Naturally the needs of the campaign change this... I just can't think of any situation where a fighter is the best choice here. As a raw physical presence on the battlefield he's unimpressive, and as a mastermind his class doesn't support it. He can work as say, the leader of a low level bandit troupe, but not much else.Like I said in my last post, look to history and popular fiction alike for inspiration. Is an individual as brilliant as, say, Alexander the Great, or Gaius Julius Caesar, or Temujin, so impossible for Pathfinder? Is "leader of a low level bandit troupe" the best you can imagine for a Fighter?
I can imagine them, sure. I just can't build them with the Fighter. A great tactical leader would be best built with a Cavalier or a Bard using Perform: Oratory. The Tactician Fighter archetype would work decently but not as well as the Cavalier I think (especially for a character most famous for his cavalry like Temujin).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, what I'm getting out of this is that Bards make scary BBEGs.
I don't think there needs to balance. Just a classes need to relevant at all levels. They can be weaker but as long they are fun to play balance is not an issue.
You run into problems when class is not functional at all levels. To give an example a 1st level wizard in the AD&D days. They had 1 spell and that was it. They cast it and were useless the rest of adventuring day. They fixed that in PF with 0 level spells being unlimited, School powers, Arcane bond/Familiar and knowledge skills.
The rogue is only class I think that suffers in PF. At high level they lack the Attack Bonus and AC to be effective in combat. Skills by this level have become irrelevant. Trap are trivial and rarely used. They could make an 18th level rogue more effective or at least as effective at they were when they were 10 levels lower.
Is "leader of a low level bandit troupe" the best you can imagine for a Fighter?
I don't imagine a "leader of" as being a particularly fighter-centric description. In classic fiction, the "fighter" wasn't the leader of anything; he was the person who kicked ass and took names in and of himself, by sheer virtue of being himself.
St. George against the dragon, for instance. Conan the Cimmerian against any number of evil sorcerers and aberations. Roland standing alone against the army of the Saracens. Horatio at the bridge. Anyone who says "you get to safety, I'll hold them off. Tell <name> that I love her."
A high-level fighter should be able to stand in the throne room and scream "NONE SHALL PASS," and the party believes him.
Not "NONE SHALL" -- "I cast dimension door" -- "huh?"
I don't think there needs to balance. Just a classes need to relevant at all levels.
That is part of balance. As the games goes on certain classes become a lot easier to replace.
Is an individual as brilliant as, say, Alexander the Great, or Gaius Julius Caesar, or Temujin, so impossible for Pathfinder? Is "leader of a low level bandit troupe" the best you can imagine for a Fighter?I can imagine them, sure. I just can't build them with the Fighter.
This.
A great tactical leader would be best built with a Cavalier or a Bard using Perform: Oratory. The Tactician Fighter archetype would work decently but not as well as the Cavalier I think (especially for a character most famous for his cavalry like Temujin).
Yeah. Somehow, I can't really imagine Gaius Julius Caesar standing at the gates of Rome like Publius Horatius Cocles.
And that, to me, is the difference between a fighter and a bard.
You can't allocate what you don't have. In the case of a 10 Int fighter, he gets 2 skill points per level, another if he's human, and another if he opts for a favored class bonus.
Why does a Fighter automatically have to have a 10 Intelligence?
I'm not sure how someone's supposed to be "super skillful" with level-appropriate ranks in only four skills.
He could, for instance, be a Fighter who prizes his wits as much as his brawn.
That doesn't really sound like a "fighter" to me. That sounds more like a bard, cavalier, or even an aristocrat.
Sounds like a Fighter to me. Just not an "optimized" one.
So if you're claiming that Alexander the Great wasn't a particularly good swordsman -- a claim I accept, by the way -- you're implicitly suggesting that he was actually a different class.
No, I contend he was a very good melee fighter, and that he rightly earned accolades from his men for it. I'm just offering that you don't need to be an Optimized Fighter in order to be a Fighter.
This isn't reflavoring the fluff. ... This is outright ignoring the key crunch aspects of the a character. ...
I beg to differ. We simply disagree as to what the best use of the "crunch" aspects are. For a PC whose occupation is professional adventurer/monster-killer, DPR optimization may very well be the best application of the crunch aspect. For the brilliant and ruthless king of a warlike nation, ability point, skill point, and feat distribution fall under different priorities.
Alexander the Great is only a fighter in the legendary ancient material. The historical individual was an aristocrat with delusions of fighterhood.
You should re-read the secondary sources that are available to us.
That Alexander benefited from post-facto propaganda goes without saying. That Alexander wasn't a proficient warrior betrays ignorance of the realities of 4th century B.C. Macedon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, Nethys may have transcended to Godhood through the understanding of Arcane knowledge -
But Irori did it through sheer willpower and self discipline.
Help me out: are we talking about legend here, or fact?
Why shouldn't a martial class be as capable of being as powerful as a wizard when the God of martial classes was able to do the same thing as the God of spellcasters but better?
Because comparing mortal player characters to gods is kind of like apples and oranges?
Honestly, spellcasters get to use spells like Wish. They can travel through planes. They can bring people back from death. Again, I don't begrudge the desire for balance, but how exactly do you balance a guy whose apogee of skill is being amazing with one or more weapons and the armor he wears with that sort of power?
Honestly, what I'm getting out of this is that Bards make scary BBEGs.
you're only just now getting that?
i direct you to the (3.5e)Dancer in White (quite tame for a 4chan thread, but still worth warning about)
with just bardic knowledge your party could walk into his throne room and he would know your exploits to that point, your power level and abilites, and your family line for several generations, and can easily empower his hordes of squealing fans (minions) to take care of you.
Honestly, what I'm getting out of this is that Bards make scary BBEGs.
They do.
Basically, anything that you can do with a scary Fighter BBEG, you can do with a Bard BBEG, only better. Which is really the main point under discussion.
You can give a bard any of the toys, traps, and trumpery you can give to a fighter. He can have all the same minions and magic. But the bard, unlike the fighter, is build on a chassis that lets him specifically make his toys, traps, and trumpery better and scarier.
I have this to contribute to the discussion of fighter BBEGs: I've actually had one do it successfully and not only be an effective BBEG, but win.
Of course, he won by pretending to be the minion of one of his minions and surrendering, then walking out and using the very item the PCs were trying to stop him from using after they let him go. In combat, he got his butt kicked pretty quickly, and I actually made him tougher than a normal fighter at that level.
I don't want a strict balance. 4e tried that and it leads to the "samey" feeling that a lot of classes were felt to have.To be fair, 4e's "sameiness" is a design choice by WoTC to adapt all classes to their AEDU system. Wizards chose to put everyone on the same ability scheme (as opposed to Pathfinder where there's three major design schemes). At least until Essentials, but I don't know anyone who likes essentials.
I mean, look at most middle of the road classes. A lot of people generally consider the Inquisitor, Alchemist Bard, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin (etc.) to be in the same-ish power range and among them only the inquisitor and bard are particularly similar in design (maybe paladin and ranger too).
It does break down at higher and lower levels I suppose: Every top tier character is a 9 level vancian caster (or a fake 9 level vancian caster for the summoner) and every bottom tier character is a full-attack based limited-toolkit martial.
But in general you don't need to make classes the same to make them balanced, sameiness only happens when you approach the top (everyone can do everything) or bottom (everyone can just do one thing) side of the spectrum.
Not to mention that 4E actually wasn't very balanced. it's one of the reasons that the "Any attempt at balance = 4E" argument seems a bit off to me. About the only balancing it really introduced was having some of the underpowered classes by casters, and some of the overpowered ones be martials.
Here's a better question. What does the Fighter contribute to being a BBEG that any other class can't do better? Other classes can easily animate/call/create/summon/recruit minions. Other classes can easily amass far more skills then the Fighter or ways to replace skills via spells. What is your Fighter actually good at? Leading? Not really, Bards can inspire their allies. Tactics? Not really, there are beyond genius INT casters after all. He's only better at fighting and even then at high levels a Fighter depends on other classes to be good at that.
It's not necessarily a better question; it's just an indication of what is important to you: mechanics.
What's "better" for me is to develop something that is interesting, plausible, and exciting for the players in a specific campaign. It's perfectly plausible for that to be a super-optimized killing machine who the party somehow have to overcome. It's also perfectly plausible that for that to be non-optimized individual who is true to a concept that is valid within a class but isn't defined by its mechanics.
Thus, I don't personally care that a Bard is better at "inspiring their allies." Why? Because the Bard is a Bard. A Bard could certainly rise to become the ruthless BBEG ruler of a kingdom, but the heir to the throne of the kingdom or ruthless horse-riding nobles and war-hardened phalangites probably wouldn't look to the path of the Bard as his natural choice.
You can't allocate what you don't have. In the case of a 10 Int fighter, he gets 2 skill points per level, another if he's human, and another if he opts for a favored class bonus.Why does a Fighter automatically have to have a 10 Intelligence? [/QUTOE]
Because that was what I was given to work with, a fighter with 10 intelligence :
If you are roleplaying a 10 INT Fighter as a super skillful individual even though he only has a paltry few points in a random assortment of skills, you are roleplaying that character wrong.[/QUTOE]if you're saying "Don't play a 10 Int Fighter," that's a different argument altogether.
I'd agree. I go further -- don't play a fighter at all, because they're not good at anything except DPR, and if you try to make them do something other than DPR, they end up as spell-less bards without enough skill points.
For the brilliant and ruthless king of a warlike nation, ability point, skill point, and feat distribution fall under different priorities.Absolutely. Like retraining for bard levels instead, because fighters don't make brilliant and ruthless kings worth a damn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, Nethys may have transcended to Godhood through the understanding of Arcane knowledge -
But Irori did it through sheer willpower and self discipline.
Help me out: are we talking about legend here, or fact?
Why shouldn't a martial class be as capable of being as powerful as a wizard when the God of martial classes was able to do the same thing as the God of spellcasters but better?Because comparing mortal player characters to gods is kind of like apples and oranges?
Honestly, spellcasters get to use spells like Wish. They can travel through planes. They can bring people back from death. Again, I don't begrudge the desire for balance, but how exactly do you balance a guy whose apogee of skill is being amazing with one or more weapons and the armor he wears with that sort of power?
"I swing my sword and rip a hole in reality to jump into another plane. Asmodeus and I are going to have a little talk."
Honestly, what I'm getting out of this is that Bards make scary BBEGs.you're only just now getting that?
i direct you to the (3.5e)Dancer in White (quite tame for a 4chan thread, but still worth warning about)
with just bardic knowledge your party could walk into his throne room and he would know your exploits to that point, your power level and abilites, and your family line for several generations, and can easily empower his hordes of squealing fans (minions) to take care of you.
While I have always liked Bard, I have yet to use one as my BBEG. But I am enjoying the ideas for Bard BBEGs in the thread.
I don't imagine a "leader of" as being a particularly fighter-centric description. In classic fiction, the "fighter" wasn't the leader of anything; he was the person who kicked ass and took names in and of himself, by sheer virtue of being himself.
I don't think that's wholy inclusive by any means, though.
St. George against the dragon, for instance.
The same Saint George who was also a Tribune in the eastern Roman legions?
Conan the Cimmerian against any number of evil sorcerers and aberations.
The same Conan who commanded his own pirate ship, mercenary bands, and even served as the general in charge of Khoraja's army (and yes, he determined their tactics, etc.) before becoming king of Aquilonia and leading her own armies on several different campaigns?
Roland standing alone against the army of the Saracens.
The same Roland who was master of the Breton Marches?
Horatio at the bridge.
Who was himself an officer in the Roman legions.
Anyone who says "you get to safety, I'll hold them off. Tell <name> that I love her."
The point being, Saint George aside (since the legend has nothing to do with his real life), the examples you mentioned aren't exclusive from the concepts I'm proposing. Conan was a great warrior, but he was also a great leader and a canny tactician. Roland and Horatio, even within their legends, were also leaders of men.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, I don't begrudge the desire for balance, but how exactly do you balance a guy whose apogee of skill is being amazing with one or more weapons and the armor he wears with that sort of power?By giving him epic abilities comparable to heroes of legend from which the archetype draws inspiration? Doesn't seem hard.
While I am against always holding martials back because "it's not magic", I also think that sword swinging has its limits.
I can imagine them, sure. I just can't build them with the Fighter.
That's unfortunate.
A great tactical leader would be best built with a Cavalier ...
That's not true. In fact, I'd argue that a Cavalier is only a "great tactical leader" of very small groups. His abilities influence only a handful of individuals. The real tactical leader would be whoever put enough skill points in Knowledge: Military Tactics (or what have you). That could be a Cavalier... or it could be a Fighter.
... or a Bard using Perform: Oratory.
Sure - if everyone in said army was able to see and/or hear the Bard in the middle of a clash between thousands of armed men and women. And that's assuming Bard works in the context of the situation.
My point is that nothing precludes a Fighter from being the BBEG if the GM decides that this is what the character is and that this is what makes sense for the campaign. Your counterargument is that a Fighter doesn't do certain micro-level stuff as well as other classes. My rebuttal to you is that Pathfinder Alexander or Pathfinder Temujin may very well have the resources to have a court mage or five, or a couple of bards, or whatever. That is, that being a BBEG - being a character, period - extends beyond mere mechanics. A character should be a living thing that makes sense within their particular context. As nothing precludes a character from being a non-optimized Fighter who is instead focused on their particular role within their particular context, I have no problems imagining that individual.
The real work is imagining someone whose resources don't amount to Deus Ex Machina. That, of course, is where thorough backstory comes into play. Do I, as the GM, feel that the resources are plausible within the context of the character? Were they attainable? Do they make sense within the story I'm trying to tell?
While I am against always holding martials back because "it's not magic", I also think that sword swinging has its limits.Again, I don't begrudge the desire for balance, but how exactly do you balance a guy whose apogee of skill is being amazing with one or more weapons and the armor he wears with that sort of power?By giving him epic abilities comparable to heroes of legend from which the archetype draws inspiration? Doesn't seem hard.
Considering what some of the ancient mythological swords were capable of? The limits seem pretty high. For example, some of the myths about Excalibur have it capable of cleaving mountains.
That said, the ability to punch so hard you can one-shot a dragon shows up a lot in mythology and fiction. Why can't martial heroes have similar power?
Because that was what I was given to work with, a fighter with 10 intelligence
That's a false premise, as I indicated to Anzyr. It assumes a Fighter has to have a low/average Intelligence. It's a trap in that it assumes you have to work within the constraints of optimization.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't imagine a "leader of" as being a particularly fighter-centric description. In classic fiction, the "fighter" wasn't the leader of anything; he was the person who kicked ass and took names in and of himself, by sheer virtue of being himself.I don't think that's wholy inclusive by any means, though.
St. George against the dragon, for instance.The same Saint George who was also a Tribune in the eastern Roman legions?
Conan the Cimmerian against any number of evil sorcerers and aberations.The same Conan who commanded his own pirate ship, mercenary bands, and even served as the general in charge of Khoraja's army (and yes, he determined their tactics, etc.) before becoming king of Aquilonia and leading her own armies on several different campaigns?
Roland standing alone against the army of the Saracens.The same Roland who was master of the Breton Marches?
Horatio at the bridge.Who was himself an officer in the Roman legions.
Anyone who says "you get to safety, I'll hold them off. Tell <name> that I love her."The point being, Saint George aside (since the legend has nothing to do with his real life), the examples you mentioned aren't exclusive from the concepts I'm proposing. Conan was a great warrior, but he was also a great leader and a canny tactician. Roland and Horatio, even within their legends, were also leaders of men.
This did a really good job of summing up some of the big holes I see in the Fighter chassis. Their class description refers to them taming kingdoms, rousing the hearts of armies, and controlling the flow of battle, but their actual class abilities contribute very little (if anything) that would actually let them do these things. Adding that capability would probably be a good place to start rounding out the Fighter and balancing him with the caster classes.
By giving him epic abilities comparable to heroes of legend from which the archetype draws inspiration? Doesn't seem hard.
Sounds Epic - or Mythic. Precisely what I've offered before. The obvious (and totally understandable, don't get me wrong!) counterargument to that, of course, is that spellcasters can get Epic and Mythic as well. :)
"I swing my sword and rip a hole in reality to jump into another plane. Asmodeus and I are going to have a little talk."
Considering what some of the ancient mythological swords were capable of? The limits seem pretty high. For example, some of the myths about Excalibur have it capable of cleaving mountains.
See above. :)
I agree, it is a mythic ability. It is, however, classified as "She's SO FREAKING STRONG she can X", which is Ex, not Sp. Which is really what I want out of my high-level martials.
So, I guess the answer on this for how it exists now is decided?
While I am against always holding martials back because "it's not magic", I also think that sword swinging has its limits.
And that's exactly where I stand. At some point, "balance" ruins my suspension of disbelief.
Magic is fun and "plausible" because it's magic. The second someone becomes magic without magic, I - personal opinion, obviously - they start losing me.
A lot of the counter-examples that are coming up cite characters who are more mythical than legendary. Or, to put it more accurately, either were supernatural by nature or did what they did thanks to a supernatural item instead of their own ability. A fighter whose sword was forged by servants of cthonic deities and allows him to cleave through dimensions sounds amazing. A fighter whose skill gets to the point where he can cleave through dimensions sounds contrived.
That obviously comes with an "agree to disagree" label, though!
This did a really good job of summing up some of the big holes I see in the Fighter chassis. Their class description refers to them taming kingdoms, rousing the hearts of armies, and controlling the flow of battle, but their actual class abilities contribute very little (if anything) that would actually let them do these things. Adding that capability would probably be a good place to start rounding out the Fighter and balancing him with the caster classes.
I'm obviously not averse to Archetypes like the Tactician or what have you. That having been said, sometimes being a great leader comes down to having the Leadership feat, investing a lot of points in relevant skills, and having a proven track record of success. :)
I agree, it is a mythic ability. It is, however, classified as "She's SO FREAKING STRONG she can X", which is Ex, not Sp. Which is really what I want out of my high-level martials.
I really have to do some digging before I rebut to this directly, but my impression is Ex covers things that are exceptional - as opposed to things that are no kidding magical. Is there an "exceptional" (versus magic-based) form of planar travel?
While I am against always holding martials back because "it's not magic", I also think that sword swinging has its limits.And that's exactly where I stand. At some point, "balance" ruins my suspension of disbelief.
Magic is fun and "plausible" because it's magic. The second someone becomes magic without magic, I - personal opinion, obviously - they start losing me.
A lot of the counter-examples that are coming up cite characters who are more mythical than legendary. Or, to put it more accurately, either were supernatural by nature or did what they did thanks to a supernatural item instead of their own ability. A fighter whose sword was forged by servants of cthonic deities and allows him to cleave through dimensions sounds amazing. A fighter whose skill gets to the point where he can cleave through dimensions sounds contrived.
That obviously comes with an "agree to disagree" label, though!
As Orfamay and I both pointed out earlier, casters are mythic by default because they are mythic in stories and myths.
So, that leaves the issue of one being allowed to be mythic and the other not a big problem in my mind.
I can agree to disagree, but I can't see the stance as reasonable in light of how magic is often treated in myth and fiction.
Pathfinder is already mythic. A Fighter who can swing so hard he can cleave through reality fits right in with a Wizard who can do in six hours what Yahweh needed six days to perform. That is, unless you want your Fighter to be an NPC lackey who's just there to make the Wizard look good.
As Orfamay and I both pointed out earlier, casters are mythic by default because they are mythic in stories and myths.
But the disparity between classes that you oppose exists within the same legends, which is why I argue that point. Arthur, for example, can't do magical things; that's a function of his sword. The King of the Britons nonetheless exists within the same context as Merlin.
I do agree that this may be an "agree to disagree" moment, though. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thoughts?
The first thought that comes to mind is that I've read this exact same thread, or a variant of it everyday I've bothered to come to these forums.
My second thought is that balance, especially as a stated design goal, is a fool's errand, but if Paizo isn't going to let martials be in the same league as other classes, at least unlock the stadium doors on game day and let them have a seat and enjoy a smidge of narrative power.
|
|
I'm obviously not averse to Archetypes like the Tactician or what have you. That having been said, sometimes being a great leader comes down to having the Leadership feat, investing a lot of points in relevant skills, and having a proven track record of success. :)
Yeah, but every other class actually gets, you know, class features to do the stuff that their description says they're supposed to be able to do. They don't need to rely on the benevolence of Papa GM during Magical Story Time to do the things in their class description.
Citing GM fiat and a feat equally available to any class is not an argument that balance exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As Orfamay and I both pointed out earlier, casters are mythic by default because they are mythic in stories and myths.But the disparity between classes that you oppose exists within the same legends, which is why I argue that point. Arthur, for example, can't do magical things; that's a function of his sword. The King of the Britons nonetheless exists within the same context as Merlin.
I do agree that this may be an "agree to disagree" moment, though. :)
I think this gets down to a lot of the difference in stories being the additions given by the equipment (though, some stories had martials equally powerful). Given martial might is almost entirely tied to equipment, especially in this game, that is one area where I don't see the difference as that important. Note, though, I am stating personal opinion ;)
But, yes. Agree to disagree.
Everything but UMD, and that is debatable.
It also has so much room in it's build to retrofit to anyone's desire.
Hardly seems fair saying an alchemist is a better rogue and then applying a PrC that gives you trap finding and bardic knowledge. Not exactly an alchemist thing.
A few questions though:
Your hp is listed as 78. 8 at level one, 45 from level 2-10, +20 from con, and you're at 73. Where's the other 5 coming from?
Your skills are listed at 112. +4 per level from int, +4 per level of alchemist, +8 from PrC, +9 favored class, and you're at 93. Where's the other 19 coming from?
Your perception is listed at 29. +3 class skill, +10 ranks, +5 item, +6 feat, +1 PrC, and you're at 25. Where's the other 5 coming from? This also takes a -1 when using your mutagen along with the -1 on will saves.
Your damage is listed at 1d6+10. +5 dex, +1 magic, and you're at +6. Another +2 from mutagen? Where does the other 2 come from? You also list the +10 on your offhand strikes when the agile enchantment says you still get half damage with your off hand strikes which puts your off hand to 1d6+7 since you round down, maybe less from the missing +2 I can't find.
You list immunity to possessions and mental control with will saves. Where does this come from?
As Orfamay and I both pointed out earlier, casters are mythic by default because they are mythic in stories and myths.But the disparity between classes that you oppose exists within the same legends, which is why I argue that point. Arthur, for example, can't do magical things; that's a function of his sword. The King of the Britons nonetheless exists within the same context as Merlin.
I do agree that this may be an "agree to disagree" moment, though. :)
Pecos Bill took an ordinary lasso and wrangled a tornado with it. He's an American myth, so his creators didn't feel the need to include divine origins in his backstory to explain the beyond-normal-human things that he can do. He's just that good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything but UMD, and that is debatable.
It also has so much room in it's build to retrofit to anyone's desire.
Hardly seems fair saying an alchemist is a better rogue and then applying a PrC that gives you trap finding and bardic knowledge. Not exactly an alchemist thing.
A few questions though:
Your hp is listed as 78. 8 at level one, 45 from level 2-10, +20 from con, and you're at 73. Where's the other 5 coming from?
Your skills are listed at 112. +4 per level from int, +4 per level of alchemist, +8 from PrC, +9 favored class, and you're at 93. Where's the other 19 coming from?
Your perception is listed at 29. +3 class skill, +10 ranks, +5 item, +6 feat, +1 PrC, and you're at 25. Where's the other 5 coming from? This also takes a -1 when using your mutagen along with the -1 on will saves.
Your damage is listed at 1d6+10. +5 dex, +1 magic, and you're at +6. Another +2 from mutagen? Where does the other 2 come from? You also list the +10 on your offhand strikes when the agile enchantment says you still get half damage with your off hand strikes which puts your off hand to 1d6+7 since you round down, maybe less from the missing +2 I can't find.
You list immunity to possessions and mental control with will saves. Where does this come from?
It's an old copy, heres the updated format with corrections.
HP is correct. 8 hp at level one, 40 from average hit dice, +29 from Con + Favored Class so 77.
Skills is 4 from Int, 4 from Alchemist, 1 from Human, 81 skill points then another 12 from his PrC level. So generally one less skill at max ranks than a Rogue.
Perception should be 27. +3 Class Skill, +10 Ranks, +5 Item, +6 Feat, +1 PrC, +2 Heroism. Takes 10 on his Perception check for a 37.
Damage was an old error as I thought Heroism increased damage as well. I play with Bards too often and got mixed up. The offhand damage was an oversight.
Human Mindchemist Vivisectionist Alchemist 9/Pathfinder Delver 1 20 Pointbuy
Traits: Deathtouched, Reincarnated
Str:10
Dex:18(20)(Ability score increases +2)
Con:14
Int:16(18)(+2 Human)
Wis:10
Cha:10
Feats:
1: Combat Expertise, Skill Focus(Bluff)
3: Weapon Finesse
5: Two Weapon Fighting
7: Two Weapon Feint
8: Skill Focus(Perception)
9: Improved Feint
Discoveries: Whatever you want, take infusion and Mutagen at some point though.
Gear:
+1 Agile Light Mace
+1 Agile Dagger
Cloak of Resistance +3
Eyes of the Eagle
Trapspringer's Gloves
+3 Shadow Mithril Chainshirt
Belt of Incredible Dexterity +2
Headband of Vast Intelligence +2
Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier
Ring of Protection +1
Wayfinder equipped with Clear Spindle
Approximately 900 gold remaining
Special Abilities:
Sneak Attack 5d6
Bardic Knowledge +1
Cognatogen
Alchemy
Brew Potion
Perfect Recall
Master Explorer
Skills(93 points):
Consider all abilities at an extra +2 over what is noted to account for Heroism.
Acrobatics: +18(10 ranks)
Bluff: +21 (10 ranks)
Craft(Alchemy): +17(1 rank)
Perception: +25 (10 ranks)
Kn.(History): +15 (4 ranks)
Kn.(Nature/Heal sub): +22 (10 ranks)
Kn.The rest: +9(Untrained)
Disable Device: +25 (10 ranks)
Stealth: +23 (10 ranks)
Fly: +18(10 ranks)
Spellcraft: +16(9 ranks)
Escape Artist: +18 (10 ranks)
DEFENSES
HP: 77
AC: 24(31 with Mutagen boosting Dex and Barkskin)
CMD: 25
Fort:+11(+6 vs Poison) Ref:+14 Will:+6(Immune to possesions and mental control)
Buffed Saves are: Fort +13 Ref +16 Will +8(+2 vs Mind Affecting)
+2 vs Death Effects
OFFENSES:
This guy gets completely outrageous with buffs.
Melee Attack Bonus: +10/+10/+5 (+6 BAB +1 Wpn +5 Dex)
Ranged Attack Bonus: +12/+6
Full Buffed Attack Bonus: +15/+15/+15/+10 Breakdown: 6(BAB)+7(Dex)+1(Wpn)+2(Morale)+1(Haste)
Buffs: Heroism, Mutagen, Haste, (He can supply himself with all of these)
Damage: 1d6+8+5d6, 1d6+8+5d6 and 1d4+4+5d6 or 1d4+8+5d6, 1d4+8+5d6 and 1d6+4+5d6 His haste attack has already been spent to feint, but if unneeded has another attack.
Immunity to mental control and possession is from a Wayfinder(Clear Spindle) effect.
@Scavion: You added the +2 damage from Heroism again. Should only be 1d6+8 and 1d6+4 for the off hand, shouldn't it?
Edit: Never-mind you must have edited it after I checked it or I'm just reading numbers that don't exist.
Edit 2: You do have a single extra skill point used though. Not a big deal.
I suspect a number of the 'that's too magical for my fighters!' crowd put up with the Barbarian's rage powers because those rage powers are explicitly called out as SU and given a mystical theme.
It's like these people explicitly want classes without magic to suck (at least that's the way I interpret the OP and similar statements)
That's certainly my preference (although I'm not actually arguing Paizo should do that - merely stating that's what I'd prefer). Perhaps I'd phrase it as I'd like classes without maqic to just be 'as good as (Real world) humanly possible'. It suits my tastes if the only way to break the bounds of usual human limits is via magic.
FWIW, I dont like barbarians because many of their "rage powers" seem a little silly to me.
Perhaps I'd phrase it as I'd like classes without maqic to just be 'as good as (Real world) humanly possible'.But the game already is well past the limits of normalacy by level 10. Should fighters just cap out at level 8?
I'm just not sure how you can expect a character to be "realistic" at a level of play where you're fighting gods and demon lords and elder dragons (which is what high level pathfinder is).
Well bear in mind that I'm not using the word "should" but yeah - my preference is for mundane classes to be limited to world record levels of ability. (Whether that involved capping fighters at 8th level, spreading out their progression over longer or specialising for eight levels and then diversifying wouldnt really trouble me).
Balanced games (or those that try, anyhow) are a bit of a turn off for me. It doesnt bother me if wizards are weak at low levels and earth shattering at high levels whereas fighters are dominant early on and close to irrelevant later. That's how it was when I learnt to play and anything else feels a little wrong to me.
Citing GM fiat and a feat equally available to any class is not an argument that balance exists.
To clarify, I'm not arguing that balance exists. Quite the contrary. I was asking if it should exist.
The conversation then veered to BBEGs, and whether an underpowered class like the Fighter could fit that role. I offered that it did, because I believe that, while it does define what mechanics you have available to you, a class does not define what amount of power you can have as a character.
Citing GM fiat and a feat equally available to any class is not an argument that balance exists.To clarify, I'm not arguing that balance exists. Quite the contrary. I was asking if it should exist.
** spoiler omitted **
The conversation then veered to BBEGs, and whether an underpowered class like the Fighter could fit that role. I offered that it did, because I believe that, while it does define what mechanics you have available to you, a class does not define what amount of power you can have as a character.
The mechanics you have available and their power *do* define the amount of power you have as a character in a roleplaying game though. If you don't have a high Diplomacy score, you aren't very good at changing people's attitudes. If you don't have a mechanic that lets you summon minions, you can't summon minions. If you don't have a good BAB you can't make a lot a of attacks. IF you don't have a pounce like ability you can't charge and attack multiple times.
Therefore the character of the Fighter is ill suited to being a BBEG, because none of their characteristics contribute to being a good anything other then big dumb beatstick. And big dumb beatsticks aren't the people in charge of campaign ending encounters.
Pecos Bill took an ordinary lasso and wrangled a tornado with it. He's an American myth, so his creators didn't feel the need to include divine origins in his backstory to explain the beyond-normal-human things that he can do. He's just that good.
This may be a conversation-killer, but I don't really see Pecos Bill as a relevant example. Don't get me wrong; you're absolutely right that translating skill into supernatural displays of power is exactly what Pecos Bill does. I place him next to names discussed earlier, though (Conan, Roland, etc.), though, and there's a tongue-in-cheeekness about the tales of good ol' Pecos that I think is noticeably absent from the fantasy that informs games like Pathfinder.
|
A Fighter can make a perfectly serviceable main villain. Here's an example from another thread that discussed this.
They don't make as good main villains as Wizards or Bards, but they're quite workable if you want to do it.
That doesn't make the class good or balanced, it means a lot of things can be a good main villain with enough HD over the PCs.
So doesn't the game already fall apart for you when the "not magical" fighter can swim through lava or fall ten miles without suffering significant injury?
I don't pretend that the game is perfect by any means. I see the exmaples you mention as functions of imperfect rules, though - not as license to justify even more superhuman feats for the sake of game balance.
As I offered earlier in this topic (or in a similar topic), if the ability to survive orbital falls (or jump ludicrously high, or whatever) is the design team's winking hint that player characters are superhuman, then that's just sadistic and in poor form on their part. I can think of far better ways for that kind of power to translate into the game. :)