The fighter should have monk saving throws and 4 attacks at level 20 with no penalty to hit so none of this +20/+15/+10/+5 malarky. 3E and PF are the only "D&D" that punishes multiple attacks to that extent.
Spell DCs need to be dragged down as well. Let monsters use fighter saves. At high levels if you have a 5-25% chance of landing a save or suck the damage dealing spells look a whoe lot better.
Dumping wands of CLW also makes CoDzilla make some hard choices between casting spells and healing. That limits their power as well.Narrow the skill points difference between classes would help. 4-6 skill points for most classes, wizards can have 2.
Pathfinder is still suffering from some of the changes they made from 2E to 3E.
4 attacks, no decreasing is a huge, HUGE damage buff. As it stands, the current situation is about equal to 250% dmg, because the lesser attacks don't hit as often. If you're going to go full + bonus, you'll need to shrink the # of attacks back to earlier editions, too.
Fighters absolutely need better defenses, particularly on saves. restricting skill points returns value to them, restricting CHOICES of skills, does, as well.
I absolutely believe multiple attacks should be a class feature, not a function of BAB, and that includes monster hit dice. It actually removes a design constraint...if I want an Eblis to have 4 at/rd and 3 hd, I can do it without giving it multiple limbs.
==Aelryinth
High level AD&D fighters could exceed 4 attacks a round. The culprit in Pathfinder/3E is the amount of damage you can do especially with two handed weapons which triple dip on larger damage dice, +50-100% strength bonus damage and the critical hit multipliers.
5E has its problems but they did do some of this to fix fighters. Fighter multiple attacks at no penalty would not work under the current version of the rules but its the prime culprit for martials kind of sucking. Spell DCs and the relation to saving throws being the...
High level Pathfinder fighters can exceed 4 attacks a round.
Oh, wait, we're talking base class abilities, no buffs.
No, 1e Fighters maxed at 5/2 attacks with a specialized weapon. We're not talking TWF, nor Scimitars of Speed, nor haste spells, nor Bracers of Quickness.
Know what 5/2 attacks is? It's 250% dmg. Which is right in line with what BAB does. Except in AD&D, you could deal it on the move.
That's the difference.
Relatively speaking, a maxed-out Fighter with a Girdle of Giant strength hit more and did more dmg against 1E monsters then PF fighters do against PF monsters. All those dmg bonuses fighters get are NEEDED in pF, because monsters have so many more hp, and Con bonuses! I.e. a Hill Giant in 1e was an AC 4, 8 HD +1-2 HP monster, avg 37 hp. With a 3-18 dmg vs size L greatsword, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Double Spec and a +2 sword (not a Giant Slayer), doing an average of 22 hp a swing, that is a giant dead in 1 round. Assuming the fighter hits on his required roll of 2, of course.
Contrast with the PF Hill Giant, at 10d8+40 HP, avg 85. At level 7, even with all those bonuses, the PC fighters are not averaging 43 HP a swing.
He's also got AC 21 (equiv to AC -1), so the PC fighters are actually hitting LESS, and if they use Power Attack, it's even worse.
A level 7 fighter in AD&D with the above gear could take out a huge Ancient dragon with 88 hp in two rounds fairly reliably. The game was based on a different paradigm, maxing around level 10. Level 10 characters with decent gear could contest with demon lords.
------------------
And please, raging against my numbers on the priest post is getting you nowhere. I never said he could outperform the fighter at the fighter's shtick. I said he could buff up and play at being a front-liner if he cared to, because he has that capability. All the time, every day? No, I never said that.
But he can play the role if he cares to. Because his spells let him buff up to that degree. Unless you're letting 3e Persistent SPell in, his buffs are NOT going to last all day. If you do allow Persistent Spell from 3.5 in...well, that feat basically chased the fighter out of every party with a cleric.
And if you think Summons are weak, you aren't using them right. And they don't take 100k in gear to be effective, either.
==Aelryinth
Care to explain what the difference between doing that and pocket that has the pouch is?Ease of access. When you draw a weapon from either your belt or back it can be done as part of movement (so long as you have BAB +1). Pulling a dagger out of your pocket can't be done because it is not a sheathed weapon. That would be drawing a hidden or concealed weapon. Also why are you so desperate to have the spell component pouch in your pocket? You're trying to get a coded benefit at no cost.
You can pull a dagger out of your pocket. It takes a move action. What action is it to reach in and manipulate spell component? Part of casting the spell. I suppose a GM could rule that you have all the material components you need RAW by keeping it in a locked strongbox. However, in much the same way I don't let people act while Dead, I would require them to be accessible. However, again this is all houserules. Keeping the Spell Component Pouch in a Pocket RAW works.
Holy Tattoo is from yet another splat book so as DM I can easily disallow that simply by not making that book available in my games. Birthmark on the other hand I'm more than happy to allow, however there's nothing remotely holy symbolish about that.
So basically "It's not overpowered, because I can ban it." You do realize that's circular logic yes?
You can allow whatever you want in your games. But if you allow every single splatbook known to man you're going to get more trouble than is being discussed in this thread.
More circular logic. And again the biggest disparity in CRB where martials access to helpful magic items is even more limited while Caster have Bead of Karma and Metamagic Rods.
Then by all means, spend a feat on it. But that comes at an opportunity cost I've seen no-one willing to pay.
And I've never seen someone who goes against RAW on spell component Pouches. RAW there is no need, so obviously you won't see people selecting it. In the event that "You must openly display your spell component pouch." was a rule, then more people would take False Focus, or if that was banned Eschew Materials. Of course at that point we've reached houserules and bans, and aren't really talking PF balance.
If you want reliable access to any of those items above 16,000 gp you'll be buying the feats, which again come at yet more opportunity costs.
You mean by taking the Feat that by RAW will increase my WBL over 50% since I took Craft Wondrous Item? Yes, I weep for the opportunity cost so much that I take it on all my casters. (Seriously it's like the strongest Core feat after Leadership.)
Cherry picking the way you interpret the rules and then engaging in rules lawyer arguments does not make a persuasive argument. It does create a hostile environment though. I choose not to play with people who operate in such environments.
Cherry picking the way I interpret rules? I do no such thing. I use all the rules as written. The one who seems not to here is you. And I choose to play with people who know the rules. Was there supposed to be a valid point here or just a groundless accusation?
Which cause AoOs to gain access.
Reaching into your pocket to retrieve Spell components is part of casting a spell and has no action and does not provoke an AoO. You are free to houserule otherwise, but we are discussing the rules here.
As I said at the start, those clamouring there is disparity have bought into the worst promises 3rd edition made and have seen casters run amok in their games. Yes, they are more powerful than fighters, but the people arguing they aren't do have valid and legitimate ways in which to curb the power of spellcasters. I don't agree with their conclusion that there is no disparity, but when you adopt a certain playstyle it is less than it otherwise would be
Considering I showed how weak your "curbs" were in my last post and you did not address them I'll assume you didn't realize how weak the curbs where. Because they are really really weak at restraining casters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anzyr, I have to say I'm on his side.
The spell component pouch has pockets INSIDE it, where you store the comps. It's there to organize and make it easy to access components. It's more like a woman's purse then this tiny little thing you seem to think it is.
Sticking it in a pocket is like saying you're sticking your wallet in your pocket, and it's as easy to get to as having it open and hanging at your belt. Stuffing something with the comps for every spell you could potentially cast into a 'pocket', when it's already something with pockets, is, um, just a non-starter. Especially when you think about just how many spells it is providing comps for.
Now, you could try to conceal it in your robe, but it is going to be blindly obvious where you're reaching in to get into it in a fight.
If you try to say you're going to separate your comps all over your body, you are then sacrificing a spell comp pouch for non-ease of access and non-sunderability. And you could still get your clothing sundered, and now that your robe is shredded, we have to figure out which of your comps are now scattered on the ground, which are hanging at your knees, which you can still access, which are spoiled and can't be gathered, etc.
Ugh.
==Aelryinth
Anzyr, I have to say I'm on his side.
The spell component pouch has pockets INSIDE it, where you store the comps. It's there to organize and make it easy to access components. It's more like a woman's purse then this tiny little thing you seem to think it is.
Sticking it in a pocket is like saying you're sticking your wallet in your pocket, and it's as easy to get to as having it open and hanging at your belt. Stuffing something with the comps for every spell you could potentially cast into a 'pocket', when it's already something with pockets, is, um, just a non-starter. Especially when you think about just how many spells it is providing comps for.
Now, you could try to conceal it in your robe, but it is going to be blindly obvious where you're reaching in to get into it in a fight.
If you try to say you're going to separate your comps all over your body, you are then sacrificing a spell comp pouch for non-ease of access and non-sunderability. And you could still get your clothing sundered, and now that your robe is shredded, we have to figure out which of your comps are now scattered on the ground, which are hanging at your knees, which you can still access, which are spoiled and can't be gathered, etc.
Ugh.
==Aelryinth
This is all kind of irrelevant anyway. The wizard can wear as many of the damn things as sanity and their carry capacity permits. They could easily be walking around with 4 pouches stuck to their belt. If a martial manages to land 4 hits with a two handed weapon on a typical wizard before very high levels, the wizard is going to be dangerously close to being downed if not outright dying/dead. Sundering ends up being a waste of time, because if the martial could sunder all the pouches they could have probably just dropped the wizard instead and been done with it.
Oi, but most wizards only carry one pouch, because, you know, common sense. The others are likely to be in the bottom of his backpack or Handy haversack, or whatnot.
==Aelryinth
Anzyr, I have to say I'm on his side.
The spell component pouch has pockets INSIDE it, where you store the comps. It's there to organize and make it easy to access components. It's more like a woman's purse then this tiny little thing you seem to think it is.
Sticking it in a pocket is like saying you're sticking your wallet in your pocket, and it's as easy to get to as having it open and hanging at your belt. Stuffing something with the comps for every spell you could potentially cast into a 'pocket', when it's already something with pockets, is, um, just a non-starter. Especially when you think about just how many spells it is providing comps for.
Now, you could try to conceal it in your robe, but it is going to be blindly obvious where you're reaching in to get into it in a fight.
If you try to say you're going to separate your comps all over your body, you are then sacrificing a spell comp pouch for non-ease of access and non-sunderability. And you could still get your clothing sundered, and now that your robe is shredded, we have to figure out which of your comps are now scattered on the ground, which are hanging at your knees, which you can still access, which are spoiled and can't be gathered, etc.
Ugh.
==Aelryinth
Uh, where does it say that it's like a wallet and not like say... a pouch?
A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn't fit in a pouch.
It's just a pouch. You reach into the pouch and are assumed to have all the components you need despite there being an infinite number of things in there. It's made of handwavium. You are essentially adding your opinion as to what a spell component pouch should be to houserule it.
Seriously, just stick with what's there. Ugh.
and you're handwaving the size to fit easily into a pocket, instead of requiring, you know, a pouch specifically made to store and organize comps, BECAUSE they don't fit easily into pockets.
And my handwavium doesn't circumvent the rules, and yours tries to.
:)
==Aelryinth
and you're handwaving the size to fit easily into a pocket, instead of requiring, you know, a pouch specifically made to store and organize comps, BECAUSE they don't fit easily into pockets.
And my handwavium doesn't circumvent the rules, and yours tries to.
:)
==Aelryinth
Technically it never says it DOESNT fit into a pocket. ..
Technically it never says it DOESNT fit into a pocket. ..and you're handwaving the size to fit easily into a pocket, instead of requiring, you know, a pouch specifically made to store and organize comps, BECAUSE they don't fit easily into pockets.
And my handwavium doesn't circumvent the rules, and yours tries to.
:)
==Aelryinth
If it fit into a pocket, why would you need a pouch for it?
They applied handwavium to make it easy for us, and now people are trying to pull shenanigans because it might be sundered. Aie! Lets just go back to comp tracking and dozens of pockets, that'd be easier.
==Aelryinth
Technically it never says it DOESNT fit into a pocket. ..and you're handwaving the size to fit easily into a pocket, instead of requiring, you know, a pouch specifically made to store and organize comps, BECAUSE they don't fit easily into pockets.
And my handwavium doesn't circumvent the rules, and yours tries to.
:)
==Aelryinth
If it fit into a pocket, why would you need a pouch for it?
They applied handwavium to make it easy for us, and now people are trying to pull shenanigans because it might be sundered. Aie! Lets just go back to comp tracking and dozens of pockets, that'd be easier.
==Aelryinth
Well he never mentioned how the big the pockets were... my Dads BDUs had pockets that could easily fit a small purse...
Technically it never says it DOESNT fit into a pocket. ..and you're handwaving the size to fit easily into a pocket, instead of requiring, you know, a pouch specifically made to store and organize comps, BECAUSE they don't fit easily into pockets.
And my handwavium doesn't circumvent the rules, and yours tries to.
:)
==Aelryinth
If it fit into a pocket, why would you need a pouch for it?
They applied handwavium to make it easy for us, and now people are trying to pull shenanigans because it might be sundered. Aie! Lets just go back to comp tracking and dozens of pockets, that'd be easier.
==Aelryinth
Lots of pouches fit in pockets. It only weighs 2lb after all. Now I don't want to go all "X can do this in real life" on you, but my dice bag is probably pretty close to 2 lbs. And I can fit it in my pocket just fine.
Design Manager
|
You can allow whatever you want in your games. But if you allow every single splatbook known to man you're going to get more trouble than is being discussed in this thread.
Ultimate Equipment is part of Paizo's core product line. It, along with the APG, ACG, and the other Ultimate books are both part of the PRD they host right here on the site, and part of how they expect the game to be played. Ultimate Equipment was even the resource document they referred people to for fixes and updates to earlier entries in other core books. It's not a splatbook like Heroes of the Wild or Champions of Purity, it's a serviced and maintained part of the game's core backbone.
Also, lets stop bringing up 4E. Many people have made it very clear that 4E is not the solution they're looking for, so you're not helping anyone there, and the only thing touching on it does beyond that is promote edition warring, which is against the rules on these forums.
Lots of pouches fit in pockets. It only weighs 2lb after all. Now I don't want to go all "X can do this in real life" on you, but my dice bag is probably pretty close to 2 lbs. And I can fit it in my pocket just fine.Technically it never says it DOESNT fit into a pocket. ..and you're handwaving the size to fit easily into a pocket, instead of requiring, you know, a pouch specifically made to store and organize comps, BECAUSE they don't fit easily into pockets.
And my handwavium doesn't circumvent the rules, and yours tries to.
:)
==Aelryinth
If it fit into a pocket, why would you need a pouch for it?
They applied handwavium to make it easy for us, and now people are trying to pull shenanigans because it might be sundered. Aie! Lets just go back to comp tracking and dozens of pockets, that'd be easier.
==Aelryinth
Sure, and once you stick them in there, you can't get stuff out of them easily, because they are in your pocket, not easily accessible hanging on your belt.
A big enough pocket can fit a scabbarded knife, too, but if you want easy access to it, you don't shove it into a pocket! Because, you generally have to pull the WHOLE THING out, then draw the knife/rummage through the pouch.
I think that's the point we're trying to make here. You're kind of trying to have your cake and eat it too, where the rules are just trying to be convenient and you're trying to supercharge/bend them.
==Aelryinth
Lots of pouches fit in pockets. It only weighs 2lb after all. Now I don't want to go all "X can do this in real life" on you, but my dice bag is probably pretty close to 2 lbs. And I can fit it in my pocket just fine.Technically it never says it DOESNT fit into a pocket. ..and you're handwaving the size to fit easily into a pocket, instead of requiring, you know, a pouch specifically made to store and organize comps, BECAUSE they don't fit easily into pockets.
And my handwavium doesn't circumvent the rules, and yours tries to.
:)
==Aelryinth
If it fit into a pocket, why would you need a pouch for it?
They applied handwavium to make it easy for us, and now people are trying to pull shenanigans because it might be sundered. Aie! Lets just go back to comp tracking and dozens of pockets, that'd be easier.
==Aelryinth
Sure, and once you stick them in there, you can't get stuff out of them easily, because they are in your pocket, not easily accessible hanging on your belt.
A big enough pocket can fit a scabbarded knife, too, but if you want easy access to it, you don't shove it into a pocket! Because, you generally have to pull the WHOLE THING out, then draw the knife/rummage through the pouch.
I think that's the point we're trying to make here. You're kind of trying to have your cake and eat it too, where the rules are just trying to be convenient and you're trying to supercharge/bend them.
==Aelryinth
I would find something hanging at my side and something in my pocket equally easy to access. The pocket maybe more so because it's confined space limits the margin for error. I'm not trying to have my cake and eat it to. It says nothing about needing to "have the whole spell component pouch dangling out in the air". I'm keeping with the rules and have never had a single problem with any GM on keeping my spell components in a pocket. Keeping spell component pouches in pockets just makes sense. Seriously, why would you hang them on your belt?
If I had a coin pouch IRL, I would most certainly store it in my pocket rather then on my belt. Who wouldn't? Would it really be any easier to get a quarter rather a nickel if it was hanging from your belt instead of your pocket? It seems very very odd to me to argue against storing spell component pouches in pockets. That's what pockets are for. And I very rarely think to myself "Gee this pocket sure is making it hard to find stuff."
if it's normally a move action to grab something, then that action is considered part of the action to cast the spell. dems da rules. else isn't.
unless you;re saying retrieving a component is a full round action or something if it's in a pocket. *shrug*
|
Design Manager
|
"If a spell doesn't have a somatic component, an arcane spellcaster can cast it with no arcane spell failure chance while wearing armor. Such spells can also be cast even if the caster's hands are bound or he is grappling (although concentration checks still apply normally)."
"Pinned creatures can only cast spells that do not have somatic components."
A wizard can specifically cast spells that don't have somatic components while his hands are bound or he's pinned, so the inference would be that those conditions don't prevent you from taking whatever movements are require to "manipulate" your material components.
You could also just take Eschew Materials / play a Sorcerer and avoid pretty much the whole argument, since most spells that require expensive material components aren't cast in combat anyways.
"If a spell doesn't have a somatic component, an arcane spellcaster can cast it with no arcane spell failure chance while wearing armor. Such spells can also be cast even if the caster's hands are bound or he is grappling (although concentration checks still apply normally)."
"Pinned creatures can only cast spells that do not have somatic components."
A wizard can specifically cast spells that don't have somatic components while his hands are bound or he's pinned, so the inference would be that those conditions don't prevent you from taking whatever movements are require to "manipulate" your material components.
You could also just take Eschew Materials / play a Sorcerer and avoid pretty much the whole argument, since most spells that require expensive material components aren't cast in combat anyways.
Well I think that settles that then.
do spell components even need to be in your hand to use them? could you expend them directly from the pouch?
|
Well I think that settles that then.
To recap:
A) Wizard wastes one of his precious few feats to get around just one of the obstacles to spellcasting during intelligently designed, tactical battles = "Welp, problem solved. Raise up the 'Mission Accomplished' banner, guys! Internet argument over; we win!"
B) Fighter spends one of his many spare feats on something that allows him to create his own magic items or use those of any other class to improve his versatility = "Hahaha ur dumb noob, no fighter would ever sacrifice 1% DPR to gain access to every 1st-4th level spell in the game!"
Fun times all around on the Paizo boards, guys. Keep it coming.
Well I think that settles that then.To recap:
A) Wizard wastes one of his precious few feats to get around just one of the obstacles to spellcasting during intelligently designed, tactical battles = "Welp, problem solved. Raise up the 'Mission Accomplished' banner, guys! Internet argument over; we win!"
B) Fighter spends one of his many spare feats on something that allows him to create his own magic items or use those of any other class to improve his versatility = "Hahaha ur dumb noob, no fighter would ever sacrifice 1% DPR to gain access to every 1st-4th level spell in the game!"
Fun times all around on the Paizo boards, guys. Keep it coming.
Actually this Goes to Show you have no idea what ypu are talking about...
Sure a fighter has MORE feats but you know what the funny thing about wizards is? Very few of their feats are locked behind trees. in fact, they are not feat starved because they have only a few "must have this" feats.
Now the fighter.... surebhe has a lot.of feats... but he has a lot of feat taxes and such just to do his thing. All of.his good stuff is locked behind feat chains that are rediculously long...
maybe you guys just play differently and no one is wrong.
|
Design Manager
|
Well I think that settles that then.To recap:
A) Wizard wastes one of his precious few feats to get around just one of the obstacles to spellcasting during intelligently designed, tactical battles = "Welp, problem solved. Raise up the 'Mission Accomplished' banner, guys! Internet argument over; we win!"
I always wonder what kind of game people are playing where they're worried about a wizard's "precious few feats". I have literally never played a wizard where I felt like I was in any danger of running low on feats; a wizard has spells, free Scribe Scroll, and 4 additional bonus feats he can spend on metamagic or item creation feats. He also has way fewer feats with useless or highly situational prereqs than martial characters do, and virtually any metamagic or crafting feat he picks is going to be instantly providing a huge benefit.
B) Fighter spends one of his many spare feats on something that allows him to create his own magic items or use those of any other class to improve his versatility = "Hahaha ur dumb noob, no fighter would ever sacrifice 1% DPR to gain access to every 1st-4th level spell in the game!"Fun times all around on the Paizo boards, guys. Keep it coming.
This goes back to the "Look guys, if I become a worse Fighter, I can also poorly emulate weak spellcasting abilities". You know what Master Craftsman doesn't do? It doesn't provide you with the extra skill ranks necessary to actually do the crafting, it doesn't allow you to emulate the spells necessary for spell-trigger or spell-completion items, and it doesn't allow you to do anything more than qualify for Craft Magic Arms and Armor and Craft Wondrous Item specifically so it definitely doesn't allow him to "access every 1st-4th level spell in the game" the way someone who doesn't actually know what they're talking about might think.
It's just another of those "spend a feat to allow you to spend another feat to get something that's still not as good as what other people get baked in".Or maybe you meant Skill Focus (UMD). It still doesn't allow the Fighter to "access every 1st-4th level spell in the game", given that he
a) still needs a wand or scroll of the spell, which he's incapable of creating on his own.
b) has to cut into his WBL, often significantly, to get these items, when he already is the most cash-strapped class in the game due to his reliance on his equipment and lack of self buffing options
c) still has to keep pouring skill points, which he has very few of, into it, meaning he's still losing out somewhere else, potentially sacrificing Intimidate, his primary social skill, or Ride, or Handle Animal, or any of the various other abilities he already has a difficult time affording but really needs
d) will have to make multiple UMD checks since he'll also have to emulate having the appropriate ability score, increasing his chance of failure
and
d) can still roll a 1 and lock himself out of the item for the entire adventuring day.
Related note, on the "Fighters have the all these extra feats" premise, the only time I've felt like I had a single feat to spare on a Fighter was when I was playing a Two-Handed Fighter, and I had a small gap between picking up things like Power Attack and Improved Bull Rush and the levels where the crit feats came online, and I used that to shore up my Will save because I'd already been the cause of more party deaths than every single enemy we'd encountered up to that point.
So, one final thought: In games that I run, I do not have a problem with martial/caster disparity because I make good use of all the rules in the game and design my encounters tactically. Your results may vary depending on your willingness to do the same.
Considering you've already shown you don't actually know what the feats you're telling people to use do, you probably shouldn't be making any assumptions about your "superior" ability to make good use of the ruels and play tactically. It's making good use of the rules and playing tactically that actually give spellcasters such a huge edge.
Well I think that settles that then.To recap:
A) Wizard wastes one of his precious few feats to get around just one of the obstacles to spellcasting during intelligently designed, tactical battles = "Welp, problem solved. Raise up the 'Mission Accomplished' banner, guys! Internet argument over; we win!"
B) Fighter spends one of his many spare feats on something that allows him to create his own magic items or use those of any other class to improve his versatility = "Hahaha ur dumb noob, no fighter would ever sacrifice 1% DPR to gain access to every 1st-4th level spell in the game!"
Fun times all around on the Paizo boards, guys. Keep it coming.
because master craftsman only applies to a very narrow group of stuff. to make cloaks of resistance, you need craft(cloaks/weaving/tailoring) because craft (weapons) doesn't apply to that item., you can't just make all the wondrous items from having that feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
maybe you guys just play differently and no one is wrong.
Bah! inconceivable![/joke]
Oh man, here we go again. I try to stay calm and polite, some random dude gets bitter and offensive, Chris Lambertz appears and locks the thread. Let's take it down a notch, okay? This is an important topic and some of us have relevant things to add to it.
Yes, invest in UMDAlso MASTER CRAFTSMANThe topic with regard to those two feats was how to increase the versatility of a martial character, not power. In fact, I think I actually said you'd be sacrificing some DPR in exchange for the ability to help out in non-combat situations.
You don't invest in Use Magic Device to try to out-do a caster; you do it so you can carry your own damn wand of cure light wounds or scroll of restoration.
You don't take Master Craftsman so you can try to make a Staff of the Archmagi. You take it so you can make your own flying carpet, darkvision goggles, or bag of holding.
I've been skimming, so apologies if someone's already pointed this out, but... Master Craftsman doesn't really do that.
If you take Master Craftsman with Craft Magic Arms and Armor, you can create *either* magical Weapons or magical Armor, depending on what craft skill you associated with Master Craftsman. You can't even choose to take Master Craftsman a second time to gain access to the other half of Craft Magic Arms and Armor. As a Fighter, you're literally spending twice the resources to get half the benefits of a Wizard. Plus your DCs are all going to be higher, as you can't satisfy any of the spell requirements by yourself.
You also can't create spell completion or spell trigger items without being able to provide the spell. So without a caster's help, a Fighter can never craft a flying carpet, since it is a spell trigger item. Even if he could, he'd need a relevant craft skill. One isn't listed on the item, so you'd have to convince your DM to allow something like Craft Tapestry to work, and associate Master Craftsman with that. Since most wondrous items are not at all like a tapestry, you've also just cut yourself off from most potential items Craft Woundrous Item provides.
i think we should give martials laser beams for eyes, and i don't mean he has the ability to shoot lazer beams from his eyes, i mean replace his visual sensory organ with a bright beam of concentrated light. he see's by using the vibrations of his victim's screams.
|
|
Look guys, if I become a worse Fighter, I can also poorly emulate weak spellcasting abilities.
the only time I've felt like I had a single feat to spare on a Fighter
I feel like we're losing the point of the examples I gave. The idea here wasn't to try to BE or REPLACE a spellcaster, but rather to give a martial character some versatility and out-of-combat usefulness. As I've said several times: Yes, you might need to sacrifice some killing power to pick up the feats/skills/traits/gear you need to achieve that. If that's not your cup of tea, you're going to have a rough time swallowing that sacrifice.
And yes, when I was talking about picking up every 1st-4th level spell in the game, I wasn't talking about Master Craftsman; I was talking about Skill Focus (Use Magic Device). Interestingly, using Master Craftsman to make your own weapons would help counteract the cost of all those wands. Sorry for mentioning constructs in an earlier post; Master Craftsman does not allow for making constructs. Glad nobody jumped on my one error to try to disprove all my other points, that would be really poor debate etiquette...
I should point out that this isn't theory-craft. I played a human fighter in a year-long Golarion campaign who used Master Craftsman and Skill Focus (Use Magic Device) to great effect. He never felt useless outside of combat, had more than enough wealth to afford everything he needed (and it was even a slightly below average loot campaign), and he still hit most of the iconic fighter feat chains at the earliest levels (Vital Strike at 6th, etc). Sure, we had a wizard in the party who handled the high-end stuff like teleporting and whatnot, but that's his job. When we faced off against the magic resistant golem, it was my job to cut him in half before he crushed the wizard.
you probably shouldn't be making any assumptions about your "superior" ability to make good use of the ruels and play tactically
This is an unacceptably deceitful use of quotation marks here, Ssalarn. I never said or even implied that my style of play was superior. In fact, I specifically used the word "willingness" to imply that using all the rules and setting up tactical combat is a choice, not a skill. For all of you who discount my entire argument based on one mistake I made with how a feat works, you're lucky people don't outright ignore you when you try to pull crap like this. Grow up.
You are missing the point at which people oppose you that is: you want to be a non-magical guy, and to contribute outside of combat, you have to train yourself in magic.
Golems being a threat to Wizards, Vital Strike Fighter, all the hallmarks of a high system mastery player.
To say nothing of the idea that you can build an effective fighter who has to invest in the Int and Cha to get the skill points and UMD rolls for effective wand use. Along with Dex for AC, Str for damage, Con for HP and Wis for will saves.
Not to mention, Master Craftsman and Magical Artisan are General Feats, NOT Fighter Combat feats.
The fighter has no more general feats to spare then any other character.
And THEN he has to spend skill ranks...in both UMD and a Craft skill?
In comparison with the wizard who gets to spend one feat and have all that.
And there's no disparity there?
What?
==Aelryinth
