Advanced Classes: are they awesome?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Forever Slayer wrote:

Here is the problem I'm seeing. D&D has always been a team game where every character helped each other to cover any weaknesses. Couldn't fly, well the Wizard made you fly. Needed a boost in an ability, one of the spellcasters gives you a buff. Some people are trying their best t9 make classes self sufficient, almost like it's a shame to ask help from others or god forbid you have to divert options to cover the weakness.

Some people are just looking to have a class set up where they can totally optimize it.

Strong Fort and Will don't fit the Swashbuckler concept.

I think the problem people see is that without a strong save in one of the two, the swashbuckler is going to have trouble covering the weaknesses of the non-full BAB characters. Back in 3.5 my group had a player try the old Knight class out, and despite being able to dictate that enemies pay attention to him rather than the softer people, he never could do it for very long (despite the d12 hit die) before he was stopped by a failed fortitude save.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem here is that classes must be fun to play, and in order for that to happen, they must be effective enough to fulfill their role relatively well. If mechanics didn't matter, we could grab a Warrior, give him Weapon Finesse, name it Swashbuckler and call it a day.

Having both bad Will and bad Fort progression means Swashbucklers easily fail at their role as a martial class. Charmed Life only works a few times a day and costs a immediate action, stopping Swashies from using one of their iconic class features.

I'm all for flavorful classes, but flavor won't matter if the character is easily neutralized. How can I enjoy the flavor of my dexterous combatant character when any schmuck with a poisoned dagger or low-level spell can take me out of the fight? (Notice how literally every single full BAB class has good Fort save. (Including not only both of the Swashbuckler's parent classes, but even Warriors! Meaning playtest Swashbucklers are less resilient than you average militia guard!

And Swashbucklers are a combat focused class! All of their class features are directly related to combat.


Grey Lensman wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:

Here is the problem I'm seeing. D&D has always been a team game where every character helped each other to cover any weaknesses. Couldn't fly, well the Wizard made you fly. Needed a boost in an ability, one of the spellcasters gives you a buff. Some people are trying their best t9 make classes self sufficient, almost like it's a shame to ask help from others or god forbid you have to divert options to cover the weakness.

Some people are just looking to have a class set up where they can totally optimize it.

Strong Fort and Will don't fit the Swashbuckler concept.

I think the problem people see is that without a strong save in one of the two, the swashbuckler is going to have trouble covering the weaknesses of the non-full BAB characters. Back in 3.5 my group had a player try the old Knight class out, and despite being able to dictate that enemies pay attention to him rather than the softer people, he never could do it for very long (despite the d12 hit die) before he was stopped by a failed fortitude save.

So that's when the group actually works as a team and buff the Knight's areas he has a problem with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

The problem here is that classes must be fun to play, and in order for that to happen, they must be effective enough to fulfill their role relatively well. If mechanics didn't matter, we could grab a Warrior, give him Weapon Finesse, name it Swashbuckler and call it a day.

Having both bad Will and bad Fort progression means Swashbucklers easily fail at their role as a martial class. Charmed Life only works a few times a day and costs a immediate action, stopping Swashies from using one of their iconic class features.

I'm all for flavorful classes, but flavor won't matter if the character is easily neutralized. How can I enjoy the flavor of my dexterous combatant character when any schmuck with a poisoned dagger or low-level spell can take me out of the fight? (Notice how literally every single full BAB class has good Fort save. (Including not only both of the Swashbuckler's parent classes, but even Warriors!)

Playtest Swashbucklers are less resilient than you average militia guard!

And Swashbucklers are a combat focused class! All of their class features are directly related to combat.

Sorry but when has being a combat class auto assume you have all good saves? You will just have to bite the bullet and move away from other areas of your build and focus on enhancing your weaknesses, or maybe have your team actually work together and they give you some of the proper buffs to help against your weak points.

Maybe the designers don't want this class to have a good Fort save because it doesn't go with their image of a swashbuckler. They are an agile class who uses parry, dodge, tricks, luck, and acrobatics to avoid damage. They have never been depicted as hardy warriors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Forever Slayer wrote:
So that's when the group actually works as a team and buff the Knight's areas he has a problem with.

Trusting your friends to help you is very, very different than completely depending on them for you to be able to do your job.

Forever Slayer wrote:
Sorry but when has being a combat class auto assume you have all good saves? You will just have to bite the bullet and move away from other areas of your build and focus on enhancing your weaknesses, or maybe have your team actually work together and they give you some of the proper buffs to help against your weak points.

Who said anything about having all good saves? Having bad Fort and bad Will save is not a minor problem, it's a crippling weakness! Fort and Willa re not just very common saves, they are saves that completely remove you from a fight, making the character completely useless to his friends. Having one weak save between Fort and Will is okay. Not ideal, of course, but it can be dealt with. Having both of them as your weak save takes too many resources to compensate for.

A Swashbucklers having good Fort save make perfect sense for the class theme. They are the kind of warrior that should have to deal with poisoned daggers and/or resist the effects of alcohol on a daily basis!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
So that's when the group actually works as a team and buff the Knight's areas he has a problem with.

trusting your friends to help you is very, very different than completely depending on them for you to be able to do your job.

Forever Slayer wrote:
Sorry but when has being a combat class auto assume you have all good saves? You will just have to bite the bullet and move away from other areas of your build and focus on enhancing your weaknesses, or maybe have your team actually work together and they give you some of the proper buffs to help against your weak points.
Who said anything about having all good saves?

Who said anything about needing them to do your job?

This is why I think people on these boards just don't get it. Your DM is not going to spam Charm effects at you because you have a low Will save and not having the best Will save does not mean you are going to auto fail your save. All classes have weaknesses so I wouldn't waste any more breath trying to convince the devs they need to change this.

If you fail a save vs an effect then that's just the name of the game. It's been happening for over 35 years now and will see no signs of stopping. The game is not all about succeeding. Failing at something doesn't mean you are a complete failure and your class is somehow flawed.

So you have to take Great Fortitude, a trait that gives you a +1 on Fort, and possibly a magic item that grants a bonus to Fort saves, that is just the name of the game. Sorry that you won't be able to increase your DPR.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Forever Slayer wrote:
Who said anything about needing them to do your job?

Dunno about you, but being able to make your saving throws is always a big deal in my games. Past 8th level or so, Fort and Will saves are way too common and way too dangerous.

So being easily paralyzed or poisoned does stop the SB from doing his job.

Forever Slayer wrote:
This is why I think people on these boards just don't get it. Your DM is not going to spam Charm effects at you because you have a low Will save and not having the best Will save does not mean you are going to auto fail your save. All classes have weaknesses so I wouldn't waste any more breath trying to convince the devs they need to change this.

The GM doesn't need to spam anything. Casters and monsters that force SoL saves are a very, very common threat. They won't stop using their abilities just because my SB has weak saves.

Forever Slayer wrote:
So you have to take Great Fortitude, a trait that gives you a +1 on Fort, and possibly a magic item that grants a bonus to Fort saves, that is just the name of the game.

Why not play a commoner, then? All that means is that you have to take Weapon Focus, a trait that boosts your saves and maybe a magic weapon that increases your accuracy and damage, that's just the name of the game.

Forever Slayer wrote:
Sorry that you won't be able to increase your DPR.

Condescending much? Who is talking about DPR? Wanting a class to be effective at its given role is not the same as wanting them to be overpowered.

Hell, check out the SB playtest threads! You'll notice I argued for Swashbucklers to lose their bonus damage in favor of more flavorful class features and mobility.

Sczarni

I think there is a difference between making a fort save and having a good fort progression. Thematicaly, for some people at least, giving the SB a good fort save just does not seem right, so finding a way to permanently boost their fort or will save through either luck, self confidense, nacicism, obliviousnes, etc without giing hem a different fort or will progression would make everyone happy.


Frerezar wrote:
I think there is a difference between making a fort save and having a good fort progression. Thematicaly, for some people at least, giving the SB a good fort save just does not seem right, so finding a way to permanently boost their fort or will save through either luck, self confidense, nacicism, obliviousnes, etc without giing hem a different fort or will progression would make everyone happy.

I'd disagree with the notion that good Fort doesn't fit the class theme. Like I said, they are the kind of guys that would deal with poisoned daggers and alcohol drinking on a daily basis, so it makes sense that they'd naturally grow used to resisting them. But that's beside the point...

SBs need a tool to compensate for their slow progression on both Fort and Will. Remember, this is not just Zorro, this Zorro in a world where poisonous monsters and mind-controlling mages are a very real thing. If a Swashbuckler wants to survive in it through skill, then he needs a means of doing so. Having the same resiliency as a commoner won't suffice. Especially if they want to be the frontliners of their party (and that's what their full BAB and class feature tell us they are supposed to be).

It doesn't necessarily needs to be a good Fort save progression, but there must be something that boosts their save. And not a limited (and probably insufficient) "solution" as Charmed life. They need a real solution, one that won't be depleted in 1 or 2 encounters.


Lemmy wrote:
Forever Slayer wrote:
Who said anything about needing them to do your job?

Dunno about you, but being able to make your saving throws is always a big deal in my games. Past 8th level or so, Fort and Will saves are way too common and way too dangerous.

So easily being paralyzed or poisoned does stop the SB from doing his job.

Death stops everyone from doing their jobs, should we just make everyone immortal? You aren't always going to be 100% effective, that's the way the game works.

Forever Slayer wrote:

This is why I think people on these boards just don't get it. Your DM is not going to spam Charm effects at you because you have a low Will save and not having the best Will save does not mean you are going to auto fail your save. All classes have weaknesses so I wouldn't waste any more breath trying to convince the devs they need to change this.

The GM doesn't need to spam anything. Casters and monsters that force SoL saves are a very, very common threat. They won't stop using their abilities just because my SB has weak saves.
What creatures are used isn't broken down into being common across the board. Different DM's use different monsters at different times. You apparently want a class designed around your DM's games.
Forever Slayer wrote:
So you have to take Great Fortitude, a trait that gives you a +1 on Fort, and possibly a magic item that grants a bonus to Fort saves, that is just the name of the game.
Why not play a commoner, then? Wall that means is that you have to take Weapon Focus, a trait that boosts your saves and maybe a magic weapon that increases your accuracy and damage, that's just the name of the game.

Then how you just go and play a commoner then and be done with it? Exaggerate much?

Forever Slayer wrote:

Sorry that you won't be able to increase your DPR.

Condescending much? Who is talking about DPR? Wanting a class to be effective at its given role is not the same as wanting them to be overpowered.

Hell, check out the SB playtest threads! You'll notice I argued for Swashbucklers to lose their bonus damage in favor of more flavorful class features and mobility.

Well you are the one giving out about a low Fort save prevents your class from doing it's job. You have been told to increase your Fort save using stats, traits, feats, and items but of course what you want to be able to do is focus your attention more on DPR, AC, and a few other areas. You want a class that is designed to where you can focus more on combat. You might as well play a dex based fighter who uses a rapier and wears fancy clothes.


Lemmy wrote:
Frerezar wrote:
I think there is a difference between making a fort save and having a good fort progression. Thematicaly, for some people at least, giving the SB a good fort save just does not seem right, so finding a way to permanently boost their fort or will save through either luck, self confidense, nacicism, obliviousnes, etc without giing hem a different fort or will progression would make everyone happy.

I'd disagree with the notion that good Fort doesn't fit the class theme. Like I said, they are the kind of guys that would deal with poisoned daggers and alcohol drinking on a daily basis, so it makes sense that they'd naturally grow used to resisting them. But that's beside the point...

Alcohol SRD: Just like drugs, alcohol can be abused and have significant negative effects. In general, a character can consume a number of alcoholic beverages equal to 1 plus double his Constitution modifier before being sickened for 1 hour equal to the number of drinks above this maximum. Particularly exotic or strong forms of alcohol might be treated as normal drugs. Those who regularly abuse alcohol might eventually develop a moderate addiction.

Where have Swashbucklers been associated with dealing with poisoned daggers? If you want that then take Great Fortitude, up your Con, a trait that gives you a bonus on saves vs poison, a feat, and maybe a magic item.


Even if the SB is an hybrid between Fighter and Gunslinger, it's in fact more, with the Slayer and the Investigator, a new replacement for the Rogue. That being said, giving the SB more than a high REF would still make the Rogue more weak in comparison.... But they already did that for the Investigator and the Slayer.

Would a high FORT go against the SB thematic? Maybe, but it's easy to explain (heavy drinker, poison, class who get hit often...). Would it make the class broken? From what I have see, the SB is far from being broken: he will not do more DPR than the standard Barbarian, the Paladin and probably even the Fighter. It's really a class created to make possible some ''light armored, rapid fighter'' usable, and not something that will break the game...

So I'm more on the side of ''give them High Fort''.


Forever Slayer wrote:
Well you are the one giving out about a low Fort save prevents your class from doing it's job. You have been told to increase your Fort save using stats, traits, feats, and items but of course what you want to be able to do is focus your attention more on DPR, AC, and a few other areas. You want a class that is designed to where you can focus more on combat. You might as well play a dex based fighter who uses a rapier and wears fancy clothes.

It's not bad Fort that will stop SBs... It's having bad Fort and bad Will save. Yeah, different GM use different monsters... But take a look at the Bestiary. And then, at the list of character classes. Check out how many can completely incapacitate a character with a Fort or Will save. It makes perfect sense to assume that GM will use those monsters and those classes against the PCs.

Again, look at the Swashbuckler threads and tell if at any moment I say anything closer to "Swashbucklers should have higher damage output". Even better! Check my post history! With the exception of Rogues, who I think are way too limited in combat, I doubt you'll ever find a post where I argue for any class to get better damage output. I don't even particularly care about DPR or AC (the reason I don't play Fighters is exactly because they have nothing but DPR and AC).


Obviously the poor fort is there to preserve the fighter's niche :P

Good fort and ref would just make him another "fighter but better" class for combat, which the game does not need IMHO.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Obviously the poor fort is there to preserve the fighter's niche :P

Good fort and ref would just make him another "fighter but better" class for combat, which the game does not need IMHO.

Which is why I think SBs should get less damage outptut and AC, but better mobility.

Besides, IMHO, if Fighters are so bad that they are forcing other classes to have Rogue saves, then they deserve to be overshadowed.


Considering fighter is probably around the third the worst class overall in the game, I think it's probably a good idea to make any new classes released better than them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Besides, IMHO, if Fighters are so bad that they are forcing other classes to have Rogue saves, then they deserve to be overshadowed.

The problem is CR and other things used to balance the game do so taking the fighter and rogue into account. Hyper-op parties that avoid those classes for mechanical reasons tend to need to fight APL+5 encounters to feel challenged when by all rights should be a no-survival situation.

The game starts cracking at that point. AC stops mattering, "Good" vs "bad" save is meaningless, you are either a wis-caster, paladin, barbar or failing your saves.

That's the kind of power-creep I don't want to see. SB doesn't need high-fort. Every class doesn't need good fort and will saves or even just one of those to be good, in this version of the game. To "fix" these kinds of issues requires a game rewrite.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I think I'd actually prefer good Will to good Fort to further differentiate the class. I guess they were leery of giving it the Paladin problem though (2 good saves and Divine Grace make for a pretty much unassailable character) since they have Charmed Life.

The Swashbuckler will probably play fine in 15 minute day with high PB however, which I've played a fair share of.


Petty Alchemy wrote:

I think I'd actually prefer good Will to good Fort to further differentiate the class. I guess they were leery of giving it the Paladin problem though (2 good saves and Divine Grace make for a pretty much unassailable character) since they have Charmed Life.

The Swashbuckler will probably play fine in 15 minute day with high PB however, which I've played a fair share of.

I am currently playing a SGG Fusilier, which has good reflex and will saves (with feats and traits spent to shore up fort) and am doing quite well with it. But covering one weak area is much easier than covering up two of them, especially when the weak area (fort saves) is already slightly boosted to be in effect a moderate save rather than a poor one.


My general stance on class balance:

Every monster in the book, a character should have a relatively even shot at beating with mild preparation(In accordance with the Challenge Rating rules, +2 encounters are supposed to be challenging and yet certain creatures pose far more of a challenge to particular set ups). There are certain monsters who represent the upper tier of a particular CR. If a particular class has extreme difficulty encountering it over pretty much everyone else, I consider that an issue.

There are cases where if you are not optimizing, you will get flat out stomped into dirt. Here's a thought experiment.

You can fight a Large Earth Elemental at level 2 as an epic encounter. Supposedly you can defeat such a creature though it takes a lot of resources and it's supposedly still in your favor of victory. As anyone whose fought a Large Earth Elemental at level 2, this is horribly false. The party likely TPKs unless given inordinate time to prepare and prior notice. A Rogue in this encounter is dead weight due to inability to provide anything worthwhile to combat except Sneak Attack and wealth hasn't gotten to the point in which it can solve all problems/give the Rogue options other than attack.

I have an issue when classes can't contribute meaningfully to bestiary encounters. In regards to the Swashbuckler, as a front liner, you can expect to be eating a ridiculous number of Fort or Will saves, so a short life is ahead of it should she not get a strong either.

Saying there's no issue because you can toss Great Fortitude on it and call it a day, is saying you can toss a dagger to a Commoner, call him an assassin and murder a dragon. Likely false.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Obviously the poor fort is there to preserve the fighter's niche :P

Good fort and ref would just make him another "fighter but better" class for combat, which the game does not need IMHO.

There are already a lot of "fighter but better" classes. For example, every other full BAB class. One more won't hurt.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Charmed Life is clearly an attempt to fix the Save problem without giving them two Good saves. Personally, I feel like just making Charmed Life be a permanent buff like Divine Grace would be a solid way to handle that, and more than make up for only having one Good Save...but that seems highly unlikely, unfortunately. It would've been a good solution.


I can agree with that. Charmed Life being a constant bonus instead of a limited use ability that stops Swashbucklers from using one of their defying class features would be nice.

Then again, I already lost any hope that Swashbucklers will be anything more than yet another Full Attack-spamming martial with no real mobility. Basing them on Fighters really hurt the class.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If they wanted to pretend like it wasn't permanent, they could just do the 'as long as you have 1 panache point' sort of thing to it. Might as well be always up, but hypothetically might be dropped.

Liberty's Edge

Xethik wrote:
If they wanted to pretend like it wasn't permanent, they could just do the 'as long as you have 1 panache point' sort of thing to it. Might as well be always up, but hypothetically might be dropped.

Yeah, you could even move it to 3rd level with all the other 'I Need This' Deeds to preserve symmetry.

Seems like a really good solution for the people who have thematic issues with high Fort or Will, since it's luck-based, too.


Like I said on page one of this thread, I can live will low fort and will saves due to charmed life. Rynjin pointed out that this is an immediate action and I lose the ability to parry in the following turn. How is that exactly? If I need to make a fort save once because my opponent has hit me with a poisoned dagger then I use charmed life and succeed on the save. My turn; I hit the opponent well but he's still standing, I didn't spend a point on anything so to avoid the dagger again I can then parry his next attack as that's the point of SBs. I may even Riposte and end the battle there. As I can only parry when the opponent is attacking then I'm not losing anything by using charmed life beyond positioning. Either I parry or I use charmed life...or take the hit. That being said, I still think they deserve a decent Fortitude.

Moving onto available deeds. WTF is up with Superior Feint? If I read this right, I do everything necessary to hit an opponent as part of my attack action. Instead of doing damage, I choose to instead end my turn and that opponent loses his DEX bonus to AC until the beginning of my next turn. It makes sense as a thing to do, but why on earth wouldn't I just pick up Greater Feint. It's better in every way as you need improved feint as a prereq which allows you to feint as a move action. Greater Feint can be done as a move action (with a bonus to the roll) and they still lose their DEX to AC for the above duration. Rather than a deed, I'd prefer Greater Feint as a bonus feat or something as it fits more with the flavor of SB as being super badass at feinting, but still doing damage and making the opponent "off balance" for his allies to get good hits. Especially the rogues. Did I read Superior Feint wrong?

Although I called him out, I'd like to thank Rynjin for keeping this thread alive while I was AFK for the weekend.


I actually like the Swashbuckler in the SRD.

Liberty's Edge

Forever Slayer wrote:
I actually like the Swashbuckler in the SRD.

This one?

That's a 3rd party class...and amusingly similar to Slayer (no, really...check the two out, they're very close in a lot of ways). It'd be pretty sad if Slayers made better swashbucklers than Swashbucklers did.


Avatar_name_1 wrote:
Like I said on page one of this thread, I can live will low fort and will saves due to charmed life. Rynjin pointed out that this is an immediate action and I lose the ability to parry in the following turn. How is that exactly? If I need to make a fort save once because my opponent has hit me with a poisoned dagger then I use charmed life and succeed on the save. My turn; I hit the opponent well but he's still standing, I didn't spend a point on anything so to avoid the dagger again I can then parry his next attack as that's the point of SBs. I may even Riposte and end the battle there. As I can only parry when the opponent is attacking then I'm not losing anything by using charmed life beyond positioning. Either I parry or I use charmed life...or take the hit. That being said, I still think they deserve a decent Fortitude.

I don't believe I said you lose Parry in the following turn, just that it precludes you from using Parry.

Which it does.

If you Parry an enemy attack...you cannot then use Charmed Life for any saves you need to make that turn.

So you're now torn between negating that one hit you KNOW is coming at you, or keeping your Immediate in reserve for that save that might come out of nowhere and f~@! you completely.


Well, the other alternative is the rogue archetype. It's hard to beat having 2 combat feats instead of one and writing "swashbuckler" on your char sheet instead of "rogue" I guess.


Avatar_name_1 wrote:
Like I said on page one of this thread, I can live will low fort and will saves due to charmed life. Rynjin pointed out that this is an immediate action and I lose the ability to parry in the following turn. How is that exactly? If I need to make a fort save once because my opponent has hit me with a poisoned dagger then I use charmed life and succeed on the save. My turn; I hit the opponent well but he's still standing, I didn't spend a point on anything so to avoid the dagger again I can then parry his next attack as that's the point of SBs. I may even Riposte and end the battle there. As I can only parry when the opponent is attacking then I'm not losing anything by using charmed life beyond positioning. Either I parry or I use charmed life...or take the hit. That being said, I still think they deserve a decent Fortitude.

I suppose the point being, is that for a front liner, attacks and saving throws come at you very fast and frequently. Getting a mediocre save bonus once a round in exchange for not being able to parry that round is super lame. Especially if you parry first and THEN a nasty save comes your way. Now you're just out of luck with awful saves.


Rynjin wrote:
So you're now torn between negating that one hit you KNOW is coming at you, or keeping your Immediate in reserve for that save that might come out of nowhere and f&*+ you completely.

Sounds like a good choice to me.

Active Defenses are a good kind of mechanic.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, not particularly. Not when it's a mechanic meant to shore up a weakness the class shouldn't even have in the first place, and especially when it's a mechanic that does the job poorly to begin with.


Rynjin wrote:
No, not particularly. Not when it's a mechanic meant to shore up a weakness the class shouldn't even have in the first place

We'll have to disagree there.


It'd be great if it wasn't meant to make up for literally the worst defenses in the game. Even rogues at least have offensive defense to shore up their AC.


Scavion wrote:


You can fight a Large Earth Elemental at level 2 as an epic encounter. Supposedly you can defeat such a creature though it takes a lot of resources and it's supposedly still in your favor of victory. As anyone whose fought a Large Earth Elemental at level 2, this is horribly false. The party likely TPKs unless given inordinate time to prepare and prior notice. A Rogue in this encounter is dead weight due to inability to provide anything worthwhile to combat except Sneak Attack and wealth hasn't gotten to the point in which it can solve all problems/give the Rogue options other than attack.

Elementals are immune to sneak attack.

*EDIT* Apologies if I misread. I've reread what I wrote. I wasn't sure if you were saying that "Rogues aren't doing much because all they do is sneak attack" or "Rogues aren't doing anything because they can't sneak attack."


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
So you're now torn between negating that one hit you KNOW is coming at you, or keeping your Immediate in reserve for that save that might come out of nowhere and f&*+ you completely.

Sounds like a good choice to me.

Active Defenses are a good kind of mechanic.

It's a little skewed when you're the only character who has to make that kind of sacrifice for less benefit.


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Scavion wrote:


You can fight a Large Earth Elemental at level 2 as an epic encounter. Supposedly you can defeat such a creature though it takes a lot of resources and it's supposedly still in your favor of victory. As anyone whose fought a Large Earth Elemental at level 2, this is horribly false. The party likely TPKs unless given inordinate time to prepare and prior notice. A Rogue in this encounter is dead weight due to inability to provide anything worthwhile to combat except Sneak Attack and wealth hasn't gotten to the point in which it can solve all problems/give the Rogue options other than attack.

Elementals are immune to sneak attack.

That would be why they are a dead weight. I.E All they can do in combat is Sneak Attack at that level so if it's unavailable...


Rynjin wrote:
Avatar_name_1 wrote:
Like I said on page one of this thread, I can live will low fort and will saves due to charmed life. Rynjin pointed out that this is an immediate action and I lose the ability to parry in the following turn. How is that exactly? If I need to make a fort save once because my opponent has hit me with a poisoned dagger then I use charmed life and succeed on the save. My turn; I hit the opponent well but he's still standing, I didn't spend a point on anything so to avoid the dagger again I can then parry his next attack as that's the point of SBs. I may even Riposte and end the battle there. As I can only parry when the opponent is attacking then I'm not losing anything by using charmed life beyond positioning. Either I parry or I use charmed life...or take the hit. That being said, I still think they deserve a decent Fortitude.

I don't believe I said you lose Parry in the following turn, just that it precludes you from using Parry.

Which it does.

If you Parry an enemy attack...you cannot then use Charmed Life for any saves you need to make that turn.

So you're now torn between negating that one hit you KNOW is coming at you, or keeping your Immediate in reserve for that save that might come out of nowhere and f*~& you completely.

Yes, but in the example I gave I was fighting an opponent with a dagger. As my character could take a dagger hit well I don't bother using a panache to parry. DM asks I roll a fortitude so I assume the dagger is poisoned. I don't want to be poisoned so I use charmed life. I pass. I take my turn and attack. They attack me and I use a panache to parry and a second panache to riposte. If its already to the point of my using charmed life then either the parry failed and I'm screwed, or I use charmed life as a "get out of jail free" card once the true danger is revealed. It's just being thrifty with resources.


But again, that's why I can live with it. I still think they deserve a decent Fortitude.


Which is all well and good if it's something as simple as a poisoned dagger.

But more often it will be "I'm fighting a guy with a dagger, and his Wizard/Demon/Manticore buddy over there is eying me funny...".


Rynjin wrote:

Which is all well and good if it's something as simple as a poisoned dagger.

But more often it will be "I'm fighting a guy with a dagger, and his Wizard/Demon/Manticore buddy over there is eying me funny...".

Very true, which is why we agree on the core of the issue rather than the "I can live with it" factor.

No thoughts on Superior feint? Or has that one been talked to death elsewhere?


Or, random encounter 4 Dracolisks!

This actually happened last night due to Kingmaker random encounter tables.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

Or, random encounter 4 Dracolisks!

This actually happened last night due to Kingmaker random encounter tables.

I looked those up as I've never encountered one before. Damn. Looking at their supernatural abilities tho I have hope for not being turned to stone.

Petrifying Gaze (Su)

Turn to stone permanently, range 30 feet, Fortitude DC 16 negates. The save DC is Charisma-based.

Being Charisma based puts this in my passable range, but I'd still use Charmed Life as there's a lot on the line. Four of those would destroy the party I'm currently in tho...


The DC from the bestiary was 18. Charmed life would save you from one save, but their are 4 of them.


My party was fine since
Barbarian
Inquisitor
Druid

The alchemist, animal companion, and gunslinger failed. The barb massacred them, the druid contributed, and the Inquisitor would have destroyed, but dem dice fails.

Divine classes in this game are honestly amazing. They "arguably" have lower damage, but have super strong defenses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Obviously the poor fort is there to preserve the fighter's niche :P

Good fort and ref would just make him another "fighter but better" class for combat, which the game does not need IMHO.

A good fort save is not the fighter's niche. Retaining their mobility, and not being married to a particular weapon group or fighting style are where the fighter excels, and they have nothing to worry about on either front from a swashbuckler.

If you want to argue based on theme, there are only three existing classes with poor fort saves who don't also have 1/2 BAB progression and d6 HD. Rogue, oracle, summoner. The class which, in theory, is specialized in avoiding combat and dealing with all the other problems a party will face, the class which is explicitly frail or crippled due to their curses, and the wizard variant which only has 3/4 BAB and d8 HD as an odd quirk of design symmetry thanks to their odd spell list.

Arguing that a good fort save "doesn't make sense" for a swashbuckler is arguing that people specifically trained as experts in a style of swordplay should be less capable of shrugging off injury than clergy, entertainers, scientists, ranged combat specialists, wizards who also know how to use a sword on the side, and magic users who use summoned monsters to fight their battles for them.

On the other hand, a good reflex save can be found on bards, monks, rangers, rogues, alchemists, and gunslingers, the classes with a conceptual focus on ranged attacks/supporting the party from behind some cover. There is a strong case to be made that swashbucklers shouldn't be in the good reflex club, conceptually, as they are quite specifically melee focused, and while there is a component of avoiding hits in there, it's tied to offering up a thin profile to melee opponents and knocking attacks aside, which makes much more sense for keeping venomous fangs and stingers away from major arteries than staying low to the ground and not getting singed by wide area spells.

I'd rather not argue on theme though when there are serious issues with the basic mechanical underpinnings to debate on instead. Particularly for a class which could use all the extra thematic wiggle room it can find. And I'd also, again, like to see the final version before discussing it... so, I really should stop hitting reply in this thread, honestly.


Avatar_name_1 wrote:
I'm starting this thread to try and take apart the Advanced Class system and see what people really think of it.

In general, the book looks to have a pretty even spread in terms of class power. There are a couple classes that could be put into tier 1 (Arcanist, Shaman), not really any tier 2s, a solid amount of classes that will probably be tier 3s (Warpriest, Skald, Investigator, Hunter, Bloodrager), and a couple tier 4s that might be tier 5 depending on how they end up (Swashbuckler, Brawler). So yeah, it's a solid book overall.

As for my thoughts on individual classes:

Spoiler:
Arcanist: It looks to be an absurdly powerful caster. Reminds me of the Archivist in that my reaction was "It's a wizard with some new mechanics. Whatever."

Bloodrager: I wish the class was more like the Magus than it was the Paladin. Last I read, the class was strictly weaker than the Barbarian at early levels, or until it got spells. I don't know if that's been changed at all since the first playtest revision.

Brawler: It's a second class that focuses on unarmed combat. Whatever.

Hunter See above. Replace "cleric" with Druid. It at least will be the first 2/3 divine caster powered by nature. Woo...

Investigator: I liked the factotum. This should also be a fun class that could in supplant the rogue as the non-magical, out of combat proficient class.

Shaman: It looks like a witch with some new mechanics. Whatever.

Skald: So it's a bard that can buff things in melee better, or something? Okay. Whatever.

Slayer: A class built to replace the rogue in terms of striking individual targets in combat. Cool enough.

Swashbuckler: It's the 4th (5th?) class, not counting prestige classes, that can try and focus in 1 handed light-weapon melee combat? Whatever.

Warpriest: Clerics are better at their schtick. Inquisitors are just as good at it. Does the class even have its own unique spell list? Whatever.

In general, the fact that the classes are pretty much all Class A + Class B + 1 to 3 new mechanicw, and some of them (brawler/swashbuckler/skald) feeling like class archetypes in terms of their specialization leaves me bored with most of the book. Most of the classes don't look bad, as much as they are superfluous and boring.


RE: Swash saves, I'd rather the Swash get a good Will save and some ability to delay the effects of a failed fortitude save. Maybe the Swash could spend grit, and for every point of grit spent the turn the save is failed the effects are delayed for 2 rounds? You wouldn't be able to make another save during that time, but you'd be able to stall the suck until after it's no longer relevant. The image of a hero going through some impossible combat and just flumping on the floor afterwards is fairly iconic, too.

Arcanist: Oh boy, the great mother of 9th level casters. I hope it gets toned down some.

Bloodrager: Certainly a cool idea and it seems strong enough.

Brawler: Glad to get a more generalized unarmed fighter since I happen to really like those but I don't think the class benefits are enough to be interesting.

Hunter: Wasted opportunity. Should have been a full martial dedicated solely to working with the animal companion. As is it's just a weaker Druid.

Investigator: Goodbye, Rogue. You will not be missed.

Shaman: I like the fluff but the class mechanics aren't particularly interesting to me personally. I'll have to see what more caster-minded people do with it.

Skald: This is the heavy metal cornerstone of the no-full-caster party I've been dreaming of. Can't wait to be passing out Greater Beast Totem to the whole party.

Slayer: Probably my favorite class from the book. Every combat role you would want for your Rogue is filled by the Slayer.

Swashbuckler: I really want to love this class because I'm a huge sucker for finesse fighters, but some really bad design decisions seem to have held it back. Mainly good because it's existence has finally convinced Paizo to give us a dex to damage feat.

Warpriest: Sacred Weapon is a really fun idea and opens up a lot of interesting ideas... I just hope the blessings have been buffed enough that it doesn't get completely outclassed by the Inquisitor.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Googleshng wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Obviously the poor fort is there to preserve the fighter's niche :P

Good fort and ref would just make him another "fighter but better" class for combat, which the game does not need IMHO.

A good fort save is not the fighter's niche. Retaining their mobility, and not being married to a particular weapon group or fighting style are where the fighter excels, and they have nothing to worry about on either front from a swashbuckler.

If you want to argue based on theme, there are only three existing classes with poor fort saves who don't also have 1/2 BAB progression and d6 HD. Rogue, oracle, summoner. The class which, in theory, is specialized in avoiding combat and dealing with all the other problems a party will face, the class which is explicitly frail or crippled due to their curses, and the wizard variant which only has 3/4 BAB and d8 HD as an odd quirk of design symmetry thanks to their odd spell list.

Arguing that a good fort save "doesn't make sense" for a swashbuckler is arguing that people specifically trained as experts in a style of swordplay should be less capable of shrugging off injury than clergy, entertainers, scientists, ranged combat specialists, wizards who also know how to use a sword on the side, and magic users who use summoned monsters to fight their battles for them.

...

This right here is the best point I have seen raised regarding the SB and its lack of good fort save.

101 to 150 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Advanced Classes: are they awesome? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.