| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm tired of only a few weapons being viable.
Casting guns aside for a second as the only really work with one class under the rules most people play with, there are only two ranged weapons worth using: Composite Shortbow and Composite Longbow. Crossbows requires a ton of feats or the very specific gunslinger archetype to make them even halfway usable. And they will lose to the bow. I understand the bow is a more heroic weapon. From Robin Hood to Katniss Everdeen to Hawkeye, it is a weapon of choice for many heroes. Crossbows don't get many outside of vampire hunters and even then they tend to be repeating crossbows (like Van Helsing), which require a special feat or the Inquisitor class in this game.
Thrown weapons are right out without the exact right build and magic item (blinkback belt.) Without the belt which prevents physical stat raising in non-ABP games, you can't affordably use magic daggers which are required by later levels. You could enchant four or so daggers but you'd have to spread out the cost and lose out on powerful effects. Or you can enchant all of them on lose out on magic items and enchanted armor.
For one-handed melee weapons, you have one or two weapons that are good in your level of proficiency. Rogues should always pick a short sword or rapier (maybe a dagger if you're a Knife Master.) Clerics should always pick a Morningstar unless your god(dess) gives you a better proficiency which many don't. Hells, Pharasma's favored weapon is one you're already proficient in and I don't think she's the only one.
Full Martials should always pick a longsword or scimitar. Both are excellent weapons in real life and were indeed used in the period. But people had a large variety of weapons used for many reasons. Maces or warhammers are hardly used except at lower levels to deal with DR/bludgeoning. Axes are even less used because their DR breaker is the same as the longsword and scimitar. You can throw axes better but, as established, thrown weapons suck.
Side note: shields are utterly b*#&!**s too. AC in general is near-useless and shields are huge reason why. It's actively better to forgo the shield bonus and use your shield to attack. You know what Knights with a sword and no shield were called in the Medieval Ages? Dead.
For Two-Handed, there's the greatsword and the Earthbreaker. And the Earthbreaker is there purely for bludgeoning. Greatsword is mathematically superior.
Exotic weapons have the falcata and the Elven Curve Blade which both eat a feat without racial proficiencies. But I'm less mad about this one as these weapons require special training by their nature and should have a build around them anyway.
Notice I left out spears and lances. That's because it's the single area that infuriates me most. Why is the single most used weapon in history and before it so useless in this game? Reach weapons are better in theory for the same reason as real life: I can kill you over there before you can kill me over here. But after eating a single attack, a guy with a sword and a very common feat line (Step Up et al.) can utterly shut you down. There exist few archetypes or special feats for spear too and they are underpowered.
In order to do something as basic as wield a spear in one handed without eating massive penalties, you have to be a specific Fighter Archetype. The name of the archetype, Phalanx Fighter, shows that the writer know that people knew how to handle a spear in one hand before the morningstar was even invented.
To choke up on a spear so that you can hit someone five feet in front of you requires a separate Fighter archetype that doesn't stack. And that requires a massive penalty especially at level 2 when you get this ability. Sure it gets better as your level but it's still bad through the levels that most people play at.
I get that they're probably trying to avoid the silliness of a person charging in with two spears a flurry poking people to death. But if you allow that people can wield two shields then you can allow two spears. Or you can say that you can wield a spear in one hand as long as the other hand wields a shield or is free just like with lances and being on horseback. Switching grips can take an immediate action.
I'm not saying that the options listed above (Long/Shortbow, Longsword, Scimitar, Rapier, Greatsword, etc.) are overpowered or cannot lead to good characters. I'm saying that the fact that these choices are so mathematically superior to all other options within the general build that it leads to samey looking characters and cuts off interesting weapon choice.
I blame the general heroic stereotypes. Heroes wield swords or bows. Maybe a big brute wields a greathammer. Thieves use shortswords or daggers. Priests wield maces. The weapons that are really shafted relative to their historical popularity (Crossbow and Spear) are ones more often used by peasants or lowered class soldiers. So if you have a character with a background as a peasant, conscript, town guard, or other lower class warrior, I hope they drop their spear and learn to wield a sword quick.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree on the crossbow. On someone with proper training, a bow was vastly superior - it just took many years of training. A crossbow took maybe a few days of training. In Pathfinder, crossbows are backup weapons for people without proper weapon training, while everyone who has/had training uses bows. Sounds historicaly pretty accurate, relatively speaking of course. Also, Crossbowman Fighter with Overwatch Style and VMC: Rogue.
Indeed, many weapons were mainly used because of price and aviability (like the dozens of different kinds of weapons made from farm tools, e.g. flails), inconspicious nature (especially staffs), or ease of use (including similarity in wielding them to using ordinary tools, e.g. axes). If you are an adventurer in a martial-ish class, it makes sense to use proper weapons. Why should one spend a lot of time training in an inferior weapon? Why should one spend a lot of money putting magical upgrades on an inferior weapon? The tools-made-weapons were generally picked up out of need and necassity, while an adventurer normally chooses his way.
Sure, your background may be simple, but once you have the training and money, why should you continue using a garden tool? Would you drive around in an ugly 15 year old used car when you make 200k a year just because it was your first one?
The sword is the stereotypical hero weapon because it's the best weapon and "gritty anti-hero who fights bad guys in only a white fine rib shirt" only emerged in the late 80s.
I'm not saying weapon balancing is perfect (and I totally agree on the shield), mind.
Yes the English Longbow did trump the crossbow but the composite longbow in this game isn't really the same as that. And "Crossbowman Fighter with Overwatch Style and VMC: Rogue" is an awful lot of hoops to jump through to use a weapon that only requires "maybe a few days of training" to learn to use properly.
I'm not asking that everyone use simple staves or scythes. I'm saying that the real life diversity of weapons happened for a reason. If the longsword/scimitar was the best single-handed weapon in all cases then why invent things like the flail, battleaxe, or spiked shield? Plenty of real knights used maces to damage other knights in chaimmail and later plate armor. This is completely ignored by this system as it is just as easy to pierce full-plate with a switchblade as it is to bash it with a warhammer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll just weigh in a little on power gaming, tired builds and min maxing
I came in on a late campaign
Party healer moved away , I was asked to make a healer.
Ok
I built a war sighted battle oracle
166 hp
In the 5th game session I was one shotted by a demon with a vorpal axe
None of my spells worked on him
SR and saves were crazy high (like 31)
And this was a printed monster in a forgotten realms book
It's not tired builds or power gamers or min maxers that are the problem
It's a game system that requires it to survive, participate and have fun.
Yes the English Longbow did trump the crossbow but the composite longbow in this game isn't really the same as that. And "Crossbowman Fighter with Overwatch Style and VMC: Rogue" is an awful lot of hoops to jump through to use a weapon that only requires "maybe a few days of training" to learn to use properly.
I'm not asking that everyone use simple staves or scythes. I'm saying that the real life diversity of weapons happened for a reason. If the longsword/scimitar was the best single-handed weapon in all cases then why invent things like the flail, battleaxe, or spiked shield? Plenty of real knights used maces to damage other knights in chaimmail and later plate armor. This is completely ignored by this system as it is just as easy to pierce full-plate with a switchblade as it is to bash it with a warhammer.
1e had tables for what you're talking about
But almost no one used them, kinda like most people ignore encumberence.It was deemed to be rules heavy just like the table for Soave requirements to wield weapons.
I still use Space requirements.
IRL axes and other halted weapons were much less expensive than swords
If you want to run a realistic game of thrones type campaign
Make silver the standard money.
This means characters start with silver not gold
But the prices for things remain in Unmodified.
It's fun because it makes treasure way more wow!
The flail and the battle-axe both started out as tools and spiked shields were not really a common or widespread thing, historically speaking. I'd say the game does a good job of reflecting this.
And "Crossbowman Fighter with Overwatch Style and VMC: Rogue" is an awful lot of hoops to jump through to use a weapon that only requires "maybe a few days of training" to learn to use properly.
First, that was supposed to be taken seperately, as an example of a competitive crossbow build. And second, "used properly" means you know how to shoot it and have it hit the target. In PF terms, that's weapon proficiency. Being good for PCs is another thing.
I'm saying that the real life diversity of weapons happened for a reason. If the longsword/scimitar was the best single-handed weapon in all cases then why invent things like the flail, battleaxe, or spiked shield?
I did talk about that, you know? Flail because all the farmers knew how to use one. Axe because everyone with some experience in woodchopping (so nearly everyone) knew how to use one. I doubt spiked shields were too common, but don't really count as weapons, anyway.
ALso, you are talking about what common foot soldiers use. In most times and places, a good sword was only afordable for knights (and very often a heirloom). At first level, adventurer's are already at low knight level. At level 2-3, adventurers reach elite soldier status. Level 5 is like greatest fighter in a generation. Everything above is supermuan stuff, anyway.Plenty of real knights used maces to damage other knights in chaimmail and later plate armor. This is completely ignored by this system as it is just as easy to pierce full-plate with a switchblade as it is to bash it with a warhammer.
I actually had something saying almost the same thing in my post but deleated it as not to clutter my post. Apart from the fact that maces and warhammers only make sense if you are mostly fighting enemies in plate armor, those weapons should indeed ignore the enemy's armor bonus to AC.
I agree more diversity in weapons would be nice, but honestly, I don't really see how to do that (except have multiple weapons with identical dice and crit mods). Although it would be nice if axes wouldn't have lower damage and worse crit mods than swords. Also, IMO, one-handed weapons should be able to attack more often than two-handed ones (quicker iterative progression or something).
Edit: Come to think about it, racial bonuses might be nice. Like racial weapon prof race features giving a small bonus if you are already proficienty from your class. On a (Half-)Orcs, a greataxe really should be than a greatsword.
To me, the weapon you use doesn't really matter, it's the fighting style that matters. You can 2H a scimitar and be effective, you don't need to go for the greatsword. For me personally, I like halberd better than greatsword anyway, the ability to do two different type of damage can be very useful.
Yes, axes started off as tool but people used them for a reason. Norsemen used them to counter the long shield that defined their fighting style. Maces and axes where commonly used but not as much as swords true. But the spear was more common than the other three combined.
Are flails something a farmer would use? Axes were used by farmers for chopping wood. Scythes are for threshing wheat. What are flails for?
Maces and Warhammers can make sense to an adventurer too. Dragon scales are supposed to be tougher than chainmail.
Although it would be nice if axes wouldn't have lower damage and worse crit mods than swords. Also, IMO, one-handed weapons should be able to attack more often than two-handed ones (quicker iterative progression or something).
Both are good ideas. Axes should probably hit harder than swords. A longsword should be swung faster than a Claymore.
I get that Spiked Shields aren't really a thing in real life but shields were still really useful and that just isn't in the game. 2 AC isn't all that great especially since a lvl 1 wizard can beat that with a single spell.
Really spears are my problem. They can be really cool if done right. Just check out Stormlight Archives by Brandon Sanderson. The main character uses a spear and kicks ass with it.
To me, the weapon you use doesn't really matter, it's the fighting style that matters. You can 2H a scimitar and be effective, you don't need to go for the greatsword. For me personally, I like halberd better than greatsword anyway, the ability to do two different type of damage can be very useful.
That's exactly my point. Other weapons are cool and fighting style should matter more. This game punishes you for not taking the best option in your field. Martials have it tough enough so any penalty can be difficult to take if there are party members with higher tiered classes.
Er, scythes are for cutting plants, flails are for thrashing wheat etc.
But the spear was more common than the other three combined.
Common for people with lots of money and time to train? Because that's who we are talking about. Not farmers that get drafted. Not people equipped by a their lord. Let me quote WP: "Since a medieval spear required only a small amount of steel along the sharpened edges (most of the spear-tip was wrought iron), it was an economical weapon. Quick to manufacture, and needing less smithing skill than a sword, it remained the main weapon of the common soldier." Also, "Spears usually were used in tightly ordered formations (...)" which doesn't really fit an adventure group of probably two melees.
As I already said, I agree on the shield.
Regarding weapon types: Guild Wars started with 1h-sword, 1h-axe (both used with a shield), and 2H-hammer, plus bows, and I never really missed anything. Of course, visual weapon design was rather diverse (a sickle would fall under axe, for instance). They later got 2h-scythe, dual daggers, and 1h-javelin (plus shield), but that wasn't exactly beneficial for balancing. The dagger-bases class was extremely fun to play wielding a scythe, though (until they went full retard and nerved that build without any need completely to death and than even more (I'm not exaggerating)...).
I think most of the popularity of the sword was its use as a sidearm. You can put it in a sheath and carry it rather easily with you, where do you put a battleaxe or mace?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm tired of only a few weapons being viable.
That's exactly my point. Other weapons are cool and fighting style should matter more. This game punishes you for not taking the best option in your field. Martials have it tough enough so any penalty can be difficult to take if there are party members with higher tiered classes.
Scythes are for harvesting not threshing. Threshing is beating the cereal to separate the grain from the chaff; AKA definitely something a farmer would do. Flails are for threshing.
Again, the weapons that were commonly used due to their simplicity/low skill floor or those that started out as farm implements are often simple weapons and, even when not belonging the simple weapon category, are less effective in combat than weapons that were only ever weapons intended to be used as weapons. If you are looking to embrace the simulationist end of the game, I am confused why this is a bug rather than a feature for you.
To me, the weapon you use doesn't really matter, it's the fighting style that matters. You can 2H a scimitar and be effective, you don't need to go for the greatsword. For me personally, I like halberd better than greatsword anyway, the ability to do two different type of damage can be very useful.
The problem is if you're two-handing a scimitar there's usually little reason to not have a flachion instead. The only exceptions are a few bard archetypes as well as clerics and inquisitors of gods that use scimitars as their favored weapon...also warpriests at certain levels.
Right I didn't actually know what a scythe is for. Mea Culpa.
Common for people with lots of money and time to train? Because that's who we are talking about. Not farmers that get drafted. Not people equipped by a their lord.
Yes, I understand that nobles didn't generally fight with spears (drawing a distinction between spears and lances here.) For a noble character, I'd certainly outfit them with a sword. But for a city guardsman caught up in the craziness as goblins attack the Swallowtail Festival? For a farmer called to war and then sent home only to find their family dead in a gnoll raid? For a soldier in a more Greek-inspired game? They would all have spears.
I get that we can't have phalanxes but that doesn't mean a spear is useless or that you can't wield a spear in one hand and a shield in another.
Also thanks Lemmy Z. That is really interesting and I will look that over. I'm just adverse to Third Party that my group hasn't vetted so I'd like something from Paizo (paragons of balance, I know.)
I'm tired of only a few weapons being viable.
Casting guns aside for a second as the only really work with one class under the rules most people play with, there are only two ranged weapons worth using: Composite Shortbow and Composite Longbow. Crossbows requires a ton of feats or the very specific gunslinger archetype to make them even halfway usable. And they will lose to the bow. I understand the bow is a more heroic weapon. From Robin Hood to Katniss Everdeen to Hawkeye, it is a weapon of choice for many heroes. Crossbows don't get many outside of vampire hunters and even then they tend to be repeating crossbows (like Van Helsing), which require a special feat or the Inquisitor class in this game.
Thrown weapons are right out without the exact right build and magic item (blinkback belt.) Without the belt which prevents physical stat raising in non-ABP games, you can't affordably use magic daggers which are required by later levels. You could enchant four or so daggers but you'd have to spread out the cost and lose out on powerful effects. Or you can enchant all of them on lose out on magic items and enchanted armor.
For one-handed melee weapons, you have one or two weapons that are good in your level of proficiency. Rogues should always pick a short sword or rapier (maybe a dagger if you're a Knife Master.) Clerics should always pick a Morningstar unless your god(dess) gives you a better proficiency which many don't. Hells, Pharasma's favored weapon is one you're already proficient in and I don't think she's the only one.
Full Martials should always pick a longsword or scimitar. Both are excellent weapons in real life and were indeed used in the period. But people had a large variety of weapons used for many reasons. Maces or warhammers are hardly used except at lower levels to deal with DR/bludgeoning. Axes are even less used because their DR breaker is the same as the longsword and scimitar. You can throw axes better but, as established, thrown weapons suck.
Side note: shields are...
this is why I use these rules...
my god are they more balanced.
like, holy s$$!, martial proficiency in tower shields and you don't eat a -2 to-hit, that's crazy.[/sarcasm]
no seriously though it changes how weapons work so that there's a build for every kind of weapon and generally makes getting exotic weapon prof maybe worth a feat.
but for instance exotic proficiency with a hand crossbow let's you shoot as fast as a bow, a heavy crossbow let's you eat an iterative attack to reload and a light crossbow can do that at martial proficiency. The crossbows bonus is they always have a strength bonus based on size and so can be used by low strength characters, while not as great as a bow, it's no longer s$@% tier and the thing a wizard does when he doesn't want to waste spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I generally just take the lazy way out and let my players call whatever weapon they buy whatever they want it to. Your composite longbow is actually a steampunk repeating crossbow? Sure why not. Your glaive-guisarme is really an eleven foot long slab of sharpened metal out of an anime? Fine. And so on.
It does remove the concept of mechanical differentiation, but I've personally found that Pathfinder is really bad at doing that in the first place and it's a lot of effort to try to make it work and even then still has problems.
But for a city guardsman caught up in the craziness as goblins attack the Swallowtail Festival? For a farmer called to war and then sent home only to find their family dead in a gnoll raid?
None of them have a level in a PC class.
For a soldier in a more Greek-inspired game? They would all have spears.
If you have weapons that emerged in late medieval times in your greek inspired game, there's the problem right there.
Remember, the base assumption for Pathfinder is your run-of-the-mill pseudo-medieval sword & sorcery heroic fantasy setting.@BigNorseWolf: Depends on the period and type of sword. But in general, the two long cutting edges, the pointy tip (especially on shorter swords) and the balance (especially after they started to use the pommel as a counterweight) means that a sword has simply more different ways to be used than other weapons. Additionally, a sword is rather good for defensive fighting, too. Could also be used on both foot and horse back. The european sword is basically the ultimate jack-of-all-trades weapon.
But for a city guardsman caught up in the craziness as goblins attack the Swallowtail Festival? For a farmer called to war and then sent home only to find their family dead in a gnoll raid?None of them have a level in a PC class.
For a soldier in a more Greek-inspired game? They would all have spears.If you have weapons that emerged in late medieval times in your greek inspired game, there's the problem right there.
Remember, the base assumption for Pathfinder is your run-of-the-mill pseudo-medieval sword & sorcery heroic fantasy setting.
I'm not saying those specific guards but a PC who has a background as a city guardsman.
Plenty of people adapt rules to different time periods or reflavor things. And this is by no means a robust Medieval combat simulation. If a 20th level fighter is capable of epic displays of martial prowess, why can't he hit something 5ft. in front of him without taking a specific archetype.
I'm not saying those specific guards but a PC who has a background as a city guardsman.
Why should he continue using crappy weapons once he has the time for training and the money to afford better weapons (a.k.a. once he has PC levels)? Once you get into your 200k/year job, why would you continue driving your 20 years old Corolla you got used from that shady car dealer for your first car?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why should he continue using crappy weapons once he has the time for training and the money to afford better weapons (a.k.a. once he has PC levels)? Once you get into your 200k/year job, why would you continue driving your 20 years old Corolla you got used from that shady car dealer for your first car?
I hate car payments that much. Not saying I make $200k/yr, but the example is similar enough. The job pays well enough, and the car is over ten years old.
I think the "better"ness of one weapon over another is pushed a bit too far. d6 compared to d8, who cares. Same for d8 to d10. If it's stressing you out enough that you feel you *must* take the higher die, then you're kinda bringing it on yourself, but really, the difference is 1-2 dmg per die. If that difference is all that's keeping you alive in combat, I gotta question what else is going on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also thanks Lemmy Z. That is really interesting and I will look that over. I'm just adverse to Third Party that my group hasn't vetted so I'd like something from Paizo (paragons of balance, I know.)
That system can be used in conjunction with the weapon list from RAW. If you can't build an old favorite weapon, just use it as normal. :)
...But I understand if you'd rather have something official. I too hope Paizo publishes more viable weapons. It's tiresome to see scimitars, falchions and longbows everywhere, even in settings where sniper rifles are available. -.-'
Sadly, I don't see that changing any time soon... :(
Yeah, but 10 years old is not 20 years old and bought from a shady used car dealer who probably withhold some crash damage and illegally dialed the odometer back.
Gah, stop shooting my poorly thought of simile with your pesky real life example!
In an MMO there aren't entire types of monsters that the tank and the striker can't do a damn thing about while the mage can eliminate them with ease. In an MMO one class set doesn't have access to entire modes of transportation others don't.
This depends on the MMO. When I played Everquest in 2000, and more recently when I started playing P99, modes of transport were indeed locked to classes. Wizards and druids teleported, most casters could gate to bind points, Druids and Bards could buff run speed in various ways. Fighters walked. And couldn't reset their bind point without help, so if they died while walking somewhere, they had to walk back to their body then continue walking. Which, because everyone walked really slowly without magical enhancement and Norrath was actually kind of big, could be upwards of two hours away if you're traveling really far.
At low levels, there were enemies immune to nonmagical weapons damage that could only really be killed if you were a caster or had acquired higher level gear (which, to be fair, wasn't too difficult if you know where to go to buy things; especially on p99 now).
There was non-combat content that was hard locked behind class abilities, like Rogue lock picking, and content that was just a hundred times easier for some classes than others due to the ability to mitigate social issues with magic, like enchanters running the stein of moggok quests.
My understanding is that the main game softened in a lot of ways over time, with easy teleportation/binding/magic gear/soloable content as WoW came on the scene, although I had stopped playing before that point around 2002. But in the beginning, they were pulling from the same gaming traditions as pathfinder, and had even more of a specialized split in terms of what characters could do.
I agree that it would be nice to see more weapon diversity. Not so much for the realism angle (though there are cases where more diversity makes sense realism-wise) but just because its more interesting. Its more fun to have people wielding all sorts of different weapons, instead of the same set of several weapons. Some of this is due to the aforementioned problem with certain fighting styles being difficult or impossible to do while others are easy as pie, but some of it is just that people, as Buri said, over-estimate the difference in how much difference 1d2 makes, which is usually all it is.
That being said I have liked the idea for a long time of a system where you just get to make weapons and armor (especially armor) based on advantages and disadvantages and just call them what you want. Hell, I re-flavor things all the time. People will ask me what my armor is and I'll describe it and add "its a chain shirt equivalent armor." :P So I will have to check that link
The flail and the battle-axe both started out as tools and spiked shields were not really a common or widespread thing, historically speaking.Which historical time period are you talking about?
In the present (21st century), none of the Pathfinder weapons are particularly common.
Different weapons were more or less common at different times.
When I say historically speaking, I mean that from today throughout most of recorded human history flails are a tool used for threshing that can be used as a weapon, axes are a tool used for chopping that can be used as a weapon, and shields are used for shielding but almost never spiked for use as a weapon. In a simulationist style game, axes and flails are correctly categorized as simple weapons because they started out as farm tools that are widely accessible and quite common whereas the spiked shield shouldn't be very common or easily accessible due to its relative real-life obscurity IMHO.
Edit: I don't really understand your need to pin me down on a specific time period. I will be astonished if you are able to find a time when spiked shields are more commonly available and utilized than axes and flails. I have an axe in my garage. A lot of people I know have an axe. No one I know has a spiked shield. Totally anecdotal, I'll admit, but I think also fairly representative of a large segment of the population.
Builds I'm tired of: anything indistinguishable from a commoner with higher numbers. That could mean you only took levels in classes that are commoners with higher numbers (like Fighter), or it means you took levels in a class or classes which do have number-boosting class features as options, but you didn't choose those options (e.g., a barbarian who picks only number-boosting rage powers, a ranger with a wisdom score too low to cast spells, or a ranger who just doesn't cast non-number-boosting spells).
To be fair, a Fighter who does something in their first few levels like Spring Attack and Whirlwind Attack with a fauchard or Two-Weapon falcatas and Improved Trip is hardly just 'a commoner with higher numbers'. Boring builds are the fault of the builder, rather than the class.
I don't like summoner sand barbarian builds that have a freakishly high number of natural attacks but I can only imagine them looking like complete freaks with tusks and hooves and three arms and two mouths and one wing walking round as if that's chill as f#@*.
|
VERY Low Str/High Dex/High Con Kineticists...
I get that the Kineticist is heavily focused on Constitution, but every single build resolves around high Dex for ranged attacks and being able to lift only a twig.
Why don't energy blasts add Intelligence modifiers to damage and why don't physical blasts add Strength modifiers to damage... is beyond me...
I'll take "massive double-standard vs ye olde STR-dumped blaster caster" for $500, Alex.
Why WOULD energy blasts add your intelligence to their damage? Intelligence to damage doesn't make any damn sense at all, from any angle. As for physical blast, you're not THROWING the damn thing. With both blasts, you are guiding an outpouring of kinetic/elemental energy through your body to damage your opponent. The tougher you are, the more of this energy you can pump out, hence CON and nothing else impacts how much damage a kinetic blast does.
And the lightly armored and almost exclusively ranged class is very highly focused on the stat that lets you aim? Surprise and alarm!
And if you're running a telekinetic, you don't /need/ strength.
Shocking Grasp Magus? This is why I haven't played any magi.
My Shocking Grasp not-a-magus :P
Female human (Vudrani) spiritualist (phantom blade) 10/magus* (Pathfinder Player Companion: Psychic Anthology 4, Pathfinder RPG Occult Adventures 72)
N Medium humanoid (human)
Init +6; Senses Perception +23
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 26, touch 16, flat-footed 21 (+9 armor, +1 deflection, +5 Dex, +1 natural)
hp 88 (10d8+30)
Fort +11, Ref +11, Will +14
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee phantom blade +18/+13 (1d6+11/18-20)
Special Attacks arcane pool (+2, 5 points), spell combat, spellstrike
Spiritualist Spell-Like Abilities (CL 10th; concentration +15)
. . At will—detect undead
. . 1/day—calm spirit[OA] (DC 11), see invisibility (10 min)
Spiritualist (Phantom Blade) Spells Known (CL 10th; concentration +15)
. . 4th (2/day)—dimension door, freedom of movement
. . 3rd (4/day)—haste, heroism, shield of darkness, vampiric touch
. . 2nd (5/day)—cure moderate wounds, false life, invisibility, resist energy, lesser restoration
. . 1st (7/day)—burst of insight[OA], chill touch (DC 16), cure light wounds, shield, shocking grasp
. . 0 (at will)—detect magic, guidance, light, mage hand, read magic, touch of fatigue (DC 15)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 10, Dex 22, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 20, Cha 9
Base Atk +7; CMB +7; CMD 24
Feats Dervish Dance[ISWG], Greater Weapon Focus (scimitar), Intensified Spell[APG], Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (scimitar), Weapon Specialization (scimitar)
Traits magical lineage, seeker
Skills Acrobatics +8, Fly +11, Knowledge (arcana) +7, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +8, Knowledge (local) +7, Knowledge (nature) +7, Knowledge (planes) +8, Knowledge (religion) +7, Linguistics +5, Perception +23, Perform (dance) +1, Sense Motive +11, Spellcraft +14, Use Magic Device +12
Languages Common, First Speech, Undercommon, Vudrani
SQ etheric focus, magus arcana (spell blending [2 spells of lower level][UM]), phantom blade: alertness, phantom blade: ectoplasmic pool, phantom blade: phantom tether, phantom blade: phantom touch, phantom blade: quick manifest, phantom blade: reshape, phantom blade: telepathy, phantom blade: weapon of the mind, spirit of war
Combat Gear wand of bless weapon (50 charges), wand of cure light wounds; Other Gear +3 mithral agile breastplate[APG], amulet of natural armor +1, belt of incredible dexterity +4, cloak of resistance +2, handy haversack, headband of inspired wisdom +4, ring of protection +1, 5,100 gp
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Arcane Pool +2 (5/day) (Su) Infuse own power into a held weapon, granting enhancement bonus or selected item powers.
Dervish Dance Use Dex modifier instead of Str modifier with scimitar
Etheric Focus (Swift action) (Ex) Can center self more quickly.
Intensified Spell You can cast a spell that can exceed its normal damage die cap by 5 (if you have the caster level to reach beyond that cap).
Phantom Blade: Alertness (Ex) Gain Alertness when wielding or harboring phantom weapon.
Phantom Blade: Ectoplasmic Pool (10/day) (Ex) Spend points to manifest/harbor weapon, att vs. touch AC 1 rd, or apply weapon powers for 1 min.
Phantom Blade: Phantom Tether (Su) As a swift action, use 1 pool, recall blade in 1 mi to hand or consciousness.
Phantom Blade: Phantom Touch (Ex) Constant ghost touch. Instead of breaking, weapon harbored in consciousness for 1 day.
Phantom Blade: Quick Manifest (Ex) Manifest phantom blade from consciousness as a swift action.
Phantom Blade: Reshape (Ex) Can choose new form for weapon when refreshing daily spells.
Phantom Blade: Telepathy (Su) The spiritualist can telepathically communicate with his phantom blade if it is worn or held.
Phantom Blade: Weapon of the Mind (Ex) 1 min store weapon in mind and gain unarmed strike enhance, full-rd to re-manifest blade.
Spell Combat (Ex) Use a weapon with one hand at -2 and cast a spell with the other.
Spellstrike (Su) Deliver touch spells as part of a melee attack.
Spirit of War (Ex) Gain several bonus feats, as though BAB were higher and full fighter levels.
Seriously though, if Shocking Grasp is you issue with magi, build one that uses other tactics. I can't even remember the last time my magus used a Shocking Grasp. He can, however, handle social scenarios, find and remove traps, act as the party scout, identify most enounters, and would not make a fool of himself on the ballroom floor.
Boring builds are the fault of the builder, rather than the class.I'd argue it's also in large part a fault of the game. If boring weren't so much better than interesting we might see more of the latter.
Being hyper focused on just one thing is only "better" if that one thing is always present and your focused solution always works.
Creative encounter design ensures that there is never a single "best" solution and no one area of focus can solve everything.
It is, however, humorous when the 5 charisma, 7 intelligence barbarian who's only skill is "I hit it with my axe." winds up at a formal ball and the player spends the entire session complaining about having nothing to do and about how the scenario sucks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player with +19 to perform dance at level 6 I endorse this message
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(...) we have people delighting in punishing people for actually trying to pull something nonstandard off. (...)
Those people are called "Pathfinder game-design team".
:P
Though going back to my previous statement it does kind of highlight an interesting struggle here. On the one hand we have people saying "I wish I saw more interesting builds" and on the other we have people delighting in punishing people for actually trying to pull something nonstandard off.
Non-standard would be a class not typically associated with social skills turning out to be very social.
Non-standard is when the class typically hyper-focused on DPR turns out to have a diverse skill set usable nearly everywhere.
Non-standard is when the wizard takes front line.
The PFS design team does not punish non-standard builds, they reward them, by supplying the occasional scenario that encourages diversity instead of specialization.
All of them, honestly. Optimized, unoptimized, seen all the builds for the most part. Now I just look to see characters.
Exactly, tired of the words build and optimize all together. I would rather read 500 words about your PC's background, first adventure, last adventure or what ever!
But I guess changing the definition of nonstandard to not include atypical combat builds helps your argument a smidge.
Given that nonstandard and atypical are synonyms in this context, I'd say your playing games with semantics, not making a point.
on the other we have people delighting in punishing people for actually trying to pull something nonstandard off.
Wait, are you talking about Paizo members and/or freelance writers, or follow board users that do so? Because I don't think the latter actually exist.
The best way to make a diverse character is to stick with tried and true boring-yet-effective options.
I think a big reason is that many of these tried builds are widespread because they fix holes in the game system (or aren't affected by these holes). Like how most Barbarians have Greater Beast Totem, because the inability to move and make worthwhile damage is a huge flaw in the system. Or how so many Magi use Dervish Dance because it fixes the MADness.
I kind of agree with Swoosh
there is a group of people on these boards tend to scorn builds that sink most of their resources into one trick. Lots of niche talents and good skills.
There is another group (with overlap) that scorns builds that do something simple (power Attack with a great sword) which is kind of what this thread is about. Therefore interesting and novel fighting styles should be aimed for.
To achieve both these things is extremely difficult because the niche fighting styles require much more investment to keep up with main stays, which means less investment in skills and varied builds.
So you're caought in a bind. I think that is was Swoosh is saying and I can see where he is coming from.