|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
FAvored enemy is a personal spell that only affect the ranger....Remember that a Ranger's Animal Companion shares his Favored bonuses and Instant Enemy treats the target as your Favored Enemy "for all purposes". Instant Enemy should be boosting the cat's DPR as well.
Instant Enemy (which I assume you're referring to) treats the target as your Favored Enemy for all purposes. Animal Companions automatically share the Ranger's Favored Enemy bonuses. We can do a separate thread in the rules forum but RAW the animal companion also benefits from Instant Enemy.
Fallaception continues.
Players hold a lot of double standards when it comes to making arguments online.
Instant Enemy (which I assume you're referring to) treats the target as your Favored Enemy for all purposes. Animal Companions automatically share the Ranger's Favored Enemy bonuses. We can do a separate thread in the rules forum but RAW the animal companion also benefits from Instant Enemy.FAvored enemy is a personal spell that only affect the ranger....Remember that a Ranger's Animal Companion shares his Favored bonuses and Instant Enemy treats the target as your Favored Enemy "for all purposes". Instant Enemy should be boosting the cat's DPR as well.
I woudl be Ok with another thread abot this topic.
master_marshmallow, You have failed in making any convincing arguemnt and constnatly repeat things that have been shown to be just not true. Not sure what is your intention in this threat, but I suppose is to start a flamewar.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fallaception continues.
Players hold a lot of double standards when it comes to making arguments online.
yeah, like your argument that fighter's do not need more skill points because they are not important and the argument in this thread right here that skills ARE useful and necessary to make the rogue relevent.
A Fire Giant does 3d6+15 damageNow, A fire giatn does (with power attack)
+18/+13/+8 (3d6+24) (19-20/x2)
Um...
Now, A fire giatn does (with power attack)
+18/+13/+8 (3d6+24) (19-20/x2)
Why do people not read? T_T
EDIT: I'm serious. It's really beginning to upset me. I don't understand why people come to a forum where the only way of communication short of us all engaging in interpretive ACSII-art is to read what each other says. I swear, people aren't even trying. In my response to Marthkus I said cover SEVEN TIMES. Seven. Each time noting that not only did the kobolds both have cover but I also pointed out the mechanical rammifications of having cover (such as their increased AC and immunity to AoOs).What does he do? Ignores most of my post but responds to it like he didn't, and then looks slack-jawed when he can't explain why the kobolds have more than 17 AC vs the party's attacks, while crying "Barbar OP, Barbar OP" over and over again. My mind = blown.
I just don't get it. Why even bother if you're not actually going to exercise your ability to read.
Sleet_Storm, whenever you're in such a rush to catch the other guy in an error that you stop taking the time to actually read the post, I think it is a good time to take a step back from the argument, go get a glass of water or look at some sunshine, and return later.
Happens to all of us from time to time, but slow down, dude ;)
A Fire Giant does 3d6+15 damageNow, A fire giatn does (with power attack)
+18/+13/+8 (3d6+24) (19-20/x2)
Um...
Now, A fire giatn does (with power attack)
+18/+13/+8 (3d6+24) (19-20/x2)
Why do people not read? T_T
EDIT: I'm serious. It's really beginning to upset me. I don't understand why people come to a forum where the only way of communication short of us all engaging in interpretive ACSII-art is to read what each other says. I swear, people aren't even trying. In my response to Marthkus I said cover SEVEN TIMES. Seven. Each time noting that not only did the kobolds both have cover but I also pointed out the mechanical rammifications of having cover (such as their increased AC and immunity to AoOs).What does he do? Ignores most of my post but responds to it like he didn't, and then looks slack-jawed when he can't explain why the kobolds have more than 17 AC vs the party's attacks, while crying "Barbar OP, Barbar OP" over and over again. My mind = blown.
I just don't get it. Why even bother if you're not actually going to exercise your ability to read.
Sleet_Storm, whenever you're in such a rush to catch the other guy in an error that you stop taking the time to actually read the post, I think it is a good time to take a step back from the argument, go get a glass of water or look at some sunshine, and return later.
Happens to all of us from time to time, but slow down, dude ;)
Do not spin a story based on one sentence from me. I was going from memory , it was a mistake , I deleted the post.What more do you wan't.
Until the DM ask for a roll.Playing the game out of cambat =/= requires skill points.yeah, was the point of playing the game out of combat? just use your smartphone until combat beggins.-4+Int skill points should be the minimum.Why? What are you really missing out on? What do you need these for?
A roll for what? What are you doing out of combat? What is your fighter's role that he needs these rolls for? Seriously this is the question that no one seems to answer and instead they just paint me as the bad guy for clearly not understanding because I'm badwrongfun or something.
A roll for what? What are you doing out of combat? What is your fighter's role that he needs these rolls for? Seriously this is the question that no one seems to answer and instead they just paint me as the bad guy for clearly not understanding because I'm badwrongfun or something.Until the DM ask for a roll.Playing the game out of cambat =/= requires skill points.yeah, was the point of playing the game out of combat? just use your smartphone until combat beggins.-4+Int skill points should be the minimum.Why? What are you really missing out on? What do you need these for?
Whatever role I wnat him to fill? Like it can easily be done with the rangers and more or less the barbarian.
The scholar, the scout, the charming warrior, the highgborn general, etc.
Are you saying that in a party the fighters do not need/wants to do anything outside combat because the other party member can fill those roles?
A roll for what? What are you doing out of combat? What is your fighter's role that he needs these rolls for? Seriously this is the question that no one seems to answer and instead they just paint me as the bad guy for clearly not understanding because I'm badwrongfun or something.Until the DM ask for a roll.Playing the game out of cambat =/= requires skill points.yeah, was the point of playing the game out of combat? just use your smartphone until combat beggins.-4+Int skill points should be the minimum.Why? What are you really missing out on? What do you need these for?
Trying to lie? Bluff
Trying to change the disposition of an NPC to make them more friendly? Diplomacy.
Trying to determine if he is being ripped off? Appraise
Trying to gather information about this guy? Diplomacy
Trying to know something? Knowledge X
Trying to track something? Survival
Trying to survive outside (hunting/building a fire/ ect.)? Survival.
Trying to climb a Wall? Climb
Trying to swim in your armor? Swim.
Trying to draft up a document? Linguistics.
Need more examples? I mean, If you are playing BY RAW then the fighter really con't do much of anything out of combat. Now if you GM FIAT things or HOUSE-RULE things, that is good for you. But by RAW the fighter is literally a useless bag of flesh out of combat...
EDITTED FOR STUPIDITY :p
What more do you wan't.
Well, I gave my suggestion. And I think if this thread were proceeding at a slightly more slow and stately pace from both sides, nothing would be lost.
There is no rush.
A roll for what? What are you doing out of combat? What is your fighter's role that he needs these rolls for? Seriously this is the question that no one seems to answer and instead they just paint me as the bad guy for clearly not understanding because I'm badwrongfun or something.Until the DM ask for a roll.Playing the game out of cambat =/= requires skill points.yeah, was the point of playing the game out of combat? just use your smartphone until combat beggins.-4+Int skill points should be the minimum.Why? What are you really missing out on? What do you need these for?
Whatever role I wnat him to fill? Like it can easily be done with the rangers and more or less the barbarian.
The scholar, the scout, the charming warrior, the highgborn general, etc.
Are you saying that in a party the fighters do not need/wants to do anything outside combat because the other party member can fill those roles?
This entire time what I have been saying is if you want a fighter to be able to do those things, there are archetypes that give you those options.
If that is what you want from your fighter. You have the options. Maybe not for scout yet, but I have literally cited two archetypes that fill both of your cited roles of scholar and charming warrior.
And instead of saying "thanks for these archetypes paizo that let me fill these roles with my fighter" you are saying "they don't count because it isn't part of the base package of what fighters have in the CRB."
You are refusing to be pleased, I posted Marshmallow Fallacy as a joke, but it is honestly holding 100% true right now.
A roll for what? What are you doing out of combat? What is your fighter's role that he needs these rolls for? Seriously this is the question that no one seems to answer and instead they just paint me as the bad guy for clearly not understanding because I'm badwrongfun or something.Until the DM ask for a roll.Playing the game out of cambat =/= requires skill points.yeah, was the point of playing the game out of combat? just use your smartphone until combat beggins.-4+Int skill points should be the minimum.Why? What are you really missing out on? What do you need these for?
Whatever role I wnat him to fill? Like it can easily be done with the rangers and more or less the barbarian.
The scholar, the scout, the charming warrior, the highgborn general, etc.
Are you saying that in a party the fighters do not need/wants to do anything outside combat because the other party member can fill those roles?
This entire time what I have been saying is if you want a fighter to be able to do those things, there are archetypes that give you those options.
If that is what you want from your fighter. You have the options. Maybe not for scout yet, but I have literally cited two archetypes that fill both of your cited roles of scholar and charming warrior.
And instead of saying "thanks for these archetypes paizo that let me fill these roles with my fighter" you are saying "they don't count because it isn't part of the base package of what fighters have in the CRB."
You are refusing to be pleased, I posted Marshmallow Fallacy as a joke, but it is honestly holding 100% true right now.
The only archetype that actually is worth a damn that fills a trope other than *guy who loves his big stick and likes to share with people's face* Is the lore warden. Which Paizo has said is somehow op???
A roll for what? What are you doing out of combat? What is your fighter's role that he needs these rolls for? Seriously this is the question that no one seems to answer and instead they just paint me as the bad guy for clearly not understanding because I'm badwrongfun or something.Until the DM ask for a roll.Playing the game out of cambat =/= requires skill points.yeah, was the point of playing the game out of combat? just use your smartphone until combat beggins.-4+Int skill points should be the minimum.Why? What are you really missing out on? What do you need these for?
Whatever role I wnat him to fill? Like it can easily be done with the rangers and more or less the barbarian.
The scholar, the scout, the charming warrior, the highgborn general, etc.
Are you saying that in a party the fighters do not need/wants to do anything outside combat because the other party member can fill those roles?
This entire time what I have been saying is if you want a fighter to be able to do those things, there are archetypes that give you those options.
If that is what you want from your fighter. You have the options. Maybe not for scout yet, but I have literally cited two archetypes that fill both of your cited roles of scholar and charming warrior.
And instead of saying "thanks for these archetypes paizo that let me fill these roles with my fighter" you are saying "they don't count because it isn't part of the base package of what fighters have in the CRB."
You are refusing to be pleased, I posted Marshmallow Fallacy as a joke, but it is honestly holding 100% true right now.
Aside for the lore warden that is basically fine, there is no other archetype for that.
But no, the tactician is a worst than the ranger ourside combat and just worst in combat too. What is the point? Thanks paizo for not design the class properly in the first place and refuse to give a good alternative?, just no.
And I do not think you undesrtand the concept of logical fallacy.
The only archetype that actually is worth a damn
This right here is subjective.
Someone upthread actually praised the Cavalier's tactician ability for spreading buffs to the party. I have pointed out that the Tactician really doesn't lose much over the regular fighter, except his heavy armor proficiency and +1 damage from one weapon training that he loses.
Again, you are choosing not to be pleased with the options that exist. If paizo released another archetype that gave you 4+ skills per level (which they probably will) and didn't give up heavy armor would that please you?
Granted it's ridiculous how much hate the Tactician is getting, I feel like if I wasn't using it to prove my point a lot of people would be much more well receiving to the class.
The rest of your post is such utter garbage I can't even be bothered to reply to it directly. Once the words "player entitlement" and "haters" are used you've given up any attempt to carry on a rational conversation.But I will appeal to literature. What is lacking about the martial master in a world of magic with magic gear? Which sort of martial characters in such a world from stories are unrepresented in the PF fighter?
Normally, I find the martial characters that do other stuff either:
1) exist in a world without magic2) exist in a world without magic gear
Examples where the fighter fail to measure up would be appreciated
A consistent poster in the Giantitp forums, Psyren, consistently brings up the point that it is rare in any form of a fiction for a Martial character to succeed without some form of supernatural help. Either the blessing of the gods (Greek Heros), The Aid of a Wizard (Conan), a magical Lamp (Alladin), or some other source of magical power.
However, in many of those cases, the enemy is also equally, if not more reliant on magical powers to succeed. Thulsa Doom's powers seem to have some relation to a large snake, Jaffar relies on his staff and eventually the lamp as well, Greek Heros are often fighting magical creatures.
So I would submit:
3) exist in a world where all characters are equally reliant on magical items or providence for their power.
Again, you are choosing not to be pleased with the options that exist.
I don't know if anyone chooses to not like something. People might occasionally have psychological barriers to seeing the positives in a class, or choose to not consider the other side out of spite, but people don't say, "Now that I've considered your point and see every benefit, I will choose to not like the class."
stuff including personal insults
Okay, so the Tactician is worse out of combat because he only has 4+ skills instead of 6+? Now your much coveted 4+ skill ranks per level is not enough? Or is there something else he needs? He gets Diplomacy and Sense Motive now and the extra skill ranks to use them so he can be your party face, is that not a role outside of combat? How is he worse in combat? I mean really I have looked it over and he is just missing out on heavy armor which he can buy back with a feat that he has in surplus, and only he has in surplus.
I mean, by all means keep acting condescending about it, but all you're doing at this point is trying to insult my intelligence and I'm not really buying it.
|
|
Someone upthread actually praised the Cavalier's tactician ability for spreading buffs to the party. I have pointed out that the Tactician really doesn't lose much over the regular fighter, except his heavy armor proficiency and +1 damage from one weapon training that he loses.
I was the one who "praised" the Cavalier. And I pointed out that the Tactician(archetype)'s version of Tactician is much worse than the Cavalier's and isn't backed by a solid ability like Banner/Greater Banner. I also noted that losing Weapon Training 1 isn't just losing +1/+1, it's delaying your progression for 4 additional levels and ultimately costs you +4/+4 to an entire weapon group. The loss in AC drops the Tactician to the same starting point as the Ranger, but without any way to shore it up. Of the three major abilities he gets, 2 of them negate his ability to deal any damage at all in a given combat round.
The only upside he has is improved skills and an improved skill list (still not as good as a Ranger's), in exchange for being a terrible buffer and a very mediocre melee combatant. You sacrifice the one thing the Fighter is actually situationally good at, to give him one thing he can do terribly and bring another thing up to par. No bueno.
Actually, Conan relies rarely on wizardly help, although he does occasionally get magical help AGAINST magical foes. Mostly though, just grit and willpower and base 18 in all starter stats.
Carry on!
==Aelryinth
The only archetype that actually is worth a damnThis right here is subjective.
Someone upthread actually praised the Cavalier's tactician ability for spreading buffs to the party. I have pointed out that the Tactician really doesn't lose much over the regular fighter, except his heavy armor proficiency and +1 damage from one weapon training that he loses.
And armor training and a feat. THat put him below the other martials.
I would also like to point out that the Fighter is the ONLY melee class that "starts" without a class feature to increase his damage.
Yep!
Rangers, get FE.
Barbs, get to rage.
Paladins, get to smite.
Fighters...wait until level 4 for weapon training AND weapon spec.
==Aelryinth
stuff including personal insultsOkay, so the Tactician is worse out of combat because he only has 4+ skills instead of 6+? Now your much coveted 4+ skill ranks per level is not enough? Or is there something else he needs? He gets Diplomacy and Sense Motive now and the extra skill ranks to use them so he can be your party face, is that not a role outside of combat? How is he worse in combat? I mean really I have looked it over and he is just missing out on heavy armor which he can buy back with a feat that he has in surplus, and only he has in surplus.
I mean, by all means keep acting condescending about it, but all you're doing at this point is trying to insult my intelligence and I'm not really buying it.
It was not a personal insult because it was totally true because youe wre using the word fallacy wrong.
But yeah 4 is less than 6, it is not? And then you have the lack of spells, the lack of the pet and the lack of bnuses from favored terrain and track. It shoudl be pretty clear that hte rangers win here.
But that is fine, because rangers are supposed to be better out of combat.
But now the tactician lose a feat, lose the AC benefits, delay weapon training 1, delay full movement in full armor. yeah, the Tactician is just weaker than vanilla fighter, and the vanilla fighter is not that clear cut stronger than the ranger.
So, the tactician is weaker than the ranger, you admit it or not.
And armor training and a feat. THat put him below the other martials.The only archetype that actually is worth a damnThis right here is subjective.
Someone upthread actually praised the Cavalier's tactician ability for spreading buffs to the party. I have pointed out that the Tactician really doesn't lose much over the regular fighter, except his heavy armor proficiency and +1 damage from one weapon training that he loses.
I'm gonna call you out on this one.
Are you saying the fighter doesn't have enough feats to where he can't give up one of them for 2+skill ranks per level and expanded class skills?Armor training of full speed in medium armor, +2 max DEX, and -2 ACP is still better than everyone else that isn't a regular fighter.
I maintain that it's a pretty fair trade.
And armor training and a feat. THat put him below the other martials.The only archetype that actually is worth a damnThis right here is subjective.
Someone upthread actually praised the Cavalier's tactician ability for spreading buffs to the party. I have pointed out that the Tactician really doesn't lose much over the regular fighter, except his heavy armor proficiency and +1 damage from one weapon training that he loses.
I'm gonna call you out on this one.
Are you saying the fighter doesn't have enough feats to where he can't give up one of them for 2+skill ranks per level and expanded class skills?Armor training of full speed in medium armor, +2 max DEX, and -2 ACP is still better than everyone else that isn't a regular fighter.
I maintain that it's a pretty fair trade.
1) It is a fair trade. The problem is that it make the tacticain to be balanced witht he core fighter, but the core fighter is not balacned agaisnt the other martials. that is the problem.
2) It is not just a feat you say it. It is a feat, armor training and weapno training. He lose AC, DPR and mobility and a feat. One of the selling poitns of fighters is to complete feat chains faster than others, that gert hurted by tacticians, even more if you spend a feat on heavy armor proficiency.
I am totally Ok with an archetye that rades in combat for out combat utility. But the end result is not good primarly because the starting poitn was not that good, that is my point.
Imho, the original fighter should have 4 skills and the tacticians and lore wardend 6.
|
|
I woudl be Ok with another thread abot this topic.
Thread posted here. Consensus seems to agree (so far) that Instant Enemy increases the Animal Companion's bonuses as well. "All purposes" is a pretty definitive statement.
1) It is a fair trade. The problem is that it make the tacticain to be balanced witht he core fighter, but the core fighter is not balacned agaisnt the other martials. that is the problem.
2) It is not just a feat you say it. It is a feat, armor training and weapno training. He lose AC, DPR and mobility and a feat. One of the selling poitns of fighters is to complete feat chains faster than others, that gert hurted by tacticians, even more if you spend a feat on heavy armor proficiency.
I am totally Ok with an archetye that rades in combat for out combat utility. But the end result is not good primarly because the starting poitn was not that good, that is my point.
Imho, the original fighter should have 4 skills and the tacticians and lore wardend 6.
But you still do get to finish feat chains faster, just not as fast as a core fighter.
Your damage ultimately goes down by 1. DPR as a figure might even go up using Battle Tactics to boost your attack bonus...
He is still more mobile than anyone else because he can still move at full speed in medium armor. His AC is still better than anyone else in said medium armor because he still gets the first two armor trainings.
Yes, he lost that feat.
Let's not forget that he also gains the tactician ability, which is still not a bad thing, especially if he's an archer. I guess if you wanted to hold the fact that it's a standard action against him I can't blame you, but it is a free teamwork feat.
Again, the whole "I want everyone to have more skills" is a pretty weak argument when it comes down to play style choice dictating how much every character really needs to be able to make skill checks out of combat. Whatever happened to the days where you would buy 1 rank into things and just take 20?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever happened to the days when we all realized the Commoner was all we needed? One guy took Profession (turnip taster) and another guy had Craft (turnip baskets) and we played as a TEAM! And we didn't need other skills like "climb," because we would just role-play that part. It sucked when Bob accidentally pulled down all the curtains in the DM's house though -- the wife was PISSED!
stuff including personal insultsOkay, so the Tactician is worse out of combat because he only has 4+ skills instead of 6+? Now your much coveted 4+ skill ranks per level is not enough? Or is there something else he needs? He gets Diplomacy and Sense Motive now and the extra skill ranks to use them so he can be your party face, is that not a role outside of combat? How is he worse in combat? I mean really I have looked it over and he is just missing out on heavy armor which he can buy back with a feat that he has in surplus, and only he has in surplus.
I mean, by all means keep acting condescending about it, but all you're doing at this point is trying to insult my intelligence and I'm not really buying it.
I am not going to bother regurgitating what everyone else has already brought up. Really the only Archetypes that are worth anything are teh two-handed fighter (for those who REALLY like power attack with big weapons), the brawler (for those who like to put the monk to shame... if that is something to be proud of), the Lore Warden (that paizo has somehow said is "overpowered"), and the Unbreakable for those that like making unkillable Orcs :p
To make a class comparison, you need to make a class comparison, not a race comparison, a 'who can spend WBL best on consumables ahead of time for an encounter' comparison, a 'general feats' comparison, a 'pick the spells ahead of time' comparison, an "I can assign stats on point buy better then you" comparison.
You need to break down what the class, and the class alone, can do. ANYTHING else, race, general feats and WBL, is something BOTH classes can do, and so is NOT a class comparison.
This is where class comparisons fall down...they continually move to things outside the class.
Here's your class comparison questions for melees:
I'll try it for fighters and rangers. The first answer is for fighters, the second for rangers.:
Offensive:
1) What's your BAB? Full/Full
2) What's your hit die? d10/d10
3)Do you have class features that increase damage? Yes/Yes
4) Are they surge or constant? Are they limited in target or universal? Limited to some weapons / part limited to enemies part constant (Animal companion)
5) Do you have spells? (if yes, make note: Easier time making magic items) No / Yes
5a) Do those spells include buffs? Offensive spells? No / Buffs yes, offensive not sure
6) Do you have movement bonuses or modes of any kind? Are these cheaply subbed for? Yes / No
7) Do you have stat dependency for your class features? (ex. Wisdom for casting ranger spells; stats for combat bonus feats) No / Yes
8) Can you move and attack at full effectiveness? No / not you but maybe your AC
9) Are you as effective at range as you are in melee? Depends on the built for both
10) Do you have a fighting partner? No / Yes
11) Do you have non-casting combat enhancements? Yes / Yes
12) Do your offensive abilities scale (increase by level) or are they flat bonuses? Yes / yes
13) Can you gain extra attacks/offensive power? No / Only through AC
14) How does your offensive ability fare in anti-magic? Equal for both
Defensive
1) What good saves do you have? Fort / Fort + Ref
2) Do you have any enhancements to saves you get from your class? A little through bravery / yes
3) Can you cast defensive spells or use defensive powers? No / Yes
4) How good are you at dealing with traps? Bad / vanilla bad
5) can you heal yourself? No / little
6) can you remove status conditions from yourself? No / few
7) How do you handle flanking/sneak attack conditions? positioning / positioning of self and/or AC
8) How do you handle flying foes? Ranged weapon / Ranged weapon or depends on AC
9) Do you have any immunities? Resistances? Spell Resistance? No / no
10) How good are you at defending against combat manuvers? good / mediocre
11) Do you have to trade off being good at offense and defense? Yes/ Yes
12) Do you have bonuses to AC from class that are not spells? No / No
13) Any good news for Touch AC? No / no
14) Do your defensive abilities that are numbers scale, or are they flat bonuses? little scaling / non
15) Do you have stat dependency for any of your class features? No / Yes
16) How good are you at stealth? Bad / depending on location and enemies
17) Do you have useful defensive spells to cast that you would employ regularly? No / Endure elements for example
18) How does your defensive ability fare in anti-magic? Good / mediocre
Utility
1)How many skill points do you have? 2 / 6+tracking+favored enemy+ favored terrain
2) How many class skills do you have? 10 / 15
3) Is it a 'good' class list? Specifically, does it handle Perception, a social skill aspect, and/or some combat usage (such as sense motive or Knowledge skills?) No / Yes
4) Do you gain a bonus to any skills from class abilities? No / Yes
5) Do you have any miscellaneous class features that would be called utility features? No / Yes
6) Do you have spells that have a 'downtime' use? Utility usage when adventuring? No / Yes
7) Do you gain bonuses from high statistics for non-standard purposes not covered elsewhere? (i.e. primarily bonus spells from stats) No / Yes
8) Would you style yourself MAD or SAD as a class (i.e. requiring 16+ in 2+ stats to function normally, or 14+ in 4 or more stats) No / Yes
9) How does your utility ability fare in anti-magic? Which utility / Good
THIS is a melee class comparison. No general feats, no racial abilities, no WBL, no min-max on stat builds. It's a straight up class comparison, everything else gets added on afterwards, and what's good for one is good for the other.And when you start looking at it this way, Fighters start coming up...poorly.
Note: If we're going to include primary casters, then you'd include things like prepared spells, spontaneous, surprise situations, size of spell list/spells known, etc.
In all fairness the only Paizo employee I've heard call out Lore Warden as "OP" was SKR - it made it through editing as-is, so I wouldn't necessarily assume that is the opinion of Paizo as a whole.
|
|
Your damage ultimately goes down by 1. DPR as a figure might even go up using Battle Tactics to boost your attack bonus...
This is wrong. You lose an entire weapon group that would scale to +4.
Yes, he lost that feat.
Which now means that his 4 feats are expected to be equal to a huge swath of abilities that other classes get, when 5 weren't even equivalent before.
Let's not forget that he also gains the tactician ability, which is still not a bad thing, especially if he's an archer. I guess if you wanted to hold the fact that it's a standard action against him I can't blame you, but it is a free teamwork feat.
It's terrible. It never gets any better (like a Cavalier's does), it never applies to more than one feat (like a Cavalier's does), and you don't get it at a point where it gives you anything worthwile. Tactician works for a Cavalier because it scales and becomes better, and the Cavalier already has bonuses to his action economy thanks to having a mount.
Your argument boils down to an assumption that a class that can give it's allies a +2 to a highly conditional situation and is capable of running away faster somehow levels the playing field.
The Fighter, as a class, was deficient to begin with. Addressing one of its issues by making it notably worse at the one thing it had a chance to excel at and slapping on some terrible abilities is not a fix.
Actually, Conan relies rarely on wizardly help, although he does occasionally get magical help AGAINST magical foes. Mostly though, just grit and willpower and base 18 in all starter stats.
Carry on!
==Aelryinth
True. It's just nonetheless the case that Conan didn't do everything without magical help.
Though he did have much better saves that most people.
|
|
In all fairness the only Paizo employee I've heard call out Lore Warden as "OP" was SKR - it made it through editing as-is, so I wouldn't necessarily assume that is the opinion of Paizo as a whole.
It was released in a 5 year old book that's been replaced by an entirely new publications twice, neither of which reiterated the class. It blatantly breaks Paizo design guidelines on several fronts (doing things like replacing slow-scaling defensive abilities with high-scaling offensive abilities).
We would never know if the Paizo design team as a whole had any issues with it, because they published it in a book that they immediately forgot about. Since it was a soft-cover splat book, it will never see FAQ or errata.
So, an old entry in an out-of-date book that's no longer in print is probably not the best example. The only core item that addresses the skill issue is the Tactician, which is terrible, and not even remotely close to being as good as the Lore Warden.
I am not going to bother regurgitating what everyone else has already brought up. Really the only Archetypes that are worth anything are teh two-handed fighter (for those who REALLY like power attack with big weapons), the brawler (for those who like to put the monk to shame... if that is something to be proud of), the Lore Warden (that paizo has somehow said is "overpowered"), and the Unbreakable for those that like making unkillable Orcs :pstuff including personal insultsOkay, so the Tactician is worse out of combat because he only has 4+ skills instead of 6+? Now your much coveted 4+ skill ranks per level is not enough? Or is there something else he needs? He gets Diplomacy and Sense Motive now and the extra skill ranks to use them so he can be your party face, is that not a role outside of combat? How is he worse in combat? I mean really I have looked it over and he is just missing out on heavy armor which he can buy back with a feat that he has in surplus, and only he has in surplus.
I mean, by all means keep acting condescending about it, but all you're doing at this point is trying to insult my intelligence and I'm not really buying it.
And this is just proving my point. You have the options, but you are choosing not to use them. I'm sorry that they are not good enough for you, but I see a lot of potential in it, and with archetypes as a whole for the potential of creating a fighter that people will be pleased with without having to nix the entire edition and errata the fighter, all other classes with 2+ skill ranks, and then changing the skill system overall just for the purpose of 'balance at all costs' which already is a warped paradigm and impossible goal to reach.
Whatever happened to the days when we all realized the Commoner was all we needed? One guy took Profession (turnip taster) and another guy had Craft (turnip baskets) and we played as a TEAM! And we didn't need other skills like "climb," because we would just role-play that part. It sucked when Bob accidentally pulled down all the curtains in the DM's house though -- the wife was PISSED!
It took me second to realize what going on in the joke, but that was great.
And this is just proving my point. You have the options, but you are choosing not to use them. I'm sorry that they are not good enough for you, but I see a lot of potential in it, and with archetypes as a whole for the potential of creating a fighter that people will be pleased with without having to nix the entire edition and errata the fighter, all other classes with 2+ skill ranks, and then changing the skill system overall just for the purpose of 'balance at all costs' which already is a warped paradigm and impossible goal to reach.I am not going to bother regurgitating what everyone else has already brought up. Really the only Archetypes that are worth anything are teh two-handed fighter (for those who REALLY like power attack with big weapons), the brawler (for those who like to put the monk to shame... if that is something to be proud of), the Lore Warden (that paizo has somehow said is "overpowered"), and the Unbreakable for those that like making unkillable Orcs :pstuff including personal insultsOkay, so the Tactician is worse out of combat because he only has 4+ skills instead of 6+? Now your much coveted 4+ skill ranks per level is not enough? Or is there something else he needs? He gets Diplomacy and Sense Motive now and the extra skill ranks to use them so he can be your party face, is that not a role outside of combat? How is he worse in combat? I mean really I have looked it over and he is just missing out on heavy armor which he can buy back with a feat that he has in surplus, and only he has in surplus.
I mean, by all means keep acting condescending about it, but all you're doing at this point is trying to insult my intelligence and I'm not really buying it.
Why should I be forced to take an archetype in order to make a fighter the way I want too? Seems a backward way of looking at things. Archetypes should be better in some areas, and less in others based on their role - NOT the bandaid to make an entire class good. Drop the archetypes, look at the class. More wedge cases.
Why should I be forced to take an archetype in order to make a fighter the way I want too? Seems a backward way of looking at things. Archetypes should be better in some areas, and...And this is just proving my point. You have the options, but you are choosing not to use them. I'm sorry that they are not good enough for you, but I see a lot of potential in it, and with archetypes as a whole for the potential of creating a fighter that people will be pleased with without having to nix the entire edition and errata the fighter, all other classes with 2+ skill ranks, and then changing the skill system overall just for the purpose of 'balance at all costs' which already is a warped paradigm and impossible goal to reach.I am not going to bother regurgitating what everyone else has already brought up. Really the only Archetypes that are worth anything are teh two-handed fighter (for those who REALLY like power attack with big weapons), the brawler (for those who like to put the monk to shame... if that is something to be proud of), the Lore Warden (that paizo has somehow said is "overpowered"), and the Unbreakable for those that like making unkillable Orcs :pstuff including personal insultsOkay, so the Tactician is worse out of combat because he only has 4+ skills instead of 6+? Now your much coveted 4+ skill ranks per level is not enough? Or is there something else he needs? He gets Diplomacy and Sense Motive now and the extra skill ranks to use them so he can be your party face, is that not a role outside of combat? How is he worse in combat? I mean really I have looked it over and he is just missing out on heavy armor which he can buy back with a feat that he has in surplus, and only he has in surplus.
I mean, by all means keep acting condescending about it, but all you're doing at this point is trying to insult my intelligence and I'm not really buying it.
Heck, most of the archetypes DON'T EVEN MAKE YOU WHAT YOU WANT. Most of the fighter archetypes are just BAD...
stuff
Because it does work that way? Why are the rules different when we compare archetypes for the fighter class to archetypes for everyone else?
For real, if every other class has a wedge case, then why can't the fighter? How often do you see someone use the core version of a class vs:
-Teleportation Wizards
-Gendarme Cavalier
-Hexcrafter Magus
-Kensai
-Samurai
-Ninja
-Oath of Vengeance Paladin
-Pistolero Gunslinger
-Master of Many Styles
-Invulnerable Rager
-Vivisectionist Alchemist
-Synthesist
Why can't we have a case where a fighter option exists that people find to be better than the core fighter that satisfies their desires? 'Balance at all costs' is not a very sound argument considering the fact that wedge cases even exist in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuffBecause it does work that way? Why are the rules different when we compare archetypes for the fighter class to archetypes for everyone else?
For real, if every other class has a wedge case, then why can't the fighter? How often do you see someone use the core version of a class vs:
-Teleportation Wizards
-Gendarme Cavalier
-Hexcrafter Magus
-Kensai
-Samurai
-Ninja
-Oath of Vengeance Paladin
-Pistolero Gunslinger
-Master of Many Styles
-Invulnerable Rager
-Vivisectionist Alchemist
-SynthesistWhy can't we have a case where a fighter option exists that people find to be better than the core fighter that satisfies their desires? 'Balance at all costs' is not a very sound argument considering the fact that wedge cases even exist in the first place.
Teleportation is a base wizard... so whatevs..
Gendarme is decent, but not striaght better.
Kensai is a decent archetype, but the Base magus is actually stronger.
Hexcrafter as better endurance, but again, weaker than base magus
Samurai- just a different cavalier. not better or worse over all.
Ninja- You are starting from literally the weakest class in the game.. Just about anything is an improvement.
-Pistolero- Not that bad as long as you don't cheese the gun shooting rules.
Master of Many Styles- A dip archetype. Archetype literally SUCKS if you are a straight monk.
-Invunerable Rager- pretty much better barb so will concede that.
-Vivisectionist- strong, but doesn't straight invalidate the original alchemist (bombs have a higher burst ability than sneak attack).
-Synthesist- is actually weaker than base summoner and master summoner in the long run. Action Economy is a thing...
|
|
For real, if every other class has a wedge case, then why can't the fighter? How often do you see someone use the core version of a class vs:
-Teleportation Wizards
-Gendarme Cavalier
-Hexcrafter Magus
-Kensai
-Samurai
-Ninja
-Oath of Vengeance Paladin
-Pistolero Gunslinger
-Master of Many Styles
-Invulnerable Rager
-Vivisectionist Alchemist
-SynthesistWhy can't we have a case where a fighter option exists that people find to be better than the core fighter that satisfies their desires? 'Balance at all costs' is not a very sound argument considering the fact that wedge cases even exist in the first place.
Samurai and Ninja got to be their own class. The rest of those either aren't as common as you think, or are widely considered to problematic specifically because of their lack of balance. Saying "Unbalanced options are fine, just look at these other options that have thousands of posts and hundreds of threads about because of being unbalanced or problematic (like Synthesist and Pistolero).
Few of those are actually unbalanced to the core class either. Pretty much Ninja and Pistolero are the only options that are actually flat out better than their parent classes, and Paizo recognized this enough with Ninja that they didn't even try to pretend it was still a Rogue. Synthesists are equal to or worse than the standard summoner class, as they lose action economy and don't gain any more combat capability than a standard Eidolon. Pretty much all of the others follow a similar change where they give up general focus for specialization into one particular area.
A class like the Lore Warden gives up sub-par and situational options and replaces them with kickass highly applicable options. It is demonstrably better than the core Fighter, thus its popularity. In that respect, the only example you gave that really draws a direct corollary to the Lore Warden is the Pistolero, who is at least an option available in core who has been vetted and reviewed for FAQ and eratta.
More like
Bladebound Magus (Blackblade Magus)
Rifleman Gunslinger
Superstitious Barbarian
Arcane Duelist (trade skill efficiency for better combat and money efficiency)
Zen Archer
Tetori Monk (in campaigns that max against large foes)
Oath of Vengence Paladin (combine with Celestial servant to win)
Scout Rogue
Bonded Witch
His role is being an adventurer. That means bringing something useful to the party, and hopefully not being brutally murdered by the environment/society if he's stuck on his own.
2+int skill points per level is not enough for a non-full caster especially one with a class which does not motivate investing in Int.
I ask again, enough to do what?
I'm not seeing it guys, I'm just not. Again, we've been over this, there are archetypes that give you utility, there are archetypes that max your damage.
There are options out there, just because they aren't base options doesn't mean they don't exist.
Again, the whole "I want everyone to have more skills" is a pretty weak argument when it comes down to play style choice dictating how much every character really needs to be able to make skill checks out of combat. Whatever happened to the days where you would buy 1 rank into things and just take 20?
I have crunched the numbers for tactician several times in teh past and I will not change my mind without a good reason. We will not hcange the other mind so let that end for now.
The hting I would liek to adress is that "I want everyone to have more skills" is not a thing I have said, and I do not think is a popular option.
I want 2 more skills for the fighter because there is no mechanical nor fluff justification for that. I also want more skills poits for hte paladin, and tha tis pretty much is it.
His role is being an adventurer. That means bringing something useful to the party, and hopefully not being brutally murdered by the environment/society if he's stuck on his own.
2+int skill points per level is not enough for a non-full caster especially one with a class which does not motivate investing in Int.
I ask again, enough to do what?
I'm not seeing it guys, I'm just not. Again, we've been over this, there are archetypes that give you utility, there are archetypes that max your damage.
There are options out there, just because they aren't base options doesn't mean they don't exist.
Except, in order for the fighter to have even the most remote iota of out of combat utility he has to sacrifice his combat ability. Where as the ranger will STILL beat him out of combat AND will be even better than him IN COMBAT. I mean... really?
Except, in order for the fighter to have even the most remote iota of out of combat utility he has to sacrifice his combat ability. Where as the ranger will STILL beat him out of combat AND will be even better than him IN COMBAT. I mean... really?His role is being an adventurer. That means bringing something useful to the party, and hopefully not being brutally murdered by the environment/society if he's stuck on his own.
2+int skill points per level is not enough for a non-full caster especially one with a class which does not motivate investing in Int.
I ask again, enough to do what?
I'm not seeing it guys, I'm just not. Again, we've been over this, there are archetypes that give you utility, there are archetypes that max your damage.
There are options out there, just because they aren't base options doesn't mean they don't exist.
But his combat utility is not sacrificed. It's not like he becomes a Commoner, you guys are blowing it way out of proportion to prove a point, and one that I keep disproving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And locking. Guys, this kind of stuff really doesn't lead to productive discussions, and personal attacks really don't help foster the kind of community we'd like to have here. Please remember that you're talking about a game and that the name on the other side of the screen is an actual human being.