| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love Pathfinder. It's probably my favorite RPG. Does it have it's flaws? Yes, of course. Some of them are pretty glaring. But despite that, it's a fun game, and allows a broad array of character concepts and stories.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you like this game (Pathfinder)?
Yes and No.
Yes because it's practically free and it's close enough to v3.5 that the majority of my System Mastery has remained in tact. Further, their Adventure Paths are pretty good and I have a Rogue 7/ Stalker 3 that is just fun as HELL to play.
No because the model it's based from, 3e/v3.5, sucks at it's core concept. Its system is actively punitive to anyone wielding a weapon, pushes for specific builds to be "the best", has traps ALL over the place that requires system-mastery to dodge, and is in general a mess due to the extreme amount of material to draw from. Not only that but it practically says "play spellcasters past X-level to be relevant" and it's HIGHLY dependent on magical items to even come close to making it "fair". The vast disparity all over makes it a game I can play in small doses at low- to mid-levels. When my Rogue hits 12th to 14th level in a group with a Wizard and Summoner, I can play second fiddle to the Wizard's extreme ease to create/use magical items that make me irrelevant OR the Summoner's Eidolon which will be able to make more attacks at equal or higher value, heal others, self-heal, teleport, grow in size, gain DR, by-pass DR, gain breath weapons, fly, etc.
It's a matter of time before my Rogue retires to a nice spot to grow old before I create a Cleric or Druid that will be able to complement the team for the remainder of the Rise of the Runelord's AP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a matter of time before my Rogue retires to a nice spot to grow old before I create a Cleric or Druid that will be able to complement the team for the remainder of the Rise of the Runelord's AP.
This SO happened to me in that AP. I played rogue up to 12 but then retired her to switch to a magus. We're currently 17.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bloodrager has to be tier three just by the fact that he has spells. Slayer is Tier 4 since he has skills and damage, no spells.
Bloodrager's spells are basically all just combat increases except for a tiny tiny tiny number of spells that aren't (spider climb and blood biography are the only ones I can remember off the top of my head).
Slayer has damage and skills, while bloodrager basically just has damage. At least that's what I've seen with it.
Damage and skills is the definition of tier 4 though.
The Bloodrager has only 2 less skill points per level, has a surprising number of utility spells thrown in there, combat prowess, and a mixed bag of Bloodlines.
Remember you're tier 3 by definition if even a single one of your spells has an out of combat purpose. A few I remember are Fly, phantom steed, haste, touch of the sea, resist energy, windwall, and bloodline spells.
Tiers are a measure of what you are able to do, not a measure of how good you are at doing it. It's also not a measure of who you can beat in a fight. A tier 4 character can mop the floor with a lot of tier 3 characters because a lot of tier 3 characters have breadth, but no depth.
Something I find weird is that people say that new material is better than core. But... if you look at occult adventures you see four tier 3 classes, a tier 2 class and a tier 4/5 class....
Even if you look at ACG: 1 tier 1, 1 tier 2, 4 tier 3, 3 tier 4s, and a tier 5.
Things are generally on the average to lower powers scale with the new material.
The fact that there are less tier 1 and tier 5 classes walking around is a good thing. Tier 3 is usually considered the magic point of balance, and in the CRB there is exactly 1 class (Bard) that lands on that point. There are 3 Tier 5 classes(Rogue, Fighter, Monk), and 3 Tier 1 classes(Wizard, Cleric, Druid). That's over half of the classes that are way off where they should be balance wise.
I'd argue that the Paladin becomes Tier three after a few splat books of spells. The only problem they had at CRB was a lack of spells. Arguably Ranger too, but that's a harder case.
I like d20, 3rd edition, and Pathfinder, but I got tired of there being a rule for everything. I got tired of all of the little details, the minutiae... I really wanted to go back to a game that wasn't necessarily "rules-lite", but a game of rulings, not of rules - where the DM has to make judgment calls rather than rely upon there being a codified rule for almost any given situation.
So, in 2013, I went back to playing 2nd edition AD&D!
If provided with an opportunity, I'd probably play in a Pathfinder/d20/3rd edition game, but I don't believe I'll ever run a game using those rules again.
This is more or less how I feel and I went back to 2E in 2012 and houseruled in things like BAB, ascending ACs and no level limits/racial restrictions.
I'll play Pathfinder but not run it. I liiked it better than E but I was an early adopter of 3.0 and 12 years of 3.x games took their toll. I prefer the OSR games now with modern mechanics such as Castles and Crusades for example or houseruled AD&D. It comes down to what I think is D&D. Pathfinder was more D&D than 4E but OSR is more D&D to me than Pathfinder so there is that. The main appeal is copious amount of legacy adventures to use and the games are easier to run than 3.x.
Do you like this game (Pathfinder)?Yes and No.
Yes because it's practically free and it's close enough to v3.5 that the majority of my System Mastery has remained in tact. Further, their Adventure Paths are pretty good and I have a Rogue 7/ Stalker 3 that is just fun as HELL to play.
No because the model it's based from, 3e/v3.5, sucks at it's core concept. Its system is actively punitive to anyone wielding a weapon, pushes for specific builds to be "the best", has traps ALL over the place that requires system-mastery to dodge, and is in general a mess due to the extreme amount of material to draw from. Not only that but it practically says "play spellcasters past X-level to be relevant" and it's HIGHLY dependent on magical items to even come close to making it "fair". The vast disparity all over makes it a game I can play in small doses at low- to mid-levels. When my Rogue hits 12th to 14th level in a group with a Wizard and Summoner, I can play second fiddle to the Wizard's extreme ease to create/use magical items that make me irrelevant OR the Summoner's Eidolon which will be able to make more attacks at equal or higher value, heal others, self-heal, teleport, grow in size, gain DR, by-pass DR, gain breath weapons, fly, etc.
It's a matter of time before my Rogue retires to a nice spot to grow old before I create a Cleric or Druid that will be able to complement the team for the remainder of the Rise of the Runelord's AP.
I thought the core of 3.x is quite good its the added bits (colasses and spells) that is the main problem. Houserule the core d20 mechanics into AD&D and you will have a lot less problems than 3.x. Level 18 wizard might be god mode,but good luck getting there and no CoDzilla.
The fact that there are less tier 1 and tier 5 classes walking around is a good thing. Tier 3 is usually considered the magic point of balance, and in the CRB there is exactly 1 class (Bard) that lands on that point. There are 3 Tier 5 classes(Rogue, Fighter, Monk), and 3 Tier 1 classes(Wizard, Cleric, Druid). That's over half of the classes that are way off where they should be balance wise.Something I find weird is that people say that new material is better than core. But... if you look at occult adventures you see four tier 3 classes, a tier 2 class and a tier 4/5 class....
Even if you look at ACG: 1 tier 1, 1 tier 2, 4 tier 3, 3 tier 4s, and a tier 5.
Things are generally on the average to lower powers scale with the new material.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying, when I said better I was using that wording because the person above used the word better. Stronger would likely be a more accurate word, I personally think balance has been getting tonnes better and tier 3 is my preferred balance point.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could you take the endless tier discussion to another thread, please?
Could you take the endless tier discussion to another thread, please?
The exact specifics of tiers don't really matter in this instance anyway, all I'm saying is that complaints that new content is progressively getting more powerful (power creep) isn't true. Some options have been surpassed by new classes admittedly... by more balanced classes. That's not power creep, that's just leveling the playing field.
Some options have been surpassed by new classes admittedly... by more balanced classes. That's not power creep, that's just leveling the playing field.
Isn't it? I mean, it may be desirable but if older options are being surpassed by newer ones isn't that the definition of power creep?
Isn't it? I mean, it may be desirable but if older options are being surpassed by newer ones isn't that the definition of power creep?
But the power isn't increasing, it's going towards the median.
If the weakest classes (Rogue) are made obsolete by newer, better ones (Unchained Rogue, Slayer), but the new ones still aren't more powerful than the stronger classes (Druid, etc.), that's not power creep - at least, not in terms of, for example, GMs having to make harder adventures just to cope.
If the weakest classes (Rogue) are made obsolete by newer, better ones (Unchained Rogue, Slayer), but the new ones still aren't more powerful than the stronger classes (Druid, etc.), that's not power creep - at least, not in terms of, for example, GMs having to make harder adventures just to cope.
Ah, I see. Thanks.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Certainly one can be a fan and critical. But an awful lot of the criticism coming from the boards lately has been borderline to blatantly insulting. That's less criticism than abuse.
To be fair though their are some fans of the company that can be just as bad. Constructive critcism or not your not allowed to say anything negative about the company. While I don't always agree with how some of the negative critism is said. I do understand. For the most part it's comes from frustration. If the community is asking for new material to be both balanced and worth taking for a player. We keep getting either options that are too strong. Or simply not worth taking. So far beyond a few exceptions. I have not used most if any of the new material in the later books.
Their errata process leaves much to be desired. So far I'm seeing nothing that changes my impression that they don't like martials. Or they go to far and the material joins my list of what I'm never ever going to take as a player. Or what truly is a problem simply gets ignored. Even when many people point it out to them.
I can blame people for leaving or being more vocal. I don't reward any company with praise when they keep making the same mistakes. I'm not the only one that feels that way I'm sure.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair though their are some fans of the company that can be just as bad. Constructive critcism or not your not allowed to say anything negative about the company.
I don't ever see that, to be honest. No one ever says "Don't say bad things about the content that the latest book put out." It may depend on your definition of constructive criticism. Saying things like:
"This is terrible content and the people that made it clearly had no idea what they're doing,"
Is not constructive. Its simply an attack.
If you say things like:
"In my opinion, the quality of book x is not up to the usual standard. I found the new classes, class y and class z to not have any features that were all that appealing. Instead they seem like a re-hash of other classes with a slightly different spin. In addition, class aa seems unplayable as the mechanics are written in a way so that the class ability doesn't work."
That's constructive. It gives them a clear understanding of what you dislike, while not attacking the designers.
While I don't always agree with how some of the negative critism is said. I do understand. For the most part it's comes from frustration.
Sure, but frustration is not a valid excuse for being inconsiderate. Provide constructive feedback. Explain how things could be better. If you've done so, and later products still keep not meeting your standards, you have the option of homebrewing or choosing to move to a different game. Being rude/inconsiderate with the excuse of "they didn't do what I told them too," is not appropriate.
Well for me its partially money motivated, I can't afford to go chasing around this or that system or improvement, so while I don't care for ACG and I'm almost certain to pass on Ultimate Intrigue that doesn't mean I'm unhappy with how pathfinder has been evolving, frankly for me everything in the core line outside of the CRB, APG, ARG, UE, OA and the bestiaries is completely optional :-)
Do I like Pathfinder? I like it a bit. I don't really experience the caster-martial disparity that's built into the system as a problem. (Typically what happens in my games is the caster has to use their spells to support the martials, and the martials are the ones who dramatically slay the villains; one could interpret it that the martials are a load that the caster has to support, but it feels more like the caster is a servant who follows the martials around catering to their every whim.)
I have more of a problem with the 'traps' - players with limited system mastery making characters that are supposed to be good at multiple things, but aren't really good at anything.
And I've finally hit the system-bloat point where I can no longer keep track of all the new options and can't tell what needs house-ruling.
I'd quite like to try 5E but my group is currently committed to Pathfinder - and I don't really want my years of expertise to go to waste. Sunk cost fallacy! Yay!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I can use less of is Feats, they're like Prestige Classes in 3.5, too many of them and harder to balance the more you have :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought the core of 3.x is quite good its the added bits (colasses and spells) that is the main problem. Houserule the core d20 mechanics into AD&D and you will have a lot less problems than 3.x. Level 18 wizard might be god mode,but good luck getting there and no CoDzilla.
I've felt the CORE system mechanics were so terribly bad for weapon-based users that it pushes the game towards playing spellcasters. Look at the diminishing attack progression. Look at the Full-Attack Action. Look at ALL the examples where you have to have a feat or take extreme penalties or get attacks with AoO. It's exclusionary-design means that if you don't have X to perform Y, then you're going to pay for it significantly OR it'll be very difficult to perform. To me, that's poor design.
Further the Fighter, in particular, really has nothing distinctive about it. It's focus on [Fighter] Feats in v3.5 and [Combat] Feats in Pathfinder still give it nothing concrete that says THIS is a Fighter. Not more attacks like in 5e, not distinctive abilities and powers like in 4e and not even weapon specialization like they had in AD&D 2e (if I remember correctly?). To distinguish the strength of the Fighter in d20 (3e/PF) they needed to give him ways around the systemic issues that applies to everyone using a weapon like ignores the Full-Attack + move restriction, makes a full 5th attack at their full BAB, increase ALL BAB by +1 or +2 at specific levels, automatic proficiency with all non-racial Exotic Weapons, bonus to saves against ALL magic / SLA's.
Looking at these, I'd actually want to play a Fighter besides for the usual 1 or 2 level dip.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the Pathfinder RPG. More importantly, my players love it.
Is it a perfect system? Of course not. There is no such beast.
And while constructive criticism is good, what I don't like are the posters that just have to throw barbs and slurs at the designers or Paizo when designs or errata don't conform to their wishes. You don't have to like it, you can certainly say you don't like it, but you don't have to buy it or use it and you certainly don't have to be a di-k about it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Certainly one can be a fan and critical. But an awful lot of the criticism coming from the boards lately has been borderline to blatantly insulting.
The quality of the ARG and ACG and the errata for both has been borderline to blatantly insulting, too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So ignore it, run it how you want, we won't judge :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To distinguish the strength of the Fighter in d20 (3e/PF) they needed to give him ways around the systemic issues that applies to everyone using a weapon like ignores the Full-Attack + move restriction, makes a full 5th attack at their full BAB, increase ALL BAB by +1 or +2 at specific levels, automatic proficiency with all non-racial Exotic Weapons, bonus to saves against ALL magic / SLA's.
Looking at these, I'd actually want to play a Fighter besides for the usual 1 or 2 level dip.
All your fixes do is increase damage which is an area that the fighter doesn't need fixing. Have you checked out Path of War? It has 3 replacement classes for the Fighter and Rogue that gives the classes maneuvers that feel an awful lot like spells. But it looks like it would scratch that "gotta have something special" itch. You could also look at the fighter archetypes. They allow fighters to do things like disarm enemies with a bow.
I don't see exactly that being posted. I do see posters that attack almost anyone that has criticisms about pathfinder when those criticisms concern a particular area.To be fair though their are some fans of the company that can be just as bad. Constructive critcism or not your not allowed to say anything negative about the company.I don't ever see that, to be honest. No one ever says "Don't say bad things about the content that the latest book put out."
...
Still, there's a big difference between "You can't say anything negative about Paizo here," (which is what Memorax said, although probably not meaning it literally) and "You can't say anything negative about Paizo without there being a reasonably high chance of someone disagreeing with you strongly."
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still, there's a big difference between "You can't say anything negative about Paizo here," (which is what Memorax said, although probably not meaning it literally) and "You can't say anything negative about Paizo without there being a reasonably high chance of someone disagreeing with you strongly."I don't see exactly that being posted. I do see posters that attack almost anyone that has criticisms about pathfinder when those criticisms concern a particular area.To be fair though their are some fans of the company that can be just as bad. Constructive critcism or not your not allowed to say anything negative about the company.I don't ever see that, to be honest. No one ever says "Don't say bad things about the content that the latest book put out."
...
Or "Please for the love of god, stop with the infinite threads about caster/martial disparity we don't ever ever ever ever ever need another one"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or "Please for the love of god, stop with the infinite threads about caster/martial disparity we don't ever ever ever ever ever need another one"Still, there's a big difference between "You can't say anything negative about Paizo here," (which is what Memorax said, although probably not meaning it literally) and "You can't say anything negative about Paizo without there being a reasonably high chance of someone disagreeing with you strongly."I don't see exactly that being posted. I do see posters that attack almost anyone that has criticisms about pathfinder when those criticisms concern a particular area.To be fair though their are some fans of the company that can be just as bad. Constructive critcism or not your not allowed to say anything negative about the company.I don't ever see that, to be honest. No one ever says "Don't say bad things about the content that the latest book put out."
...
This is off topic, but amusingly IIRC Kobold Cleaver found that people who disagree with C/M disparity tended to be the OPs to those threads more often than not(he actually went through and counted).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Please for the love of god, stop with the infinite threads about caster/martial disparity we don't ever ever ever ever ever need another one"
Hey, that's a great idea for the title of a new thread!
"Please for the love of god, stop with the infinite threads about caster/martial disparity we don't ever ever ever ever ever need another one"Hey, that's a great idea for the title of a new thread!
Somewhere, Beating a Dead Horse's ears prick up. He has been summoned!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You Rang
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I mean, there are high fantasy martials, there are non high fantasy ones too. Why does the existence of the non high fantasy ones bother?
different levels of "fantasy-ness" allowed for different character options,
...What is it that you think I meant by that part of my post? I'm still not following your complaint, and I wonder if that's where the miscommunication is.
I thought the core of 3.x is quite good its the added bits (colasses and spells) that is the main problem. Houserule the core d20 mechanics into AD&D and you will have a lot less problems than 3.x. Level 18 wizard might be god mode,but good luck getting there and no CoDzilla.
I've felt the CORE system mechanics were so terribly bad for weapon-based users that it pushes the game towards playing spellcasters. Look at the diminishing attack progression. Look at the Full-Attack Action. Look at ALL the examples where you have to have a feat or take extreme penalties or get attacks with AoO. It's exclusionary-design means that if you don't have X to perform Y, then you're going to pay for it significantly OR it'll be very difficult to perform. To me, that's poor design.
Further the Fighter, in particular, really has nothing distinctive about it. It's focus on [Fighter] Feats in v3.5 and [Combat] Feats in Pathfinder still give it nothing concrete that says THIS is a Fighter. Not more attacks like in 5e, not distinctive abilities and powers like in 4e and not even weapon specialization like they had in AD&D 2e (if I remember correctly?). To distinguish the strength of the Fighter in d20 (3e/PF) they needed to give him ways around the systemic issues that applies to everyone using a weapon like ignores the Full-Attack + move restriction, makes a full 5th attack at their full BAB, increase ALL BAB by +1 or +2 at specific levels, automatic proficiency with all non-racial Exotic Weapons, bonus to saves against ALL magic / SLA's.
Looking at these, I'd actually want to play a Fighter besides for the usual 1 or 2 level dip.
One can rewrite the classes while keeping the guts of the game. For example a level 20 fighter could have BAB +20, 4 attacks as class features and base saves of +12/+10/+9. Multiple attacks at no penalty ids actually an AD&D thing not 5E.
Certain spells can be rewrote or removed from the game. RAW the spellcasters get to double dip on the spell caster stat required to cast the spell and the spell level in terms of spell DC. Bonus DC to spell of the attribute is a bit much.
...
One can rewrite the classes while keeping the guts of the game. For example a level 20 fighter could have BAB +20, 4 attacks as class features and base saves of +12/+10/+9. Multiple attacks at no penalty ids actually an AD&D thing not 5E.Certain spells can be rewrote or removed from the game. RAW the spellcasters get to double dip on the spell caster stat required to cast the spell and the spell level in terms of spell DC. Bonus DC to spell of the attribute is a bit much.
The problem is that "minor" changes like this destroy the system math. Like it or not, the expected saves of creatures at each level have been balanced around the DCs scaling at a certain speed. Changing the DCs means changing every single creature and class save progression to suit, or accepting that balance is going to be even more screwy than usual a large chunk of the time (unless you manage to tweak it in just the right way to improve the balance, but frankly any approach stemming from "casters get to double dip" isn't an approach concerned about system math and thus won't keep the math balanced except by a sheer fluke).
As for giving the fighter better attacks...yeah, fighters don't need more numbers. Amping their DPR just makes it even more binary than it already is, where the majority of things that play rock em sock em with the fighter get obliterated and the things that don't wreck the fighter utterly. MOAR DAMAGE will encorage GMs to *not* send things into melee with the fighter. Great. Oh yeah, and the uber-DPR will discourage further fixes, because then the fighter will have god-like DPR and will actually get to regularly apply it. It's like 1 step forward, 2 steps back.
I should probably point out that making fixes to the system fighter only is a stupid approach to game design. You have the option of either a) fixing the attack paradigm for everyone and making the game much better but the fighter is still behind unless you do something else to them as well, or b)Only giving system fixes to the fighter to boost them up, so the fighter is kinda half ok and all the other martials are still stuck with the same crappy full attack routine, meaning literally nothing has improved with the system from the players' point of view unless someone writes "Fighter" on their sheet. Why on God's earth would anyone take b). It just boggles my mind.
b)Only giving system fixes to the fighter to boost them up, so the fighter is kinda half ok and all the other martials are still stuck with the same crappy full attack routine, meaning literally nothing has improved with the system from the players' point of view unless someone writes "Fighter" on their sheet
I see a lot of people complaining about the "full attack routine," or saying martials can only "full attack, full attack, full attack."
What are you expecting for martials? Are you looking for martials to be the same as casters? "I use Zen Blade Strike. Okay, I move ten feet then use Fortress of Steel and redirect any attacks at the nearest enemy. Okay, then I use Flurry of Throwing Axes?"
Like it? I freakin' love it!
System fixes would include the removal of descending attacks overall, giving the wizard (and other full-arcane class) 1 weapon base attack over 20 levels, cleric/druid 2 weapon base attacks over 20 levels, barbarian, paladin, ranger 3 weapon-based attacks over 20 levels, and the Fighter 4 attacks over 20 levels. Remove full-round attacks altogether and allow fighters to use Combat Maneuvers as swift actions (WITHOUT elaborate feat chains) and no penalties to pull off stunts. Maybe give them automatic buffs to their CMB/CMD too. Also more skill points per level wouldn't hurt.
Then they (fighter specifically), can use all weapons including non-racial exotic weapons, apply feats like weapon focus to any weapon wielded, and ignore armor penalties / speed restrictions when wearing any armor. PF does some of this, but not far enough IMO.
b)Only giving system fixes to the fighter to boost them up, so the fighter is kinda half ok and all the other martials are still stuck with the same crappy full attack routine, meaning literally nothing has improved with the system from the players' point of view unless someone writes "Fighter" on their sheetI see a lot of people complaining about the "full attack routine," or saying martials can only "full attack, full attack, full attack."
What are you expecting for martials? Are you looking for martials to be the same as casters? "I use Zen Blade Strike. Okay, I move ten feet then use Fortress of Steel and redirect any attacks at the nearest enemy. Okay, then I use Flurry of Throwing Axes?"
Same. As a "martial" I don't see this problem.
Heck, one of my more effective low-mid Paladin attack cycles is:
(The round after declaring Smite, then activating holy on my sword via weapon bond.)
"I rush at my opponent!"
"I attack it with power attack!" (roll total: 32)
"I deal 35 damage!"
"Free action! I will intimidate it to demoralize with Hurtful!"
In character: "You cannot hope to win foul creature! No creature of darkness can stand against me!" (roll total: 27) ((success))
"I'm going to use Cornugon Smash to strike it again now that it is demoralized!" (roll total 28)
"I deal 40 damage!"(Most enemies in these levels really can't handle eating 75+ damage in one attack.)
Then, if it doesn't run away, or if it is really tough... On the next round...
"I use a swift action to cast Litany of Righteousness!"
"I full attack with Power Attack!"
In character: "By the power of Iomedae you shall be cast back into the pit from whence you came!"
"Attack 1: (roll total 29)"
"I deal 68 damage! Target needs to save or be dazed."
"Attack 2: (roll 28)"
"I deal 72 damage! Target needs to save or be dazed."(9 out of 10 times whatever I'd be fighting would be very dead by this point considering that is over 215 damage just from me.)
Lol, you don't see a problem for the Martial because you're not really playing one. In your examples you've just illustrated how good a paladin can be with supernatural attacks and spells. A martial is supposed to do that how again??
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Battle Lord from Liber Influxus Communis is also a great example of a uniquely playing martial. It has the power to interact socially, modify the groups power in combat in a staggering number of ways, specialize in areas that have major impacts in an out of combat, and does this all with 4 class features.
Bravery: Bravery from the fighter. The class was kind of intended to have a method of interacting with the author's previously released Feats of Bravery.
Combat Drills: Gives the people in the effected area some sort of bonus and a teamwork feat. Some of the later ones do crazy stuff like give allies DR or SR.
Noble Aura: Your out of combat effects. You gain one every few levels and the higher level ones can do very cool stuff like create a zone of truth or empower his words when speaking with those of a lower HD. The lower level auras are stuff like skill bonuses.
Specialization: Medic, Scout, Artillery, and Soldier. My highlight being the use of the heal skill to perform real HP healing. The ability scales in a way that's satisfying without being overbearing.
|
Diffan, Paladins are considered martials. As are rangers and barbarians. I think you're mixing your fighter hate with martials in general.
Fighters do that through feats, and blow out daily use options. Pallys are great but effectiveness varies on opponent and length of adventuring day.
Just like casters in fact.
Diffan, Paladins are considered martials. As are rangers and barbarians. I think you're mixing your fighter hate with martials in general.
Fighters do that through feats, and blow out daily use options. Pallys are great but effectiveness varies on opponent and length of adventuring day.
Just like casters in fact.
Full BAB =/= Martial. Martial is, in most cases, classes that don't rely on magic or supernatural abilities as class features or staple points in their design. I'd make the exception of the Rogue and minor/major magic talent because that's an added buff that supplements their mostly martial abilities.
As for Fighter "hate"...really? The Fighter is one of my favorite classes that started with AD&D 2e, 4e, and 5e. 3e and, by that extension, Pathfinder I felt really hampered the class (and the Bab system in general). I want the Fighter to succeed! I want the fighter to be distinguished from other classes but instead we got a tier 5 class that has one or two gimmicks and that's about it. THIS does an amazing job of summarizing the deficiency within the class and potential ways to make it better.
Diffan, Paladins are considered martials. As are rangers and barbarians. I think you're mixing your fighter hate with martials in general.
Fighters do that through feats, and blow out daily use options. Pallys are great but effectiveness varies on opponent and length of adventuring day.
Just like casters in fact.
Except for their Aura of Good and Divine Health ability, pretty much everything on the paladin class list is magical in some way or another. That's why Smite Evil is so much more awesome than Challenge: it's magic, ergo 'weaker' in some areas and has to compensate by being stronger overall. Calling a paladin a martial may not be totally incorrect, but I don't think it qualifies as fully correct either.
"I rush at my opponent!"
"I attack it with power attack!" (roll total: 32)
"I deal 35 damage!"
"Free action! I will intimidate it to demoralize with Hurtful!"
In character: "You cannot hope to win foul creature! No creature of darkness can stand against me!" (roll total: 27) ((success))
"I'm going to use Cornugon Smash to strike it again now that it is demoralized!" (roll total 28)
"I deal 40 damage!"(Most enemies in these levels really can't handle eating 75+ damage in one attack.)
Then, if it doesn't run away, or if it is really tough... On the next round...
"I use a swift action to cast Litany of Righteousness!"
"I full attack with Power Attack!"
In character: "By the power of Iomedae you shall be cast back into the pit from whence you came!"
"Attack 1: (roll total 29)"
"I deal 68 damage! Target needs to save or be dazed."
"Attack 2: (roll 28)"
"I deal 72 damage! Target needs to save or be dazed."
Ok, now show us a two-weapon fighting martial or one who - god forbid - throws weapons as his primary combat shtick. Two-hand power-attacking is a well-supported combat style, but not everyone wants to be Conan.
ON TOPIC, Pathfinder is still my favorite system by a mile, in large part due to flavor, feel, and the large number of options.
I don't play PFS or anything, so house rules to help martials are common and accepted and help ease the disparity.
|
(while I'm on that tangent I find it curious that I've seen certain Summoners, Gunslingers and even Magus, for some reason, banned for doing something overpowered but never wizards. This is the only way I can explain this phenomena. )
True - while wizards themselves are never banned, often in home games certain spells or even entire categories of spells are. And since spells are where virtually all of a wizard's power comes from, it amounts to the same thing.