|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not understanding this argument when it's being used such as in the fighter problem thread. If you really want to go down that route then you could say the Cleric is actually a better spellcaster because he gets to wear armor, his spells can harm, heal, bring back the dead, utility and everything in between, let's not forget domains and Channel Healing.
That's not what it's about though, it's more about concept and what you like to play. Sure you have some people that go for what's statistically better but in reality, that only gets you so far, especially when you have DMs who don't run APs. Classes vary in their usefulness depending on the situation and even depending on the DM.
Using this argument is basically just throwing around an opinion like it's a fact which it isn't. If the fighter is such a bad class then how come people still play it? How come the vast majority of players only ever choose a certain handful of classes becaus of their supposed superiority?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen that used more for the "Rogue sucks" arguments and I hated it. It usually boils down to "Class A can do this better than the rogue, class B can do this better than the rogue, and Class C can do this better than the rogue." The Rogue can do all of those and he doesn't even need to cast magic to do it.
I'm with you, brother. These classes are designed around a singular archetype. The Fighter is the gritty soldier. If you want to make a gritty soldier, there is no better class. The Rogue is the, well, rogue. If you want to be a dirty fighting, backstabbing, thieving sonuvab!&$$, the Rogue is right for you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not understanding this argument when it's being used such as in the fighter problem thread. If you really want to go down that route then you could say the Cleric is actually a better spellcaster because he gets to wear armor, his spells can harm, heal, bring back the dead, utility and everything in between, let's not forget domains and Channel Healing.
Better caster than who? If you're going to toss out a random argument at least complete the thought.
That's not what it's about though, it's more about concept and what you like to play. Sure you have some people that go for what's statistically better but in reality, that only gets you so far, especially when you have DMs who don't run APs. Classes vary in their usefulness depending on the situation and even depending on the DM.
They do, but there are a handful of classes that are statistically worse than any other class in a given situation. Rogue is one of these. Well, scratch that, Rogue is the only one. The other two "lagging" classes (Fighter and Monk IMO) are better than a few classes in a few areas, just not enough to offset that outside their niche, they're not very useful, whereas the class that has a niche and can still branch out of it is going to be more consistently useful.
Using this argument is basically just throwing around an opinion like it's a fact which it isn't. If the fighter is such a bad class then how come people still play it? How come the vast majority of players only ever choose a certain handful of classes because of their supposed superiority?
Because regardless of something's relative power, it can still be fun to play. The mid tier characters in fighting games, for example, are often more fun to me than the top tier characters. That doesn't change the fact that those characters are worse than the top tier (due to being slower, easily interruptable, or just being one-trick ponies), but you can still have fun playing them. But you still think it'd be cool if they tweaked this one move to be a leeetle faster or increased their reach a leeetle more to bump them up that last leg.
Hell, my favorite Pathfinder class is Monk and I actually really enjoy building Fighters (and suspect I'd have fun playing one if I ever got into a game that didn't need another fighty guy), but they are still worse than other classes. They require more investment to be as effective as another class, and saying "Well they're thematically cool" doesn't mean jack since you can always theme/flavor pretty much anything any way you like.
I've seen that used more for the "Rogue sucks" arguments and I hated it. It usually boils down to "Class A can do this better than the rogue, class B can do this better than the rogue, and Class C can do this better than the rogue." The Rogue can do all of those and he doesn't even need to cast magic to do it.
I still have yet to see a single thing a Rogue can do besides disable magical traps (which even some archetypes can do now) that any other class couldn't. Just look at the Ranger. Two less skills per level, but full BaB and bigger hit dice (hits more often and can take a hit harder), can easily be made into a "Rogue" by taking Disable Device and getting a bit crafty with magical traps (or taking the Trapper archetype), can still be a solid skill monkey, and has a whole load of extra goodies Rogue doesn't get. The Bard steals his thunder almost as much with bardic Performance and spells, and Versatile Performance make shim more of a skill monkey than any Rogue that doesn't have Int as his primary stat. Rogue seriously has NOTHING going for it, even in Core, except Trapfinding which is only useful about 10% of the time anyway.
I can make a "sneaky backstabbing sonuvab!%$#" with any class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These arguments, especially those about the rogue, tell me not that Class X needs improvement, but that all the rest of the classes have had too much added to them.
Want to play a fighter that casts spells? Alternate between Fighter and Wizard.
Want to play a character that hunts down enemies of the faith? Play a Cleric and roleplay hunting down enemies of the faith.
Want to play an old west gunslinger? Play Boothill.
I understand that Paizo needs to keep producing new stuff to stay in business, but they need to keep in mind that adding new things just to add new things is not always a good idea.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Neither is 'Keeping to the old things' just because ;-)
Or would you consider 'Go, play OD&D' a valid suggestion?
Seriously: No one forces you to use all Base/Prestige Classes, all archetypes or really any options there are. But including those options makes the game richer for those who those who do want to use them. Not everyon wants to play Pathfinder in Golarion or a similar vanilla fantasy world. For example: Steam Punk and Western influenced campaigns are part of D&D for quite some time now, so the Gunslinger is a pretty valid addition for those who play these games.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look man you post a variation of this argument with slightly different class or phrasing close to once a week. Lets break it down
1. Mechanically the rogue and fighter are probably the weakest class.
You forgot the monk.
2 this doesn't mean they have no flair-people.don't like to play them-or that someone with a high degree of system mastery cant make one that works.
Agreed.
What I find is that what matters is neither flair, flavour, or power: it's spotlight time.
What I mean by "spotlight time" is that when it's your turn to act, you can do your thing and do it well. Fighters may be mechanically weak in many ways, but when the crunch comes they are there to get close and dish out the hurt, and they do it well. As long as the fighter gets to splatter an encounter or two a day, and the player is happy with that, great. He's got as much time in the spotlight as any other character.
The same with the rogue. There are other classes that can scout and do other stuff as well, but the rogue can claim to be best at trap-springing and getting the drop on enemies. He has a role and he can do it well.
Do I think the rogue and fighter could be improved? Sure. I would say fighters could do with a few more skill ranks a level, and the rogue could do with kicking off with a rogue talent at the very least (I won't even go there with monks - they need entire threads of their own).
But essentially as long as everyone gets in on the action, and has a chance to shine, then it's all good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate the concept of 'Spotlight time'.
The only time there should be a spotlight in play is when the TEAM is dividing up treasure at the end after the TEAM victory.
Neither is 'Keeping to the old things' just because ;-)
Or would you consider 'Go, play OD&D' a valid suggestion?
Seriously: No one forces you to use all Base/Prestige Classes, all archetypes or really any options there are. But including those options makes the game richer for those who those who do want to use them. Not everyon wants to play Pathfinder in Golarion or a similar vanilla fantasy world. For example: Steam Punk and Western influenced campaigns are part of D&D for quite some time now, so the Gunslinger is a pretty valid addition for those who play these games.
I'm not saying just keep the old things. I'm saying don't add things just to add things which is completely different.
Soon we are going to get a class, call it Swashbuckler, and he will have a BAB of 5/4, 3/2 if in light or no armor. With two feats every level, and on and on.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not what it's about though, it's more about concept and what you like to play.
When you say stuff like this, I know you're being disingenuous.
Of course people will play what they like to play. That's exactly why it's totally unfair that what some people like to play is objectively weaker than what some other people like to play.
I know from other posts you've made that you like playing wizards. You are constantly trying to claim wizards aren't great, but they objectively are. I suspect that you are worried that if it is ever just accepted fact that wizards are tied for the best class in the game, you'll look like a power-gaming douche for liking them so much.
Either that, or something more sinister: if it is ever accepted fact that Fighters/Rogues/Monks are weaker than everyone else, the people in your party will stop playing them and you won't get to be the strongest character in the party all the time anymore.
Anyway, pointing out the flaws in things is intended to make those things better. People do enjoy playing Fighters and Rogues (I do, for example), and it's not fair to those people for those classes that they enjoy to be weak.
It got a lot of sense. I have a group of six, so 1 master and 5 players. This means that we have a lot of different classes in game.
Bard is better than rogue in all things rougue should be specialist, plus buff and spells (rogue damage output is not so much better than a combat oriented bard, and is this only because bard buff him).
Inquisitor, druid can do more damage, can scout, and have a lot of spell and different powers.
Want to speak about ST? No, i don't understand this "X is better than Y" but only if we are not speaking about something in wich Y should be a specialist. Fortunatly i found here a good rogue rework that i'm using in my campaign, and i have already fixed some minor issue of other classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes I feel like people who complain about the fighter have never actually played a fighter. I love my fighter; 21 feats over 20 levels (22 if you're human) is nothing to scoff at.
A fighter might not get much that is unique to him, but he overwhelmingly outclasses every other class in the game in how many different strategies he can plan for. If you're going for DPR feats only, you're doing it wrong. You should be stocking up on other things too like combat maneuvers and the like. Because in the long run, you can do these combat maneuvers that will save your life at will while the aforementioned cleric can do them once per instance she prepared the correct spell.
Look up feats like Combat Patrol, Combat Reflexes, and Stand Still. Might be some of the nastiest combos of feats I have EVER seen. Use your attacks of opportunity to perform an Improved Trip and you can lock down huge swaths of territory by yourself.
|
I've seen that used more for the "Rogue sucks" arguments and I hated it. It usually boils down to "Class A can do this better than the rogue, class B can do this better than the rogue, and Class C can do this better than the rogue." The Rogue can do all of those and he doesn't even need to cast magic to do it.
I'm with you, brother. These classes are designed around a singular archetype. The Fighter is the gritty soldier. If you want to make a gritty soldier, there is no better class. The Rogue is the, well, rogue. If you want to be a dirty fighting, backstabbing, thieving sonuvab~+%*, the Rogue is right for you.
when I want to dirty fight I play a vivisectionist/wizard arcane trixter but that's just me. Other than that I agree with everything you said, I miss when the bard could do thief stuff.
|
|
Neither is 'Keeping to the old things' just because ;-)
Or would you consider 'Go, play OD&D' a valid suggestion?
Seriously: No one forces you to use all Base/Prestige Classes, all archetypes or really any options there are. But including those options makes the game richer for those who those who do want to use them. Not everyon wants to play Pathfinder in Golarion or a similar vanilla fantasy world. For example: Steam Punk and Western influenced campaigns are part of D&D for quite some time now, so the Gunslinger is a pretty valid addition for those who play these games.
I'm not saying just keep the old things. I'm saying don't add things just to add things which is completely different.
Soon we are going to get a class, call it Swashbuckler, and he will have a BAB of 5/4, 3/2 if in light or no armor. With two feats every level, and on and on.
And your gunslinger comment that read like 'those who want to play gunslingers should not play pathfinder anyway' made 'just to add things' look like 'which I dislike'to me.
That is what I meant. The new classes are quite useful to many players, including me - some more, some less, depending on personal taste. Thus they weren't just added to add, but because there was a demand, even if you don't share that demand.
P.S. Edited because my post read more grumpy then I intended - I mean not to dismiss your opinion nor to attack you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually going to call this the "Leap Frog Fallacy" because what ends up happening is each class would have to be made better than another to get anywhere. If you make the roguebetter then where does the Bard stand, if you make tthe fighter even better then where does the barbarian, ranger and paladin stand. You would have these classes jumping over one another in terms of power if that is the route we are trying to go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Soon we are going to get a class, call it Swashbuckler, and he will have a BAB of 5/4, 3/2 if in light or no armor. With two feats every level, and on and on.
Yeah that'd totally be weird...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually going to call this the "Leap Frog Fallacy" because what ends up happening is each class would have to be made better than another to get anywhere. If you make the roguebetter then where does the Bard stand, if you make tthe fighter even better then where does the barbarian, ranger and paladin stand. You would have these classes jumping over one another in terms of power if that is the route we are trying to go.
"If we ever tried to fix anything we might screw it up, may as well say who cares and let the rogues burn instead."
|
|
I'm actually going to call this the "Leap Frog Fallacy" because what ends up happening is each class would have to be made better than another to get anywhere. If you make the roguebetter then where does the Bard stand, if you make tthe fighter even better then where does the barbarian, ranger and paladin stand. You would have these classes jumping over one another in terms of power if that is the route we are trying to go."If we ever tried to fix anything we might screw it up, may as well say who cares and let the rogues burn instead."
The only thing the rogue needs is more rogue talents. A big book of rogue talents would be fantastic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gunslingers have a problem of yes they are powerful, but they are expensive, espically at low levels.Being expensive is part of what balances the class. How far are you going to get having eight arms with a gun in each hand but only enough money to buy ammo for one?
Cost should have been the balancing factor. But no people still freaked so now we have a full BaB class whose signature weapon has slower reload than a crossbow, the same range as a thrown weapon, and not the ability to critically fail but a better chance at a crit fail than it has of critting. All for what 10-40 ( or as I call it get eaten range) for touch attacks that we can expand x times a day with our limited grit points.
I hate the concept of 'Spotlight time'.
The only time there should be a spotlight in play is when the TEAM is dividing up treasure at the end after the TEAM victory.
I suspect we have a different interpretation of 'spotlight time'. What I mean is that in every adventure, each character should have the opportunity to shine and contribute. This does not mean they are not acting as part of the team, or that the action should be focussed all on them. What I mean is that everyone should have the option of doing something cool, the option of contributing, in every adventure.
There will be times when they can't do much, there will be times when sucky rolls will detract from their fun, but they should at least have a chance of doing something that everyone can agree was of benefit to the team.
Only if your character is basically a sink for xp and loot without ever doing much to earn it is there a problem.
Neither is 'Keeping to the old things' just because ;-)
Or would you consider 'Go, play OD&D' a valid suggestion?
Seriously: No one forces you to use all Base/Prestige Classes, all archetypes or really any options there are. But including those options makes the game richer for those who those who do want to use them. Not everyon wants to play Pathfinder in Golarion or a similar vanilla fantasy world. For example: Steam Punk and Western influenced campaigns are part of D&D for quite some time now, so the Gunslinger is a pretty valid addition for those who play these games.
I'm not saying just keep the old things. I'm saying don't add things just to add things which is completely different.
Soon we are going to get a class, call it Swashbuckler, and he will have a BAB of 5/4, 3/2 if in light or no armor. With two feats every level, and on and on.
And your gunslinger comment that read like 'those who want to play gunslingers should not play pathfinder anyway' made 'just to add things' look like 'which I dislike'to me.
That is what I meant. The new classes are quite useful to many players, including me - some more, some less, depending on personal taste. Thus they weren't just added to add, but because there was a demand, even if you don't share that demand.
P.S. Edited because my post read more grumpy then I intended - I mean not to dismiss your opinion nor to attack you.
I admit in my personal opinion, guns and gunpowder weapons don't have a place in fantasy. The same with androids, lasers, computers, etc.
It's not just the adding just to add, but the lack of looking at balance. For example, with the Magus; we'll give the Magus the ability to both cast a spell and attack in the same round, with no penalty on his casting, and only a -2 on his melee attack.
The magus has a casting penalty of being in melee and thus either provoking or casting defensively. Now there are ways around this ( cast 5ft step attack comes to mind) but on the whole it's still a penalty. In fact it's about as hampering as a -2 on the attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit in my personal opinion, guns and gunpowder weapons don't have a place in fantasy. The same with androids, lasers, computers, etc.
It's not just the adding just to add, but the lack of looking at balance. For example, with the Magus; we'll give the Magus the ability to both cast a spell and attack in the same round, with no penalty on his casting, and only a -2 on his melee attack.
Interestingly Paizo disagrees because Golarion has all of those (in certain regions of its' world).
OD&D, 1 AD&D, FR 3.0/5 D&D, etc all had those too. Expedition to Barrier Peaks, Gond, etc means they all existed in D&D culture.
I'm actually going to call this the "Leap Frog Fallacy" because what ends up happening is each class would have to be made better than another to get anywhere. If you make the roguebetter then where does the Bard stand, if you make tthe fighter even better then where does the barbarian, ranger and paladin stand. You would have these classes jumping over one another in terms of power if that is the route we are trying to go.
If you make the Rogue better the Bard still stands as a 6 level caster and an amazing Buffer/Face class, unless you think the only option for improving Rogue is to make him exactly like the Bard.
If you make the Fighter better in his weak spot, he would stand directly next to the Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger instead of a few feet behind them.
It's not just the adding just to add, but the lack of looking at balance. For example, with the Magus; we'll give the Magus the ability to both cast a spell and attack in the same round, with no penalty on his casting, and only a -2 on his melee attack.
He can cast a very specific kind of spell (melee touch attack), which he seems to have a surprising few of, which requires him to be in melee combat with a -2 to-hit, 3/4 BaB, d8 hit dice, and light armor for a good chunk of the game. Sounds balanced to me.
The only thing the rogue needs is more rogue talents. A big book of rogue talents would be fantastic.
While a big book of Rogue Talents might be neat, they may want to focus on making a lot of the ones that already exist not suck so they don't make the same mistake with the Big Book of Rogue Stuff.
I know from other posts you've made that you like playing wizards. You are constantly trying to claim wizards aren't great, but they objectively are. I suspect that you are worried that if it is ever just accepted fact that wizards are tied for the best class in the game, you'll look like a power-gaming douche for liking them so much.
Either that, or something more sinister: if it is ever accepted fact that Fighters/Rogues/Monks are weaker than everyone else, the people in your party will stop playing them and you won't get to be the strongest character in the party all the time anymore.
If you're right, and I don't know that you are, I imagine the bigger fear is that wizards will get defanged and/or martials will get buffed.
Either way, it's silly. This isn't a zero-sum game.
Opinion:
The fighter is great. Oodles of feats IS a class feature. I would just add 2 skill points/level (I like skilled characters) or have a fighter bonus feat (extra skilled), but is otherwise just fine.
That IS an archetype. Its called the tactician. Among its pieces of beauty include A) trading your first feat for more skill points, a few extra class skills, and the ability to take Skill Focus and Teamwork feats with your Fighter Bonus Feats and B) the ability to trade Bravery for a bonus to initiative.
Its a superbly fun archetype.
Opinion:
The fighter is great. Oodles of feats IS a class feature. I would just add 2 skill points/level (I like skilled characters) or have a fighter bonus feat (extra skilled), but is otherwise just fine.
That IS an archetype. Its called the tactician. Among its pieces of beauty include A) trading your first feat for more skill points, a few extra class skills, and the ability to take Skill Focus and Teamwork feats with your Fighter Bonus Feats and B) the ability to trade Bravery for a bonus to initiative.
Its a superbly fun archetype.
Here's a fun exercise: compare a first-level Tactician to a first-level Cavalier.
Here's another fun exercise: look at Tactician and see at what level it first gains an ability that keys off Int.
That is actually a pretty cool archetype.
If it were the base class, it would be wonderful (though I could do without the actual Tactician ability and just have Weapon/Armor training again).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is extremely relevant to Vod Canockers' rather dismissive commentary.
On the main subject.
Player 1 is playing a Ranger.
Player 2 is playing a Bard.
Player 3 is playing a Wizard.
Player 4 is playing an Adept.
One of these is not like the other. Most can clearly see that player 4 is getting the short stick because s/he is playing an NPC class which is by design poorer and less impressive than the other classes. Perhaps the player wished to play a hedge-magician type with a familiar with a smattering of both archetypal arcane and divine spells (which the adept does fit conceptually) and yet it's mechanically inferior to its peers where other classes would be more useful.
Replace Adept with Rogue or Fighter and you get much the same problem. Except rogue and fighter actually have less things that are unique and flavorful than the adept. Yet the point remains, people shouldn't be holed into a less powerful class for desiring a certain flavor of roleplay. That is counter-productive. It is punishing to those who want to play a certain flavor.
Most of us who recommend class A over class B do so because class A can achieve the same as class B while being overall more useful and/or better. We do so to keep others from falling into traps. We do so because it's better to pick a class that actually will deliver for you rather than finding out in 5-6 levels that you made a mistake or are getting steamrolled by general challenges.
Sometimes I feel like people who complain about the fighter have never actually played a fighter. I love my fighter; 21 feats over 20 levels (22 if you're human) is nothing to scoff at.
I complain about the fighter, and I also have played a fighter in a weekly game since 2009.
I'm just not understanding the whole "Class A can do X better than class B" argument.
Really? It is a super simple statement. What do you not understand about it? Your OP has left me a bit confused about what exactly it is that you are seeking to better comprehend.
I'm not understanding this argument when it's being used such as in the fighter problem thread. If you really want to go down that route then you could say the Cleric is actually a better spellcaster because he gets to wear armor, his spells can harm, heal, bring back the dead, utility and everything in between, let's not forget domains and Channel Healing.
That's not what it's about though, it's more about concept and what you like to play. Sure you have some people that go for what's statistically better but in reality, that only gets you so far, especially when you have DMs who don't run APs. Classes vary in their usefulness depending on the situation and even depending on the DM.
Using this argument is basically just throwing around an opinion like it's a fact which it isn't. If the fighter is such a bad class then how come people still play it? How come the vast majority of players only ever choose a certain handful of classes becaus of their supposed superiority?
Schroedinger's Wizard is better than your characters, including your Wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Schroedinger's Wizard is better than your characters, including your Wizards.
Not really as Schroedinger is neither alive nor dead till he gets out of his Imprisoned status. So you can't play him.
You can play his cat, but he died long ago.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes I feel like people who complain about the fighter have never actually played a fighter. I love my fighter; 21 feats over 20 levels (22 if you're human) is nothing to scoff at.
Actually, it kind of is. Feats are not as strong as class features, and deliberately so. Why else do you think every Barbarian spends half their feats on Extra Rage Power? Why every Oracle spends half their feats on Extra Revelation? There are a tiny number of feats that a truly great (Power Attack or the "standard archery array" for example), and everything else is second-class.
The sole exception here are Rogue Talents--they are widely panned because the best thing you can do with them, usually, is get a feat instead.
So, a class that gets a feat every other level is getting less than a class that is getting an actual class feature every other level.
Gunslingers have a problem of yes they are powerful, but they are expensive, espically at low levels.
Emphasis mine. Whoah, when did that happen? Last I checked, Gunslingers were a pretty low tier class, down their with Cavaliers. The name of the power game is "magic," and Gunslingers don't get any, so they're not "powerful."
Opinion:
Admittedly the rogue got the short end of the stick and most of it's archetype variants get rid of Trapfinding, which is one of the main reasons to have a rogue.
No, the short end of the stick is that Trapfinding is crappy and mostly pointless, so if it's the reason to have a rogue, there is no reason to have a rogue.
This being said, the only thing I notice that people seem to complain about the most is damage output.
Who the heck plays a rogue for damage output? That's not his focal point. It's stealth.
First of all, the vast majority of rogue players play a Rogue for damage output, because they see all those d6s and drool. Plus, they're taught by literally every game ever other than AD&D that rogues are the damage dealers, while warrior-types are the tanks.
Second, the Rogue sucks at stealth. Invisibility and Silence win the stealth game and they get neither. The skill Stealth is not unique--anyone can have it--and just about every other "skill class" can be a better Stealther than a rogue can.
The fighter is great. Oodles of feats IS a class feature.
Oodles of feats is a weak class feature because feats are weaker than normal class features.
The magus has a casting penalty of being in melee and thus either provoking or casting defensively. Now there are ways around this ( cast 5ft step attack comes to mind) but on the whole it's still a penalty. In fact it's about as hampering as a -2 on the attack.
And the Wizard, and the Sorceror, and the Cleric etc. all have the same provoking or casting defensively if they cast within melee range, yet none can also melee attack at the same time. Nor do any of them have a way to gain this.
And the Wizard, and the Sorceror, and the Cleric etc. all have the same provoking or casting defensively if they cast within melee range, yet none can also melee attack at the same time. Nor do any of them have a way to gain this.
Note that the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Cleric have a much larger and more versatile spell list to pick from than the Magus, as well as a few other goodies to make them what they are: Dedicated casters, not a half-and-half mix of damaging spell caster (generally seen as the worst kind) and mediocre (3/4 BaB, d8 hit dice) melee combatant.
It boggles my mind how anybody could possibly think the Magus were overpowered unless that was the only caster they'd ever seen in action.
And the Wizard, and the Sorceror, and the Cleric etc. all have the same provoking or casting defensively if they cast within melee range, yet none can also melee attack at the same time. Nor do any of them have a way to gain this.Note that the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Cleric have a much larger and more versatile spell list to pick from than the Magus, as well as a few other goodies to make them what they are: Dedicated casters, not a half-and-half mix of damaging spell caster (generally seen as the worst kind) and mediocre (3/4 BaB, d8 hit dice) melee combatant.
It boggles my mind how anybody could possibly think the Magus were overpowered unless that was the only caster they'd ever seen in action.
I have a friend playing a Magus in PFS, by the time he hit 3rd level, he realized that he would never let anyone play it in a home game because he found it that broken.
|
|
Or would you consider 'Go, play OD&D' a valid suggestion?Swords & Wizardry and dozens of other retro-clones make this a perfectly valid alternative, and one the quite a few people are playing these days.
And yet, I see no need to tell somebody 'Go, play XY', just because he is looking for a cerain character concept or the lack of a certain class.