|
Why is that? Because RAW is all we have in common. We all ban/allow/change different things in our gaming tables. We all play with different people, have different gaming styles and different party compositions.RAW, however, is the same for all of us. So if by RAW, one can buy partially charged wands (and I honestly don't see the problem with that), then in a internet discussion, it...
Sadly (or happily) that is not that true. Different People could read the rules in different ways.
Now if you mean RAW as "is there and everyone can see it " (like the ACP rules), there is not problem. But in several cases in this forum RAW = Rules as I like to interpret them an you can not prove me wrong.
NOTE: by the way, where exactly does the rule say you can buy partially charged wands? And i mean clearly stated, not just as the end of a long chain of conclusions (and/or suppositions) made after the reading of different parts of the book.
Which is my point. As Sean famously said, there is nothing RAW that says dead characters can't move.
Which is why the wand issue was so illuminating. It isn't a matter of right or wrong, but a matter of being open and transparent.
If you look at the partially filled wand build and go "Yeah, that is exactly how I play" you will view it one way.
If you look at it and go "Another cheese exploit..." you will view it another way.
But at least we are all looking at the same thing and can discuss the same issue, in a clear way.
That provoked a helpful conversation, IMHO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly (or happily) that is not that true. Different People could read the rules in different ways.
Now if you mean RAW as "is there and everyone can see it " (like the ACP rules), there is not problem. But in several cases in this forum RAW = Rules as I like to interpret them an you can not prove me wrong.
There can be some discussion about how to interpret a few rules, but mostly, it's the same for all of us... If we like it or use it, that's another story.
NOTE: by the way, where exactly does the rule say you can buy partially charged wands? And i mean clearly stated, not just as the end of a long chain of conclusions (and/or suppositions) made after the reading of different parts of the book.
Probably in the same place it says your character can blink. Or in the same place where it says you can buy a sofa. Or a broken sword. If the rules don't forbid it, one would assume it's allowed. They can't make rules for everything you can do, just how IRL they don't make laws for everything you're allowed to do. It's much, much easier to simply list what's forbidden.
Also, if you can sell half charged wands, you can buy them. Because if you're selling, someone is buying.
Is "buying half-charged wands" a NPC-exclusive feature? Is it phisically impossible? Do wands somehow become impossible to buy/sell if they contain less than 50 charges?
The game specifically says you can't craft half-charged wands, and if Ashiel had then tried to do that with his Ranger build, I'd have said "No. You can't do that". But that was not the case.
Depends on what you define the point of contention. If these classes are so "bad" that they aren't "viable" it should be no challenge to anyone to be able to make other classes that are unquestionably superior to anything I can come up with.
Particularly with my self imposed limitations of not min-maxing or doing anything that could be considered "borderline".
Which is what many on here contend.
See? This is the problem.
"bad" is not the same as "unplayable". And the definition of both words vary from player to player.
What is min-maxing? I've seen more than a few people saying that using the human racial trait that gives you an extra +2 to an attribute instead of a bonus feat is "cheesy min-maxing", and yet, you used such trait on a class discussion thread, even though that racial trait is not at all related to the character class.
Everything can be considered "borderline". Everything. How do we judge what is "reasonable optimization" and what is "cheesy powergaming"?
We can't. But we can follow RAW. Because RAW is the same for all of us. There is no guessing, no debate, no bias...
RAW is the one thing all our games have in common. Even if we don't use it. But then, it's house-rule territory, and that's a very different can of worms.
|
|
RAW isn't what our games have in common if we don't agree on what is RAW. You say partially filled wands aren't forbidden so they are RAW, I say that dead people not moving isn't forbidden by that logic.
What is gained from these discussion is seeing what people are doing differently at their table that is creating the difference.
And to be blunt, if they are complaining that something is broken, if they were the ones that did the breaking with 'creative' reading of the rules.
|
|
And let me be even more blunt.
I'm not worried about posting builds specifically because I know I'm not trying to do anything that is borderline. And if I do, I want it pointed out to me so I can be made aware of it. I may still do it, but I am not so arrogant as to believe that everything I do would be permitted at every table by reasonable people reading the same rule.
But if your entire build depends on corner case interpretations of rules, that gets exposed quickly when you put your builds up to public discussion and scrutiny.
And that can be awkward if you aren't interested in learning, but rather are here primarily to tell everyone else how right you are.
Which only really annoys me if you are also a person who talks about how broken things are in your game.
You are basically saying "I broke my game, let me show you how? You don't like my broken game? Well you are wrong!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is my point. As Sean famously said, there is nothing RAW that says dead characters can't move.
That statement is famous, but not very well-though, IMHO.
There are more than a few differences between dead people and magical wands...
First: There are dead people in the real world. We know what they can and what they can't do. So we can extrapolate the same limitations apply to the game world.
There are no real magical wands, though. So all we have is what the rules say.
Second: If you really want to be a dick about RAW, nothing in the "Dead" condition says you lose the "Dying" condition and this one does stop you from taking any action.
Which is why the wand issue was so illuminating. It isn't a matter of right or wrong, but a matter of being open and transparent.
If you look at the partially filled wand build and go "Yeah, that is exactly how I play" you will view it one way.
If you look at it and go "Another cheese exploit..." you will view it another way.
But at least we are all looking at the same thing and can discuss the same issue, in a clear way.
That provoked a helpful conversation, IMHO.
How is buying an item a cheesy exploit? The character buys the item using his own gold, and the benefit she gets is proportionate to what she spent.
I didn't give Ashiel the wands for free. He didn't bend any rule to buy them. There is nothing stopping a character from buying/selling lass-than-perfect merchandise. Buying wands is not an obscure rule.It about as "cheesy" as buying less than 20 arrows. Which is to say, not cheesy at all!
I didn't give Ashiel the wands for free. He didn't bend any rule to buy them. There is nothing stopping a character from buying/selling lass-than-perfect merchandise.True, but that is not make it RAW. For RAW you have to find a quote that allow you to buy those wands, not pointing out that there is not rule prohibiting you for it.
Again, there is no rule saying humans have voices. Yet, we all assume they can speak. There is no rule saying a character can blink, brush her hair or enjoy apple pie. But we assume it's possible because it's not against the rules!
I think the ranger capabilities for using partially charged wands is a advantage of the class against the fighter.
Yes, it is an advantage for Rangers. And proficiency with heavy armor is an advantage for Fighters. So?
Wasn't that the whole point of the build exercise? Compare each class' advantages and disadvantages in relation to one another?The problem for me was that in that thread the ranger heavily depended on very specific set of magic items (wands with the exact spell he needed and with the exact charges for his WBL).
So what? Every character gets exactly what item she's looking for in build comparisons. Did I make ciretose roll on a random weapon table to see if he got whatever weapon was chosen for his selected "Weapon Training"? No. I didn't.
We can't reasonably roll random chances in character build, so we assume the characters can buy what they want.Also, how exactly did the Ranger "heavily depend on a very specific set of magic items"? Do Rangers need partially charged wands of CLW to use their class features?
|
|
Which is my point. As Sean famously said, there is nothing RAW that says dead characters can't move.That statement is famous, but not very well-though, IMHO.
There are more than a few differences between dead people and magical wands...
First: There are dead people in the real world. We know what they can and what they can't do. So we can extrapolate the same limitations apply to the game world.
There are no real magical wands, though. So all we have is what the rules say.
Second: If you really want to be a dick about RAW, nothing in the "Dead" condition says you lose the "Dying" condition and this one does stop you from taking any action.
Which is why the wand issue was so illuminating. It isn't a matter of right or wrong, but a matter of being open and transparent.
If you look at the partially filled wand build and go "Yeah, that is exactly how I play" you will view it one way.
If you look at it and go "Another cheese exploit..." you will view it another way.
But at least we are all looking at the same thing and can discuss the same issue, in a clear way.
That provoked a helpful conversation, IMHO.
How is buying an item a cheesy exploit? The character buys the item using his own gold, and the benefit she gets is proportionate to what she spent.
I didn't give Ashiel the wands for free. He didn't bend any rule to buy them. There is nothing stopping a character from buying/selling lass-than-perfect merchandise. Buying wands is not an obscure rule.It about as "cheesy" as buying less than 20 arrows. Which is to say, not cheesy at all!
Respectfully, RAW is about as clear as the Gospel.
How many denominations of Christianity are there? How many wars.
As to the partially created wands, they are literally an item that can not be made, according to the rules.
Can. Not. Be. Made.
I can make less than 20 arrows. The game literally does not allow you to make a partial wand.
If you are going to be as "creative" about allowing them, that is your choice. I hope you will be equally creative in all readings that aren't favorable to the players.
Which is the problem I've noticed with the "wizards are teh best" crowd.
Spellbooks problems are handwaved, verbal is a soft whisper, 15 minute adventure days, time to buff before combat, no ambushes, no attacking the squishies...
Which is why you post the builds. You see partial wands and go "Ok, sounds fine" I see them and go "Here we go again..."
And if more people agree with me than you, that should tell you something. If more people agreed with you, it would tell me something.
If it doesn't, your prerogative. Glad you enjoy your game, please stop saying your Catholic reading of RAW it is "the" game, as Martin Luther begs to differ and isn't having the same problems you are with his reading.
And if one reading works and one doesn't...why would a rational person go with the one that doesn't work?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
this is like watching paint dry
if the paint was covered with words
the worst or possibly the best part is that you all buried my movie trailer post
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Respectfully, RAW is about as clear as the Gospel.
How many denominations of Christianity are there? How many wars.
I'm not even gonna touch the subject of religion.
But in PF, RAW is pretty clear. What we can discuss is RAI. RAW is the some for all of us.
Actually, the same could be said about religion. People discuss RAI, not RAW.
As to the partially created wands, they are literally an item that can not be made, according to the rules.
Can. Not. Be. Made.
I can make less than 20 arrows. The game literally does not allow you to make a partial wand.
True, and I didn't allow Ashiel to make any wand. I did allow him to buy one.
Here... Craft a wand, use it as much as you like, then sell it while it has at least 1 charge left. There, someone just bought a partially charged wand. Ta-daa!
RAW never says it can.not.be.bought.
If you are going to be as "creative" about allowing them, that is your choice. I hope you will be equally creative in all readings that aren't favorable to the players.
You seem to think I was favoring Ashiel. While I do agree with his opinion about Rangers x Fighters, I never once favored him in any way. I made a ruling that I judged to be fair. If you wanted to buy a half charged wand, I'd have ruled just the same.
And remember, you guys were the ones to choose me as the judge. I even said I wasn't the best choice.
If it doesn't, your prerogative. Glad you enjoy your game, please stop saying your Catholic reading of RAW it is "the" game, as Martin Luther begs to differ and isn't having the same problems you are with his reading.
What? When did I say anything about one way of playing being better than any other? When did I even imply that I follow RAW as closely as possible in my games? Honestly, you seem to care more about being right than anyone else in that discussion.
The moment you have to guess something then the issue is not perfectly clear.
Perhaps, but there is nothing unclear about it. The game doesn't forbid you from buying/selling half charged wands.
It does forbid you from crafting one, but I didn't allow Ashiel to craft wands, just buy them.My point is that the game can't possibly tell you everything you can do, so it focuses on telling you what you can't do. Just like laws IRL.
There is no law saying I can eat cake. Should I assume I'll be arrested if I have cake?
I do not understand this point, I have no problem with ranger using their advantage particularly using wands.I think the ranger capabilities for using partially charged wands is a advantage of the class against the fighter.Yes, it is an advantage for Rangers. And proficiency with heavy armor is an advantage for Fighters. So?
Wasn't that the whole point of the build exercise? Compare each class' advantages and disadvantages in relation to one another?
Then I don't understand what was your point here... -.-'
You seem upset, there is no reason to be upset.
I'm not, believe me... I know better than let an internet discussion upset me.
I am fine with the rules of that thread, you were the judge you made the rules that is all fine.
But in that thread fighters get attacked by their dependence of specific weapons, but at the same time the ranger dependence on wands was argued to not be a problem (here I am not talking about rangers in general, that ccould or not use wands, I am talking about that specific build at that specific level).
I might be remembering wrong, but that specific build did heavily depend on those specific wands for his AC, hp recovery and other utilities. and that ranger was weaker than the fighter without those wands.
But, if that's the case... What's the problem? If the Ranger is making a less effective use of her WBL, isn't that a point in favor of Fighters? I just don't understand why ciretose was so mad at it, or why he sees it as such a biased decision.
Are Fighters so weak that a Ranger with a few wands is enough to make the class unappealing? I don't think so.
Did I break or even just bend any rule to favor Ashiel? No, I didn't.
Anyway, I g2g now... See you guys later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on what you define the point of contention. If these classes are so "bad" that they aren't "viable" it should be no challenge to anyone to be able to make other classes that are unquestionably superior to anything I can come up with.
That's the adversarial analysis trap. This is what I meant upthread about not being able generalize the results. You can stage competitions between two stat blocks, it won't tell me anything useful about how two people (not you and not Ash) could have fun with those same stat blocks. Even if it's not a duel to the PC death, you're still talking about PvP analysis.
Now, if you were willing to analyze unbiased players and a GM — none of whom knew what was on trial — that might tell us a lot.
|
|
Respectfully, RAW is about as clear as the Gospel.
How many denominations of Christianity are there? How many wars.
I'm not even gonna touch the subject of religion.
But in PF, RAW is pretty clear. What we can discuss is RAI. RAW is the some for all of us.
Actually, the same could be said about religion. People discuss RAI, not RAW.
As to the partially created wands, they are literally an item that can not be made, according to the rules.
Can. Not. Be. Made.
I can make less than 20 arrows. The game literally does not allow you to make a partial wand.
True, and I didn't allow Ashiel to make any wand. I did allow him to buy one.
Here... Craft a wand, use it as much as you like, then sell it while it has at least 1 charge left. There, someone just bought a partially charged wand. Ta-daa!
RAW never says it can.not.be.bought.
If you are going to be as "creative" about allowing them, that is your choice. I hope you will be equally creative in all readings that aren't favorable to the players.You seem to think I was favoring Ashiel. While I do agree with his opinion about Rangers x Fighters, I never once favored him in any way. I made a ruling that I judged to be fair. If you wanted to buy a half charged wand, I'd have ruled just the same.
And remember, you guys were the ones to choose me as the judge. I even said I wasn't the best choice.
If it doesn't, your prerogative. Glad you enjoy your game, please stop saying your Catholic reading of RAW it is "the" game, as Martin Luther begs to differ and isn't having the same problems you are with his reading.What? When did I say anything about one way of playing being better than any other? When did I even imply that I follow RAW as closely as possible in my games? Honestly, you seem to care more about being right than anyone else in that discussion.
Your interpretation of RAW.
This is what you don't get. Your deciding that since it isn't excluded it is allowed is interpretation of RAW in the same way saying dead people can't move is interpretation of RAW.
All the rules are, all any rules are, is an attempt by the person that wrote them to get what they intend into words.
The President of the United States's premise of if he committed perjury was based on the interpretation of the word "is".
Saying you follow RAW and RAW allows this is basically like saying, I follow God and God hates gay people.
You are interpreting the rules. In this case, partial wands are not listed as items for sale in the book. Many, many items are, with prices and everything. Saying they were available is saying "It is written in the book, on this page, for this price."
Wands are. Full price. You can sell them for less if they are partially discharged, but buying them is not RAW. There is nothing in the book that says you can do it. So you are interpreting.
You have every right to do so.
But saying it is RAW is basically saying "Are you dumb, it's written right there."
Which is a huge dick move for anything that actually can be read multiple ways.
If you remember in the thread, I said it was your call and I deferred to your judgement and continued with the build. I disagreed, so did many others, but I knew it was a judgement call.
Because it was. It isn't RAW. Saying "It is RAW." to anything that is even remotely ambiguous is dismissive, and you (perhaps not others, but you) are better than that.
|
|
Depends on what you define the point of contention. If these classes are so "bad" that they aren't "viable" it should be no challenge to anyone to be able to make other classes that are unquestionably superior to anything I can come up with.That's the adversarial analysis trap. This is what I meant upthread about not being able generalize the results. You can stage competitions between two stat blocks, it won't tell me anything useful about how two people (not you and not Ash) could have fun with those same stat blocks. Even if it's not a duel to the PC death, you're still talking about PvP analysis.
Now, if you were willing to analyze unbiased players and a GM — none of whom knew what was on trial — that might tell us a lot.
How does one counter the "Everyone knows" and "Obviously" statement without testing the hypothesis?
Doing an actual experiment is only a trap if you are invested in the outcome showing that you are correct.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What the hell happened in this thread
How did "Which classes are imbalanced" become "Partially charged wands are/aren't/are too/nuh-uh allowed to be bought"?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on what you define the point of contention. If these classes are so "bad" that they aren't "viable" it should be no challenge to anyone to be able to make other classes that are unquestionably superior to anything I can come up with.That's the adversarial analysis trap. This is what I meant upthread about not being able generalize the results. You can stage competitions between two stat blocks, it won't tell me anything useful about how two people (not you and not Ash) could have fun with those same stat blocks. Even if it's not a duel to the PC death, you're still talking about PvP analysis.
It's much more informative to come up with a range of builds for a class and compare them to threats the class might come across in a party context and consider how they would perform.
try working PR
For wands : you can't CRAFT wand that are not totally charged. But that doesn't mean you can't FIND, BUY or SELL wands that are not totally charged.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tsc, you really like to ignore arguments your PoV, don't you?
Your interpretation of RAW.
This is what you don't get. Your deciding that since it isn't excluded it is allowed is interpretation of RAW in the same way saying dead people can't move is interpretation of RAW.
Show me a freaking rule that says you can like cake. One rule. The game never says my chaacter can like cake!
The rules never say my character can blink. The rules never say my character can brush their teeth. The rules never say my character can hate his best friend's dog. The rules never say you can collect shells. The rules never say you can walk backwards. The rules never say you can have bad breath.Is any of that impossible for a character to do?
The rules can't tell everything you can do! So they focus on what you can't do!
You're just being dense on purpose and ignoring this argument!
All the rules are, all any rules are, is an attempt by the person that wrote them to get what they intend into words.
The President of the United States's premise of if he committed perjury was based on the interpretation of the word "is".
Saying you follow RAW and RAW allows this is basically like saying, I follow God and God hates gay people.
WTF are you talking about? Hows is that related to RPG rules?
You are interpreting the rules. In this case, partial wands are not listed as items for sale in the book. Many, many items are, with prices and everything. Saying they were available is saying "It is written in the book, on this page, for this price."
Wands are. Full price. You can sell them for less if they are partially discharged, but buying them is not RAW. There is nothing in the book that says you can do it. So you are interpreting.
So you're telling me you can sell wands, but you can't buy them???
How does that make sense? How can you sell something if it's impossible to buy it?Can't you see how nonsensical this sound? Really?
But saying it is RAW is basically saying "Are you dumb, it's written right there."
Which is a huge dick move for anything that actually can be read multiple ways.
If you remember in the thread, I said it was your call and I deferred to your judgement and continued with the build. I disagreed, so did many others, but I knew it was a judgement call.
Because it was. It isn't RAW. Saying "It is RAW." to anything that is even remotely ambiguous is dismissive, and you (perhaps not others, but you) are better than that.
It is RAW. It's not against the rules, so it's allowed! You keep mentioning a unrelated quote with a flawed reasoning as if it made your argument any better! It doesn't!
To this day, you can't let go of that minor point in a year-old thread! No... You throw a hissy fit because "OMGWTFBBQ! THE RANGER HAS HALF-CHARGED WANDS! THAT COMPLETELY CRIPPLES ANY FIGHTER BUILD!!!"
You often say people are insecure of their claims because they're unwilling to throw builds.
So I ask you, ciretose... Are you so insecure that you fear a few wands will completely invalidate your Fighter build? Are those few extra hit points so much of an advantage that you can't possibly come up with something equally useful to do with your gold?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anybody's denying that partialy filled wands exist and I don't think anybody's denying that they can be purchased and sold like any other commodity.
I think the point of contention is that a character getting their hands on all the perfect wands at all the perfect charge levels to just barely squeak in under WBL is in no way representative of an actual character in an actual campaign and therefore of little comparative use.
Just throwing that out there.
- Torger
It's not any less representative than the Fighter always finding/buying the perfect weapon for his weapon training.
Sure it is. You're far more likely to find for sale a specific magic weapon then a wand of a specific spell with 7... no wait I can afford 9 charges.
And even if the fighter can't find his ideal +3 flaming speed sword he can have it commissioned.
That's not an option for less than fully charged wands.
- Torger
This isn't Ashiel vs Ciretose v2.0, it's Ashiel vs Ciretose - Aftermath: Ciretose vs Lemmy; Fact or Foul editionHell it wouldn't even be Ashiel vs. Ciretose v2 it's gotta be double digits by now.
Hopefully since a friend showed me IgnoreV4 it will avoid breaking the bit-cap. :P
@Latimontius - No, a Ranger cannot make a level 4 Whirlwind Attack build. Again I don't know why someone would want to (it's a very underwhelming feat and has been kind of a poster child for "meh" feats since 3.x). But to put it into perspective, show me a PC class that can have a familiar by virtue of divine spellcasting by level 2. No takers? Well the Adept NPC class can do so. They're divine casters who get a familiar (without the drawbacks too!). But nobody is going to argue that the Adept is really a great class next to the core classes just because it can do something a little novel.
But I think you misunderstand my position. I'm not saying you can't play fighters or should feel bad playing fighters or whatever. If playing fighter (or adept, or anything else) makes you happy then you should do so. There's a big difference between saying "fighters are underpowered, here is why" and saying "nobody is allowed to play fighters" or "if you play a fighter you are bad at this game" or anything of the sort.
At least, I get the feeling that is what you think because of your remarks about telling your friends or family or whomever that they "can't play X anymore". Let's be real, and fair. That's not what I have ever said.
Sure it is. You're far more likely to find for sale a specific magic weapon then a wand of a specific spell with 7... no wait I can afford 9 charges.
And even if the fighter can't find his ideal +3 flaming speed sword he can have it commissioned.
That's not an option for less than fully charged wands.
- Torger
Actually that's not true. The rules are clear on what you can buy. To commission an item is purely in the realm of GM fiat. There is no guarantee that you can have an item commissioned, or that you can find someone willing to do the work for you. Which is actually one of the reasons I've criticized the Fighter's emphasize on hyperspecializing a particular type of weapon.
It greatly limits his options when finding weapons organically. And you are only guaranteed to be able to purchase up to +2 equivalent weapons from the largest towns in core (the GMG supplemental rules, if used, can extend this under certain specific conditions but the standard is a 16,000 gp limit on magic items in a metropolis).
If you want something beyond that point you need GM fiat. You basically have to beg, borrow, or quest for it. That may or may not be acceptable or reasonable. It is for this very reason that when I have posted builds in the past my builds do not use items over 16,000 gp unless I can craft them myself (and such items are noted as such).
IMHO, saying one can simply "commission" an item is making a lot of assumptions.
1) It's assuming that there's a craftsman on hand who wants to do the work. As a fun fact, magical artisans are valued for their time above all, and as long as they're pumping out items worth about 1,000 gp a day then they are making their money. It doesn't matter if it's a 36,000 gp item they're crafting or a boatload of +1 cloaks of resistance that are likely in higher demand.
2) If it's not merely on sale then it's really in the crafter's dominion to decide pricing. A craftsman can gouge you on the price of an item and there's nothing you can do about it. He's not out anything at all if you don't pay whatever his demands are because he can craft more lower level items that there is a normal market for and make his ends, but you need him. Which means you might have to preform some extraordinary service beyond merely throwing some gold pieces at him.
3) If the item is unavailable and the GM decides that there are no artisans around with the inclination or even capability to craft it (a reasonable assumption as the majority of items can be produced by 5th level adepts but certain items - particularly high end weapons and the like - can be beyond their capability to craft safely). Which means it might be quest time, or you might have to make do with the item drops that you get.
Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins. All three of these classes are happy when they find the +2 flaming lonsword, the +2 flaming greataxe, the +2 flaming heavy flail, or the +2 flaming glaive. Fighter is the only one who is not likely to be excited because using any number of these could mean half of his class features and/or feats expended may just shut off.
|
I don't know why I'm posting this, but what the hell I'll give it a shot.
Back in 3.5 I gave fighters the ability to size up opponents, it went something like this.
Size up Opponent (1st level)(EX): On the first round of combat a fighter can designate one enemy as his main target. Against that target a fighter gets a +2 to hit AC and saves, and adds +1d6 to damage, further along with the bonus to saves a fighter gets to make a fortitude saving against any spell cast (spell-like ability used) by that target if that spell (spell-like ability) usually doesn't allow a save. At 4th level and every four levels there after (8th, 12th, 16th, 20th) the fighter gains a additional +1 to hit, AC, and saves, and a additional +1d6 to damage (for a +6 and +6d6 at 20th level). Size up opponent last until combat ends or if either the fighter or target is dead/defeated. The fighter cannot reuse size up opponent until his first turn of a new combat encounter.
I don't know why I'm posting this, but it's an idea I played around with before pathfinder came out. I thought the pathfinder weapon & armor mastery where great ideas so I just left if out. Besides in the group I play with nobody in particular cares for the fighter (to simple/uninteresting) although it sometimes comes up in multi-class builds.
Anyway I'm still a little confused on the subject, while I can see giving fighters additional skill points and of course expanding their skill selection so they can contribute outside of combat. What would really increase their utility inside of combat without overfilling the class with to much, and is the ability to kill things really that bad. Now admittedly I'm not a fighter lover, heck I love the summoner so it goes without saying I like complected classes, but how to you improve the fighter, and of course the rogue and monk, without getting into crazy abilities? Is it really possible?
Builds comparison should never include magic gear as far as im concerned especially consumables, only basic gear.
If you need extremely specific gear to make your build viable, you already proven it failed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ashiel are you in like a wormhole or is this just the day where you reference things from long ago like old posts or zubaz pants
and no
the point is that with a fighter, you can conjure up feat-intensive builds and feat progressions faster than any other class
when you are building at level 10, 15 or 20 with eleventy hojillion gold and 16.239% of a wand this might not matter, but it does to a lot of players who have their first 9 PFS sessions under their belt and get to try a feat progression set they've never seen before in a build they might not otherwise be able to execute in any reasonable length of time
yes maybe you get to a certain point and you realize hey, I can do this thing I am doing better with x then with the y I currently have
this is good thing and signals growth as a player
but that is meaningless if the player is scared out of learning for themselves by the innundation of repetitive generalizations that have mostly been garnered from going way down the theorycrafting rabbit hole, either min/max-wise or character-level-wise