Meanwhile, a 6th level Wizard can cast Stinking Cloud with no prior Feat investment or specific weapon choice and do the same thing...
If he knows the spell and doesn't mind tying up a significant part of his limited use resources. Great if he has it, zero if he doesn't.
Meanwhile, a 6th level Wizard can cast Stinking Cloud with no prior Feat investment or specific weapon choice and do the same thing...If he knows the spell and doesn't mind tying up a significant part of his limited use resources. Great if he has it, zero if he doesn't.
Possibly ending the battle in a single spell sounds like a good use of my resources. I have what, 3 of those?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to say when i first read "fighter spells" i hated it, i play a fighter to be the mundane hero, but when you put it like this i love it brother! I would love to see some kind of system that does that, as long as there within the realm of possibility like that idea.
I just want to say when i first read "fighter spells" i hated it, i play a fighter to be the mundane hero, but when you put it like this i love it brother! I would love to see some kind of system that does that, as long as there within the realm of possibility like that idea.We have that.
And they made it awesome.
If he knows the spell and doesn't mind tying up a significant part of his limited use resources. Great if he has it, zero if he doesn't.
Meanwhile, a 6th level Wizard can cast Stinking Cloud with no prior Feat investment or specific weapon choice and do the same thing...
If he knows the Feat and the ones that let him use it as a pseudo-AoE (thus tying up a significant part of his finite number of allocatable resources that can't be renewed/changed every day).
Great if he has them, zero if he doesn't.
|
Don't give me that "I thought I explained it already" nonsense. You know what I meant.
I disagree with you. Your explanation was not satisfactory. Whatever other words you would like to put here.
No, I really didn't know what you meant. I did give many reasons, and then in the very next post you ask for reasons why? If you are disagreeing with what I suggested, that is one thing, and that's just fine. I meant it as constructive criticism towards Kirth, and that's just my opinion.
You said that they were less likely to hit...and then jumped to the conclusion that because each hit was less likely to hit, giving them a bigger advantage with the Daze effect than what they give up.
The only way I see that logic working is if you're convinced that later hits rarely connect.
Okay? I don't agree, and I'm not really trying to convince you. No offense, but I've seen way, way too many "until you prove it to me to my satisfaction, by my rules, the world is just going to assume you are wrong" discussions.
It's still less powerful than a spell that's able to be gotten at the same level. Without a very specific build it only affects one target. Even WITH that specific build, it has about half the radius and 1/4 of the duration of a spell (Stinking Cloud) that can also be taken at that level. Which can also be cast from a safe distance as well. And affects the area for a duration so people coming in later can suffer the same effects with no additional usage of actions. And requires no attack roll.
I'm not seeing how it would be unbalanced. Unbalanced compared to the current dynamic of casters being able to do anything and martials being able to deal damage and occasionally do some combat maneuvers, certainly. But not unbalanced as a whole.
I don't think it is less powerful at all, but probably even more powerful. Like I've said, the fact that said caster can only pull that trick out a few times at most is a huge difference. If the spell fails, if the enemy makes the save (and not that most spells allow a save every round if they last longer than one round), if the caster misses, or whatever, then the spell is gone. Zero affect. he Fighter, can just try it again, round after round. If the enemy makes the save, well they still take full damage, so the only thing that the Fighter really gave up was the possibility of landing another hit or two, pretty much at most. They don't lose the Feat for the rest of the day, they don't provoke for attempting it, they really didn't give up anything at all.
I think you are also viewing this through Schrödinger's Wizard PoV. If a character had a reasonable chance to shut one or more enemies down, at will, and also deal damage, not even talking particular builds here, what Fighter wouldn't jump on this? Seriously? Not to mention that it is clearly better to not only damage the enemy, but at the same time prevent them from taking any actions at all, for a full turn, more on a crit, (which is unclear), than to 5ft step and Full Attack. It basically a Standard Action Coup des Grace that can be done on an AoO, just might take a round or 2, but you don't need to worry about being in much danger.
If he knows the Feat and the ones that let him use it as a pseudo-AoE (thus tying up a significant part of his finite number of allocatable resources that can't be renewed/changed every day).
Great if he has them, zero if he doesn't.
Dazing Strike does not require any other Feats. It specifies it an be used as either a Standard Action or as an AoO.
The entire argument against it so far has been a Reach weapon Whirlwind Attack/AoO build.
That particular build requires at least 5 Feats (Dodge, Mobility, Combat Expertise, Spring Attack, and Whirlwind Attack) and will likely want Combat Reflexes.
To take advantage of the Combat Reflexes in an AoO build you need a high Dex, which will drop your damage without a specific kind of magic weapon.
In short, I think you're viewing this from the corollary to Schroedinger's Wizard: Schroedinger's Fighter, who beats the Wizard because he always has the right Feats to kill said Wizard and always wins Initiative.
And if you're saying that an ability that grants a single target Daze at the cost of a full attack is OP...I don't know that we're playing the same game. Regardless of whether it can be used with AoOs or not.
I have never allowed Summoner or Gunslinger.
All the other classes I allow. The summoner just seems a completely complicated redundant class. And I play in FR without Guns.
Very complicated, and the Eidolon is stronger than the druid's animal companion, with more options and therefore OP and unbalanced.
Very complicated, and the Eidolon is stronger than the druid's animal companion, with more options and therefore OP and unbalanced.I have never allowed Summoner or Gunslinger.
All the other classes I allow. The summoner just seems a completely complicated redundant class. And I play in FR without Guns.
I'll stand by this, Summoner is not OP at all.
Play a character also playing a summoned powerful character who can summon more monsters to assist.
Eidolon's are overpowered b~!**&&+, see the number of attacks?
Play a character also playing a summoned powerful character who can summon more monsters to assist.
Eidolon's are overpowered b*$@!$~!, see the number of attacks?
Flurry of love-taps compared to a real martial. Then if the eidolon is out you are regulated to limiting summoning that any full-caster puts to shame, plus low DC spells with far less slots than a full-caster gets. Your spells known, a good chunk are devoted to the eidolon, are so much less than a sorcerer to not even be funny.
Summoners are powerful but by no stretch of the imagination OP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Play a character also playing a summoned powerful character who can summon more monsters to assist.
Summoners are limited to one Eidolon or one summon monster spell effective at a time, unless your a master summoner.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Master Summoner is my favorite AND won't have that annoying eidolon out.
Swarmed by mudkip, the dm kills the mudkip queen (with fire, or from orbit) and bans the class.
So yeah, not a summoner fan. It is pretty dodgy.
Swarmed by mudkip, the dm kills the mudkip queen (with fire, or from orbit) and bans the class.
So yeah, not a summoner fan. It is pretty dodgy.
Yeah you have to play the class well to prevent it from becoming annoying. It's defiantly not something you have your SO play for the first time after dragging them to a gaming session. If anything someone who's GM'd before is best equipped to play the class.
But bah, I've seen more combat lag come from wizards. Players playing a class they can't handle doesn't make the class OP or broken.
And if you think swarms of little stuff is OP, I present any full-caster. Master summoners have to use their summons to mimic all the spells they don't have. Not OP. Different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Swarmed by mudkip, the dm kills the mudkip queen (with fire, or from orbit) and bans the class.
So yeah, not a summoner fan. It is pretty dodgy.
Summoners, even Master Summoners, are still inferior to Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and Witches.
yeah, they have discounted spell levels on a lot of spells, but nowhere near the number of slots per day, and fewer spells known than a darned sorcerer. let alone a wizard.
and even though they can churn spells on their eidolon, that merely turns them into a glass cannon (Eidolon) with a portable healing battery (Summoner).
Eidolons make a lot of attacks, i know. but so does an archer, and an archer both has a better BAB, more Range, and a Similar Number of Attacks.
the archer also has a better time bypassing DR, better defenses, and fits into a dungeon a lot more easily.
Right now, too many racial options, archetypes, feats, traits (I've come to despise them with the strenght of a thousand fiery suns), silly races and spells, the option bloat already seen in the 3.X era. And the inevitable race to combos and bonus stacking.
But I'm still the DM and my veto is strong as ever, so the hassle is listing what's good and what's not. "I don't care, there are no dwarf-adopted feline humanoid gunslingers in my fantasy world. And there will never be".
Maybe DM right but that's boring TBH. My counter is "Why can't there be?" race combos and bonus stacking starts right out of the core. Are you going to say Elves can't be Wizards because they get a bump in INT?
More options are always preferred, and every race under 20 RP is pretty well balanced against any other race. Traits are nice little 'bumps' that aren't game breaking and make since for 'tweaking' a character and their history.
The full casters from core are still better than most of them.I wouldn't call it power creep, I'd call it making classes that are in line (Witch, Summoner, Oracle), if not a little weaker (Inquisitor, Magus, Alchemist) than the core classes, and anyone who says that the ninja/cavalier/samurai/anti-paladin are power creep needs to fix their point of reference...
...The problem is that you chose your comparison point to be the monk, whereas your comparison point when deciding on whether or not something is power creep should be the wizard/cleric/druid/sorcerer.
Agreed to a point because Inquisitors are fun and varied unlike stuck in the mud clerics, and Magus and Alchemist are fun classes too.
But yeah I haven't seen the power creep people yap about.
I like most of the classes Paizo has released. I don't understand the complaint that "you don't need these classes, you can make them from existing classes." First off, that's not 100% true, and second, we've always gone on the side of more options. You could argue that a fighter/rogue with wilderness skills could replace the ranger, but you don't get the exact flavor of the ranger.In 3.0 and 3.5 you would buy splatbooks and get a thousand prestige classes. You would want to play one, and build a character from level one with that prestige class in mind, hoping the campaign would last that long. In Pathfinder there are some prestige classes, but with the archetypes and new base classes you are much more likely to be able to play the character you want from the beginning. Instead of "first level fighter, next five wizard, eldritch knight, abjurant champion," you just play a magus.
AMEN and EXALTED ON HIGH!
So, no Sorcerers, either?The Oracle is simple the divine Sorc. Needed. No doubt at all.
I'm with JJ on the Summoner- cool idea, very poor execution. The "build your own " allows horrendous mix/maxing and needs to be vigorously math & rules checked every level.
Alchemist & Witch are cool. Needed? Well, that's debatable, but they are fun.
Cavalier is fine for some campaigns. People have been asking for a Knight type that doesn't have to be LG from day 2. Now we have one.
Oracle to me fills the D&D niche left by favored soul, which was my favorite 'base' class from back then. But I really like the curses and how they work, I actually wish they had a feat variant like Eldritch Bloodline so I could get the curses and mysteries on another character. (Blind Sword Saint, YES PLEASE!)
Meh I don't even find them to be the most powerful classes (though Magus and Summoner are certainly up there) Strongest in my opinion are the Barbarian (what with rage cycling and god like saves), Paladin (who can easily get enough smites to smite every foe in an average work day about 16 a day), and wizard for obvious reasons. Druids might be up there too.Not exactly a fan of gun slinger or cavelier but thats because I simply have no urge to play them.
Honestly, more classes never hurts my feelings.
Again I find them all pretty balanced. Barbarians are auto dead at certain points if the rage is ended to soon, Pallys are great vs. evil, and ho hum against an angry dire tiger to the face.
Just curious, of the objectors there seems to be a great many that don't like a class because it doesn't fit their desired setting of Arthurian Fantasy. There is a lot of gunslingers and alchemists are too modern, or ninja are to Asian in bent. My question is why the vitriol against these options existing?Just because your whole campaign exists in a certain time period in England, shouldn't it be ok for people to play other things and have their tastes catered too a bit as well? I hear a lot of argument that you should " just play a fighter" if you want a samurai, well a person going for an Asian bent could say the same thing in reverse.
I guess I just rankle a bit against anyone who says options are bad. Anytime you have more choices to me it's a good thing, variety is the spice of life as they say. You can always turn things down on a case by case basis, but dismissing a class entirely and portraying Paizo as villains for printing it smacks of forcing everyone to play your Vision of what fun " should" be.
Then again I also do not comprehend the complaint that a class should be an archetype, or the like...it's just semantics....
And further more Golarion to me is a world where a Kitsune Samurai can rub shoulders (in fox form) with a Halfling Rogue who is stealing the Half Orc Fighter's money purse while he drinks with the blind Tengu Oracle, while the human paladin is upstairs eating his vitamins, saying his prayers and preparing to look a Vrock in the eye and say "What'cha going do brother when holy power of Sarenrae runs wild on you!"
I.E. it's a great and varied place. IT IS NOT Arthurian or European medieval low fantasy. It is not Asian either. It's mixed and intermingled. And further more, if you don't like 'Asian' in your fantasy, don't use scimitars, or dervishes, or falchions, or anything from the Middle East, India, or anything 'African' which means no lions, no tigers, very few bears. (oh...boy....yaaaaawn, cuse let's face it, animal wise outside of wolves the wilds in Europe have NOTHING that dangerous.)
Arrow spam is great, until the bow is destroyed, the archer is grappled, swallowed etc. There are plenty of ways to counter archers, even godly archers, but this is tackled elsewhere.
The summoner can keep this nice combat wombat as a blocker, and pump out the damage while keeping out of combat, but still throwing spells "in". The eidolon also doesn't run out of arrows, and doesn't need a powerful magical bow to rip and tear.
I am not against casters having summons or a single powerful summon, I'm against the eidolon. The bonded summoner from 3.5 with its strong elemental was damn good levels 8-14, but the summoner in that instance became slowly weaker as the levels passed, while the elemental got beefier. Thus there was balance, ommmmmmm. The eidolon is just an OP mess, allowing the summoner to play a weird melee and a wizard at the same time.
Now pvp can create a bias, but I'll add this tiny story. In the second darkness game my cavalier/knight got into a duel with a witch. The witch had been hitting the cavight with spells and enough was enough. The cavight saved vs the spells, closed and bashed the witch into a pulp. Good times. Honour wins this day.
My cavight would have been toast against a summoner, because at that level, the eidolon would have been pretty damn good, certainly with more attacks than my fellow and the summoner would still be free to jump about and support their monster equivalent to a melee character. A char playing two powerful chars in one char is not balanced.
General summons I have zero beef with because of the time to bring them in, and the short duration they are around.
You're right PvP is a poor example. The ceiling for OP is full casters not cavalier/knights.
There is nothing OP about the summoner. Saying he can hand a martial his butt is not saying much. A fighter fills the melee role in a party better than a eidolon.
the eidolon can still be dismissed via dismissal and banishment.
takes a minute to summon, which can be interrupted
has a harder time fitting into most dungeon spaces
has a lot less hit dice than most PCs
shares item slots with it's summoner master
and maxing out the eidolon comes at the cost of a gimped summoner.
plus the majority of the broken eidolons are illegally built
yes, an eidolon can be an massive death machine. i admit it too. but the summoner is short on Evo Points, even with a particular favored class bonus, and well
natural attacks are harder to enchant
effectively a 3/4 bab natural weapon user
has less hit dice than an animal companion
has poor saves
requires the sacrifice of summoner gear slots to be effective
But the eidolon still fills that role, can & could do it permanently (and probably will, why not use this combat wombat?), and you also have your actual summoner character.
Two for the price of one, the designers got too excited.
Yeah, sharing item slots with the caster. Pf disgusts me some days, so desperate for gear bonuses--even going so far as to apply item slot bonuses to something not actually wearing the items! Pfft *spits*.
But the eidolon still fills that role, can & could do it permanently (and probably will, why not use this combat wombat?), and you also have your actual summoner character.
Two for the price of one, the designers got too excited.
No to make an Eidolon better than a martial you have to gimp your summoner. Then the Eidolon becomes a powerhouse with a critical weak point. Other martials do not suffer this problem. A normal summoner is a sub-par caster + a sub-par martial. This combo is powerful, but ends up filling a gish role in the party. Only a master summoner can fill a full-caster role. Other summoners are firmly in the gish role.
Yeah, sharing item slots with the caster. Pf disgusts me some days, so desperate for gear bonuses--even going so far as to apply item slot bonuses to something not actually wearing the items! Pfft *spits*.
actually, in the summoner's case
they have to choose whether they benefit from the item, or their eidolon does.
Yeah, sharing item slots with the caster. Pf disgusts me some days, so desperate for gear bonuses--even going so far as to apply item slot bonuses to something not actually wearing the items! Pfft *spits*.
That's not what he meant. You share the slot not the item. Between you and your eidolon you can only one can benefit from a magical belt. The eidolon has to wear the item to gain benefit and you have to not be wearing an item in the same slot.
Glad for the clarification.
Glad for the clarification.
You got me in an arguing mood. I've started two separate threads on whether or not the master summoner was OP and the best anyone could show was that in the wrong hands the class could drag down combat.
Generally it is accepted that a master summoner is "better" than a normal summoner.
I've seen no evidence to show that a summoner of any sort could put any full-caster to shame. Yet I also see no long threads about how full-casters are hands down better than summoners. These forums tend to hive-mind one way or the other. Yet the only ones calling the summoner OP are comparing him to martials. By that logic the Druid is pretty OP too.
Do you still think a summoner is OP? I am itching for someone to show me why this is the general opinion on these forums.
Dr. Cal,
That's exactly the point -- they don't have to BE spells, but they have to be comparable in power, number, and availability. That one-shot-kill fighter-only feat? That's great, unless it requires him to use all his other previous fighter feats just in order to be eligible for it. Then it sucks compared to spells or barbarian powers. So if they require long trees, like you're discussing? Then the fighter in essence gets one or two powers, not 10 or 11, because you're spending a lot of your bonus slots on prerequisites that you don't really want.
We need to compare apples to apples. In the long run, giving the fighter one bonus feat/2 levels -- and then creating a whole series of fighter-only feats that no one else can take, and that occupy a tiered hierarchy of effectiveness -- to fill them with? That's essentially saying "giving them spells," in this context, because they work more like spells than feats, from a game design perspective. Creating normal (anyone-can-take-them) feats with strings of prerequisites to fill them? That means the fighter isn't getting his share of "spells"/"rage powers"/equivalent unless you give him like 2 bonus feats per level.
Well, you have to assume that the feat tree possesses things of value as well: Power attack still holds up as valuable 15 levels later. Two weapon fighting feats keep adding attacks. One presumes that a feat that lets you counter spells as an immediate action or something of that ilk has 3-4 decent feats leading up to it. The fighter can afford that and still have feats to spare. The Gunslinger can only afford one super power feat, which is fair because they have other ones.
Also, Vancian spells and feats and raging are different mechanics, so while I appreciate the notion of "give them superpowers" could mean spells or ki powers or raging or powered up feats, saying: give the fighter's spells! isn't quite as clear. I agree giving the fighters a limited set of 7-9th level spell power type options that they can take 2-4 of with feat tree builds, but can use more often would be a simple and already mechanically supported fix.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a fan of the new base classes. I find them redundant.
I'm also not a fan of the less-than-subtle implication that holding that opinion makes one "anti-choice." We get enough of that crap in politics.
But whatever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are they redundant though?
All of them are unique.
I'm not a fan of the new base classes. I find them redundant.
I'm also not a fan of the less-than-subtle jab implication that having that opinion makes me "anti-choice."
But whatever.
I'm sure you're pro-choice :P
Giving a fighter SODs and limited magical immunities at level 15+ would really put them on par with the COD-zillas and the Elminsters of the world.I disagree. Especially if its only from 15+ up.
Why? Especially if the fighter could spam the SOD? Or ignore spellcasters half the time without magic items? It would give them a dominance in combat perhaps, but have much less non combat utility, which would make sense with the whole "fight"-er thing going on. Worth a playtest maybe.
Genuinely curious why you disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are they redundant though?
All of them are unique.
How are they redundant? Conceptually.
Summoner? We have conjuration wizards in that niche.
Cavalier? Fighter.
Witch? Sorcerer/wizard.
Alchemist? Wizard with a feat.
Inquisitor? Fighter/Cleric.
Nothing here that couldn't already be done, and done effectively with the core classes. At most a few feats would have sufficed.
I realize that the ideal specificity of classes is a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, the APG classes don't broaden the range of concepts that can be realized -- it just introduces additional mechanics in a game that already has too many.
On a only marginally related note, I thought D20 modern's take on classes was extremely clever.
I disagree that the game has too many mechanics. Conceptually, every class except Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue are redundant. They can fill every role you could care to make up.
But mechanics are important. Having to muscle the same 4 classes into every possible unique role is going to get old very quickly. Hence why Monk, Ranger, Druid, and to an extent Sorcerer are classes. And also why the new Base classes were added.
Summoners? We have conjuration wizards in that niche.
Have you ever tried to play a caster that only summons? It is ridiculously hard to resist the temptation to do the 9000 other options you have. Master Summoners buff summoning just enough to make it what you do 100% of the time.
Base summoners allow for Iconic characters that fight through the use of an avatar of some sort. Which only includes like half of all Saturday morning cartoons. A conjurer wizard can do nothing of the sort.
How are they redundant though?
All of them are unique.
How are they redundant? Conceptually.
Summoners? We have conjuration wizards in that niche. Cavalier? Fighter. Witch? Sorcerer/wizard. Alchemist? Wizard. Inquisitor? Fighter/Cleric. Nothing here that couldn't already be done, and done effectively with the core classes.
I realize that the ideal specificity of classes is a matter of opinion, but in my opinion, the APG classes don't broaden the range of concepts that can be realized -- it just introduces additional mechanics in a game that already has too many.
Then again, I'm a big fan of C&C, but I play pathfinder largely due to network externalities. YMMV.
Yes, because conjurer wizards get a pet. Cavaliers certainly don't have an order, scaling mount, or class features to boost their teamwork feats. Wizards/sorcs get hexes right? Fighter/Cleric is viable and has a ton of skill points and wisdom synergy. Oh and class features.
You can argue by giving choices to these classes you took them away from the others, but don't argue that the classes that already exist can do the same thing. Its hard to replicate Magus's Spell strike/combat with any other class(if at all.) similarly inquisitor has 6+ skill points and does much skillmonkeying around.
I disagree that the game has too many mechanics.
Ok. You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree.
Conceptually, every class except Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue are redundant. They can fill every role you could care to make up.
Excellent point. I'm not a fan of classes like the barbarian, either. But this thread is specifically about the APG classes, so I commented on those.
But mechanics are important.
Agree
Having to muscle the same 4 classes into every possible unique role is going to get old very quickly.
Disagree. Or at least, disagree that an ever-expanding suite of classes is the answer. One of the strengths of a class-based design is the conceptual distinctness filled by each class. I'm sure I could have a unique, mechanically interesting left-handed, red-headed, glave fighter class...but why?
Giving a fighter SODs and limited magical immunities at level 15+ would really put them on par with the COD-zillas and the Elminsters of the world.I disagree. Especially if its only from 15+ up.Why? Especially if the fighter could spam the SOD? Or ignore spellcasters half the time without magic items? It would give them a dominance in combat perhaps, but have much less non combat utility, which would make sense with the whole "fight"-er thing going on. Worth a playtest maybe.
Genuinely curious why you disagree.
You need to fix things before level 15. If its a problem at level 1, why fix it at level 15. Why feat tax it? Fighters big problem, and always has been, a total lack of class features. If feats were as good as class features that wouldn't be a problem, but as it stands, most feats are pitiful. They rarely, if ever, scale.
Also, not a huge fan of Save or Dies, from any side of the field. You shouldn't be focused on giving one side "Dominance". No one should have total dominance over another on the field. That's terrible balance. "Well, since he's called fighter, he should fight best and suck at everything else" isn't fantastic balance either. Not a huge fan of out right immunity either, makes me feel like the chance at something is totally lost. So that could go numerous ways depending on implementation. Good saves is a good way to do it probably.
I should also note CoDzillas aren't nearly as big a problem as they were. Lack of Divine Metamagic, polymorph replacing stats(also capped bonuses!), and abilities that change your BAB really helped that. A fully buffed character is still a monster though, but that's probably how it should be.
Yes, because conjurer wizards get a pet. Cavaliers certainly don't have an order, scaling mount, or class features to boost their teamwork feats. Wizards/sorcs get hexes right? Fighter/Cleric is viable and has a ton of skill points and wisdom synergy. Oh and class features.
You can argue by giving choices to these classes you took them away from the others, but don't argue that the classes that already exist can do the same thing. Its hard to replicate Magus's Spell strike/combat with any other class(if at all.) similarly inquisitor has 6+ skill points and does much skillmonkeying around.
You're confusing mechanical distinction for conceptual distinction.
I would prefer conceptually distinct classes with flexible mechanics to maximize the niches that can be well covered -- again, something like D20 modern. But we're getting beyond the scope of the original question. Someone asked, I answered. No one's honor requires defending. ;-)
Edit: I also thought True20's adept-expert-warrior split was inspired.
Yes, because conjurer wizards get a pet. Cavaliers certainly don't have an order, scaling mount, or class features to boost their teamwork feats. Wizards/sorcs get hexes right? Fighter/Cleric is viable and has a ton of skill points and wisdom synergy. Oh and class features.
You can argue by giving choices to these classes you took them away from the others, but don't argue that the classes that already exist can do the same thing. Its hard to replicate Magus's Spell strike/combat with any other class(if at all.) similarly inquisitor has 6+ skill points and does much skillmonkeying around.
You're confusing mechanical distinction for conceptual distinction.
I would prefer conceptually distinct classes with flexible mechanics to maximize the niches that can be well covered -- again, something like D20 modern. But we're getting beyond the scope of the original question. Which, by the way, someone asked, I answered. No one's honor requires defending. :)
I actually agree there(kind of). I do think "buffer with a pet" was still a concept that's different. I did in the second paragraph point out that argument that expanding on a few should be a focus, and that you have to be careful about taking away. How that's handled can really vary.
Yes, each class is conceptually distinct, and that's a strength.
But think about it: Is the class still conceptually distinct if you're trying to shoehorn poorly fitting mechanics into concepts?
The Wizard makes a poor alchemist. It is almost impossible to make the Wizard a credible wielder of various chemical concoctions because the effects of so many spells are contrary to that flavor.
I like fluff being mutable, yes, but I don't like being forced to mutate the fluff to credibly carry out the concept.
On top of that (and this is purely an opinionative* difference) I find that the mechanics are what make the game fun. The game itself not the time spent playing it and yadda yadda. So having fresh and new class features and such are going to be more fun than using the same old thing for everything.
Some classes work better than others. Could a Fighter easily make a "cavalier" (mounted horseman)? Yes, quite easily.
Could a Fighter/Cleric multiclass make an inquisitor? Ehhh...not so much, since the Cleric's Code would actually conflict with the stated goals of an inquisitor in many cases. Then it's just a Fighter with some dead 3/4 BaB levels.
*
On top of that (and this is purely an opinionative* difference) I find that the mechanics are what make the game fun. The game itself not the time spent playing it and yadda yadda. So having fresh and new class features and such are going to be more fun than using the same old thing for everything.
Oh, I completely get that. Some (most?) people seem to dig differentiation by new mechanics. I tend not to, but either way, that's a matter of opinion.
My response was intended to reflect my preferences, not as an unassailable bastion of absolute truth.
...I do think "buffer with a pet" was still a concept that's different...
Conceded. Although I would have preferred that niche to be handled in some other way. Paizo seems found of Archetypes...I think a wizard archetype could have done the trick (though again, not with the mechanical detail of the summoner).
On top of that (and this is purely an opinionative* difference) I find that the mechanics are what make the game fun. The game itself not the time spent playing it and yadda yadda. So having fresh and new class features and such are going to be more fun than using the same old thing for everything.Oh, I completely get that. Some (most?) people seem to dig differentiation by new mechanics. I tend not to, but either way, that's a matter of opinion.
My response is intended to reflect my preferences, not an unassailable bastion of absolute truth.
Mechanics are rather important. They help breath life into a concept in play. For example the magus does a far better job of blending magic and swordplay than a fighter/wizard. The Eldritch Knight prestige doesn't do much to help the two combine beyond BAB. The magus however is capable of flying around the battlefield delivering touch spells through his blade and casting utility spells.
A cleric/fighter might do some casting, but most of it is going to be awful probably. He might do some fighting, but I'm not sure if it will be good at killing anything depending on how he goes about it. The Inquisitor on the other hand will do more skillmonkeying than that combo will ever do, has okay spellcasting, and has the power to buff himself and give himself a target in combat.
Mechanics are of importance. Concepts vary, and how you define them will vary, and the subject nature of these variables will change the view greatly. I say a cavalier is not a paladin, other people say a paladin is a cavalier. YMMV.
Mechanics are rather important. They help breath life into a concept in play. For example the magus does a far better job of blending magic and swordplay than a fighter/wizard. The Eldritch Knight prestige doesn't do much to help the two combine beyond BAB. The magus however is capable of flying around the battlefield delivering touch spells through his blade and casting utility spells.
A cleric/fighter might do some casting, but most of it is going to be awful probably. He might do some fighting, but I'm not sure if it will be good at killing anything depending on how he goes about it. The Inquisitor on the other hand will do more skillmonkeying than that combo will ever do, has okay spellcasting, and has the power to buff himself and give himself a target in combat.
Mechanics are of importance. Concepts vary, and how you define them will vary, and the subject nature of these variables will change the view greatly. I say a cavalier is not a paladin, other people say a paladin is a cavalier. YMMV.
I guess part of my dislike is the number of mechanics Pathfinder employs to realize character concepts. Base classes. Archetypes. Prestige classes. Feats. Alternative class features. Combat styles. Even if one digs a wide variety of mechanics (which I happen not to), there has to be a cleaner way to do it.
Again, in my opinion a game should have enough mechanics to do a job, but not more. For me, APG's base classes feel into the "more."
...I do think "buffer with a pet" was still a concept that's different...Conceded. Although I would have preferred that niche to be handled in some other way. Paizo seems found of Archetypes...I think a wizard archetype could have done the trick (though again, not with the mechanical detail of the summoner).
Possibly, but possibly the result of a fullcaster with a pet like the eidolon could've been a real monster. Or it could feel tacked on like the anti-paladin's divine bond. Giving it a focus, rather than making it an archetype, makes it easier to handle sometimes. Archetypes certainly aren't the answer to everything. Even implementing archetypes runs into problems. They don't have support a class will, they sometimes remove things they don't have to and that means RAW they don't mix with others. Crowd control and armor proficiencies on Urban Barbarian for example. It could've just been a variant rage, but instead they made it incompatible with other archetypes by adding additional baggage.
Possibly, but possibly the result of a fullcaster with a pet like the eidolon could've been a real monster. Or it could feel tacked on like the anti-paladin's divine bond. Giving it a focus, rather than making it an archetype, makes it easier to handle sometimes. Archetypes certainly aren't the answer to everything. Even implementing archetypes runs into problems. They don't have support a class will, they sometimes remove things they don't have to and that means RAW they don't mix with others. Crowd control and armor proficiencies on Urban Barbarian for example. It could've just been a variant rage, but instead they made it incompatible with other archetypes by adding additional baggage.
Hmm...it seems like we're talking past each other. I'll try once more.
In my opinion, even a class-based system that strives for a high degree of mechanical differentiation among characters should avoid the introduction of conceptually redundant classes. Failing to do so undermines one of the chief benefits of being class-based in the first place.
The depth of mechanics in real life and fantasy are so innumerable that Paizo's attempts to quantify and enable all of it in a game is but a drop in comparison to the ocean of concepts out there. Even at the Height of 3.5 they never came close to providing satisfactory mechanics to cover every concept out there.
Just recently a friend of mine tried to make an air-bender in pathfinder and failed miserably at making it work or be effective.
Keep the splat books coming I say. If you don't like the rules don't use them. (Although don't say the summoner is OP, I will fight you! :P)
On top of that (and this is purely an opinionative* difference) I find that the mechanics are what make the game fun. The game itself not the time spent playing it and yadda yadda. So having fresh and new class features and such are going to be more fun than using the same old thing for everything.Oh, I completely get that. Some (most?) people seem to dig differentiation by new mechanics. I tend not to, but either way, that's a matter of opinion.
My response is intended to reflect my preferences, not an unassailable bastion of absolute truth.
Mechanics are rather important. They help breath life into a concept in play. For example the magus does a far better job of blending magic and swordplay than a fighter/wizard. The Eldritch Knight prestige doesn't do much to help the two combine beyond BAB. The magus however is capable of flying around the battlefield delivering touch spells through his blade and casting utility spells.
A cleric/fighter might do some casting, but most of it is going to be awful probably. He might do some fighting, but I'm not sure if it will be good at killing anything depending on how he goes about it. The Inquisitor on the other hand will do more skillmonkeying than that combo will ever do, has okay spellcasting, and has the power to buff himself and give himself a target in combat.
Mechanics are of importance. Concepts vary, and how you define them will vary, and the subject nature of these variables will change the view greatly. I say a cavalier is not a paladin, other people say a paladin is a cavalier. YMMV.
A cleric fighter, a fightric (named Rick?) can most certainly work. You buff and then you engage, not so different to a normal cleric, but you are better at fighting but won't get the crazy good spells later on. You are a tad like a raging barb, but with lower speed, lower hp and more choice in buffs. They can be really good for games with a low number of party member because they can heal themselves post-combat. So they cut healing costs down, and can therefore survive in nasty attrition areas. Not great against undead, but they can pull some tricks.
A friend played one, he mowed through low level fighters, monsters and monks (poor monks) with his greataxe and buffs. He got killed by a giant constrictor when he got separated from the party.
I would recommend the cleric fighter to newish players wanting to try some options and a bit of spellcasting, but still wanting excitement and bloodletting.