CAPTAIN PLANET! He's a hero...What about a group of spell casters that can combine their energy to cast higher level spells than any of them could manage alone?
LOL! I was actually thinking about a coven of witches.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/witch/hexes/common-hexes/hex-c oven-ex
or, alternatively...
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/bard/archetypes/paizo---bard-a rchetypes/magician
I don't see anything in either of those that gives the group access to higher level spells, just to increase the CL for spells that one of them can already cast.
*shrug* UMD + Aid Another.
the guy from this video
What's this? Did they make an anime version of GARO?
the guy from this videoWhat's this? Did they make an anime version of GARO?
it's Karas. a 2 part anime movie that will consume a good 5 hours of your life with exciting animated gory action and harsh langauge.
On the entire wizard thing, it's not just the wizard...
Almost ANY class that requires years of training to qualify.
You can't say a wizard...why...because sure, you could spend years to become a wizard...but you can also become a wizard over night...
Hence, to qualify to be a wizard...it doesn't take years RAW. In fact, get enough experience, it could take less than 24 hours.
RAW.
The concept that in order to even have a remote chance to be a wizard you must spend years studying...isn't supported by PF.
If you say...well...your DM could just rule 0...then this conversation about concepts is moot from the beginning, because the DM could say...hey...I give you 10,000 HP, 60 STR, and whatever else at level 1...just because. No need to gain XP or anything else, or even levels.
RAW...the entire...years of study to qualify doesn't exist in PF.
Then again, it may actually be able to be stated this never existed in D&D in the first place once Dual Classing was allowed in AD&D.
It isn't just wizards either, Cavaliers can become Cavaliers in less than 24 hours, so can Monks.
It's just a matter of getting the XP...and if you use training rules...training.
Now the DM COULD rule 0 and SAY training for such and such a class will take years...but that's not exactly RAW (as what I would get from a thread asking) and is more DM fiat...hence making this thread absolutely useless in even asking.
So, I'd say...officially, that concept can't be supported by PF under current rules.
In addition, it may be able to be done, but a little tougher, is starship pilot (aka Wedge Antilles or Luke Skywalker as the Pilot).
Of course, perhaps that's because there are no starships that we know of that are flyable (there are CRASHED starships)...though maybe the tech guide addressed this already?
However, with that said...
I want to have Conan the Barbarian AS PER the books.
I mean, I want a Character that is stronger then the strongest man, better at being a Rogue than the King of Theives (Tower of the Elephant), Yet also a very powerful Warrior (again, Tower of the elephant) and all of this at a lower level (most likely 5th or lower) (As Tower of the Elephant happens before Conan is all mighty and famous for it, but more at the beginning of his adventures).
When he gets higher level, he has to be able to resist ANY spell, and not be succumbing to any mental controls or other items. So no bad saving throws. AT that point, he isn't just powerful, he has to be undefeatable by any other in single combat, and must be able to kill hundreds if an army is pitted against him, outlasting his own army and then withstanding the enemy army on his own for a while before being taken captive.
Conan really was that DMPC if you think about it.
There is no definite answer to your question, to create something that doesn't exist is to use the rules of the Pathfinder game as a chassis for your imagination, such as Paizo did with the 3.5 WoTC D&D. Adding and removing rules need be to fit their ideal scenario for what a medieval fantasy should be. As it says and doesn't say in the rules, feel free to bend any rules whenever need be to fit into your campaign, any good RPG would say the same. That being said, the things that it doesn't say in the rules that I can create are limitless.
But to ultimately break your question would be to twist the fabric of Pathfinder into your own logic, such making a legitamte class by class build of a Eidolon Gun for a Gunslinger that gains Evolution Points every time you use Grit with your Deeds to kill an enemy.
We've had a bit of a challenge trying to recreate the tension that comes from threatening someone with a ready weapon, the "Don't move, I got you in my sights" kind of situation of aiming a crossbow/gun/bow/fisharang at someone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The ones that can function without magic items, yes.All Monks?
The Monk has magic Su powers.Isn't Circular Reasoning fun.
We define a problem that requires a very specific solution (incorporeal), exclude all possible sources that offer a solution, followed by the statement, "there is no possible solution."
Wot?
Circular Reasoning is proving your point by assuming it is true from the start. It is an argument that argues for itself because of itself.
If I had said something like "This thing is brown, I know this because it is brown" that would be circular reasoning.
What I did was propose a problem (characters cannot fight all level appropriate challenges without magic). You proposed a solution (Monk). I disqualified said solution because Monks do, in fact, have magic (namely, Ki Pool as a Su ability), meaning that without said magic they would not be able to fight all level appropriate challenges.
You then, for some reason, said "Aha! Not ALL Monks have magic, nyeh!" and presented the Martial Artist archetype for consideration, which I then denied could function against all level appropriate challenges without magic. Which it can't, just like everything else, because it has no way to attack incorporeal creatures.
You then mistakenly called me out on using circular reasoning, because I guess you thought it would make you look smarter or something.
Tell me if I missed anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pssh, I never said any concept was going to be viable at higher levels. Just that it was possible. Some ideas are just flat-out better than others. Just like in reality. If you choose to specialize in the pen knife, don't be surprised if you're overshadowed by the person who specialized in the katana. Just because it's your precious unique concept doesn't mean it's going to be a good idea. A dex fighter is possible. A dex fighter is outshadowed by a strength fighter most of the time. Oh well. A wizard outshines a martial at higher levels. *shrug* Should've put down that sword and read a book when you were a kid.
A non-magic character is completely possible. There's dozens of ways to do it. It is outshined readily by a magical character or a character with magical equipment. It isn't viable against a demon with DR20/magic or the like. Should it be? Just because it's what you want, should it be considered a good idea?
By the way, I'm hereby going to stop repeating myself in regard to, or even copy-and-pasting, "fantasy genre" anymore. It's a waste of time on my part.
Pssh, I never said any concept was going to be viable at higher levels. Just that it was possible. Some ideas are just flat-out better than others. Just like in reality. If you choose to specialize in the pen knife, don't be surprised if you're overshadowed by the person who specialized in the katana. Just because it's your precious unique concept doesn't mean it's going to be a good idea.
I'm suddenly reminded of how wanting crossbows and slings to not be trap options was "asking for a water balloon fighting style."
If a DEX fighter is overshadowed by a STR fighter the majority of the time, then a highly competent agility-based fighter is an example of a very common fantasy character that can't be done in Pathfinder with RAW.
Pssh, I never said any concept was going to be viable at higher levels.
Really, that entire paragraph could be repeated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's not going to be viable then it might as well not exist. It is a trap. An un-option. Telling someone "yeah you can do X but it will guaranteed be trash no matter what you do" is hardly helpful or shows how complete the rules are at handling certain concepts.
every concept should be viable at both lower levels and higher levels. a Dex fighter should not be behind a strength fighter, and a barbarian should not be behind a wizard. not that they need to be the same, but they should have equal plot control, and differing combat focuses that make the barbarian feel different from the wizard, while making the dex fighter feel different from the str fighter, without making one of the group. outright inferior. a crossbow, throwing knife or sling should not be inferior to the longbow.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, 'I can make any concept, but some are TOTALLY useless' isn't really a high bar to set.
Yeah, 'I can make any concept, but some are TOTALLY useless' isn't really a high bar to set.
it isn't a high bar
the magical assassin i mentioned, as well as the elemental leeching vampiric-lite martially inclined warrior, are both concepts that can be made, but are complete trash at the levels they can be made, because they are lesser than the few concepts the game does support at that level. specifically high level full progression spell casters.
telling me that you can build a decent spellcasting assassin at epic levels or telling me you can build a highly competent non-magical rogue, but it will suck after level 3, means you can't really build those concepts, because if you tried to at the levels you could build them at, they would still be outright useless.
i wanted to build a competent assassin who can fill the assassin niche competently while using spells to support that, not an incompetent 20th level character that is outright inferior to a 7th level wizard in everything except hit points, saving throws and bab.
If a DEX fighter is overshadowed by a STR fighter the majority of the time, then a highly competent agility-based fighter is an example of a very common fantasy character that can't be done in Pathfinder with RAW.
Pssh, I never said any concept was going to be viable at higher levels.Really, that entire paragraph could be repeated.The degree to which a character is viable is part of the concept. "Deadly swordsman" and "incompetent bumbler" are not the same thing.
You can just roleplay your 10 in all stats commoner as a badass warrior wizard that channels the power of the cosmos to see into past, present, and future without the use of his eyes, which were cut out by a bandit chief when he was 13. Just because it's not viable is not the systems problem.
You can just roleplay your 10 in all stats commoner as a badass warrior wizard that channels the power of the cosmos to see into past, present, and future without the use of his eyes, which were cut out by a bandit chief when he was 13. Just because it's not viable is not the systems problem.If a DEX fighter is overshadowed by a STR fighter the majority of the time, then a highly competent agility-based fighter is an example of a very common fantasy character that can't be done in Pathfinder with RAW.
Pssh, I never said any concept was going to be viable at higher levels.Really, that entire paragraph could be repeated.The degree to which a character is viable is part of the concept. "Deadly swordsman" and "incompetent bumbler" are not the same thing.
but it is the systems problem, because the system can't support the concept of a competent agility based fighter, the concept of a competent spellcasting assassin with decent martial skill, but it can support the concept of bumbling incompetent fighter very well.
Then why don't you just re-adjust your expectations and play a bumbling incompetent fighter? Problem solved.
Wait, what...
every concept should be viable at both lower levels and higher levels. a Dex fighter should not be behind a strength fighter, and a barbarian should not be behind a wizard. not that they need to be the same, but they should have equal plot control, and differing combat focuses that make the barbarian feel different from the wizard, while making the dex fighter feel different from the str fighter, without making one of the group. outright inferior. a crossbow, throwing knife or sling should not be inferior to the longbow.
Why? Who says?
Where is that in any fantasy literature, that all of the characters should be equivalent?
LotR/The Hobbit, for example. Gandalf makes everyone else look like a wimp. Hm, let's go with Forgotten Realms. I hardly think Regis could keep up with Drizzt. Dragonlance? Flint never really contributed anything more than complaining. Just a handful of examples, but the point remains.
Again, just because it's your precious concept doesn't mean it's a good idea. If I have a thought in my head for a character who uses sharpened spoons as his weapon, is the GM or the rules system obligated to make that a good idea?
As for a dex fighter, using the RAW you can make one who is NOT an incompetent bumbler. He's just not as powerful as you want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NOT ALL BUILDS WILL BE EQUALLY POWERFUL. It is crazy and ridiculous to demand that the choices you make not affect your power level.
Back on topic, how about a mad puppeteer/marionettist who can make puppets that come to life and fight for him? There are few options for summoning Tiny creatures (especially humanoids) so I'm struggling with this one.
NOT ALL BUILDS WILL BE EQUALLY POWERFUL. It is crazy and ridiculous to demand that the choices you make not affect your power level.
Back on topic, how about a mad puppeteer/marionettist who can make puppets that come to life and fight for him? There are few options for summoning Tiny creatures (especially humanoids) so I'm struggling with this one.
Have you tried using swarms? Or the Mad Monkeys spell? They don't HAVE to be monkeys. You can call them puppets.
Have you tried using swarms?NOT ALL BUILDS WILL BE EQUALLY POWERFUL. It is crazy and ridiculous to demand that the choices you make not affect your power level.
Back on topic, how about a mad puppeteer/marionettist who can make puppets that come to life and fight for him? There are few options for summoning Tiny creatures (especially humanoids) so I'm struggling with this one.
With like the 3 spells that are swarm related and have nothing to do with puppets?
I wanna make a magical little girl with Kyubey as a familiar. Can I do it with existing rules without houserules? To keep it 'High fantasy', I'll limit my magical little girl to using a bow. A pink one.
Madoka's an Arcane Archer. Homura and Mami are EK's with Gunslinger bases. I'd likely make Sayaka a Warpriest that follows an ideal. Not really sure what to do with Kyoko though, maybe a Sohei Monk?
every concept should be viable at both lower levels and higher levels. a Dex fighter should not be behind a strength fighter, and a barbarian should not be behind a wizard. not that they need to be the same, but they should have equal plot control, and differing combat focuses that make the barbarian feel different from the wizard, while making the dex fighter feel different from the str fighter, without making one of the group. outright inferior. a crossbow, throwing knife or sling should not be inferior to the longbow.Why? Who says?
Where is that in any fantasy literature, that all of the characters should be equivalent?
LotR/The Hobbit, for example. Gandalf makes everyone else look like a wimp. Hm, let's go with Forgotten Realms. I hardly think Regis could keep up with Drizzt. Dragonlance? Flint never really contributed anything more than complaining. Just a handful of examples, but the point remains.
Again, just because it's your precious concept doesn't mean it's a good idea. If I have a thought in my head for a character who uses sharpened spoons as his weapon, is the GM or the rules system obligated to make that a good idea?
As for a dex fighter, using the RAW you can make one who is NOT an incompetent bumbler. He's just not as powerful as you want.
there is a difference between reading a fantasy novel and playing a tabletop RPG with multiple players
in a fantasy novel, you only need a single writer to control everything, so nobody needs to be upset about being weaker than the protagonist
in a tabletop RPG route, you do not want to include characters as overcompetent as gandalf or as useless as frodo. playing a tabletop rpg should come with different expectations from reading a fantasy novel. or else everybody will want to be gandalf and the fellowship story is ruined because you have 10 gandalfs.
you should not approach an rpg the way you should approach a novel. unbalanced characters are fine in a novel, but an excessive difference in power is outright unacceptable in an RPG.
using Suikoden IV as an example, you had 108 playable characters to choose from besides the protagonist but could only party with 3 at a time alongside you. you couldn't remove your protagonist. he was the most overpowered character you could recruit. and you know physical power makes up the majority of a character's surviability in suikoden because you just don't get enough spell slots, even as a mage. guess who every Suikoden 4 player chose to include Asap. the Pirate Queen Kika because she has the falcon rune, one of the most overpowered unique runes, Ted, because he has high stats and the soul eater rune, being both a deadly warrior and a deadly mage, having amazing armor proficiencies, and finally, prince Snowe because Snowe was a slightly weaker version of your hero, who was still better than the other 105 characters you could recruit
so every Suikoden 4 Party would have the Hero, Kika, Theodore and Snowe, because physical power dominated everything, and characters like Chipu were useless except to level up for the true ending.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
every concept should be viable at both lower levels and higher levels. a Dex fighter should not be behind a strength fighter, and a barbarian should not be behind a wizard. not that they need to be the same, but they should have equal plot control, and differing combat focuses that make the barbarian feel different from the wizard, while making the dex fighter feel different from the str fighter, without making one of the group. outright inferior. a crossbow, throwing knife or sling should not be inferior to the longbow.Why? Who says?
Where is that in any fantasy literature, that all of the characters should be equivalent?
LotR/The Hobbit, for example. Gandalf makes everyone else look like a wimp. Hm, let's go with Forgotten Realms. I hardly think Regis could keep up with Drizzt. Dragonlance? Flint never really contributed anything more than complaining. Just a handful of examples, but the point remains.
Again, just because it's your precious concept doesn't mean it's a good idea. If I have a thought in my head for a character who uses sharpened spoons as his weapon, is the GM or the rules system obligated to make that a good idea?
As for a dex fighter, using the RAW you can make one who is NOT an incompetent bumbler. He's just not as powerful as you want.
You may have missed the memo on this one, so I'll clue you in.
Pathfinder is not a novel. It is not a movie, or a radio drama, or any other non-interactive piece of media.
It is a game.
Games have mechanics.
These mechanics should be balanced, both with other parts of the game and with each other.
If they are not at least within a reasonable distance of each other, the game is not balanced.
An unbalanced game is a poorly designed one.
Creating "trap" options, or options that are inferior for no other reason than that they are inferior, is the absolute PINNACLE of s~#$ty game design. Purposefully designing something poorly is a baffling trend that only appears in game design, for whatever reason. You don't see programmers making intentionally bad code, architects don't purposefully make unsound buildings, but for some reason, some game designers have gotten it into their head that purposefully making something bad is not only acceptable, but LAUDABLE.
And other people, for some reason, have bought into this absurdity, praising it as a feature rather than a flaw.
I simply disagree with you on that. I simply don't think there's anything wrong with some options being better than others. It reflects a more "real" fantasy. Some options are simply better choices than others. Choosing to specialize in the sharpened spoon is simply a dumb choice compared to the greataxe. It should be reflected so in characters.
To a degree, if long-term competence, versatility, and the ability to do as much as possible is your goal, wizard is a better choice. If you wanted to bend reality, you should've put down your sword and picked up a book as a kid. If you weren't born with the smarts for it, oh well.
Just like if to be a rich man is your goal, doctor is a better choice than teacher. "But I want to be a teacher more! I should make the same amount of money!" Maybe you should, but such is reality that it is not a better choice, and you will end up making less. My example is not spot-on, but I think the analogy is apt.
I have a concept for a swift, small man who plays football and is good at it. But I want him to be not a wide receiver, but a linebacker who hits his opposing team at just the right spot to overpower him despite being half the size.
Hm. Seems it's not really an option. I have yet to see the 140lb linebacker in football. It's a great idea, though, isn't it?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of your problem is that you're talking as if one of the most iconic and popular methods of fighting in fiction (dex-based) is equivalent to fighting with a spoon.
Also the fact that the phrase "real fantasy" is something you typed without any irony.
I simply disagree with you on that. I simply don't think there's anything wrong with some options being better than others. It reflects a more "real" fantasy. Some options are simply better choices than others. Choosing to specialize in the sharpened spoon is simply a dumb choice compared to the greataxe. It should be reflected so in characters.
To a degree, if long-term competence, versatility, and the ability to do as much as possible is your goal, wizard is a better choice. If you wanted to bend reality, you should've put down your sword and picked up a book as a kid. If you weren't born with the smarts for it, oh well.
Just like if to be a rich man is your goal, doctor is a better choice than teacher. "But I want to be a teacher more! I should make the same amount of money!" Maybe you should, but such is reality that it is not a better choice, and you will end up making less. My example is not spot-on, but I think the analogy is apt.
I have a concept for a swift, small man who plays football and is good at it. But I want him to be not a wide receiver, but a linebacker who hits his opposing team at just the right spot to overpower him despite being half the size.
Hm. Seems it's not really an option. I have yet to see the 140lb linebacker in football. It's a great idea, though, isn't it?
pathfinder is a game, it isn't meant to model realism or a novel. a character should feel like they are contributing equally to the groups success, regardless of what options they use. just because a doctor has more wealth than a teacher in the real world, doesn't mean a wizard should be infinitely better than the fighter.
in fact, they should have an equivalent set of separate but equivalent strengths and a set of separate, but equivalent and equally applicable weaknesses
i can understand thor adventuring alongside gandalf, as equals, but please don't put nanoha in the same party as link when link is just a mundane elf guy with a lot of equipment and nanoha is a walking tactical nuke launcher.
I think part of your problem is that you're talking as if one of the most iconic and popular methods of fighting in fiction (dex-based) is equivalent to fighting with a spoon.
Did you, like, miss the ACG? Who is saying that Swashbuckler is not viable? Is that not dex-based enough for you?
Why?
You're edging dangerously close to ACTUAL circular reasoning there.
"It is this way, therefore it should be this way."
"The wizard is the best option. That's okay, because he's the best option. Pick the best option, it's well designed because that's a more 'real' fantasy, and it's more 'real' because the wizard is the best option."
If the Rogue was the most powerful class in the game, would you then be arguing t was okay because it's more "real" fantasy? Or are you only supporting this imbalance because you have a predetermined bias as to what "real" fantasy is and Pathfinder just happens to somehow coincide with that?
And disregarding that, none of that answers anything I just said. The fact that it more accurately reflects "real" fantasy is irrelevant as to whether it's well designed as a GAME. And I'd dispute the "real" fantasy argument as well, considering the number of works that contain spellcasters even in the same ballpark as powerful as Pathfinder's spellcasters, and have such a lopsided balance between them and the mundanes is so small as to be effectively nothing in comparison to the great body of works where that is not the case.
The "man it doesn't work in real life, so it obviously can't work in this fantasy setting where men in robes can fart thunderbolts and snort fireballs" thing you have going on at the end is so old, tired, and completely silly I don't need to spend any real effort replying to it.
I think part of your problem is that you're talking as if one of the most iconic and popular methods of fighting in fiction (dex-based) is equivalent to fighting with a spoon.Did you, like, miss the ACG? Who is saying that Swashbuckler is not viable? Is that not dex-based enough for you?
The dex to damage options are VERY craptacular. Your classic fencing weapons are out but bastard swords are in... Not exactly viable imo for a LOT of concepts.
The dex to damage options are VERY craptacular. Your classic fencing weapons are out but bastard swords are in... Not exactly viable imo for a LOT of concepts.
Have you read their Precise Strike ability? What other class gets their level to damage?
Ok, sorry for derailing, this isn't relevant to the thread. Carry on.
So a 1st level gunslinger with 1 feat can load and fire a muzzle-loading matchlock pistol in 6 seconds, but I can't play the Grey Mouser because realism?
You filthy power-gaming munchkin. Begone from this place before you besmirch it even more with your wicked ways! How dare you question the old ways?!