Path of War/Spheres of Power/Tome of Battle/PsionicsWith all those things, you just prove my point. There's nothing on this list popular enough to even be considered near to mainstream. Tome of Battle isn't even Pathfinder.
Depends on your social circle. Of course we don't see much 3PP content in official PF threads, anything about them is generally moved to the 3PP quarantine boards.
The point is, that people understand what a fighter is. He fights. Clue is in the title. 'Daevic' could be anything, even if you a) know what a Daeva is [I imagine it's essentially the same as a Deva, the 1e good outsider], b) connect that with the adjectival ending -ic, and c) assume that it must be a fighter-type rather than a rogue-type or a druid-type or whatever. I guess that's where the Akashic Mystery comes in...
Don't mainstreamers just say words they're unfamiliar with incorrectly because they sound different and cool? That's what I remember the ones from my school doing.
The point is, that people understand what a fighter is. He fights. Clue is in the title. 'Daevic' could be anything, even if you a) know what a Daeva is [I imagine it's essentially the same as a Deva, the 1e good outsider], b) connect that with the adjectival ending -ic, and c) assume that it must be a fighter-type rather than a rogue-type or a druid-type or whatever. I guess that's where the Akashic Mystery comes in...
I'm sure the Kineticist confused the heck out of you. I mean, why did it get all these weird and strange elemental abilities! Shouldn't it be some sort of super fast dude like the flash? I mean we're talking about motion and movement here!
Mudfoot, you are being intentionally obtuse.
The point is, that people understand what a fighter is. He fights. Clue is in the title. 'Daevic' could be anything, even if you a) know what a Daeva is [I imagine it's essentially the same as a Deva, the 1e good outsider], b) connect that with the adjectival ending -ic, and c) assume that it must be a fighter-type rather than a rogue-type or a druid-type or whatever. I guess that's where the Akashic Mystery comes in...
Well, to be fair, few would know what a Paladin, Druid, or Bard was without AD&D. But no one -- even among the few who pick up the 3PP book -- are going to look at the name and say "hey, I've GOT to play one of those."
I've not bothered with Occult, but it looks to me like the Kineticist is badly named. By your description, Elementalist would fit very nicely. So now when someone does want a super-fast dude with telekinesis, super-strength, flight, force powers and whatnot, the obvious name is taken.
Path of War/Spheres of Power/Tome of Battle/PsionicsWith all those things, you just prove my point. There's nothing on this list popular enough to even be considered near to mainstream. Tome of Battle isn't even Pathfinder.
*Looks at hundreds of threads talking about Path of War/Spheres of Power/Tome of Battle/Psionics* .... Huh? For godsake, Path of War comes up so often in this topic alone it's on the friggin bingo.
As for ToB, I actually used that example because the exact same situation happened in 3.5e as in PF where people are annoyed at the disparity, and ToB was an actual answer that everyone noticed. It was mainstream, regardless of the fact it was a "You either love it or hate it" product. It did try to fix the disparity and made martials Tonnes better when it comes to balance, and it was mainstream.
. So now when someone does want a super-fast dude with telekinesis, super-strength, flight, force powers and whatnot, the obvious name is taken.
Funnily, kineticist does do that.
As for class names, shouldn't druid be doing leadership stuff? Shouldn't cleric be acting like clerks? Shouldn't paladins have nothing to do with Good at all?
OK. So that's all right then. Like the fighter (who fights), the kineticist (who does kinetic stuff) or the investigator (who...) or the sorcerer (...) or the ranger or the hunter is accurately described in a simple pithy term. Daevic requires access to a mythological encyclopedia and a leap of imagination.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Daevic requires access to a mythological encyclopedia and a leap of imagination.
"Oh no a fantasy game used terms from mythology" cannot be your argument. This is a game with asura, manasuptra, vanara, anunnaki, papinijuwaris, julunggali, bakekujira, dybbuk .... is daeva really that foreign a word to not fit?
OK. So that's all right then. Like the fighter (who fights), the kineticist (who does kinetic stuff) or the investigator (who...) or the sorcerer (...) or the ranger or the hunter is accurately described in a simple pithy term. Daevic requires access to a mythological encyclopedia and a leap of imagination.
But why is the Monk a bald dude who punches people? He's supposed to be a religious scholar.
What the heck is a Skald?
Occultist?
99% of Paizo Archetypes
Also only some Kineticists can do as you described. I suggest you actually read a class before making any sweeping generalizations about it.
Also only some Kineticists can do as you described. I suggest you actually read a class before making any sweeping generalizations about it.
That's unfair, he based his assumption off you saying it doesn't have motion powers.
Aaaannnyway, back to the topic. One argument I've seen a few times refuting the CMD is that a suitably-built martial can repel the chosen caster's attack and CMD doesn't exist. This came up in that business about the pouncing tiger-druid and the fighter with a braced longspear and Stand Still. I guess this is Myth #10 or something, namely that
A caster can always beat any martial in any given situation (usually combat).
Clearly this is nonsense, especially in combat (where martials do OK).
Edit: actually I garbled that by expressing it backwards. The denialists claim that CMD doesn't exist because the above is provably false. It's 2am here. I need to go to bed.
I agree with that being a myth. In general a Caster can always beat a martial in any given situation only if they have the chance to prepare. A Wizard who doesn't have the correct spells prepared (or the right number of them) may find themselves in need of assistance.
Though the lower tier a martial the more true it is.
The fighter has
-Damage
-2 skill points per level
It's not too hard to match that as a Bruiser type caster like a Druid.
Comparatively
Ranger has
-damage
-6 skill points per level
-skill boosts
-effective spells
-animal companion
In order for a Druid to outdo a Ranger at being a Ranger the Druid would likely need early knowledge for preparation.
Sometimes they don't even need to be prepared. They just need to have more than one brain cell.
Sometimes they don't even need to be prepared. They just need to have more than one brain cell.
I didn't say preparation was hard. Sometimes even preparedness wont save you. When you need 4 5th level spells, but can only prepare 2...... that's a problem.
You don't want a Wizard to replace your martial, you want a Druid or Cleric. Maybe even a Hunter.
You don't want a Cleric to replace your Rogue, you want a Wizard, Magus, or Bard.
Not every caster is better at every single role, but a party of casters....
A Wizard, Cleric, Hunter, Investigator party will be able to complete more difficult challenges than a Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue party.
Not every caster is better at every single role, but a party of casters....
Unless it's a summoning wizard. Then your screwed :P
Not every caster is better at every single role, but a party of casters....Unless it's a summoning wizard. Then your screwed :P
Wouldn't a summoning cleric be better? They get standard action summons after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A summoning summoner can damn near replace them all.
EDIT: come to think of it that's a terrifying concept. Your eidolon acts as a skill critter and scout, you as main spellcaster and your standard action sumons to serve as tactical meat. If built another way you can become the meat and use the summons as a tactical supplement.
A summoning wizard is pretty great, but it's not as cracked up as people say it is.
Summoning is still round/level, is a round long action to cast, and you can only effectively cast the spell so many times.
Unless you speak of Planar Binding, which is definitely full on cheese. It's rules legal to be sure, but one of those rules that makes you question design competency.
A summoning summoner can damn near replace them all.
EDIT: come to think of it that's a terrifying concept. Your eidolon acts as a skill critter and scout, you as main spellcaster and your standard action sumons to serve as tactical meat. If built another way you can become the meat and use the summons as a tactical supplement.
A summoning Summoner still has a lot to worry about though. If he can solo an adventure it's because the adventure was easy.
Unless you speak of Planar Binding, which is definitely full on cheese. It's rules legal to be sure, but one of those rules that makes you question design competency.
Not just planar binding, Truename discovery. I once had a wizard who could call in an angel many levels higher than himself without even needing a check to convince them to do stuff.
Unless you speak of Planar Binding, which is definitely full on cheese. It's rules legal to be sure, but one of those rules that makes you question design competency.Not just planar binding, Truename discovery. I once had a wizard who could call in an angel many levels higher than himself without even needing a check to convince them to do stuff.
How does one discover a true name?
How does one discover a true name?
Wizards of at least 11th level can do it instead of taking a feat. My wizard had multiple truenames so he could cycle through outsiders without annoying any of them.... and he was allowed to do planar binding.
How does one discover a true name?Wizards of at least 11th level can do it instead of taking a feat. My wizard had multiple truenames so he could cycle through outsiders without annoying any of them.... and he was allowed to do planar binding.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha
Whoever wrote that..... should be reevaluated.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha
Whoever wrote that..... should be reevaluated.
Admittedly it is a very fun ability. Broken, but fun. My level 15 character had a Astradaemon (combat), Planetar Angel (fixing up places destroyed by PC shenanigans), and a Kolyarut (lawyer).
Thus my point that the largest issue standing in the way of paizo fixing it is the community.Yeah, and I think it won't change too much in the near future. Personally, I think most of those arguments presented in the bingo sheet have come from trying to explain why someone likes the game as is. And it doesn't matter if the logic behind those arguments are flawed because it's just personal opinions. Add to that the fear that any modifications to the status quo could change the game in directions the respective player doesn't like and you have an explanation why rational discourse doesn't seem to be effective.
Truth. It never hurts to remember that Paizo developed Pathfinder specifically to appeal to the mass of reactionary gamers who hated all the changes made in 4th edition and wanted to go back to 3.5. That's going to make them wary of making any major changes themselves.
|
Depends on your social circle. Of course we don't see much 3PP content in official PF threads, anything about them is generally moved to the 3PP quarantine boards.
To me it isn't about what gets cited at the paizo boards. To me, mainstream means that it is bought and used by a majority of Pathfinder players. I may be wrong, but I don't think that any 3PP product qualifies under this definition.
It's kinda like saying any heavy metal band* would be mainstream when mainstream is defined by people like Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber**.
Dreamscarred Press's 3pp seems to be the most well-known in my admittedly small experience and low sample size. Though I think a lot of that is due to most of my gaming friends being 3.5 veterans who liked Psionics and/or Tome of Battle, and thus took an interest in the company converting those systems to Pathfinder.
Be that as it may, generally I would agree to Milo v3. Those solutions are out there for those who want to use them. It doesn't stop those C/MD threads from popping up, so my impression is, that those solutions aren't the solutions the C/MD critics actually want to see.
I see three reasons why individuals might not use such solutions despite them existing:
1. They don't use third-party and want a first-party response.2. They do not like the flavour that is present in the most visible of the fixes, for example many dislike the over-the-top martials of Path of War. And while there are options like Michael Sayre's Battle Lord that are balanced but not over-the-top in flavour, they seem less visible.
3. They don't want to complicate their games.
Aaaannnyway, back to the topic. One argument I've seen a few times refuting the CMD is that a suitably-built martial can repel the chosen caster's attack and CMD doesn't exist. This came up in that business about the pouncing tiger-druid and the fighter with a braced longspear and Stand Still.
I was right though. At level 10, the Druid can turn into animals with too much reach for his build to work. He also didn't seem to understand what adjacent means.
Be that as it may, generally I would agree to Milo v3. Those solutions are out there for those who want to use them. It doesn't stop those C/MD threads from popping up, so my impression is, that those solutions aren't the solutions the C/MD critics actually want to see.
I think it's more of an issue that it's not always an option. All of the third party content in the world won't save you if you're playing PFS. Some GMs will also ban content purely on the basis of it being Third Party.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
To take Kirth's example Find the path and discern location may really come in handy if you have no ranger in the party. On the other handy, and that's my take on this, if you have a ranger in the party, the wizard player probably shouldn't write those spells into his spellbook.
Then, using the core rules, no one would be able do those things at all. Because the core ranger can't. That's my gripe -- the ranger's primary function exists only as cleric and wizard spells that rangers never get access to. That doesn't bother anyone else at all? Even a little bit?
In PF, if you want the party to do what rangers supposedly do best, you fire the ranger and hire another full caster instead. That makes absolutely no sense to me. Other examples abound as well (don't get me started on rogues!).
Yeah, as it turns out I don't believe it's possible to stop a character's movement with a reach weapon AoO. Which is a shame, can you imagine if an Aberrant Bloodrager could take a feat like that? He'd be the ultimate guard class.So I do feel the need to point out that this is super easy. You can replace any attack with a Trip, Disarm, or Sunder. Just trip them.
Good luck tripping the Giant.
|
Good luck tripping the Giant.Yeah, as it turns out I don't believe it's possible to stop a character's movement with a reach weapon AoO. Which is a shame, can you imagine if an Aberrant Bloodrager could take a feat like that? He'd be the ultimate guard class.So I do feel the need to point out that this is super easy. You can replace any attack with a Trip, Disarm, or Sunder. Just trip them.
Or the gargoyle/ooze/dragon/behir/giant centipede/carrion crawler/basically-anything-without-legs-or-with-more-than-two-legs-or-that- flies-or-is-more-than-one-size-category-larger.
|
|
That's my gripe -- the ranger's primary function exists only as cleric and wizard spells that rangers never get access to. That doesn't bother anyone else at all? Even a little bit?
Well, personally, not really. Both spells grant basically automatic success to what you say is the rangers' primary function. So what this means is that you take part of the challenge out of playing a ranger. And that's nothing I'm too interested at (though it may actually be a cool reward as a class ability for sticking with the class unto high levels).
This said, you may have a group where noone is able to track a person or find the way out of the maze. Then to have those spells prepared if such a challenge should come up, could be a very good thing.
But then I'm not a big proponent of optimization either. So what the ranger actually can do should suffice in my campaigns most of the time. And I certainly won't punish any group for not having those spells ready.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aegis is one of the best full BAB classes I've seen.
Agreed on the Aegis, unlike other martial classes, that one actually does get to do cool stuff.
Bloodrager, right?Good luck tripping the Giant.Or the gargoyle/ooze/dragon/behir/giant centipede/carrion crawler/basically-anything-without-legs-or-with-more-than-two-legs-or-that- flies-or-is-more-than-one-size-category-larger.
The original challenge/theory was a 10th level Fighter vs. a 10th level Wild-shape Druid. The Fighter had Combat Patrol with a reach weapon and the Druid turned into a Huge creature with 15 foot reach and three natural attacks with Pounce.
The fact that he's huge means the Fighter can't even trip him unless he has enlarge person, and then the Druid gets +4 on his CMD for having 2 extra legs anyway. It's just not gonna go in his favor.