What feats let you do more "outside of combat?"
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Chess Pwn wrote: What feats let you do more "outside of combat?" Covenants, runes, bravery feats, guardian spirits, prowess feats, reworked VMCs. Yknow, third party stuff.
Chess Pwn wrote: What feats let you do more "outside of combat?" TONS!
Here are a few of my favorites:
Deific Obedience - Usually gives non-combat bonuses and only gives combat bonuses at very high levels. Great for a religious, but non spell-caster, character.
Amateur Investigator
Leadership - Raise your own army!
Persuasive - Bonus to Diplomacy or Intimidate!
Technologist - Maybe you like to tinker!
Voice of the Sybil - Maybe you are simply that charismatic?
There are tons of non-combat based feats that other classes simply don't have the feat economy to take. Fighters, especially fighters, are one of the few that can.
Editing:
For example:
I have seen a Fighter who had a 15 charisma, they were RP'ed as a jovial, likable, warrior who happened to worship Iomedae.
He took:
Deific Obedience: Iomedae
Persuasive
Skill focus diplomacy
By the time the party was level 10, as he had been slipping a point every level into Persuasive this guy put the BARD to shame with his diplomacy.
I think he had like, I think a +26 to Diplomacy, and he enjoyed playing up the party face. Diplomacy can do so much out of combat that it isn't even amusing.
Martials do not need better things for day to day adventuring. But they would like better things, so they can do more. They would like them so that they can spend their feats to augment those abilities, not unlike how a caster can spend a feat to make their abilities better.
It's easy to say that they are fine, but harder to find the balance to bring them up a tier (if you recognize the tiers) and give them more meaning in your campaign.
I see the problem mostly being this:
In some groups, some play styles, allow for Martials to become unneeded.
Usually this isn't due to the game but due to a combination of optimizers and game masters who disregard the weaknesses with non-martials.
The only other time this seems to happen is at the REALLY high levels. I mean around level 17+ in general. When people start getting those 8th and 9th level spells.
And yes, those powers are really strong, but they are also not really intended for player characters. Games aren't really designed to go that far. If that is the issue then all of the complaints are about the 18th, 19th, and 20th levels.
The call then shouldn't be for Martials to "get nice things" but for games to stop at a reasonable point.
HWalsh wrote: The only other time this seems to happen is at the REALLY high levels. I mean around level 17+ in general. When people start getting those 8th and 9th level spells. No, it begins in earnest as soon as Summon Monster III becomes available, so at around 5th/6th level. Even an E6 party can get by just fine without the martials.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: I see the problem mostly being this:
In some groups, some play styles, allow for Martials to become unneeded.
Usually this isn't due to the game but due to a combination of optimizers and game masters who disregard the weaknesses with non-martials.
The only other time this seems to happen is at the REALLY high levels. I mean around level 17+ in general. When people start getting those 8th and 9th level spells.
And yes, those powers are really strong, but they are also not really intended for player characters. Games aren't really designed to go that far. If that is the issue then all of the complaints are about the 18th, 19th, and 20th levels.
The call then shouldn't be for Martials to "get nice things" but for games to stop at a reasonable point.
So the game isn't designed well. I knew we would agree eventually!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
hiiamtom wrote: Isn't there a mythic ability to use a grappled creature as a club?
Yeah, Uncanny Grapple and Meat Shield are both thematically amazing. Really, Mythic grapplers are amazing as a whole.
There is absolutely zero, I repeat zero reason these should be Mythic Abilities.
Anybody with with a sufficient Grapple Check should be able to do that.
the secret fire wrote: Even an E6 party can get by just fine without the martials. And a party of martials can be just find without casters. I've played in tons of all-martial games over the years.
If the argument is that martials aren't needed, it is flawed. No class is "needed" in this game.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Trust me Walsh, I've learned and mastered just about everything there is about most of the classes in this game [ACG classes excluded.]
This isn't about system mastery, it's about a fatal flaw in the design of the game.
Every 4 levels past level 1 the game drastically shifts into an entire other realm for casters. [the two level jump in the meantime is sort of a partial evolution.]
At level 9 if your martial doesn't have Mythic Powers [while the caster does not] then he's basically a bag carrier/expensive minion. [Barbarians sort of break this mold to an extent but they still struggle.]
The casters in the party would be far better off firing the martial and hiring another caster in his place. Particularly a fighty-caster like a Druid or Summoner or Bard [bards especially rock with casters who summon] or Skald [same as Bard for summons] or Magus or Battle Cleric/Oracle. Or heck at that level a martially-oriented Transmuter does a FAR better job of fighting than a fighter does.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Trust me Walsh, I've learned and mastered just about everything there is about most of the classes in this game [ACG classes excluded.]
This isn't about system mastery, it's about a fatal flaw in the design of the game.
Every 4 levels past level 1 the game drastically shifts into an entire other realm for casters. [the two level jump in the meantime is sort of a partial evolution.]
At level 9 if your martial doesn't have Mythic Powers [while the caster does not] then he's basically a bag carrier/expensive minion. [Barbarians sort of break this mold to an extent but they still struggle.]
The casters in the party would be far better off firing the martial and hiring another caster in his place. Particularly a fighty-caster like a Druid or Summoner or Bard [bards especially rock with casters who summon] or Skald [same as Bard for summons] or Magus or Battle Cleric/Oracle. Or heck at that level a martially-oriented Transmuter does a FAR better job of fighting than a fighter does.
No they don't.
Listen, I have seen it all too, and I can tell you that you are confusing optimization with playing a role playing game.
Are fighters optimal? No.
I never said they were.
Though they do what they do.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Respectfully disagree Walsh.
HWalsh wrote:
No they don't.
Listen, I have seen it all too, and I can tell you that you are confusing optimization with playing a role playing game.
I'm not confusing anything. Martials are dead weight in a party level 9 or higher.
They're basically a summon that costs 1/4th the treasure haul, a slot in the party and a bunch of buff spells. And that needs to be healed.
Quote: Are fighters optimal? No.
I never said they were.
Though they do what they do.
Indeed they do what they do. Suck the resources out of a party whilst contributing maybe twice as much as a Warrior Cohort two levels behind the party would. Or about as much as the Druid's pet
What do martials let you do:
They let you play a non-magic using class.
Do they do that? Yes.
Then there is no problem.
Are they unique? Yes. Can they be memorable? Yes. Can you enjoy playing them? Yes.
The only time a problem arises is when people start looking 100% at system mechanics and performance matrix plots. Basically when people say, "Eh, your class is sub-optimal and we would be more optimal if we replaced it with a non-martial class."
1. If you are enjoying the class then keep playing it.
2. If your group is accusing you of dragging the group down find a better group.
3. If you see that playing a sub-optimal class isn't for you then play something else.
That is where my main point of contention is.
Can you play a martial? Yes.
Can you play a martial successfully through a balanced adventure? Yes.
Can that martial contribute to the party? Yes.
If the answer to all 3 is yes... And it is... Then there isn't a need for anything else to be given to the class.
Why? Because the problem comes in when people obsess about optimization. When the concern becomes, "X is better than Y at Z. I want to be the best at Z, but I play Y, and X has more versatility and either can do the job as well or even better depending on the situation so I am going to ask for Y to be buffed up until it is better at Z than X."
That is what I addressed when I said, "stop optimizing."
This game doesn't need 1:1 balance. No tabletop RPG has ever had 1:1 balance. Play what you want to play because you want to play it and check the mechanics at the door.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: the secret fire wrote: Even an E6 party can get by just fine without the martials. And a party of martials can be just find without casters. I've played in tons of all-martial games over the years.
If the argument is that martials aren't needed, it is flawed. No class is "needed" in this game. Well, that depends.
Do you want to bring back characters that die? Or reverse most of the more gruesome conditions in the game?
Then you need a divine caster.
Do you want to teleport a thousand miles to get somewhere important FAST?
You NEED an arcane caster.
Do you want to ask the GM-I'm sorry, "the gods" questions about what you might be up against?
You need magic-users, preferably divine but arcane will do.
You can spend money to hire NPCs to do this for you, of course. If your GM feels like it.
This is pretty cold comfort when the party leader is dead and the very large, complex dungeon you were killing the final boss in is collapsing and you only realize NOW that the entire party is going to be joining the BBEG and the party leader in the afterlife because nobody could teleport.
My main thing with the martial/caster divide is that the ball is passed one way. Niche protection only exists for casting characters.
A martial can roll a skill check. So can a magic-user, and they're usually about even on those at best and at worst the Wizard and Arcanist, two of the more powerful classes in the game, tend to be way better at using skills than the fighter and monk are because their primary stat is giving them a bunch of bonus skills while Monks and Fighters get very little incentive to boost their intelligence beyond 13 to meet the completely arbitrary prerequisite for Combat Expertise, an equally arbitrary feat tax.
A martial can hit things real good. A spell casting class has two entire sub schools of magic devoted to that; polymorph into something horrible and kill them with natural attacks or, more likely, just summon 1d3/1d4+1 things that are a little worse at killing things than the fighter or swashbuckler but have better action economy and leave more loot for YOU afterwards.
Magic-users take area of effect attacks for granted for their entire career; their only worry is not having one left when they need one. An insanely well-equipped fighter using all of the best weapons and armor in the game and with an AC of 120 can still be left running for his life against a @%&#ing swarm of bees if he doesn't have a splash weapon on hand.
Magic-users take alternative modes of movement for granted. Flight, climb speeds, swim speeds, earth glide, pretty much every magic class has alternative ways to move around the world built in. If you're not a barbarian, then a martial that wants alternative modes of movement had better pray to god they're not playing with a GM who hates the "magic mart" and is willing to hook them up with the often very EXPENSIVE gear that lets THEM use movement spells, even though martials getting automatic climb and swim speeds as they become more and more impossibly powerful makes perfect sense.
Magic-users don't have to pay taxes on their tricks. If you want to learn a spell, and it's of a level you can cast, you can learn it. You don't have to know spark, burning hands, flaming sphere, and dancing lights to be able to cast fireball. If you want to learn fireball, you learn it. If you want to learn teleport later, you learn it. If you want to learn Wish, you learn it. On the other hand, if you want to be able to trip someone without getting punched in the face, that's two feats. If you want a spell to do more damage, just level up; it will scale with your caster level, and then you can use metamagic if you really feel you have to. If you want a feat to do more than it did at the level you got it, usually your only option is to buy the Improved or Greater version because for some reason very few feats scale except for Power Attack. This is particularly egregious in the case of Vital Strike, where each step up the train completely obsoletes the last, leaving you with a dead feat you can't retrain for any reason.
And then there's just the standards of what's supposed to be impressive for a class at high levels, which is something that really bothers me. With a lot of nonmagical classes, your big impressive thing is that you can one-shot nearly anything with your attack. Whoop-de-@#*$@ing do. You've been clonking things into the pavement with your big metal stick from level 1, and now 20 levels later you're REALLY GOOD AT IT. And then over there is the guy you were protecting at the start of the adventure who just did tricks with light or made things slippery and now has a small planet in his back pocket, can walk directly into heaven, speak the true name of an angel and have it spring to his aid, turn into a dragon, and alter the landscape or the weather by speaking a few words.
"Nice things" can just mean something more impressive to DO than "Is he in five feet of me? OK, I'll full-attack" and "Is he more than five feet away? OK, I guess I'll try a Dirty Trick" every single turn, without variation. Because after a while, PF tends to assume you're either full-attacking the enemy or using a combat maneuver and that you will never, ever get bored of switching between those two options every single fight. If you wanted variance, you should have played a magic-user.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: This game doesn't need 1:1 balance. No tabletop RPG has ever had 1:1 balance. Play what you want to play because you want to play it and check the mechanics at the door. And then the party tries an all caster party and has way more fun NOT keeping the fighter on life support and never looks back.
Incidentally, you and I are in total agreement Walsh, Fighter is an awesome concept that I love.
But the numbers don't match the claim in the flavor text. At all.
Blackwaltzomega wrote: Because after a while, PF tends to assume you're either full-attacking the enemy or using a combat maneuver and that you will never, ever get bored of switching between those two options every single fight. If you wanted variance, you should have played a magic-user. Its combat.
1. Some people are perfectly fine doing those two things, it is simple and they like simple.
2. Combat isn't all there is to Pathfinder. There are plots, learning lore, there is role-playing. Much of that doesn't require "nice things" to participate in.
Have you never had a scene where your characters sat around a fire, late in the evening, as the sun went below the horizon and talked, in character? If not... You should try it.
The most memorable things from a lifetime of gaming aren't about this awesome dungeon boss we killed. They aren't about that time I turned into a dragon. They aren't about the dark lord that was banished.
The things I remember, after years and years of doing this, had nothing at all to do with combat or spells or feats or abilities.
Try it.
One day, when you are camping, or what have you, try the following.
Look at another player, then say, "I turn to you and poke, absent-minded, the fire with a stick from the ground and say, "So... After all this is over... I mean, when you are old, and your days grow long, what do you want to do? Open a shop? Be a farmer?"
And see what the reaction is.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: Blackwaltzomega wrote: Because after a while, PF tends to assume you're either full-attacking the enemy or using a combat maneuver and that you will never, ever get bored of switching between those two options every single fight. If you wanted variance, you should have played a magic-user. Its combat.
1. Some people are perfectly fine doing those two things, it is simple and they like simple. Classes restricted to those two things in combat should actually be good at accomplishing them.
Full Attacks are horrendously hard for non-archers to obtain for themselves and Combat Maneuvers fade from functionality HARD as levels rise.
Quote: 2. Combat isn't all there is to Pathfinder. There are plots, learning lore, there is role-playing. Much of that doesn't require "nice things" to participate in. Except when you need to be able to fly or teleport or tunnel-at-walking-speed-or-better to do it.
Quote: Have you never had a scene where your characters sat around a fire, late in the evening, as the sun went below the horizon and talked, in character? If not... You should try it. Of course I have. It's not the sort of scene that should be repeated over and over again in the game, but I partake in this sort of roleplay all the time.
Quote: The most memorable things from a lifetime of gaming aren't about this awesome dungeon boss we killed. They aren't about that time I turned into a dragon. They aren't about the dark lord that was banished. Of course!
It's kind of funny Walsh, you seem to think I and those like me are just munchkins who care nothing for roleplay and immersion and are only interested in the mechanics.
That could not be farther from the truth in many cases [my own included.]
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Lol yeah I feel ya Insain.
Personally, it grates me that Casters can do things melee that not even true weapin masters can.
My big example? The Magus. I love the class, i really do. But partially cuz he just does martial better than martial... i mean... lets look:
Short of some specific builds (beast totem barbarian, monk/brawler pummeling style) pounce is not a thing. You have to run up and hit it. A high level fighter looks no different than a low level fighter at this....
Now enter the magus... with spell combat and quick draw (for flavor funziez), he can start combat by fast drawing his sword as he dashes right through the enemy line almost faster than they can see and lay into the enemy with a full attack right there (Spell combat Bladed Dash then full attack). Like... that is something you expect fighters to be able to do...
Or
Guy is in the sky/on a platform or something. Fighter just stands there or busts out a bow... the magus says.screw.it and flies across the gap amd lays a full attack into him (force hook charge).
I mean... when the MAGUS looks like a more bad ass fighter than even a level 20 fighter... they should have made feats to allow things like (G) Bladed Dash or Force Hook Charge...
kyrt-ryder wrote:
It's kind of funny Walsh, you seem to think I and those like me are just munchkins who care nothing for roleplay and immersion and are only interested in the mechanics.
That could not be farther from the truth in many cases [my own included.]
You absolutely put mechanics above other aspects or you wouldn't ever call a character "dead weight" by any stretch.
@Pixie
Now that's what I call cinematic!
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote:
It's kind of funny Walsh, you seem to think I and those like me are just munchkins who care nothing for roleplay and immersion and are only interested in the mechanics.
That could not be farther from the truth in many cases [my own included.]
You absolutely put mechanics above other aspects or you wouldn't ever call a character "dead weight" by any stretch. You are absolutely wrong. I place them equal and both very very high.
I call a character "dead weight" because they've BEEN dead weight.
I've played a Cleric who fired a Fighter in order to hire a Druid in his place.
Not because I value mechanics over roleplay, but because in the roleplay the character was dead weight.
They were dragging us down, they took a share of our treasure they did not earn and they were putting themselves in danger beyond their ability to deal with.
They were better off fired, so I didn't have to send his wife and kids a wine basket and a note of apology.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote: I mean... when the MAGUS looks like a more bad ass fighter than even a level 20 fighter... they should have made feats to allow things like (G) Bladed Dash or Force Hook Charge... You know a couple thousand gold can get you as follows:
Stagger-Proof Boots
Oh look, 1/day you can, as an immediate action, move 30 feet so...
You are saying that me, as a fighter, can't simply buy these boots and quick draw (because, hey, you have feats to burn) move 30 ft, then make a full attack?
Funny. Seems like I can totally do that.
kyrt-ryder wrote: HWalsh wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote:
It's kind of funny Walsh, you seem to think I and those like me are just munchkins who care nothing for roleplay and immersion and are only interested in the mechanics.
That could not be farther from the truth in many cases [my own included.]
You absolutely put mechanics above other aspects or you wouldn't ever call a character "dead weight" by any stretch. You are absolutely wrong. I place them equal and both very very high.
I call a character "dead weight" because they've BEEN dead weight.
I've played a Cleric who fired a Fighter in order to hire a Druid in his place.
Not because I value mechanics over roleplay, but because in the roleplay the character was dead weight.
They were dragging us down, they took a share of our treasure they did not earn and they were putting themselves in danger beyond their ability to deal with.
They were better off fired, so I didn't have to send his wife and kids a wine basket and a note of apology. As your GM the very next session I would have made sure that you found yourselves in an AM field.
|
6 people marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: One day, when you are camping, or what have you, try the following.
Look at another player, then say, "I turn to you and poke, absent-minded, the fire with a stick from the ground and say, "So... After all this is over... I mean, when you are old, and your days grow long, what do you want to do? Open a shop? Be a farmer?"
And see what the reaction is.
Player 1: So... After all this is over... I mean, when you are old, and your days grow long, what do you want to do? Open a shop? Be a farmer?
Player 2: "I'll retrain to be a level 20 wizard. I'm probably nowhere near ready to die, so Immortality will come in handy and it'd be nice to feel young and spry again. Besides, the Old Age penalties totally favor spellcasters."
Player 1: Oh. Yeah, that makes sense. Guess I'll just be old and feeble and eventually die of old age. Man, being a fighter sucks. :(
Player 2: I know, right?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote: I mean... when the MAGUS looks like a more bad ass fighter than even a level 20 fighter... they should have made feats to allow things like (G) Bladed Dash or Force Hook Charge... You know a couple thousand gold can get you as follows:
Stagger-Proof Boots
Oh look, 1/day you can, as an immediate action, move 30 feet so...
You are saying that me, as a fighter, can't simply buy these boots and quick draw (because, hey, you have feats to burn) move 30 ft, then make a full attack?
Funny. Seems like I can totally do that. You still.need to PUT THEM ON...
And how cinimatic is:
The BBEG sudden appears from the shadows before the party... in response the fighter draws out... a pair of boots.... i mean... yeah...
Oh and your comparing a 1/day item to a spell aagus can cast quite a.few.time?
Oh and the boots.only help kinda ish replicate bladed dash, but worse. Bladed dash specifically mentions your movement does not trigger AoO. This has no similair language so you still trigger AoO. Now how about G Bladed dash? There is nothing in a fighters arsenal that allows him to replicate GBD. Charge, hit every enemy on your way, THEN lay a full attack on the enemy? That is just awesome.
So try again.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
HWalsh wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: HWalsh wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote:
It's kind of funny Walsh, you seem to think I and those like me are just munchkins who care nothing for roleplay and immersion and are only interested in the mechanics.
That could not be farther from the truth in many cases [my own included.]
You absolutely put mechanics above other aspects or you wouldn't ever call a character "dead weight" by any stretch. You are absolutely wrong. I place them equal and both very very high.
I call a character "dead weight" because they've BEEN dead weight.
I've played a Cleric who fired a Fighter in order to hire a Druid in his place.
Not because I value mechanics over roleplay, but because in the roleplay the character was dead weight.
They were dragging us down, they took a share of our treasure they did not earn and they were putting themselves in danger beyond their ability to deal with.
They were better off fired, so I didn't have to send his wife and kids a wine basket and a note of apology. As your GM the very next session I would have made sure that you found yourselves in an AM field. An actual Anti-magic field as cast by a caster of the appropriate level [we certainly weren't high enough level to be facing a dragon capable of casting it]?
Sounds good to me. My Morningstar, the Druid's Scimitar and Tiger, and the Bard's Longsword and Bow all work great in an Antimagic field.
The Wizard would have run and hid, but that's ok.
|
