full attack, it comes at the cost of a huge investment and even so, only at mid to high levels. e.g.: 3 Rage Powers, or a feat only available at 11th level.
Problem is, martials are bound to a notion of "realism" that unfairly restricts them in a game where gargantuan lizards fly around breathing fire and kidnapping princesses. Oh, and they don't even need magic to fly.
But, again, the biggest problem I have with martials right now, is their lack of mobility and, depending on class, versatility out of combat. I mean, for some mysterious reasons, Fighters still have just 2 skill points per level! Why?
The second biggest problem is that so many cool feats take so long to get. Because they are hidden behind a wall of unnecessary and underwhelming prerequisites.
I love feats like Power Attack, Lunge and Cornugon Smash. They are easy to obtain and remain useful all game long without having to invest in a "Improved" version of them.
I hate feat chains like weapon focus/specialization and vital strike because they're boring ("Oh, look! Yet another +2, how nice. What did you get, Mr.Wizard? "Oh, I learned how to craft my own magic items... And Mr.Druid can cast twice in the same round now!") and because I need to buy them again and again for they to stay relevant.
Actually it says you can take it using one of your regular feats. Not really sure then if your bonus feat counts as a regular feat.
A wizard may also choose an Arcane Discovery that he qualifies for in place of a bonus feat at these levels.
And that line is what confused me, I forgot about the other line on the AD page.
I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers from. It's going to cost more than 10 gold pieces per spell even for first level spells. You've got to pay to get access, either by buying scrolls or purchasing access to a spellbook, then you've got to spend gold to scribe.
Wait so he's allowed to assume that every Wizard wants every single spell on his spell list (360 spells and counting), but I'm not allowed to simplify the math down to just the bare "cost of spell" cost?
I played a Summoner in a Tier 10-11 module last night...The thing is as nifty as these characters might be all by their lonsesome, it's nothing to what they are WHEN THEY WORK TOGETHER. It's when the strengths of a diverse group show a crying advantage over a single class group, no matter what class that is.
First off, a Summoner is still a caster. He's just the epitome of that "If you need a martial, just summon one" problem I was talking about.
Secondly, nobody's talking about having ONE CLASS. Wizard is just an example because he's easiest to recognize. If you have a party of casters, at least half-casters or above, they will generally do better than a party of mostly-martials (Rogue/Monk/Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Barbarian/Cavalier).
You can cover every single class role with a caster class. Need a tank? Summoner. Need a face? Bard. Need Buffs? Bard again (or Summoner still, or Cleric). Need a Rogue? Alchemist (or Bard AGAIN). Need crowd control? Sorcerer/Wizard. Need Debuffs? Witch (or evil Cleric, or Necromancy based Sorcerer/Wizard, or any caster really). Need healing? Cleric.
You can have a perfectly well rounded party with classes whose main schtick is that they cast spells. The Barbarian or Paladin might put out an extra 50 DPR (Yeah...maybe, depending on how the Eidolon is built) and they bring pretty much nothing else to the table.
Cleric/Sorcerer/Alchemist/Summoner can cover pretty much any scenario you want. You've got both melee (Eidolon or Summons) and Ranged (Alchemist Bow or Bombs) DPR, you've got healing and buffs (Cleric), you've got crowd control/AoE/Terrain muchamuck whatever you wanna call it (Sorcerer) and you've got your party face/knowledge/skill guys (Alchemist for Knowledges/Skills, Summoner and Sorcerer are all Cha'd up to be a face). Plus they have the ability to overcome many obstacles martials would have to go around or spend hours in-game trying to work through (Bridge is out, what do you do?).
And that's not nearly the only possible configuration of classes that would let you cover anything.
Meanwhile, back in the martial camp, you have a much harder time getting a configuration like that. You could maybe do it with a Ranger (ranged combat and Skills), then Rogue/Monk (Stealthy skill guys), Paladin (Melee combat and Face), and a Barbarian (Tanking), but they still don't really have any option for AoE/Crowd control and they simply CAN'T do most things that casters take for granted. On top of that, this is pretty much the only configuration. The Paladin is the only one who WANTS a high Cha, so he's needed to be the Face without sacrificing much, then Ranger MIGHT be able to be replaced by an Archer Fighter (but then you lose a bunch of skills), Rogue/Monk could honestly just be replaced by another Ranger, and the Barbarian's still probably the best possible option for melee DPR and tanking.
That's the big issue.
This post is primarily for Lemmy, but everyone is welcome to read it.
I think the last one is the best, and I think, Lemmy, you already outlined why. I noticed something in particular about the three classes you think at really balanced - Paladin, Bard, Inquisitor. Namely, they are all partial spellcasters. More than that, they all have relatively restricted lists.
This is important, I think. They can all do their primary job quite well, but have a few tricks outside of that within their class, AND have a few spells to give them some more versatility. Combined with skills to handle mundane issues and feats to personalize, and you have a class that is capable anywhere, wonderful in their chosen field, but useless nowhere. I personally think you see this with the Ranger as well.
The Paladin is a great example - When you're fighting evil things, you'd rather a Paladin over almost any other martial class. When you're fighting animals, she's still useful, but doesn't shine like the pure fighter or barbarian. If she's best off supporting with healing magic, she can do it, but not like a Cleric. If a supporting spell is best, a Paladin can throw one off, but a Wizard is likely to have something more powerful.
Even in the mundane situations - A paladin has knowledge religion for dealing with cults and the like, diplomacy for getting things to go your way, sense motive to weed out the lies, the detect evil ability, ride for a mount - she's never, ever useless, except in rare circumstances (how to cross this river without a bridge).
I think more important than giving options to classes is to give each class a tight focus and then giving them a few tools outside of that focus so that they can have a role when their focus is not needed now. For the spellcasters, I think the best way to accomplish this is to limit the types of spells they can learn based on class.
As an example, Wizards can learn all these support spells, but maybe only half of the buff/debuff spells, and only a few combat spells. He can always contribute in combat through either buffs/debuffs or his limited combat spells (like a fireball here and there), but he won't shine until the party needs to cross a river (fly), move vast distances (teleport), learn about the past (legend lore), and so on.
There's even precedent for this - Bards (supposedly) sacrifice personal combat ability for the powers to buff allies, debuff enemies, occasionally avoid fights altogether, and cast loads of support-type magic. They get skills like mad, and are known for talking their way out of any situation.
So that's the solution - narrow the focus of classes (like the Paladin, Bard, and Inquisitor), give them abilities so that they can always contribute to the success of the group, both in combat and out, and limit the number of situations where they are flat-out useless.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could make an entire balanced party with just the Oracle class, just Bard or just Cleric, possibly with another caster or two. I could not do the same with anything that does not have casting.
My problem with the non-casting classes has nothing to do with effectiveness in the role they are desired for and everything to do with effectiveness outside of that role. Whenever I look at a fighter build, for example, I marvel at its sheer power in combat, then throw it away when I look at what else I can do (spoiler: not a whole lot). No matter how much I want to be able to play a guy who is just a fighter, I can't help but be disappointed that he will not fly, he will not teleport, he will not transform into a hulking large-sized monstrosity, etc. Those types of tricks are way more fun to me than another +1 to attack and damage even if that's largely what they end up being.
So, instead of playing those martial classes, I play the classes like Bard or Oracle that can do martial combat very well (though not as well as the martial character), but can also do several other things very well (which the martial character cannot).
Some people like having the steroid-infused berserker type, and these classes do well enough for that, but I can't help but feel that the game would be better served overall by having those classes tone down the "+1 to attack" class features a smidgen and replace them with a handful of fun new tricks, even if the net effect of those tricks is largely the same.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could make an entire balanced party with just the Oracle class, just Bard or just Cleric, possibly with another caster or two. I could not do the same with anything that does not have casting.
My problem with the non-casting classes has nothing to do with effectiveness in the role they are desired for and everything to do with effectiveness outside of that role. Whenever I look at a fighter build, for example, I marvel at its sheer power in combat, then throw it away when I look at what else I can do (spoiler: not a whole lot). No matter how much I want to be able to play a guy who is just a fighter, I can't help but be disappointed that he will not fly, he will not teleport, he will not transform into a hulking large-sized monstrosity, etc. Those types of tricks are way more fun to me than another +1 to attack and damage even if that's largely what they end up being.
So, instead of playing those martial classes, I play the classes like Bard or Oracle that can do martial combat very well (though not as well as the martial character), but can also do several other things very well (which the martial character cannot).
Some people like having the steroid-infused berserker type, and these classes do well enough for that, but I can't help but feel that the game would be better served overall by having those classes tone down the "+1 to attack" class features a smidgen and replace them with a handful of fun new tricks, even if the net effect of those tricks is largely the same.
The main thing you need to understand is that you can't do it all, period. You can't always do X if you want to play Y but at the same time you can add on extra to actually do X at times. Want a fighter to fly, then you get some boots of flying, a flying mount or hell even a magic carpet he can ride on. For some reason some of you just want a class to actually have everything as a class ability. What's the difference between a fighter who has boots of flying and a Wizard who has memorized fly maybe twice, nothing to be honest.
Fighter's aren't meant to fly outside of their class abilities unless you play a fighter/mage. I don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand that that. A fighter is there to fight, it does what it was designed to do so you can't ask anymore out of the class. You are asking for something the class itself wasn't designed to do and then at the same time declare the class to be incompetent. Also, a good Wizard isn't one who is going to only take spells that benefit himself. Pathfinder is a team game, seems like that part is forgotten amongst these forums. Well to be honest it's purposely forgotten when people are trying to secure their argument as to the martial vs caster disparity.
It's bullshit at the end of the day if you want to be perfectly honest. You get your true results by actual gameplay, not theorycraft and flipping through the books.
|
|
I could make an entire balanced party with just the Oracle class, just Bard or just Cleric, possibly with another caster or two. I could not do the same with anything that does not have casting.
My problem with the non-casting classes has nothing to do with effectiveness in the role they are desired for and everything to do with effectiveness outside of that role. Whenever I look at a fighter build, for example, I marvel at its sheer power in combat, then throw it away when I look at what else I can do (spoiler: not a whole lot). No matter how much I want to be able to play a guy who is just a fighter, I can't help but be disappointed that he will not fly, he will not teleport, he will not transform into a hulking large-sized monstrosity, etc. Those types of tricks are way more fun to me than another +1 to attack and damage even if that's largely what they end up being.
So, instead of playing those martial classes, I play the classes like Bard or Oracle that can do martial combat very well (though not as well as the martial character), but can also do several other things very well (which the martial character cannot).
Some people like having the steroid-infused berserker type, and these classes do well enough for that, but I can't help but feel that the game would be better served overall by having those classes tone down the "+1 to attack" class features a smidgen and replace them with a handful of fun new tricks, even if the net effect of those tricks is largely the same.
My problem with the non-casting classes has nothing to do with effectiveness in the role they are desired for and everything to do with effectiveness outside of that role. Whenever I look at a fighter build, for example, I marvel at its sheer power in combat, then throw it away when I look at what else I can do (spoiler: not a whole lot). No matter how much I want to be able to play a guy who is just a fighter, I can't help but be disappointed that he will not fly, he will not teleport, he will not transform into a hulking large-sized monstrosity, etc.
Then why not play a fighter who wears boots of flight and carries potions of enlarge person?
I'm personally very happy with Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers, and Wizards just in the core rules. I find that these parties are balanced enough to make me happy. That only leaves Fighter, Monk, and Rogue lacking.
I agree with you, TheRedArmy. I think casters should be somewhat less powerful, and that martials should have better and more interesting tools.
The fact that casters have so many options is IMO, a flaw in the game. Their tools are too many, too cheap (int he sense that they have no real cost) and too effective.
Unfortunatelly, IMHO, the only real way to fix that in completely revising the spell lists of those classes. I'd not mind seeing buffs to Sorcerers, such as +2 skill points (because noone should ever have less than 4 per level!), more spells known and non-delayed spell casting progression if, and only if, spell casting itself were not so powerful.
But what I'd really love to see, is rules (not feats, rules!) to make martials more versatile and with a broader options.
I don't think having spells is the only way to go. Just the easiest. Paladins, for example, are very well balanced, and while they'd obviously not be as powerful (or balanced) without spells, they wouldn't suffer much. They would still have great saves, LoH, mercies, divine bond, immunities, auras, etc.
I'm sure it's possible to make a Paladin archetype who gives up spell casting for an equally useful number of abilities (or at least one that very close in usefulness).
As a ranger, I'd gladly trade spell casting for, let's say, a cleric domain, free boon companion, increasingly powerful senses (let's say, he gets low-light vision, then darkvision, then scent, etc...) fast movement and poison immunity. Some kinda of minor protection against mind control would help too. It'd be a lot more flavorful, and while probably not as powerful it'd be close enough.
Hey, AM BARBARIAN, is a very powerful, very martial character. He has a crapton of damage and can do cool things like pouncing, breaking magic and riding a bat!
Summoners, while too powerful, could have been somewhat balanced. But their clunky mechanics, borked spell list (why the hell is Haste a 2nd level spell for them?) and some way-too-good evolutions (Pounce at 1st level. For 1 Evoltuion Point. Really, Paizo? Really?) are the reason they are often considered to be tier2 even without full spell casting. It's sad, actually, I really like the idea of the class, but its mechanics make me grind my teeth every time.
Also, again, increase overall mobility for every martial class. (one idea I had is that when your each BAB +11, you get to move and still make your 1st 2 attack).
Classes don't need to be perfectly balanced (of course, that'd be ideal, but it's nearly impossible), but they sure as hell should be better balanced than they currently are.
Fortunatelly, I don't think the game is unplayable at any level. It becomes slightly bizarre at higher levels (15+), but with some common sense and good will from the players (GMs included), it's still a very fun experience.
|
|
I agree with you, TheRedArmy. I think casters should be somewhat less powerful, and that martials should have better and more interesting tools.
The fact that casters have so many options is IMO, a flaw in the game. Their tools are too many, too cheap (int he sense that they have no real cost) and too effective.
Unfortunatelly, IMHO, the only real way to fix that in completely revising the spell lists of those classes. I'd not mind seeing buffs to Sorcerers, such as +2 skill points (because noone should ever have less than 4 per level!), more spells known and non-delayed spell casting progression if, and only if, spell casting itself were not so powerful.
But what I'd really love to see, is rules (not feats, rules!) to make martials more versatile and with a broader options.
I don't think having spells is the only way to go. But it does help a little. Paladins, for example, are very well balanced, and while they'd obviously not be as powerful (or balanced) without spells, they wouldn't suffer much. They would still have great saves, LoH, mercies, divine bond, immunities, auras, etc.
I'm sure it's possible to make a Paladin archetype who gives up spell casting for an equally useful number of abilities (or at least one that very close in usefulness).
As a ranger, I'd gladly trade spell casting for, let's say, a cleric domain, free boon companion, increasingly powerful senses (let's say, he gets low-light vision, then darkvision, then scent, etc...) fast movement and poison immunity. Some kinda of minor protection against mind control would help too. It'd be a lot more flavorful, and while probably not as powerful it'd be close enough.
Hey, AM BARBARIAN, is a very powerful, very martial character. He has a crapton of damage and can do cool things like pouncing, breaking magic and riding a bat!
Summoners, while too powerful, could have been somewhat balanced. But their clunky mechanics, borked spell list (why the hell is Haste a 2nd level spell for them?) and some way-too-good evolutions (Pounce...
Why do fighters and barbarians need spells?
|
|
Then why not play a fighter who wears boots of flight and carries potions of enlarge person?
Because, in my mind, using items to perform the task isn't really "me". It's just an item. Anyone can do it, so what makes me special?
This is entirely preference, of course, and some people like to play a character that is entirely dependent on their tools but accomplishes the same thing. In my mind if anyone can pick up a pistol, then the pistol by itself cannot be the "cool thing" my character can do. "But you're more accurate!" Yeah, so is Bullseye, but most people I know thing he's pretty lame.
So, at the end of the day, I play the character that can naturally fly/enlarge/whatever-trick-seems-cool and uses magic items to make up the gaps in other places.
To be clear, I don't mind using items, i just prefer the character's ace-in-the-deck to be something they do rather than an item.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What exactly does the fighter lack again?I'm personally very happy with Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers, and Wizards just in the core rules. I find that these parties are balanced enough to make me happy. That only leaves Fighter, Monk, and Rogue lacking.
Options.
You are asking for something the class itself wasn't designed to do...
Yes, that is exactly the point. We are suggesting the class wasn't designed to do a wide enough variety of things, so we would like it to be designed to do something more varied.
|
|
Options.What exactly does the fighter lack again?I'm personally very happy with Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers, and Wizards just in the core rules. I find that these parties are balanced enough to make me happy. That only leaves Fighter, Monk, and Rogue lacking.
That reminds me. I think part of the reason I tend to avoid tool-dependent (i.e. magic item dependent) characters is that magic items can be denied. They can be broken, they can be be unavailable, etc. A class feature is forever. You don't have to wait for "Channel Energy" to come on sale, you don't have to hope you loot "Favored Terrain", you just have it.
This is (in part) because my group does not have the magic mart at the local town when we play. We follow the rules on how many minor/medium/major items are in town, and most campaigns don't have enough downtime to craft all that much.
This is also why I don't like properties like Agile or Guided existing in magic item form, but (largely) not in feat form. If not having it is a dealbreaker for the build, the character should have some way to access it that isn't availability dependent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That reminds me. I think part of the reason I tend to avoid tool-dependent (i.e. magic item dependent) characters is that magic items can be denied. They can be broken, they can be be unavailable, etc. A class feature is forever. You don't have to wait for "Channel Energy" to come on sale, you don't have to hope you loot "Favored Terrain", you just have it.
This is (in part) because my group does not have the magic mart at the local town when we play. We follow the rules on how many minor/medium/major items are in town, and most campaigns don't have enough downtime to craft all that much.
This is also why I don't like properties like Agile or Guided existing in magic item form, but (largely) not in feat form. If not having it is a dealbreaker for the build, the character should have some way to access it that isn't availability dependent.
I really agree with this. I'd never play a build who depends on any single magical item or magical item property.
I'd never completely on Dex/Wis on the hopes of getting an Agile/Guided weapon. Although I might depend on them for secondary combat styles.e.g.: As a Gunslinger with weapon finesse, I might rely on a few agile weapons just in case I can't use my firearms for some reason, but I'd never play a melee cleric with Str 10 but who carries 1 (or even 2) Guided weapons. And archery Inquisitor with more focus on Dex first, Wis second and Str third might carry a guided mace in case the enemy gets too close, though.
And of course, if I'm playing a finesse TWFing Rogue with two cestus, might as well make them Agile.
Hell, all my characters have backup +1 weapons before they get their first +2. And I completely refuse to spend more than 1 feat on the weapon spec feat chain, no matter how effective it's!
|
|
You are asking for something the class itself wasn't designed to do...Yes, that is exactly the point. We are suggesting the class wasn't designed to do a wide enough variety of things, so we would like it to be designed to do something more varied.
You already have classes that give you martial abilities and magic. The fighter needs to stay where it is because it achieves it's design goal.
That reminds me. I think part of the reason I tend to avoid tool-dependent (i.e. magic item dependent) characters is that magic items can be denied. They can be broken, they can be be unavailable, etc. A class feature is forever. You don't have to wait for "Channel Energy" to come on sale, you don't have to hope you loot "Favored Terrain", you just have it.
Agreed 100%. I mean the boards are flooded with threads like this thread and this thread which demonstrates that many people (including those who hate casters) say can insist that fighters can't have nice things. And I've often noted that one of the largest failings with the Fighter class is you either have to buy, beg, borrow, or steal your class features from somebody else.
I pointed out how irrevocably lame it is to be specced in longswords and to not find examples of your favorite weapon that are easy to come by. Meanwhile a Paladin at high levels can pick up a stick off the ground and turn it into a +5 holy club and make pit fiends have nightmares about Paladins smiting them with knitting needles.
Especially if you're GM isn't being soft on you and isn't placing your perfect item for you. Such as say a GM who uses fair (read: random) treasures. For example, in 3.x there was a nice little chart that helps to randomly generate what kind of weapon a magic weapon is (the chart seems absent in Pathfinder but you're still looking at a 1/X chance of finding that weapon where X is the number of alternative weapons it could be).
The 3.5 SRD has the chart if you're curious.
You already have classes that give you martial abilities and magic. The fighter needs to stay where it is because it achieves it's design goal.You are asking for something the class itself wasn't designed to do...Yes, that is exactly the point. We are suggesting the class wasn't designed to do a wide enough variety of things, so we would like it to be designed to do something more varied.
What is that goal?
The 1e weapon list started with a 60% that any random magic weapon was a longsword. Heh. So, there were a LOT of fighters using magic longswords. And it was the best one handed weapon you could possibly use, except for the bastard sword....but the b sword was a 4% chance, or something.
==Aelryinth
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers from. It's going to cost more than 10 gold pieces per spell even for first level spells. You've got to pay to get access, either by buying scrolls or purchasing access to a spellbook, then you've got to spend gold to scribe.Barring upgrades to the item, sure. Now look here. Let's assume a Wizard wants to know every possible 3rd level spell and below, and a Fighter wants a +3 weapon and +3 armor.
By my count there are 95 1st level spells, so 950 gp there.
There are about 145 2nd level spells, so another 5800 gold.
Then there are 120 3rd level spells, so a final cost of 10,800 gold.
Cost and Methods of Learning Wizard Spells in Pathfinder RPG
The changes in Pathfinder RPG vs. 3.5 are subtle, but sometimes, they are quite important and can dramatically affect the game.
One of the most important additions to Pathfinder is the new ability granted to all Wizards, the Arcane Bonded Item. This ability is in chosen in substitution to choosing to have a familiar. Instead of a familiar, the Wizard gets the ability to empower any item he chooses as his bonded item. This arcane bond grants to the wizard the ability to spontaneously cast any spell he or she knows, once per day, without preparing the spell. The arcane bond therefore confers on the Wizard the flexibility of the Sorceror’s spontaneous spell casting ability once per day, while retaining the Wizard class’ intrinsic ability to learn an unlimited number of spells.
In order to get this ability, the Wizard foregoes the option to take a familiar. The cost and time to replace either a bonded item or a familiar is the same (200 gp per level of the Wizard, after 1 week has passed since its loss). However, unlike a familiar, a bonded item is very difficult to destroy during combat. Moreover, if a GM is the sort to attempt a theft of a bonded item, the GM is equally likely to steal or destroy the Wizard’s spellbook – an act to which all Wizards are vulnerable. In the end, the familiar is far more likely to be slain during the course of normal play than a bonded item is likely to be destroyed during combat. One is alive, can be attacked and must save vs. area affect spells, while the bonded item never is attacked and rarely ever has to save vs any attack. When it does have to make a save, the roll required for the item to survive is very low.
The arcane bond cannot be used to cast a spell spontaneously if it is from an opposed school of magic. Accordingly, specialist Wizards sacrifice some of their spontaneous spellcasting ability for the bonuses they otherwise get from specializing. A Universalist Wizard, however, has the ability to cast every Wizard spell in the game spontaneously as long as he or she knows the spell.
There are also some subtle changes in the cost of learning spells from ver 3.5 of the game as well. In 3.5 of the game, the underlying mechanic of copying spells from a spellbook was that another wizard would charge 50 gp per spell level as the cost to copy a spell from one book into another. This resulted in the unintended mathematical consequence that a Wizard had to pay 50 gp to copy a first level spell from another book, but could instead pay only 25 gp to copy the spell from (and destroy) a scroll!
In ver. 3.5, the material cost of inscribing a spell into a spellbook was 100 gp x the level of the spell no matter how the spell was learned. This was a particularly burdensome cost for low level spellcasters.
Pathfinder RPG changed the underlying math by adding a new table to the game on page 219 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook for the material cost of copying a spell. The math underlying this table is simple to remember: material cost = spell level squared x 10.
While there are comparative reductions in the cost of learning spells at every level of the game as between 3.5 and PFRPG, the reductions in the cost of learning new spells is especially pronounced in the early part of the game. In 3.5, it cost 150 gold pieces to copy an existing 1st level spell from one spellbook into your own, or 125 gp if you used (and destroyed) a scroll to learn and copy the spell, whereas, in Pathfinder RPG, it costs only 15 gold to do this (30 if you use a scroll).
The comparative costs of learning and copying spells into a Spellbook are noted below.
Code:
Method and Cost of Learning Spells – 3.5 vs. PFRPG
Sp. Cost (3.5/PF) Access to (3.5/PF) Material (3.5/PF)
Lvl. of Scroll Copy Spell Cost
1 25 50/5 100/10
2 150 100/20 200/40
3 375 150/45 300/90
4 700 200/80 400/160
5 1125 250/125 500/250
6 1650 300/180 600/360
7 2275 350/245 700/490
8 3000 400/320 800/640
9 3825 450/405 900/810
As is evident, attempting to learn a spell from a scroll is always a poor allocation of resources in either Pathfinder or ver 3.5 of the game past 1st level, and the sub-optimal nature of that choice is underscored in Pathfinder RPG where it is always a poor choice to make at any time.
Unfortunately, the lesson that arcane casters learned early on in ver 3.5 was that spells were learned best by finding a scroll and copying it into their spellbook. While learning a spell via scroll was only cheaper at 1st level, it was a bad habit to learn in terms of the underlying mechanics of the game and -- worse – reinforced the rules used in 1E/2E which had, in fact, been changed in ver 3.xx. A lot of players and DMs continued to use learning spells via scroll as the presumptive mechanic throughout the game at all levels, making the cost of learning new spells especially burdensome for Wizards in 3.5 in many gaming groups. This was never the intent in ver 3.5, but as that was the method for learning spells in earlier incarnations of the game, many players and DMs kept using it. Anecdotal evidence from forums and message boards indicates that it is STILL being used in Pathfinder RPG, more than a decade after the rules for spell acquisition were changed in ver 3.xx. Old habits die hard.
In Pathfinder RPG, because of the introduction of the arcane bond, there is an exceptionally strong incentive for all Wizards to learn as many spells as possible. In contrast, in version 3.5, all that learning a great number of spells did was to expand the possible choices a Wizard had to prepare in a given day (and it allowed the Wizard to make a scroll of that spell, too). However, in Pathfinder RPG, because of the Arcane Bond, any spell may be cast once a day even if not prepared as long as it is known. This new ability provides the Wizard with the ability to use rare and highly situational utility spells without having to prepare or pay the cost of creating a scroll to do so. That makes the bonded item an exceptionally powerful class ability – among the most powerful of all class abilities present in the entire game.
Can you Learn Every Wizard Spell in the GAME?
So, given that the benefit to learning a huge number of spells is now present within Pathfinder RPG in a way that wasn’t present in ver 3.5, is it possible for a Universalist Wizard to learn all of the spells in the game?
Well, if your GM refuses to use the default rules in Pathfinder and clings to the presumptions of 1E/2E by insisting that Wizards learn spells by copying the spell from a scroll (thereby destroying the scroll in the process) the answer is: it’s not really economically feasible.
Learning Spells From Scrolls is a BAD Idea
The below chart indicates what the cost of learning all of the spells in the game are, based upon the books that are in use at your table. These tables show the cost of learning all of the Wizard spells in the game for the Core, Core + APG, Core + APG +Ultimate Magic, and finally, Core + APG + Ultimate Magic + Ultimate Combat. As a yardstick to measure how reasonable a strategy it is to learn all available spells, the suggested wealth by level is indicated in the final two columns.
As you will quickly see, to pursue a Universalist Wizard build which attempts to learn all spells in the game (depending on the books in use at your table) is highly impractical – if not impossible - if your GM insists upon Wizards learning spells via scroll. Under the Core Rules, the total cost to copy all of the available spells in the game into standard spell books when using scrolls as your copy source exceeds the suggested wealth by level of the Wizard after 8th level – and does so far earlier when additional hardcover rulebooks are in use.
Code:
Cost of Learning all Spells (Core, 371 spells)
via Scroll Copied into Std Spell Books (18 vols.)
Sp # of Scroll+ Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls Copy $ Pages Cost by Level
1 40 15 40 600 600 2 3000
2 51 160 142 8160 8760 4 10500
3 43 415 271 17845 26605 6 33000
4 42 790 439 33180 59785 8 62000
5 47 1285 674 60395 120180 10 82000
6 47 1800 956 84600 204780 12 108000
7 40 2635 1236 105400 310180 14 185000
8 37 3490 1532 129130 439310 16 315000
9 24 4635 1748 111240 550550 18 888000
Cost of Learning all Spells (Core/APG, 463 spells)
via Scroll Copied into Std Spell Books (22 vols.)
Sp # of Scroll+ Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls Copy $ Pages Cost by Level
1 57 15 57 855 855 2 3000
2 64 160 185 10240 11095 4 10500
3 58 415 359 24070 35165 6 33000
4 54 790 575 42660 77825 8 62000
5 56 1285 855 71960 149785 10 82000
6 54 1800 1179 97200 246985 12 108000
7 48 2635 1515 126480 373465 14 185000
8 41 3490 1843 143090 516555 16 315000
9 31 4635 2122 143685 660240 18 888000
Cost of Learning all Spells (Core/APG/UM, 622 spells)
via Scroll Copied into Std Spell Books (28 vols.)
Sp # of Scroll+ Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls Copy $ Pages Cost by Level
1 76 30 76 1140 1140 2 3000
2 91 160 258 14560 15700 4 10500
3 82 415 504 34030 49730 6 33000
4 77 790 812 60830 110560 8 62000
5 76 1285 1192 97660 208220 10 82000
6 69 1800 1606 124200 332420 12 108000
7 64 2635 2054 168640 501060 14 185000
8 46 3490 2422 160540 661600 16 315000
9 41 4635 2791 190035 851635 18 888000
Cost of Learning all Spells, all books (717 spells)
via Scroll Copied into Std Spell Books (31 vols.)
Sp # of Scroll+ Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls Copy $ Pages Cost by Level
1 95 30 95 2850 2850 2 3000
2 123 160 341 19680 22530 4 10500
3 99 415 638 41085 63615 6 33000
4 88 790 990 69520 133135 8 62000
5 83 1285 1405 106655 239790 10 82000
6 72 1800 1837 129600 369390 12 108000
7 67 2635 2306 176545 545935 14 185000
8 47 3490 2682 164030 709965 16 315000
9 43 4635 3069 199305 909270 18 888000
Note: All of the tables in this article exclude: 1) the beneficial effect of spells that all Wizards get at the start of the game; and 2) also excludes the beneficial effect of learning 2 free new spells upon a Wizard attaining a new level.
Now, in fairness, it is highly irregular to include one of the fundamental assumptions of the game (wealth by level) for comparative purposes and to then ignore another fundamental assumption of the game (Wizards primarily learn spells by copying a spell from another spellbook, not by copying from and destroying a scroll). If a GM makes a change to the default assumption present in Pathfinder RPG by requiring new spells be learned from a scroll, that GM has made a fundamental change to Pathfinder RPG that cripples the intended power level of the Wizard Class.
Indeed, when viewed from the PC’s perspective, preferring to learn Wizard spells by scroll instead of copying them from an existing spell book can only be described as so sub-optimal a choice as to be insane.
How so you may ask? Well, take a look at the comparative cost of learning an arcane spell by paying for access to copy a spell from a spellbook to another Wizard (or more likely, an organization like the Arcanamirium) – and then paying the material cost to copy the spell into your spellbook:
Code:
Cost of Learning all Spells (Core, 371 spells)
via Spellbook Copied into Std Spell Books (18 vols.)
Sp # of Access Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls +Copy$ Pages Cost by Level
1 40 15 40 600 600 2 3000
2 51 60 142 3050 3650 4 10500
3 43 135 271 5805 9455 6 33000
4 42 240 439 10080 19535 8 62000
5 47 375 674 17625 37160 10 82000
6 47 540 956 25380 62540 12 108000
7 40 735 1236 29400 91940 14 185000
8 37 960 1532 35520 127460 16 315000
9 24 1215 1748 29160 156620 18 888000
Cost of Learning all Spells (Core/APG, 463 spells)
via Spellbook Copied into Std Spell Books (22 vols.)
Sp # of Access Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls +Copy$ Pages Cost by Level
1 57 15 57 855 855 2 3000
2 64 60 185 3840 4695 4 10500
3 58 135 359 7830 12525 6 33000
4 54 240 575 12960 25485 8 62000
5 56 375 855 21000 46485 10 82000
6 54 540 1179 29160 75645 12 108000
7 48 735 1515 35280 110925 14 185000
8 41 960 1843 39360 150285 16 315000
9 31 1215 2122 37665 194285 18 888000
Cost of Learning all Spells (Core/APG/UM, 622 sp)
via Spellbook Copied into Std Spell Books (28 vols.)
Sp # of Access Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls +Copy$ Pages Cost by Level
1 76 15 76 1140 1140 2 3000
2 91 60 258 5460 6600 4 10500
3 82 135 504 11070 17670 6 33000
4 77 240 812 18480 38015 8 62000
5 76 375 1192 28500 66515 10 82000
6 69 540 1606 37260 103775 12 108000
7 64 735 2054 47040 150815 14 185000
8 46 960 2422 44160 194975 16 315000
9 41 1215 2791 49815 244790 18 888000
Cost of Learning all Spells, all books (717 spells)
via Spellbook Copied into Std Spell Books (31 vols.)
Sp # of Access Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls +Copy$ Pages Cost by Level
1 95 15 95 1425 1425 2 3000
2 123 60 341 7380 8805 4 10500
3 99 135 638 13365 22170 6 33000
4 88 240 990 21120 43290 8 62000
5 83 375 1405 31125 74415 10 82000
6 72 540 1837 38880 113295 12 108000
7 67 735 2306 49245 162540 14 185000
8 47 960 2682 45120 207660 16 315000
9 43 1215 3069 52245 259905 18 888000
As you will note, once the default assumption for Arcane spell acquisition by a Wizard is applied, there is no point in time where the Wizard’s investment into learning spells exceeds the suggested Wealth by Level in the game. In most instances the Wizard has a comfortable margin left to spend on crafting magical gear if the Wizard pursues a “learn all spells” build.
Where can a Wizard go to learn all of these spells from existing spellbooks? In the world of Golarion, while there are many sources for spells across the world, one known source of spellbooks to copy are the Arcane Scriptoriums found within the Wise Quarter of Absalom. Between the tomes contained in the Arcanamirium and, to a lesser extent, the Forae Logos, access to all of the known arcane spells for copying may be had upon paying the above-noted fees. (This is exactly how it is presumed to work within the RAW which governs Pathfinder Society Organized Play. See, Pathfinder Chronicles: Guide to Absalom for more on the Arcanamirium and the Forae Logos).
Still, it’s admittedly quite expensive to do this. Isn’t there a better way?
The Blessed Book Will Lead The Way...
Yes, there is. The below chart reflects the impact of what as this analysis demonstrates, is the second most important spell in the game – namely, Secret Page. Why is Secret Page so important? Because this spell is the pre-requisite for creating the Wondrous item, Blessed Book.
Blessed Books are fundamentally important to any Wizard amassing a collection of spells. The description of this standard Wondrous Item, (known as Boccob’s Blessed Book in ver 3.5) quickly indicates why:
Blessed Book
Aura moderate transmutation; CL 7th
Slot —; Price 12,500 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Description
This well-made tome is always of small size, typically no more than 12 inches tall, 8 inches wide, and 1 inch thick. All such books are durable, waterproof, bound with iron overlaid with silver, and locked.
A wizard can fill the 1,000 pages of a blessed book with spells without paying the material cost. This book is never found as randomly generated treasure with spells already inscribed in it.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, secret page; Cost 6,250 gp
The beneficial effect of a Blessed Book demonstrates that any PC Wizard who wants to learn a lot of spells should ensure the he or she can craft one. In order to do so, the Wizard should have an Int of 15 or higher, take Spellcraft every level until at least level 7 and should take Craft Wondrous Item as a feat by 7-8th level. Should a Wizard meet these pre-requisites (and almost all PC Wizards already have the Int stat and Spellcraft skill ranks by default, and most PC wizards will take Craft Wondrous Item at some point), there is no possibility of failure when constructing a Blessed Book over the course of a week while “taking ten”.
It is quickly evident that employing a Blessed Book as the default spellbook for all of one’s spells is vital to efficiently amassing any appreciable collection of spells in Pathfinder RPG. Not only does the material cost for copying a new spell get rolled into the blanket cost of creating a Blessed Book for the mere cost of 6,250 GP, but the number of pages in a Blessed Book (1,000 pages in a 1” thick volume) means that the Wizard’s spellbook library may be practically condensed into a 2, 3 or at most, a 4 volume collection that may be easily transported. (Note: employing Secret Chest to store one’s spellbooks -- and making a 2nd copy of each Blessed Book is still prudent and takes only half the time to copy it).
How much of a savings does the use of Blessed Books to record a spell library have on the Wizard class? It turns out, it has an enormous impact:
Code:
Core using 2 Blessed Books (371 spells) = Savings of 85,610 gp vs Std Spell Book
Sp # of Access Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls +Copy$ Pages Cost by Level
1 40 15 40 600 600 2 3000
2 51 60 142 3050 3650 4 10500
3 43 135 271 5805 9455 6 33000
4 42 80 439 9610* 19065 8 62000
5 47 125 674 5875 24940 10 82000
6 47 180 956 8460 33400 12 108000
7 40 245 1236 16050* 49450 14 185000
8 37 320 1532 11840 61290 16 315000
9 24 405 1748 9720 71010 18 888000
* includes the cost of 6,250 gp to create a new Blessed Book
Core + APG using 3 Blessed Books (463 spells)
= Savings of 104,505 gp vs Std Spell Book
Sp # of Access Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls +Copy$ Pages Cost by Level
1 57 15 57 855 855 2 3000
2 64 60 185 3840 4695 4 10500
3 58 135 359 7830 12525 6 33000
4 54 80 575 10570* 23095 8 62000
5 56 125 855 7000 30095 10 82000
6 54 180 1179 15970* 46065 12 108000
7 48 245 1515 11760 57855 14 185000
8 41 320 1843 13120 70975 16 315000
9 31 405 2122 18805* 89780 18 888000
* includes the cost of 6,250 gp to create a new Blessed Book
Core + APG + UM using 3 Blessed Books (622 spells)
= Savings of 133,285 gp vs Std Spell Book
Sp # of Access Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls +Copy$ Pages Cost by Level
1 76 15 76 1140 1140 2 3000
2 91 60 258 5460 6600 4 10500
3 82 135 504 11070 17670 6 33000
4 77 80 812 12410* 30080 8 62000
5 76 125 1192 15750* 45830 10 82000
6 69 180 1606 12420 58250 12 108000
7 64 245 2054 21930* 80180 14 185000
8 46 320 2422 14720 94900 16 315000
9 41 405 2791 16605 111505 18 888000
* includes the cost of 6,250 gp to create a new Blessed Book
Core + APG + UM + UC using 4 Blessed Books (717 spells)
= Savings of 133,490 gp vs Std Spell Book
Sp # of Access Tot. # Cost Cum. Lvl Wealth
Lvl Spls +Copy$ Pages Cost by Level
1 95 15 95 1425 1425 2 3000
2 123 60 341 7380 8805 4 10500
3 99 135 638 13365 22170 6 33000
4 88 80 990 13290* 35460 8 62000
5 83 125 1405 16625* 52085 10 82000
6 72 180 1837 12960 65045 12 108000
7 67 245 2306 22665* 87710 14 185000
8 47 320 2682 15040 102750 16 315000
9 43 405 3069 23665* 126415 18 888000
* includes the cost of 6,250 gp to create a new Blessed Book
(Note: in the cost calculations in the above Blessed Book tables, the cost of learning new spells of any level was calculated at the cost of Access + Material cost until the first Blessed Book was constructed, as denoted by an asterisk, thereafter, only the cost of access + the cost of creating a Blessed Book is accounted for.)
From the costs taken to learn all spells via spell acquisition by scroll (909,270 gp) the cost of doing so by copying spells from spellbooks into a blessed book is reduced to 126,415 gp – a difference of more than a factor of 7!
One of the conclusions which flows from the above is that when it comes to learning Arcane spells, a Wizard is always better off selling the scroll for half its value and using that gold to purchase access + material costs of copying a spell. It is never wise for a Wizard to use the scroll itself to actually learn the spell unless absolutely necessary under the circumstances. The comparative economic benefit, assuming a sale at one-half retail value, breaks down as follows:
Code:
Sp. ½ Value Cost of Access Cost of Access Only
Lvl. of Scroll + Material Cost (Blessed Book)
1 12.5 15 5
2 75 60 20
3 187.5 135 45
4 350 240 80
5 562.5 375 125
6 825 540 180
7 1137.5 735 245
8 1500 960 320
9 1912.5 1215 405
Time... Ain't On Your Side (No it isn't)
So what’s the downside of all of this? The one factor which is not reflected above is time. It takes one hour to attempt to learn a new spell and one hour per spell level to copy a new spell into a spell book. In this case, the number of pages required to record all spells is also the number of hours required to copy all spells. If all four hardcover volumes of Pathfinder RPG spells are in use at your table, it will take an Archmage about three months to learn every spell from all four books. It will then take a little more than a year (3,069 /8 =383 days, broken into 8 hour blocks of time), flat out, to record all of the spells in all four hardcover books, if he or she does nothing else for eight hours a day and is always successful in learning a spell on the first roll. Admittedly, if duplicating an entire spell book without any changes at all, the material cost is half (if there is any) and the time is also halved.
For those who are running Adventure Paths with significant downtime built into the AP (as is present in the Kingmaker AP), learning and copying spells into the Wizard’s spellbooks is a very good use of that Wizard’s “downtime”. It also reduces the free time for a Wizard to create magic items for him or herself as well as the rest of the party.
Holy shit, Aelryinth. That was... Holy shit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Wall of Text" mated with "Decanter of endless water" to produce "Waterfall of endless text"
Just ... wow.
Pffftahahaha
21,552 words. And the funniest part is that it's broken into chapters.
Still favorited so I can read all of it later.
That blew right past "short story" and hit "novella"!
I'm not dipping into archetypes because honestly I don't know that much about Fighter/Paladin archetypes.
I do know none of the Barbarian's make him any better at anything but straight up murdering people.
Ranger's archetypes though...I could easily see a Ranger only party doing very, VERY well because of the myriad abilities to be gained from things like Freebooter and Infiltrator and stuff. Still would have some issues with certain things but overall might be a solid party.
I disagree that Whirlwhind Attack is anything like a decent crowd control though. Disregarding that it's got a hefty feat tax on it, it's just not very good overall. You're getting one hit on a bunch of enemies...in theory, if they're surrounding you within attacking distance (in which case you're in for a WORLD of hurt if you don't knock down/take out a good portion of them) and it's nowhere near as effective as something like Entangle or even something like Fireball since instead of "Everyone make a Reflex save to take half damage" it's "I hope I hit every one of these guy's AC or they take none".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem is, martials are bound to a notion of "realism" that unfairly restricts them in a game where gargantuan lizards fly around breathing fire and kidnapping princesses. Oh, and they don't even need magic to fly.I disagree here. I think the problem is not "realism", there is no reason for a fighter or a cavalier (or a ranger for the matter) to have spellcasting abilities nor it should be.
I think the solution to this kind of problem is to add more mundane and "realist" combat options.
For example instead of adding fly speed to the fighter let him strike the wing´s of the enemies to bring they down. And, of course this should not cost a feat.
You misunderstand me, Nicos, I do not mean that Fighters should have Supernatural powers. But that their mundane abilities should still be fantastic.
Let them trip Gargantuan creatures if they have enough CMB. Let them charge through difficult terrain. Let them jump 30ft in the air while donning a full plate. Let them use their OMGWTFBBQ combat prowess to hurt incorporeal enemies even if they are simply armed with a regular stick. Let them use their swords to deflect the evil wizard's death rays. Let them make their shield bounce on4 different enemies a la Captain America. Let them climb their giant enemies to slit their throats.
This is the kind of awesome stuff I want to see Fighter do.
Mundane is not the same as ordinary. Fighters shouldn't have magical powers, but they should be as fantastic as their spell-casting friends.
I'm not dipping into archetypes because honestly I don't know that much about Fighter/Paladin archetypes.
I do know none of the Barbarian's make him any better at anything but straight up murdering people.
Ranger's archetypes though...I could easily see a Ranger only party doing very, VERY well because of the myriad abilities to be gained from things like Freebooter and Infiltrator and stuff. Still would have some issues with certain things but overall might be a solid party.
I disagree that Whirlwhind Attack is anything like a decent crowd control though. Disregarding that it's got a hefty feat tax on it, it's just not very good overall. You're getting one hit on a bunch of enemies...in theory, if they're surrounding you within attacking distance (in which case you're in for a WORLD of hurt if you don't knock down/take out a good portion of them) and it's nowhere near as effective as something like Entangle or even something like Fireball since instead of "Everyone make a Reflex save to take half damage" it's "I hope I hit every one of these guy's AC or they take none".
90% of all Fighter/Paladin archetypes are a bad deal, doubly so for an all-martial party. Most of them are only really decent if you have a spare member (5+ party, I mean) and someone wants to do something funky.
Rangers could be great alone, and even without Archetypes - they can all sneak well together, engage at long range with bows until enemies get close, a few run around with wands, a few buff UMD - it could work better than most martial classes.
I complete agree with you on Whirlwind attack - not only do you have to hit them all, use a full-round, and have the feat tax, but you ALSO have to down them or else it really did nothing. "I'm surrounded by eight enemies! Whirlwind Attack!" {Resolves} "I'm still surrounded by eight enemies!" It's only useful if your DM puts in pushover fights (I do occasionally) with several lesser enemies. Fights on your level will either have only a few decent enemies (where a full attack is likely more useful) or one or two CR guys where whirlwind attack lacks a use.
Wizards have options, but they have to invest gold to utilize those options.
and gold isn't always replaceable. even if you handwave material components as a gold cost, that is still gold the caster isn't spending on gear.
the craft feats, the discount doesn't provide as big a bonus as it would seem. just a few extra +1s across the board and a handful of extra pearls. consumables and material components. the pearls and consumables are there to stretch a caster's resources.
those scribed scrolls of fly? the wizard made those to use for their martial allies in case of emergency
those animated skeletons? they are there to set off the traps so that the fighter and rogue don't take as much damage with seeking them, and to save time.
that heroism spell? it is too beef up the rogues trap disabling rolls for disabling the device located by the sacrifice of the animated skeleton.
the wand of lesser restoration? the paladin made that to help the party, not merely himself.
that potion of stoneskin? the summoner made that so the fighter can last a little longer.
the best wizard is not one who tries to outshine the party, but one who augments the party.
a well placed buff or few on an ally or several is a lot stronger than a simple fireball in most cases.
the smart way to play a wizard is as follows
prepare spells that augment your party's primary niches, such as haste for a mostly martial party for example
find a recreational use for your standard action that helps the party. a good example is readying a CL5th wand of magic missile to interrupt an enemy spell
use your spells to help your allies in place of yourself.
debuffing enemies technically enhances allies by proxy, so slow is fair game. as is finding ways to reduce enemy actions. daze is a good friend
a summoned monster can be a great way to reduce damage done to the party, but at the same time, it detracts the fun from the martials and the trapfinder. use these in emergencies.
The main thing you need to understand is that you can't do it all, period. You can't always do X if you want to play Y but at the same time you can add on extra to actually do X at times. Want a fighter to fly, then you get some boots of flying, a flying mount or hell even a magic carpet he can ride on. For some reason some of you just want a class to actually have everything as a class ability. What's the difference between a fighter who has boots of flying and a Wizard who has memorized fly...I could make an entire balanced party with just the Oracle class, just Bard or just Cleric, possibly with another caster or two. I could not do the same with anything that does not have casting.
My problem with the non-casting classes has nothing to do with effectiveness in the role they are desired for and everything to do with effectiveness outside of that role. Whenever I look at a fighter build, for example, I marvel at its sheer power in combat, then throw it away when I look at what else I can do (spoiler: not a whole lot). No matter how much I want to be able to play a guy who is just a fighter, I can't help but be disappointed that he will not fly, he will not teleport, he will not transform into a hulking large-sized monstrosity, etc. Those types of tricks are way more fun to me than another +1 to attack and damage even if that's largely what they end up being.
So, instead of playing those martial classes, I play the classes like Bard or Oracle that can do martial combat very well (though not as well as the martial character), but can also do several other things very well (which the martial character cannot).
Some people like having the steroid-infused berserker type, and these classes do well enough for that, but I can't help but feel that the game would be better served overall by having those classes tone down the "+1 to attack" class features a smidgen and replace them with a handful of fun new tricks, even if the net effect of those tricks is largely the same.
Two years back we were into the second book of runelords, the investigation. A new guy came in and I made a fighter for him that was more an investigator than a fighter. He also didn't fight like a crude orc, he was all about restraining.
Problem is, martials are bound to a notion of "realism" that unfairly restricts them in a game where gargantuan lizards fly around breathing fire and kidnapping princesses. Oh, and they don't even need magic to fly.I disagree here. I think the problem is not "realism", there is no reason for a fighter or a cavalier (or a ranger for the matter) to have spellcasting abilities nor it should be.
I think the solution to this kind of problem is to add more mundane and "realist" combat options.
For example instead of adding fly speed to the fighter let him strike the wing´s of the enemies to bring they down. And, of course this should not cost a feat.
You misunderstand me, Nicos, I do not mean that Fighters should have Supernatural powers. But that their mundane abilities should still be fantastic.
Let them trip Gargantuan creatures if they have enough CMB. Let them charge through difficult terrain. Let them jump 30ft in the air while donning a full plate. Let them use their OMGWTFBBQ combat prowess to hurt incorporeal enemies even if they are simply armed with a regular stick. Let them use their swords to deflect the evil wizard's death rays. Let them make their shield bounce on4 different enemies a la Captain America. Let them climb their giant enemies to slit their throats.
This is the kind of awesome stuff I want to see Fighter do.
Mundane is not the same as ordinary. Fighters shouldn't have magical powers, but they should be as fantastic as their spell-casting friends.
Agreed! It annoys how bland these melee heroes can sometimes be. One reason that I allow the 20 20 insta-kill is so that melee or ranged can have a chance at a masterful perfect cut, bash, stab or shot.
Fighters definitely need the deflect breath weapon with shield.
Pf and yes 3.5, sometimes is half realistic (here is your armour penalty) but there is so much cool stuff from martial arts and legend that is not in the game. There was a variant deflect arrows feat in 3.5, to simulate the arrow cutter heroes of myth, more of that I say!
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Options.What exactly does the fighter lack again?I'm personally very happy with Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers, and Wizards just in the core rules. I find that these parties are balanced enough to make me happy. That only leaves Fighter, Monk, and Rogue lacking.
Whatever your personal preferences are is by your choice so we aren't arguing about that. What you like is what you like.
Now, where we are going to argue is your reasoning you gave. Now if you had said the fighter doesn't present the right kind of options for you then I would have it let go but you are trying to misrepresent the class by stating it lacks options which is untrue and has been proven to you time and time again.
Ever heard the expression "if you throw enough mud at the wall some of it will eventually stick"? Well that's what you keep doing with the fighter argument. You say that a fighter can't do A and someone comes and shows you that they can, then you move on to B and they show you it can etc... Eventually you may find something the class can't do so you tell us "see, I told you the class is lacking".
You tend to ignore facts just to validate your argument.
You can do a hell of a lot with fighters though, but not everything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With fighters, the good thing about them is they can specialize in multiple aspects of combat. You want to make a fighter which can hit hard, has good ac for their level, great at a particular combat manoeuver, high initiative? They can do it. Or instead of the high initiative, make them great at cutting down unseen opponents in base with them? Also very much achievable. Or instead of that, you want to make them great at interrupting spellcasters, even those with total concealment. Seen it done. That fighter actually beat a wizard above his level one on one and the fighter wasn't rolling incredibly well. The point is that they can do so much. However, based on what feats, skills and ability scores you choose to improve and neglect will determine what they can and can't do. The same goes for casters except it also includes the selection of spells you chose for them to know. Situational factors also come into play for everyone regardless of their class. I've yet to see a well made fighter who had trouble contributing to a game in more than just one aspect.
Archer grappler fighter
Reach weapon iron will fighter
Light weapon, buckler and throwing high ac fighter
Diplomat disarming fighter
Weapon spec feinting master bluff and gambler fighter
Arrow deflecting brawler that breaks out the two handed exotic for the big foes fighter
High initiative unseen (stealth) bodyguard (sense motive) fighter (use those traits).
Orcish master of throwing weapons and using furniture to kill somebody fighter (also make him a carpenter).
Fitness junky, ultra high fort and hp fighter
Fast light raider, hard to kill (die-hard) fighter
Sailor acrobat fighter
Crossbowman, shield-block master and architect fighter