Classes without Bonus Feats dont have enough feats to fill out even one weapon tree. Most classes feel feat-starved and somewhat generic unless they have different fighting and/or spell styles.
By default this means that any class would be a melee character(two-handed or shield+one-hand) with a secondary ranged weapon. Trying to make anyone an two-weapon warrior or Archer without bonus feats is ill-advised as there are also defensive, utility, and magic feats.
Ive planned out some hybrid characters without bonus feats and I dont think they work well in the long run. Early levels all those combat feats are important, but many classes are actually spellcasters so its just a matter of time before spells become alot more useful and using 5+ feats for your fighting style isnt wise.
--------------------------------------------------
So, are their options to actually trade out minor class features or teamwork feats? Any way to scrape up some bonus feats to improve a fighting style, or should I just stick to two-handed weapons and Power attacks until I can use magic?
Anyone have any build advice for making a Hunter or Inquisitor with Archery weapon style also with utility/spell feats?
Most non-fighter characters are actually reasonably effective without any feats whatsoever. You can use feats to either give you different options for stuff to do or to enhance your main thing. The balance of them is up to you. The more you buff one side of your character the less you can buff the other.
It's boring when one character is awesome at everything. Just look at high level wizards.
Archer Inquisitor works just fine. Follow the basic progression of feats needed, maybe waiting on Deadly Aim for a bit. If you really want to go all in on it you can pick the Sacred Slayer archetype which will allow you to pick up Ranger Combat style feats.
Ultimately your observation is somewhat correct, certain combat styles are restricted and feat intensive only capable of being accomplished by those with access to lots of bonus feats.
But I don't really see that as a problem. 2 handing a weapon and using power attack is the base line for effective and it honestly takes a lot of work to make other combat styles as effective as that simple set up.
Honestly though, I think this is bit intended and I'm okay with. The only problem is that there isn't a lot of diversity, but Pathfinder doesn't honestly have a lot of diversity anyways. There are lots of options, and most of them aren't good so nobody takes them.
Honestly though, I think this is bit intended and I'm okay with. The only problem is that there isn't a lot of diversity, but Pathfinder doesn't honestly have a lot of diversity anyways. There are lots of options, and most of them aren't good so nobody takes them.
Yeah, I figured that out. I started comparing hybrids and i found the Hunter, Inquisitor, and Occultist are basically the same thing.
The variations of characters is rather limited.
#1 full BAB classes/tier 4 casters
#2 partial BAB classes/tier 6 casters
`
#3 low BAB classes/Tier 9 casters
Feats are what make a character unique. Sure you choose the better ones, but are still the only thing that allows you to fight with two weapons instead of one, or fight with a ranged weapon anything close to a melee weapon.
So spellcasters are really the only unique classes? Well I guess ill go check up on that Druid again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, that's a gross over simplification.
What I meant is that for any given "thing" you want to do there is really only a single set of feats that are any good for it, so there isn't really much customization. With a bit of research you can usually find the optimal set of feats to support what you want to do. This gets changed once in a while by new material releasing a feat that's good enough to change the set, but doesn't happen too often.
But you're missing a lot of possible variations of characters with your break down.
For martial oriented characters you can two-hand a weapon (easiest), you can TWF (requires lots of feats and really works best if you have class abilities that provide a lot of static bonus damage), you can be an archer (requires a lot of feats but is probably the best combat style, also works better if you have a way to add lots of static damage too).
None of that is dependent on BAB or spell casting ability. Well, when you can pick up feats is BAB dependent, but feasibly anyone could do these things. Certain classes are just better at it because they can do it sooner with bonus feats, having higher BAB to pick up feats earlier, having better bonus to attack and damage built into the class.
Lots of classes have some really unique features that help them excel at something.
And spell casting isn't all that unique. Sorcerers, wizards, and arcanists all share a spell list. Clerics, oracles, and warpriests share a spell list. Most of the rest of the classes with spell casting are just poaching from those spell lists, sometimes they combine parts of the two of them.
My statements about diversity was really only meant about feats. There is a small pool of good feats, and pretty much all the rest are things everyone ignores so everyone ends up with the same build (feat wise).
I think character abilities can be spit into 3 categories.
#1 Physical abilities and combat feats feats
#2 class features
#3 spells.
Its petty rare to find a character that can do all 3 in a way to be a jack-of-all-trades. Most of the time its closer to Master-of-None.
If you dont have feats then yeah youre physical performance will be way down as you wont have the feats that give you more attacks, special manuevers, and remove drawbacks. There are some spells that boost attack or damage, but are there spells that replace an entire line of combat feats?
I view class features as secondary to physical and spells. Most people agree. Those class features try to be a crutch to replace something rather than improve upon it. For example, an Inquisitor uses Judgment to replace the missing attack and attack roll.
|
I don't know why you think a class should be able to be a jack of all trades and also a master of some. That's not really how the game is balanced, and definitely not how it should be balanced. Casters usually get away with more than they should already, but that's a known issue.
There's really 2 ways that 3/4 BAB classes trade specialization in either spellcasting or pure combat abilities, and it's not feats, it's BAB and 6 level casting. BAB dictates your attack bonus, but more importantly to balance, how many attacks you'll have at certain levels. It's fairly easy to build a 3/4 BAB character with an attack bonus similar to a full BAB character, but for several levels will have less attacks than the full BAB character.
In a similar way, 6 level spellcasting will have slightly lower DCs than a 9 level caster, but what really differentiates them is that a 9th level caster will have significantly more spells, and generally get more powerful spells earlier than 6 level casters, with certain exceptions.
So that's the balance. Feats don't really have a lot to do with it. Some classes have lots (fighters, rangers, wizards) and some classes have few (paladins, barbarians, druids). I don't think many people consider paladins or barbarians weak because they don't get a lot of bonus feats, if anything, it's people thinking fighters are weak cause feats aren't nearly as good as their class features.
In a similar way, 6 level spellcasting will have slightly lower DCs than a 9 level caster, but what really differentiates them is that a 9th level caster will have significantly more spells, and generally get more powerful spells earlier than 6 level casters, with certain exceptions.
9th level casters also have much more room to maneuver with Metamagic.
So I cant even choose fighting styles unless that class allows bonus combat feats for fighting styles? I have very little choice in the matter of making my own character as limited by class limitations.
Play the class as intended or fail. I think that is a Dobson's Choice.
Weapon Focus can be bought for 2000gp using a cracked Opalecent White Pyramid and a Wayfinder.
You can tack a Combat Feat onto a weapon using a Training Weapon, so long as you meet its prerequisites.
Most feat chains can work with that.
what are you trying to accomplish? I've read a few of your posts here and it really seems like you want a character that can do it all as well as a specialist. that seems a bit ridiculous since it eliminates the incentive for specialization. maybe I'm misunderstanding you though. if you can narrow down what your trying to accomplish, we can probably help you.
but if you're trying to make a full BAB full caster, you're probably looking for a gestalt game.
So I cant even choose fighting styles unless that class allows bonus combat feats for fighting styles? I have very little choice in the matter of making my own character as limited by class limitations.
Play the class as intended or fail. I think that is a Dobson's Choice.
Well yeah to a certain extent take for instance an Inquisitor, you can make an effective Two weapon fighter, two handed fighter, sword and board fighter or an Archer should you want to. So their you have 4 fighting styles already or you could focus on spells or you could make an intimidation build or you could take an archetype. Plenty of variety but no they can't do everything.
However to make something more exotic with maneuvers and such, you might need a class with bonus feats or perhaps a brawler because not every class is supposed to be able to do every style of combat. The special thing about some classes is access to said styles.
If you could pick any class and do any style of combat for it then people would only pick classes for flavor.
And if every class could do every combat style why would anyone play a full martial? you get better to hit in exchange for ALL the things classes such as an inquisitor or Magus' gets such as Bane or Judgement or Spells or Spell Combat. I find the notion of every class being able to everything a bit odd.
if you have something more specific in mind then their is probably away to achieve it.
So I cant even choose fighting styles unless that class allows bonus combat feats for fighting styles? I have very little choice in the matter of making my own character as limited by class limitations.
Play the class as intended or fail. I think that is a Dobson's Choice.
The phrase is Hobson's choice.
Oh yeah that would be horrible. People playing a class because they want to play that class and aren't being constrained by hideously bad feat designs.
Nothing would make sense, I play a wizard who has spent years studying Abjuration, in combat I specialize in disarming people with my rapier...
what? Different classes are good at different things because it doesn't make sense for the book learned scholar to grapple someone to death.
The class features and flavor and mechanics? Same reason you play one now.
People play martial now because the mechanics allow for more complicated fighting styles than none martial characters, which makes sense.
... So, aside from two-weapon fighting or archery, I can't really think of a style that requires a bunch of feats. If you're two-handing a weapon, all you really need is Power Attack, and you're good. Maybe add in Combat Reflexes if it's a reach weapon to hit them a few more times. Dex to damage/CMB takes a bit longer, but is still managable with its 2-4 feats (Dervish Dancer+Agile Maneuvers, or Slashing/Fencing Grace)
But anyways, let's get to the little question at the end of your first post. Human Inquisitor Archer feats, coming up!
1st - Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot
3rd - Deadly Aim
5th - Weapon Focus (Longbow)
7th - Empty Quiver Style
9th - Rapid Shot
11th - Stabbing Shot
13th - Clustered Shots
15th - [Insert Feat Here]
17th - [Insert Feat Here]
19th - [Insert Feat Here]
And there we go. All the feats you need to use one of the most stupidly effective weapon styles in the game on a 2/3rds BAB class that is able to work from the get-go. Add in Bane, Judgements/Studied Target, and the ability to cast Greater Magic Weapon, and you're going to put out some serious damage easily. You even have some wiggle room in your feats to grab some other stuff as well, mainly becuase of the Inquisitor's shifting teamwork feats that don't care if other people in your party have them. Hunter will also play out the exact same way, except you can nab other feats as well thanks to their bonus feats.
If you want to put the effort into building a rapier wielding wizard I don't see why that's a bad thing. Like we need some kind of RP police preventing people from playing classes off type?
Nope but their is also no reason to believe the old Scholar will be good at what you're trying to force them into. By all means brake the mold but don't expect a class designed to represent a Scholar to suddenly shift into a duelist.
If you want that then their really isn't any point in having statistics and builds just right a story and let your characters do what they like.
You mean the fighter. Non-fighter martials don't even necessarily get bonus feats in the first place, so that's completely wrong, as building an inquisitor with a 'complicated' fighting style isn't really that hard either, it's just pointlessly slow and takes up most of your feats because Paizo is really bad at balancing feats.
Fighters, Brawlers, Swashbucklers, Rangers, Cavalier and Monk all allow one to specialize in more difficult style's of combat that your average raging barbarian may not have finesse to pull off.
So no it's not completely wrong.Paizo having bad feats I agree with I find the feint line particularly underwhelming.
Paizo allowing every class to do every combat style I do not. Old Books worms running round with a greataxe doesn't make sense, they're book worms because they wanted to learn about spells.
If you want to put the effort into building a rapier wielding wizard I don't see why that's a bad thing. Like we need some kind of RP police preventing people from playing classes off type?
i'm not sure anyone said it was a bad thing. and there isn't much stopping you. you won't be as good at it as the martial classes, and you might sacrifice some effectiveness at what your own class does, but you can be a rapier wielding wizard of any race at level 1. just buy a rapier and wield it.
Old Books worms running round with a greataxe doesn't make sense, they're book worms because they wanted to learn about spells.
that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to wield a greataxe. they just shouldn't be as good at it as a class that spent the time the wizard spent reading books training with weapons.
that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to wield a greataxe. they just shouldn't be as good at it as a class that spent the time the wizard spent reading books training with weapons.
Thats the point I was making, hence I said
Nope but their is also no reason to believe the old Scholar will be good at what you're trying to force them into. By all means brake the mold but don't expect a class designed to represent a Scholar to suddenly shift into a duelist.
Like I said there is nothing stopping him from doing it. It just won't be very good.
Ive played many videogame rpgs like Fallout and Jagged alliance and those are less restrictive. They often have a system where rather than fixed classes you have stats and then build a character into what you want. Intelligence is often the most important stat as that actually effects how everything else grows. a Genius can learn weapon skills alot faster than a jock can learn particle physics.
I cant and wouldnt make a perfect character, but that doesnt mean excelling in more than one area is a bad thing. That is especially true in Pathfinder Society games as I dont know what my teammates will bring.
If the Mystic Theurge or Arcane Archer were full characters rather than prestige classes, those would be my kind of characters.
I think current Pathfinder classes are more defined by their handicaps rather than their strengths. Do you disagree?
Ive played many videogame rpgs like Fallout and Jagged alliance and those are less restrictive. They often have a system where rather than fixed classes you have stats and then build a character into what you want. Intelligence is often the most important stat as that actually effects how everything else grows. a Genius can learn weapon skills alot faster than a jock can learn particle physics.
its funny me and my brother were discussion fallout and Skyrim in comparison to pathfinder and came to exact opposite conclusion.
one thing one has to rap ones head around with pathfinder and D&D in general is you pick what you want to do and then pick a class that fits, don't pick a class and then try and force it to do something it isn't designed to do. Sure you can do that, but it probably won't be very good/easy.
However their is more range for things to do in pathfinder (this is coming from someone with 3000 hours and 12 characters in skyrim and a good chunk in fallout). Of course in my opinion
I cant and wouldnt make a perfect character, but that doesnt mean excelling in more than one area is a bad thing. That is especially true in Pathfinder Society games as I dont know what my teammates will bring.If the Mystic Theurge or Arcane Archer were full characters rather than prestige classes, those would be my kind of characters.
I think current Pathfinder classes are more defined by their handicaps rather than their strengths. Do you disagree?
Plenty of classes can achieve that pretty much any 3/4 bab 2/3 casting character can fill a number of roles.
Inquisitor for instance can be a wonderful archer, party face (with tricked out Intimidate and Sense motive, which you can make run on WIS with the right inquisition) and a supportive buffing caster all in one character with minimal real effortthe same is true of pretty much every full divine caster, particularly oracles, which can be made to fit most any mold, but not all of them at once.
And of course you've got full Arcane casters, who can be the foe disintegration, walking talking text book, who sees into the future, makes you a fancy new cloak and is summoning Angels to aid you in healing.
As for your comment about being defined by their Handycaps I think that is very much a broad generalization certain classes (summoner/Magus) are very much defined by their strengths where as one might argue certain other classes are defined by weaknesses (Rogue) but I find the latter a lot rarer and a normally an example of a badly balanced class (rogue).
One problem that can arise is simply not seeing the strengths of class because the strengths of the class you chose aren't applicable to the character you're trying to build. So you end up focusing on what you're lacking.
Is their something in particular you're trying to achieve with a particular class that has lead you to this conclusion.
(Also their are some magus Archetypes which do the Arcane Archer thing very well, my brother found the Magus generally all-round more effective than the Arcane Archer when comparing.)
If you want a classless system Pathfinder is the wrong system for you. Hero system or other point based systems are probably what you are looking for. The downside for most of them is they require a lot more system mastery than Pathfinder.
I didnt set out to make a rant about the flaws-vs-benefits of a classless system, but while I was offline sunday with people adding their own ideas.
Ill try to put this back to the original purpose.
Think about Bards and their reputation. They dont just have Worse BAB and spellcasting but also MultipleAbilityDependency and are Feat Starved to cover each area. At best that means you MUST use your mixed abilities to play a certain way making a new stereotype. You MUST use Haste/Divine Favor, etc to make up for your lack of whatever.
So can you duel-wield weapons or be an rifleman as well? Technically, sure, but youre still not going to have enough feats to improve everything, so you become a Master-Of-None. Some Feats are just there to waste Feat slots, such as Point blank shot, and weapon/spell focus.
How many classes can work Whirlwind with a Polearm and Haste? I look classes to see what they do and the feats are often skimmed over so their Class features become their cornerstone/crutch.
I didnt set out to make a rant about the flaws-vs-benefits of a classless system, but while I was offline sunday with people adding their own ideas.
Ill try to put this back to the original purpose.
Think about Bards and their reputation. They dont just have Worse BAB and spellcasting but also MultipleAbilityDependency and are Feat Starved to cover each area. At best that means you MUST use your mixed abilities to play a certain way making a new stereotype. You MUST use Haste/Divine Favor, etc to make up for your lack of whatever.
Bard's reputation is an an entertainer who's decent in a scrap, dabbles in magic and is a walking encyclopedia of local history.
They are supposed to be worse than a dedicated martial at fighting (which they are), they're supposed to be worse at casting than a Wizard (which they are) because Wizard's spend their whole life studying and fighters dedicate time to learning how to fight. Bards spend most of their lives being walking entertainers it's totally unreasonable to expect them to rival a wizard or a fighter in their roadhouse and of course if they're going to into casting and fighting they're going to be multi ability dependent they can't very well sing with through big biceps or hit people harder with a winning smile.
They're feat starved precisely because they're a Jack of All class not a master of all class, no class is a master of all. And a bard can be a serviceable caster an amazing buffer, brilliant skill monkey and proficient Archer (the most feat intensive mainstream feat line) with the resources they have, I really don't know what more you'd expect the class to be able to do.
their is no must to any of this although one would expect you to use your abilities considering you chose the class, why did you pick a bard if not to use bardic performance? As for Haste again their is no must to any of this, but their isn't really much of a good reason not to use the resources you have available to you.
It's like you're arguing you want a bard to be good at all these things (which he totally can be, just not the best) but you don't want to use the abilities a bard has to achieve good. If thats the case pick another class with the abilities you do want to use.
What exactly is it you want your character to do anyway? because we can go one forever with you saying X class can't do Y and me saying but it can do Z or in some cases, yes it can do Y.
So can you duel-wield weapons or be an rifleman as well? Technically, sure, but youre still not going to have enough feats to improve everything, so you become a Master-Of-None. Some Feats are just there to waste Feat slots, such as Point blank shot, and weapon/spell focus.
As Mourge 40K has already shown you can totally complete pretty much the most feat extensive combat style with the basic 11 feats.
Sure if you pick 3 or 4 feat trees to go down with a class that isn't supposed to focus on strange and unique combat maneuvers you'll run into trouble.
You'd also run into trouble trying to focus on a Paladin's spell list. Certain classes do certain things but any character can be any class, and every single thing in the game can be achieved by a particular class. Pathfinder needs you to make an informed decision's about your class dependent on what you want your character to do. Not just pick a class and force it to do something it's not made for.
You seem to want a classles system or a system where the class is simply lip service and what the character can do has nothing to do with whether they're a bard a wizard or a fighter. Pathfinder doesn't do that afraid and if that's what you want you're going to be disappointed.
You're right about Feat taxes being a bit of a pain and unfun in some cases (although Spell Focus is not an example of this) but take the good with the bad I say.
How many classes can work Whirlwind with a Polearm and Haste? I look classes to see what they do and the feats are often skimmed over so their Class features become their cornerstone/crutch.
Class features are meant to be the corner stone of a class... the clue is in the name.
If however you're set on Polearm Whirlwind haste I imagine we could find a way for most classes to do that, between 11 feats and 2 traits you can do pretty much anything with most classes unless it has BaB pre-reqs in which case Arcane full casters are out.
I didnt set out to make a rant about the flaws-vs-benefits of a classless system, but while I was offline sunday with people adding their own ideas.
Ill try to put this back to the original purpose.
Think about Bards and their reputation. They dont just have Worse BAB and spellcasting but also MultipleAbilityDependency and are Feat Starved to cover each area. At best that means you MUST use your mixed abilities to play a certain way making a new stereotype. You MUST use Haste/Divine Favor, etc to make up for your lack of whatever.
So can you duel-wield weapons or be an rifleman as well? Technically, sure, but youre still not going to have enough feats to improve everything, so you become a Master-Of-None. Some Feats are just there to waste Feat slots, such as Point blank shot, and weapon/spell focus.
How many classes can work Whirlwind with a Polearm and Haste? I look classes to see what they do and the feats are often skimmed over so their Class features become their cornerstone/crutch.
Bards are not super casters and are not super fighters. They are excellent party buffers AND can do reasonably well in those other areas WITHOUT being as good as classes that specialized in fighting or casting. Also they are considered an excellent class in Pathfinder. Also you MUST do NOTHING. In a RPG everything you do depends on the circumstances you are in and haste/divine favor are NOT always the best solution (keeping up with the Bard exmple).
Bottom line: in Pathfinder you can't be specialized in several different fields. You can be a good at dual wielding and good at sniping BUT you can't be the best in both fields (and this is true even for fighters), this is perfectly fine and expecting PF to allow characters similar to those you can build in the Elder Scrolls (where you can be a wizard, a fighter and an assassin all at the same time utterly trivializing every encounter). This is a collaborative game, you play with other people who should compensate for your shortcomings as you do with theirs (not working perfectly, I know, but that's the theory), it's not a game where a class should be able to do everything at the same time, there would be no point having classes if they could do everything.
I've never had any problem with feats and fighting styles on class with no bonus feats. I get 10 feats, easy enough to fit a fighting style in there. Most are 3-4 feats. There may be more feats like archery has but most I'm not interested in unless I'm fighter. Rapid shot for example, I don't want the -2. So taking the styles is not the problem. The problem as I see it is getting those feats, it might take me 12 levels to get them where other classes have them by level 4. But that's the benefit of those classes.
Hybrid classes arent just a little worse, but alot unless you perform everything perfectly as per the design. Where is the player input in character design?.
a Bardish character may be half as powerful as a equal level Fighter/ranger. Use buffs and you can get closer.
-------------------
A Fighter has 20 BAB, +2 attack greater weapon focus, +4 damage greater weapon specialization.
An Inquisitor can theoretically eventually be more powerful than Fighter. Combine Judgement with a buff spell like Divine Power. By level 20 those both combine give a +10 attack bonus, +12 damage bonus, and extra attack at top attack.
Thats awesome...very late into the character life.
At this point I kind of feel like Every character I would pick would be a Fighter for at least the first level and then retrain or multiclass into something else. That makes some classes If i wasnt playing in the Pathfinder Society campaign that would be simple.
Actually, I can sum everything up with that. Why cant every character start off level 0 as a Fighter and go into other classes with magic powers?
Actually, I can sum everything up with that. Why cant every character start off as a Fighter and go into other classes with magic powers?
... But every character can?
yeah, i'm really not sure what's stopping you. in PFS you can even relieve yourself of that fighter level when you hit second level if you want.
ah... you clearly want a different game. also, as your quote of his quote clearly shows, you hadn't added "level 0" yet when he responded...
ah... you clearly want a different game. also, as your quote of his quote clearly shows, you hadn't added "level 0" yet when he responded...
I deleted that. Those two just cause confusion because I posted them with a few seconds of each other. Basically I want martial weapons and armor on my characters, even a Wizard, because why not make a magical archer? oh yeah, because game rules say you cannot (make a good one).
I really cant find My ideal character, because there are just silly problems of having characters only 80-95% of what I would make.
Ok Ill give you some examples.
Arcane Archer Wishlist: with armor and not as a prestige class.
Zen Archer Wishlist: with armor and/OR spells.
Warpriest Wishlist: with higher default skill points.
Inquisitor Wishlist: with martial weapons and bonus feats
Common theme is: Martial weapons, armor, decent number of skill points, moderate magic power, some extra feats for a fighting style.
So a true Jack-of-All-trades. Not perfect, but better than what is available. Specialists would win in an one area. Fighter fights better, caster has high tier spells, and skillmonkey has alot more skills.
Yeah i should just try picking up a Fighter level. Unless the class actively conflicts with armor(monk, wizard, druid, etc) it would be a great starting point.
Maybe a Battle Host (Occultist)? 6th level casting, all proficiencies, bonus feats, high skill ranks, etc. Obviously not the best at anything, but quite versatile. Best way I can think of.
Qingqong monk can gain certain spells as ki powers, and typically wouldn't need armor because of the class AC bonuses.
Magic items also can go a long way. Magic Bracers give armor bonuses to monks. One ring in CRB also gives a deflection bonus.
Cartmanbeck's guide to the IronCaster is worth looking at.
Humans get skill points bonuses that are handy. Plus FCB that accounts for an extra two points a level.
You are focusing way too much on physical combat and ignoring all the other aspects of the game. Yes a fighter is the best at fighting that is why the class is called Fighter.
At low levels stats are actually more important than class. Take an elven wizard with an 18 STR vs a fighter with a 13 STR. At 1st level the elven wizard will actually hit more often and do more damage than the fighter. By 4th level or so the fighter has started to overtake the wizard and is now slightly better with a longsword than the fighter. By 6th level the fighter is significantly better than the wizard at using a longsword. Most classes don’t even start to come into their own until somewhere between 4th to 6th levels. Before this there really is not that much difference between the classes. Heck at 1st level even the rogue is about the same power.
It does not take an inquisitor till 20th level to be able to leave the fighter in the dust. True he needs to go nova and use everything he has to do it, and he will not be able to do it often, but the point is he can do it. At 6th level the inquisitor can get +6 to hit and +7 to damage and deal an extra 3d6 points of damage per hit, this is something even a 6th level fighter will have a hard time matching. This is done simply by using Divine Favor, Judgment of destruction, Bane and Precise Strike all of which are available to a 6th level inquisitor.
Using a bard as an example is probably the worst thing you can do as they are not very focused on combat like a lot of the other ¾ BAB 2/3 spell casting classes. A magus is probably the best and they can easily out damage a fighter once past the early levels
Are we arguing or no, because now its become murky.
At level 1 the divide is pretty massive an in favor of physical classes.
Start with medium Scale Mail and a Greatsword or a long sword and heavy shield. Second game if upgrade to breastplate or banded mail. level 2 get full plate if you have heavy armor. They are pretty likely to actually survive to level, unlike say a Wizard.
All those proficiencies and feats are key at early levels because class features and spells have too many handicaps. At level 5 its not as much a problem. By 20 I assume with something like 30-40 spells lasting 20 rounds/minutes that is long forgotten.
So basically pack everything related to combat levels 1-5 and then put much more into spell feats. Hybrid classes dont have enough feats early on and later being a full caster would probably be better.
Example, a level 1 druid is very limited equipment. Hide armor, heavy wooden shield, one handed weapon. a Scythe is possible instead. Doesnt change that you are easily hit and killed.
I think Battle Host (Occultist) could get free masterwork heavy armor. Sticking with transmutation for self buffs would be pretty strong.
I deleted that. Those two just cause confusion because I posted them with a few seconds of each other. Basically I want martial weapons and armor on my characters, even a Wizard, because why not make a magical archer? oh yeah, because game rules say you cannot (make a good one).
then take one level of fighter. Problem solved.
Of course you'll fail all your spells because of Arcane failure.Their are several ways of making good Magical archers.
I really cant find My ideal character, because there are just silly problems of having characters only 80-95% of what I would make.Ok Ill give you some examples.
Arcane Archer Wishlist: with armor and not as a prestige class.
Eldritch Archer. also whats wrong with prestige classes?
Zen Archer Wishlist: with armor and/OR spells.
Monk's having armor contradicts the concept of a monk, so why do you want a monk with Armor. Also Archer's don't need armor.
Think Hanzo.
Warpriest Wishlist: with higher default skill points.
invest in intelligence
Inquisitor Wishlist: with martial weapons and bonus feats
they don't need bonus feats to be effective as about 4 people in this thread have already explained and shown the math for why.
If you want a martial weapon take a Heirloom Weapon trait to get free proficiency.
Common theme is: Martial weapons, armor, decent number of skill points, moderate magic power, some extra feats for a fighting style.
So a true Jack-of-All-trades.
you're asking for extra's to be added onto a classes to make them effective when they're already effective without said things. Not to mention Pathfinder is a team game, your character doesn't need to be able to do every single thing.
Not perfect, but better than what is available. Specialists would win in an one area. Fighter fights better, caster has high tier spells, and skillmonkey has alot more skills.
They don't need to be better than what they already are, they're fine already. Also pretty much every skill monkey in the game is a 3/4 BAB, 2/3 Caster none of them are really specialists except the rogue which is pretty much the weakest class in the game.
Yeah i should just try picking up a Fighter level. Unless the class actively conflicts with armor(monk, wizard, druid, etc) it would be a great starting point.
none of those classes need armor to be effective
It's like you want a crossbow to help your archer be effective at range.Are we arguing or no, because now its become murky.
At level 1 the divide is pretty massive an in favor of physical classes.
The strongest class in the game at level one is a Slumber Witch with Heirloom Weapon Scythe.
Start with medium Scale Mail and a Greatsword or a long sword and heavy shield. Second game if upgrade to breastplate or banded mail. level 2 get full plate if you have heavy armor. They are pretty likely to actually survive to level, unlike say a Wizard.
You realize these guys are in the same party right? they help eachother.
All those proficiencies and feats are key at early levels because class features and spells have too many handicaps.
this really isn't true.
At level 5 its not as much a problem. By 20 I assume with something like 30-40 spells lasting 20 rounds/minutes that is long forgotten.
A Witch and Sorcerer hit their stride at level 1 and a Wizard at level 3. You're blowing this way our of proportion
So basically pack everything related to combat levels 1-5 and then put much more into spell feats. Hybrid classes dont have enough feats early on and later being a full caster would probably be better.
An inquisitor can be perfectly effective at level one, so can a Magus, So can a bard.
Example, a level 1 druid is very limited equipment. Hide armor, heavy wooden shield, one handed weapon. a Scythe is possible instead. Doesnt change that you are easily hit and killed.
and your animal companion gives you a flanking buddy and a body guard. You don't need to be a fighter as well.
You problem seems to be I want every class to be a fighter with all their class features as well without realizing none of them need them. Classes have advantages and disadvantages almost all of them work.
Ive given you examples of my ideal http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackOfAllTrades.
If youre just going to veto every idea I have, then i don't know why you are here.
There's constructive criticism, and then there is whatever is going on here.
Ive given you examples of my ideal http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackOfAllTrades.
If youre just going to veto every idea I have, then i don't know why you are here.
There's constructive criticism, and then there is whatever is going on here.
I told you about a none Prestige class Arcane Archer
I told you how to get more skill points on a War priest and I told you how to get martial weapon proficiency without using a feat on an Inquisitor.I'm not vetoing your ideas I simply pointing out that what you're saying isn't true and that you're blowing a problem out or proportion.
Jack-of-all-trades character
d8 hit points, 4-6+ skill points
simple+martial weapon proficiency, shield+light+medium armor proficiency
Tier 6 spells
Bonus (combat) feats
Scaling class feature with combat applications
==============================
Now there are alot of characters with close to that. I picked a Warpriest and Hunter both as early classes. For the warpriest I had to focus on Intelligence(wha?) to fix the skill point problem. For the Hunter(which is a motivation for this thread) Feats are too spread thin to be an Archer/Animal trainer/Divine caster. The Iconic/Pre-gen Hunter is an Archer so that is a big letdown.
early on just being a Warrior class is just too important. Why am i not a fighter if I put so much stock into combat ability? Because I dont want to be stuck in a role to fill in the party. No one in my group wants to to be the Warrior that kills things, so when we get into combat situations minor enemies become major threats
Using retraining rules I could pick a Warrior and just retrain those levels into something else once I get a high enough level character, but I am in a Pathfinder Society which discourages retraining through a Prestige Point system.
So in the end I have to look for the ideal jack-of-all-trades character. I have to be a Warrior that is also spellcaster, and a bit of a skillmonkey.
Im not trying to make a perfect Marty Stu that is top at everything, but I still have to get 75% of the way there and make a 15 BAB, tier 6 caster, 6+ skills, can use a great.
Even if i didnt have to do that, that is what a jack-of-all-trades is, someone who can fulfill any job or party role without flaws. The real flaw is that a specialist will be better in any one way.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As Mourge said earlier, a Hunter can very easily be a very competent archer:
1st - Point-Blank Shot
2nd: Bonus Precise Shot
3rd - Deadly Aim
5th - Weapon Focus (Longbow)
7th - Empty Quiver Style
9th - Rapid Shot
11th - Stabbing Shot
13th - Clustered Shots
15th - [Insert Feat Here]
17th - [Insert Feat Here]
19th - [Insert Feat Here]
Don't even need to be human. If you are human, can get a nice free feat in. You don't need any feats to be a divine caster or an animal trainer - you get those as class-features, and they're already very powerful without any change.
Bards can use light armour, not medium, but have high dex as an archer, and they get the needed pre-reqs for lots of combat styles in proficiencies, are good casters, great buffers, good at combat still, have nice amount of skill ranks. They miss out on bonus (combat) feats, but there is no need for them. Just being human and by 3rd you'll have PBS, Precise shot, and Rapid Shot/Deadly Aim for a good archer. Feats are a much smaller deal than you seem to be making, especially as you'll be buffed up and Inspiring as a bard :) Skalds are really good at combat as well, and super flexible.
Magus get d8 HD, get a lot of skill ranks /level as they're INT based, get the needed proficiencies except armour, which isn't a problem if you go dex-based, or get INT instead of DEX to AC :) They 6th level casters, they don't get combat feats, but agian, they don't need it, can be excellent without it, and have their wonderful spell strike and spell combat for fighting.
Inquisitor get nice skill ranks, 6th level casting, no weapon proficiencies in martial, but Heirloom Weapon fixes that, can use armour, get some combat feat bonuses, but again, not needed, and have the wonderful Bane combat feature.
An Alchemist/Investigator is good skills, 6th level spells, can be great in combat, no combat feats needed, and have scaling combat applications.
A summoner can get decent armour, has an incredibly good companion for their combat feature, tier 6 spells, no bonus combat feats needed.
Warpriest, as you know, has a skill rank problem, but has good profs, bonus feats, tier 6 spells, and great combat features.
If none of the above are things you're interested in, you're not looking for a jack-of-all-trades, you're looking for someone who completely eclipsed another class. If all of the above had bonus combat feats, who would ever pick Fighter? If they had better spells and spell list, who'd pick dedicated casters? You're looking for a class that will completely eclipse another class - as good as that class in one thing (skills/spells/combat feats/etc) whilst being better at literally everything else. It's ridiculous.
From all the responses Ive seen, we have very different ideas of what jack-Of-all-trades means.
Lack of feats kills the concept of a Jack-of-All-Trades. You wont just be lacking in BAB, attacks, spell tiers, class features and talents, etc. You wont even be able to pick a fighting style. Take power Attack and two-handed weapons because Archery, Crossbows, two-fighting style, and so on are out of your reach.
You have alot of feats just for Archery. Point Blank Shot is so mediocre and mainly there to unlock other feats. Precise Shot and Improved precise shot are there to remove the penalties of using ranged weapons. Rapid Shot, Manyshot, and Deadly Aim act as bonuses. Clustered Shots and pinpoint targeting are Niche feats. Weapon Focus+specialization and Point Blank Master are the ultimate Archery Specialization feats, and only a Fighter can take those ones without bonus feats. Oh yeah there are even more specialised feats that let you disarm and trip people with your bow.
A Hunter can be a passable archer, far from great and nowhere near a Fighter(Archer), ranger(divine archer), or Slayer. Archer Hunters NEED Improved Precise Shot at level 7 when their pets get Large. Hunters require level 15 at least to get that feat. A composite Longbow at level 1 is a pretty awesome benefit, but unless you keep picking feats then Archery is out of bounds. a Cleric or Druid with martial weapon proficiency is probably a better option.
Melee is much less feat intensive. Take a two-handed weapon, maybe use Power attack and youre good. That is something confirmed in another thread I made asking help with making a Bloodrager using throwing weapons.
So can a Hunter be an Archer? Not an awesome one, not a great one, and only a good one by specializing in feats while neglecting all other kinds. Default class characteristics mean alot. More skills, feats and proficiencies are just as important as unlocking things at high levels.
Edit: The title summarized this. "How to max a fighting style feat tree(for non-Fighters) without crippling(yourself)?"
Thank you for helping me work this out. I should just give up and making any jack-of-all-trades characters. I would do better by just having a warrior multiclass into a spellcaster and then retrain that one level.
You've clearly decided already that what you're trying to do is impossible even though its not at all. Taking feats to improve your combat style doesn't cripple you.
Feats are too spread thin to be an Archer/Animal trainer/Divine caster
this for example, you only need feats to be an Archer, you can make a perfectly passable caster without any feat investment at all, only blasting and SoS casting requires feats to work and you're an archer so you don't need to blast. Animal training needs literally no feats at all.
15 BAB, tier 6 caster, 6+ skills
Inquisitor
Hunter
Occultist has 4+ int but is an Int based class so skills are fine
Mesmerist
Magus is intelligence based so the 2+ isn't such a problem
The Oracle, Druid and Shaman all take 4+ and in exchange get 9th level casting (cleric gets 2+)
All of the characters are entirely capable of being powerful in combat from first level, the Druid in particular is definitely capable of being stronger than any martial character at level 1 and as they level up the gap grows. They don't need a million feats because class features make up for it. Yeah 9th level casting is pretty much always gonna be preferable to 5 extra feats.
|
|
From all the responses Ive seen, we have very different ideas of what jack-Of-all-trades means.
Lack of feats kills the concept of a Jack-of-All-Trades. You wont just be lacking in BAB, attacks, spell tiers, class features and talents, etc. You wont even be able to pick a fighting style. Take power Attack and two-handed weapons because Archery, Crossbows, two-fighting style, and so on are out of your reach.
You have alot of feats just for Archery. Point Blank Shot is so mediocre and mainly there to unlock other feats. Precise Shot and Improved precise shot are there to remove the penalties of using ranged weapons. Rapid Shot, Manyshot, and Deadly Aim act as bonuses. Clustered Shots and pinpoint targeting are Niche feats. Weapon Focus+specialization and Point Blank Master are the ultimate Archery Specialization feats, and only a Fighter can take those ones without bonus feats. Oh yeah there are even more specialised feats that let you disarm and trip people with your bow.
A Hunter can be a passable archer, far from great and nowhere near a Fighter(Archer), ranger(divine archer), or Slayer. Archer Hunters NEED Improved Precise Shot at level 7 when their pets get Large. Hunters require level 15 at least to get that feat. A composite Longbow at level 1 is a pretty awesome benefit, but unless you keep picking feats then Archery is out of bounds. a Cleric or Druid with martial weapon proficiency is probably a better option.
Melee is much less feat intensive. Take a two-handed weapon, maybe use Power attack and youre good. That is something confirmed in another thread I made asking help with making a Bloodrager using throwing weapons.
So can a Hunter be an Archer? Not an awesome one, not a great one, and only a good one by specializing in feats while neglecting all other kinds. Default class characteristics mean alot. More skills, feats and proficiencies are just as important as unlocking things at high levels.
Edit: The title summarized this. "How to max a fighting style feat tree(for...
You don't need feats for the majority of things a jack-of-trades is doing - pick a class that gives you the class features you want (e.g. bard, magus, inquisitor, investigator, skald, mesmerist, etc) for some of the jack-of-all-trades stuff (typically spell casting + skill monkey stuff) and then use feats on the combat-side of things. You can be a good archer without super-high feat investment - Clustered Shots can typically be ignored by having blanches pre-applied, and using spells to ignore other DRs. Jack-of-all-trades aren't ruined by too few feats, they get most of their versatility elsewhere. For the Hunter example, what other feats do you need to be taking to get the versatility you want?
Point Blank Shot is just a feat tax - when I GM, I give it out for free (as well as Power Attack, Combat Expertise, etc), which sucks, especially if you don't have bonus feats. Precise and Improved Precise are really nice, they're essentially there to let you full-attack no matter the state of the combat, which I definitely say is a bonus. Rapid and many shot are just incredible damage increases, as is deadly aim. I have no idea what you are thinking with Weapon Specialization being the 'ultimate' Archery feat, it's mediocre - rapidshot, manyshot and deadly aim all easily out-damage it. Point Blank Master is very much a weak feat - how often do you get AoO'd as an archer for firing your bow?
Archer hunters can skip Improved Precise Shot by worshiping Erastil and taking Deadeye Bowman - with that and PBS, precise shot, deadly aim and rapid shot, you're already an excellent archer. More than that makes it better, but you don't need it to provide useful damage through the whole game.
Melee isn't less intensive, two-handed fighting is. Two-weapon fighting is also intensive, switch-hitting is intensive, and so on. A hunter can be an awesome archer, definitely, combined with all their other stuff. It won't be quite as good as an inquisitor archer (also a 3/4 BAB, d8 HD, 6th level caster, with high skill ranks and great martial skills!) because of the Bane boost, but it will be awesome, if you dedicate the majority of your feats to it. If for some reason - I can't imagine why - you think you need lots of feats to be an effective non-blasting/SoS'ing spellcaster and skill monkey, then just got for the first few, and use your feats elsewhere, and still be an effective but not incredible archer.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it - you can't. If you want to focus purely on firing a bow, you WILL be better than the 3/4 BAB, no combat feats character, but you'll be worse at spell-casting, skill-monkey'ing, and whatever that specific 6th level caster is specialized in. That's just logical. If you go for a pure caster, you will be worse at skill-monkey'ing and martial combat than the 6th level casters, that's just logical. You can't expect the 6th level casters to beat either extreme at 'their' thing, that's why you're a jack-of-all-trades, and not ace-of-all-trades like many videogames end up being.
From all the responses Ive seen, we have very different ideas of what jack-Of-all-trades means.
Lack of feats kills the concept of a Jack-of-All-Trades. You wont just be lacking in BAB, attacks, spell tiers, class features and talents, etc. You wont even be able to pick a fighting style. Take power Attack and two-handed weapons because Archery, Crossbows, two-fighting style, and so on are out of your reach.
You have alot of feats just for Archery. Point Blank Shot is so mediocre and mainly there to unlock other feats. Precise Shot and Improved precise shot are there to remove the penalties of using ranged weapons. Rapid Shot, Manyshot, and Deadly Aim act as bonuses. Clustered Shots and pinpoint targeting are Niche feats. Weapon Focus+specialization and Point Blank Master are the ultimate Archery Specialization feats, and only a Fighter can take those ones without bonus feats. Oh yeah there are even more specialised feats that let you disarm and trip people with your bow.
A Hunter can be a passable archer, far from great and nowhere near a Fighter(Archer), ranger(divine archer), or Slayer. Archer Hunters NEED Improved Precise Shot at level 7 when their pets get Large. Hunters require level 15 at least to get that feat. A composite Longbow at level 1 is a pretty awesome benefit, but unless you keep picking feats then Archery is out of bounds. a Cleric or Druid with martial weapon proficiency is probably a better option.
Melee is much less feat intensive. Take a two-handed weapon, maybe use Power attack and youre good. That is something confirmed in another thread I made asking help with making a Bloodrager using throwing weapons.
So can a Hunter be an Archer? Not an awesome one, not a great one, and only a good one by specializing in feats while neglecting all other kinds. Default class characteristics mean alot. More skills, feats and proficiencies are just as important as unlocking things at high levels.
Edit: The title summarized this. "How to max a fighting style feat tree(for...
Basically you want to be a fighter archer AND have access to 6th level magic AND be a skill monkey?
That's not being a "jack of all trades" that's wishing for too much stuff.
I think were having entirely different conversations here.
He have different ideas of what a Jack-of-all-trades is, and the same for an Archer.
I should have just flat out said I dont believe you are an Archer without Point Blank Master. Thats the different between a dedicated Archer and person with a bow. Its what allows you to completely forgo switch-hitting with melee weapons.
Cant be an Archer without Point Blank Master, and the only classes( i know of) that can take that are the Fighter, Ranger, Slayer, and Zen Archer(monk). Cant do that? well thats why i give up trying.
If you cannot, then i dont see much point in picking a Hunter over a Druid or much point in picking anything less than a top-tier caster. I would just have to be a Fighter/[blank] for a while until I can get enough spells.
I think were having entirely different conversations here.
He have different ideas of what a Jack-of-all-trades is, and the same for an Archer.
I should have just flat out said I dont believe you are an Archer without Point Blank Master. Thats the different between a dedicated Archer and person with a bow. Its what allows you to completely forgo switch-hitting with melee weapons.
Cant be an Archer without Point Blank Master, and the only classes( i know of) that can take that are the Fighter, Ranger, Slayer, and Zen Archer(monk). Cant do that? well thats why i give up trying.
If you cannot, then i dont see much point in picking a Hunter over a Druid or much point in picking anything less than a top-tier caster. I would just have to be a Fighter/[blank] for a while until I can get enough spells.
There are any number of ways to be a more than competent archer with Point Blank Master. You can (A) stay out of melee range [Fly, Greater Invisibility, use natural hazards, terrain, or battlefield control spells, ride a mount and move to keep out of range], (B) still be okay in melee range (five foot step and shoot them in their face, suck it up and eat the AoO).
Having a little trouble if the enemy is in your face is not that big of a deal. It's certainly less trouble than what melee run into being kited and not being able to take full attacks.
I'm not sure why you feel you need this specific feat to be a good archer. You don't.
Do you think Ive been bashing Hunters, inquisitors and the like this whole time?
I think I may be too vague by going into detailed statements.