| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gunslinger/Swashbuckler need lists of Deeds you can choose from...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you can say that any class lacks in role-play potential. That is entirely up to the player to breathe life into. A heal-bot cleric has loads of potential just in the space between them and their deity and how that plays out in the world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some classes are overlooked because they don't have features which are as exciting to some players, but what about classes that are overlooked in terms of role-play potential?
Exactly the same classes, presuming you're talking about roleplay stuff stemming from mechanics. Because the number one thing that makes the bad classes bad is also the number one thing that prevents them from having big roleplay potential related to their mechanics, and that's lack of customization possibilities.
I did some in-depth analysis of the concept, which I call Character Shaping Choices™, when I examined what makes existing classes good or bad:
Such character shaping choices come in three forms:
1) Daily: Mostly spell preparation, Shaman's Wandering Spirit/Hexes, and the Medium's spirit.
2) On levelup: Spells known, rage powers, etc., doesn't have to be every level
3) One time: Domains, bloodline etc., mostly done at first level
I don't count feats, skills, and equipment because it should be obvious that options that literally every class can take have to be relatively weak (otherwise almost every character would take them, cf. Leadership for what happens when this rule is broken). I also don't count choices that don't affect playstyle and only grant minor numeric bonuses, such as a Fighter's weapon training.
Archetypes are technically one time choices as well, if these are included depends on what we want to compare.
Naturally, the more choices you can make, the more you can (in general) shape your character. Also, the more often you can make choices, the more flexibility the character can be. Daily choices don't add more power than on levelup choices, but they add a lot of flexibility.
The following classes are (or were for most of their time) generally accepted to be the weakest ones in Pathfinder: Fighter, Brawler, Rogue, Cavalier, Samurai, Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, Monk.
Apart from the Rogue *, you'll notice that none of these classes have a daily or on levelup choice **. Cavalier and Samurai have a one time choice at first level, while the others don't get to make any character shaping choices at all. It's also noteworthy that there are no classes lacking daily or on-levelup choices that are generally considered good.
Now, choices don't automatically contain strong options (few rogue talents are better than feats), some fixed class features are fairly powerful as well (like rage), and there are options that offer choices to make on the fly, like wild shape or a Summoner's SLA (not character shaping by definition, but can be very powerful). But if you look at both power level and flexibility, there's almost no getting around having class features that allow character shaping choices fairly often.
*) Whoever thought that a pure martial with medium BAB, no accuracy increasing abilities, d8 HD, and the worst possible saves a PC class can have was a good idea?
**) Fighter got on levelup choices with AAT and AWT, while Monk got on levelup choices with UnMonk's Ki Powers and Style Strikes.
Swashbuckler is a perfect example of how this also carries over to roleplay. As there is no means beyond archetypes (few of which are good and meaningful), pretty much every Swashbuckler is mechanically almost exactly the same. Logically, that means that all Swashbucklers have the same roleplay stuff flowing from mechanics, which means there is almost nothing in the mechanics that allows creating a character of your own.
Does the heal-bot cleric need some love and attention?
Hell no. You can do pretty much everything with a Cleric, if you limit yourself to a stupid inefficient boring repititive playstyle because you lack the ability to fathom that Pathfinder is not WoW or some other video game, that's on you.
Indeed, if anything, Channel Energy should be removed (and replaced by more interesting class features).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How are Clerics still considered heal-bots? What a lame use of a Cleric.
The title of heal-bot goes to the Soulthief Vitalist... which is not lame or boring, and needs little to no help to be effective in this role.
Or an Oracle. Either way, building a heal-bot Cleric is a poor choice, a boring choice, and you have no on
e to blame but yourself... it's no fault of the Cleric class that people lack imagination.
For sure, giving the Cleric choices they can take instead of increasing Channel would be nice. Channel blows, and it would be nice to have some options to replace it when you want without dedicating to an archetype that replaces it entirely.
I think the hybrid classes solved A LOT of the issues some classes had... Slayer's Studied Target fixed the Ranger's Favored Enemy. Warpriest gave you a martial Cleric so you don't always build stupid heal-bots.
Ultimately, I think most of the classes are fine... it's peoples' imaginations that need help.
why does the Cleric need more options for Channel when Channel Energy allows them to free up most all of their spells for whatever they want to actually do?
Clerics are always going to be healers, sorry, that's just 40 years of weight behind the idea, and somebody needs to do it since pathfinder doesn't have a reliable self-healing mechanic. Channel Energy was a (sorry) godsend for them, as again, it frees up them having to use their spells to heal, opening up huge vistas of possibilities they can now walk thanks to their limitless spell choices.
why does the Cleric need more options for Channel when Channel Energy allows them to free up most all of their spells for whatever they want to actually do?
Clerics are always going to be healers, sorry, that's just 40 years of weight behind the idea, and somebody needs to do it since pathfinder doesn't have a reliable self-healing mechanic. Channel Energy was a (sorry) godsend for them, as again, it frees up them having to use their spells to heal, opening up huge vistas of possibilities they can now walk thanks to their limitless spell choices.
Not more options FOR Channel Energy... options INSTEAD OF Channel Energy.
Like a list of Talents that could be taken instead of any D6 increase to Channel. Choices, that's all.
Maybe they are okay with 5D6 Channel for now and want... I don't freaking know... wings instead of that 6D6 increase.
why does the Cleric need more options for Channel when Channel Energy allows them to free up most all of their spells for whatever they want to actually do?
Clerics are always going to be healers, sorry, that's just 40 years of weight behind the idea, and somebody needs to do it since pathfinder doesn't have a reliable self-healing mechanic. Channel Energy was a (sorry) godsend for them, as again, it frees up them having to use their spells to heal, opening up huge vistas of possibilities they can now walk thanks to their limitless spell choices.
Not more options FOR Channel Energy... options INSTEAD OF Channel Energy.
Like a list of Talents that could be taken instead of any D6 increase to Channel. Choices, that's all.
Maybe they are okay with 5D6 Channel for now and want... I don't freaking know... wings instead of that 6D6 increase.
I got you, though that was more of a reply to Derklord who seems to want to get rid of it entirely.
ditching dice on CE though seems counterproductive, since like I said its use is to free up spell use for Clerics to do whatever else they want; instead of having to blow spell slots to cure one person a rather small amount, they can blow a use of an ability to heal everyone a rather small amount (all things considered) and then can use that spell slot to call down holy fire, imprison a demon, turn into a divine war giant, make a really good throwing rock, etc...
that said I do wish the alternate channeling rules were a little friendlier to the healing aspect.
Channeling is indeed very efficient and a (literal) godsend at low levels, but then there are wands. And replacing that Channeling with an ability that prevents you from taking the damage in the first place obviates the need to channel to heal the damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Channeling is indeed very efficient and a (literal) godsend at low levels, but then there are wands. And replacing that Channeling with an ability that prevents you from taking the damage in the first place obviates the need to channel to heal the damage.
Frankly i find the addition of wands to the cheap consumable marketplace to be one of the worst aspects of pathfinder.
edit: more on topic. Any archetype in the advanced players guide, ultimate magic, or ultimate combat should get a polishing pass. Vigilante could use more options as could void and wood elements of the kineticist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well...
Gunslinger: Needs a full rework that gives selectable deeds at every even level to put them more on pace with the Ki Power/Rogue Talent/Slayer Talent and a more signature class ability than "can use guns". Give them the slo-mo dodge roll or something.
Swashbuckler: Same as the Gunslinger treatment, again give them a better signature class ability because right now they don't have one.
Cavalier/Samurai: Orders are not enough choices in a Cavalier/Samurai build. I'd make their banner function more like Marshal's from 3.5 where they add new aspects to their banner at certain levels for nearby allies. Maybe make the horse optional similar to Druid's animal companion? Give more dedicated abilities basically that aren't just "Smite but Worse" and "Animal Companion but not 9th level spellcasting"
Ninja: Needs an Unchained version at least, if not something to really differentiate it from Rogue. Maybe some of the non-extract Alchemical abilities along with an expansion in Ki Powers? Should also be full BAB
Ranger: Way too specialized, they either rock or suck depending on the campaign and thats a bad place to be. Should probably look more Bloodrager/Paladiny but with a Nature theme.
Rogue: Should be full BAB.
Vigilante: Should just give out both specializations, if a class doesn't have 6th spell casting there is no reason it should lack full BAB.
Kineticist: Wood and Void need some better wild talents.
Any class with one good Saving throw: Should have two good and one bad saving throw, its absurd that your animal companion will have better saving throw growth than a number of classes. Maybe make this a punishment for 9th level spellcasters? But otherwise? Come on, give out those saves.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
They all need more love, why because we all need love :)
I'll see my way out...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vigilante: Should just give out both specializations, if a class doesn't have 6th spell casting there is no reason it should lack full BAB.
While its not creating a god wizard or anything, with no weird supplements or feat rulings at all, a vigilante who counts as both rolls out of the surprise round with a 50' charge that will 90% of the time instagib whatever the vigilante charges.
Mad rush + d8 sneak attacks + 1/2 level in damage + TWF chain is too much.
They all need love but if I had to choose.
Fighter- Unchained version.
Kineticist- Void and wood need better elemental defense and all of them need more wild talents. Also alternate elemental defenses for all of them would be nice.
Hunter- Alternate version that is a full martial with animal companion(or magical beast, dragon, etc.)
Investigator- Alternate versions of studied combat(add Int mod to melee damage) and studied strike(no sneak attack but add penalties, status ailments, learn weaknesses, reduce DR/SR/energy resistances).
Medium- Unchained version.
Samurai- Unchained version.
Shaman- Spontaneous Cha based druid caster with a bloodline/mystery mechanic with a totem animal.
Shifter- Unchained version.
Skald- Unchained version.
Slayer- Unchained version.
Swashbuckler- Should have got dex to damage and a good fort save.
Vigilante- Unchained version.
A Hunter that gives up their magic to have a Magical Beast or Dragon companion would be legit. Get Monstrous Companion at level 6 as a bonus feat, and the effective Cohort level is your Hunter level-2, instead of whatever the stupid chart associated with Monstrous Companion says.
Dragon companions start Young/Medium, and advance to Young Adult/Large somewhere around level 10... Adult/Large around 14(?)... Old/Huge @ 18. Something along those lines, but 4 levels for 2HD on the Dragon sounds about right. And age catagories seem to jump by 2HD, so it all kinda made sense to me when I was typing it out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
why does the Cleric need more options for Channel when Channel Energy allows them to free up most all of their spells for whatever they want to actually do?
Because healing wands already do that. In Pathfinder, the burdon of HP healing does not lie on the Cleric.
And since you already don't need healing spells, what Channel Energy does is makes it seem that the class is mainly about healing, even though it isn't, and it's only some people who're stuck in the past shoving their nostalgia crap down people's throats. There is no "40 years of weight", because the game only existed for 11 years (12 with the CRB playtest). That it somewhat encourages people to stick to their outdated misdirected believes about the Cleric is part of the reason I would like to see it removed (and replaced it with something selectable, which could include the option to select it still).
Frankly i find the addition of wands to the cheap consumable marketplace to be one of the worst aspects of pathfinder.
Better than forcing people to play classes they don't want to play, that's for sure. I do actually dislike healing wands, too, and removed them for my current game, but that's really a discussion for a different thread.
They all need love but if I had to choose.
Fighter- Unchained version.
Kineticist- Void and wood need better elemental defense and all of them need more wild talents. Also alternate elemental defenses for all of them would be nice.
Hunter- Alternate version that is a full martial with animal companion(or magical beast, dragon, etc.)
Investigator- Alternate versions of studied combat(add Int mod to melee damage) and studied strike(no sneak attack but add penalties, status ailments, learn weaknesses, reduce DR/SR/energy resistances).
Medium- Unchained version.
Samurai- Unchained version.
Shaman- Spontaneous Cha based druid caster with a bloodline/mystery mechanic with a totem animal.
Shifter- Unchained version.
Skald- Unchained version.
Slayer- Unchained version.
Swashbuckler- Should have got dex to damage and a good fort save.
Vigilante- Unchained version.
ON Fighter I strongly disagree. With Advanced Weapon Training and Advanced Armor Training options fighters got a lot of love and really are as good as they need to be IMO.
And as a general statement, I feel you can't just say "unchained version" because that has no meaning. You're not describing what you would like to see or what is deficient with the class in the first place.
With Regard to hunter, you say full martial with animal companion, you've literally just described the Ranger. Remember the hunter is a ranger druid hybrid. And ranger has versions which trade away favored enemy for other less cumbersome bonuses. I don't know if there are any ranger archetypes which have the same sort of shared teamwork feat bonus like Hunter has though. If there is, I think that would fill exactly the space you're looking for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because healing wands already do that. In Pathfinder, the burdon of HP healing does not lie on the Cleric.
since the game lacks any real ability to self-heal, yes it does. Other games, even other fantasy games, recognize this, and have built in methods of healing for all character types that don't involve the silliness of a group wand circle jerk after every fight. But Pathfinder doesn't, and the game it is a branch of doesn't either.
And since you already don't need healing spells, what Channel Energy does is makes it seem that the class is mainly about healing, even though it isn't, and it's only some people who're stuck in the past shoving their nostalgia crap down people's throats.
you seem...overly angry. Maybe have a Snicker's bar?
There is no "40 years of weight", because the game only existed for 11 years (12 with the CRB playtest)
really? You seem too smart a fellow to go this route. You know good and well, that Pathfinder follows in the tradition of DnD well before it.
That it somewhat encourages people to stick to their outdated misdirected believes about the Cleric is part of the reason I would like to see it removed (and replaced it with something selectable, which could include the option to select it still).
I rarely disagree with more options, but they already have one of the deepest and broadest selection of other abilities in the game, while also maintaining their traditional role.
Really it sounds like you just want the Oracle, a divine caster who doesn't have channel energy hard-wired in, but can instead choose from a variety of other abilities, or also Channel Energy if they so desire...which, good news!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
why does the Cleric need more options for Channel when Channel Energy allows them to free up most all of their spells for whatever they want to actually do?Because healing wands already do that. In Pathfinder, the burdon of HP healing does not lie on the Cleric.
And since you already don't need healing spells, what Channel Energy does is makes it seem that the class is mainly about healing, even though it isn't, and it's only some people who're stuck in the past shoving their nostalgia crap down people's throats. There is no "40 years of weight", because the game only existed for 11 years (12 with the CRB playtest). That it somewhat encourages people to stick to their outdated misdirected believes about the Cleric is part of the reason I would like to see it removed (and replaced it with something selectable, which could include the option to select it still).
Frankly i find the addition of wands to the cheap consumable marketplace to be one of the worst aspects of pathfinder.Better than forcing people to play classes they don't want to play, that's for sure. I do actually dislike healing wands, too, and removed them for my current game, but that's really a discussion for a different thread.
Heal skill has enough feats now that you don't really need a specific class to play healer anymore.
A lot of classes could have used a system like the fighter’s advanced weapon training. Where you give up a single class feature to get some other feature.
Since a lot of concepts are lightly armored anyway, I would have liked a general option for trading in armor proficiencies you don’t want. Like, you can trade an armor proficiency for a bonus trait or two proficiencies for a bonus feat.
Vigilante: Should just give out both specializations, if a class doesn't have 6th spell casting there is no reason it should lack full BAB.
While its not creating a god wizard or anything, with no weird supplements or feat rulings at all, a vigilante who counts as both rolls out of the surprise round with a 50' charge that will 90% of the time instagib whatever the vigilante charges.
Mad rush + d8 sneak attacks + 1/2 level in damage + TWF chain is too much.
Oh no, a character who throws a good pile of resources into combat will excel at combat exactly during the surprise round and otherwise just be about on par with an Animal Totem Barbarian?
The humanity. It's not spellcasting, combat can survive having a man whose goal is to run at things and try to smash them.
Vigilante: Should just give out both specializations, if a class doesn't have 6th spell casting there is no reason it should lack full BAB.
While its not creating a god wizard or anything, with no weird supplements or feat rulings at all, a vigilante who counts as both rolls out of the surprise round with a 50' charge that will 90% of the time instagib whatever the vigilante charges.
Mad rush + d8 sneak attacks + 1/2 level in damage + TWF chain is too much.
Oh no, a character who throws a good pile of resources into combat will excel at combat exactly during the surprise round and otherwise just be about on par with an Animal Totem Barbarian?
The humanity. It's not spellcasting, combat can survive having a man whose goal is to run at things and try to smash them.
Instagibbing something in the surprise round outside what you're expected to instagib at your CR is just as disruptive to campaigns as a godwizard scry and frying.
Also, thats two vigilante talents and the best possible fighting style for any class with pounce available hardly a massive investment.
For me, it feels like Paizo set the Slayer up to get a lot of cool talents in the future, as well as cherry pick some of the best talents that Rogues could get as well, and then forgot to actually create said cool talents or access to other Rogue talents.
Instagibbing something in the surprise round outside what you're expected to instagib at your CR is just as disruptive to campaigns as a godwizard scry and frying.
Eeeehhh... Mad Rush Stalker Vigilante is possible as a Wildsoul but I don't see that breaking much. It's still just a full-attack, but you're taking a total of -6 to AC for your trouble. Being able to attack while moving is kind of mandatory for a high-level (melee) martial to be useful.
Instagibbing something in the surprise round outside what you're expected to instagib at your CR is just as disruptive to campaigns as a godwizard scry and frying.Eeeehhh... Mad Rush Stalker Vigilante is possible as a Wildsoul but I don't see that breaking much. It's still just a full-attack, but you're taking a total of -6 to AC for your trouble. Being able to attack while moving is kind of mandatory for a high-level (melee) martial to be useful.
I mean feel free to try it out but you're really not gonna like the way it will utterly marginalize every other full BAB class out there.
They all need love but if I had to choose.
Fighter- Unchained version.
ON Fighter I strongly disagree. With Advanced Weapon Training and Advanced Armor Training options fighters got a lot of love and really are as good as they need to be IMO.
It kind of stinks that getting the new things which make Fighters good also locks you out of the majority of archetypes that came before, some of which were really flavorful and cool. A more compatible fix might be nice.
I mean feel free to try it out but you're really not gonna like the way it will utterly marginalize every other full BAB class out there.
I think this might be a case where you should run the numbers before making assumptions. UnMonk and Barb both have in-class options for movement during a full-attack (which comes earlier than lv 12), and comparable dmg output without relying on precision dmg.
How exactly do you think it will marginalize other classes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, it feels like Paizo set the Slayer up to get a lot of cool talents in the future, as well as cherry pick some of the best talents that Rogues could get as well, and then forgot to actually create said cool talents or access to other Rogue talents.
A lot of truth in that. Maybe made a little more painful by being half based on a class that immediately got replaced with an unchained version.
I mean feel free to try it out but you're really not gonna like the way it will utterly marginalize every other full BAB class out there.I think this might be a case where you should run the numbers before making assumptions. UnMonk and Barb both have in-class options for movement during a full-attack (which comes earlier than lv 12), and comparable dmg output without relying on precision dmg.
How exactly do you think it will marginalize other classes?
6+ int skill modifiers, Every "bonus feat" is actually 2 to 3 combat feats, access to pounce, a +1/2 level to damage choice, higher class based speed boost than anything but monk, bypasses prerequisites all over the place on feat chains.
And to be clear...they don't RELY on precision damage, they have access to weapon specialization(which comes conveniently bundled with weapon focus) and lethal grace. The avenger vigilante on its own is comparable to whatever martial you care to put out there. You're ADDING precision damage, at 12th level to the tune of +27 damage a hit on the surprise round, and +15ish on average when you forgo a single attack in your full attack in order to feint, because they also get two weapon feint improved feint and greater feint with a single selection and bypassing prereqs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It kind of stinks that getting the new things which make Fighters good also locks you out of the majority of archetypes that came before, some of which were really flavorful and cool. A more compatible fix might be nice.They all need love but if I had to choose.
Fighter- Unchained version.
ON Fighter I strongly disagree. With Advanced Weapon Training and Advanced Armor Training options fighters got a lot of love and really are as good as they need to be IMO.
I agree with that. A lot of archetypes were written to give up the additional options of weapon training, or trade it in for something that's similar but still doesn't work with Advanced Weapon Training (although in some cases you can pick it up via the feat).
Still, it sucks because those archetype are mostly wasted space at this point because Advanced Weapon Training is that good.
Also archetypes that trade away Bravery since Armed Bravery Advanced Weapon Training is a really good way to shore up your poor will save.
Vigilante doesn't replace the barbarian (who can get pounce on their own of course), or the paladin, and is much more squishy than a fighter. I guess it might be said to replace the slayer and maybe the rogue? Though rogues have their own odd tricks these days as do monks. I can live with a quality replacement to one class which never got a lot of traction anyway.
Vigilante doesn't replace the barbarian (who can get pounce on their own of course), or the paladin, and is much more squishy than a fighter. I guess it might be said to replace the slayer and maybe the rogue? Though rogues have their own odd tricks these days as do monks. I can live with a quality replacement to one class which never got a lot of traction anyway.
What exactly does the barbarian have that the vigilante doesnt?
+2 or 3 higher to hit? It isn't a significant amount of damage, the combination of access to weapon specialization and lethal grace is higher damage than rage.
It isn't skill use, or out of combat utility, the vigilante has more skill points and actual class abilities with out of combat utility. Saves because of superstition, sure, but its not like having 2 strong saves and 1 weak one is particularly bad.
+2-3 attack, and the possibility of rage powers which do different things to vigilante talents.
Lethal grace adds to damage when using dex to attack, str to damage. If you just use str to attack & damage making your character is going to be easier.
The vigilante makes for a different but not better character in a fight. It will be better out of combat true.
+2-3 attack, and the possibility of rage powers which do different things to vigilante talents.
Lethal grace adds to damage when using dex to attack, str to damage. If you just use str to attack & damage making your character is going to be easier.
The vigilante makes for a different but not better character in a fight. It will be better out of combat true.
And if you TWF you're going to use lethal grace. Its also conveniently the fighting style that benefits most from having pounce, and the fighting style that synergizes best with having access to "sneak attack"
Vigilantes with pounce (mad rush) don't get their version of sneak attack and vice versa.
But yes, vigilante makes a better TWFer than a barbarian. And barbarian makes a better greataxe-swinging lunatic than a vigilante. Horses for courses.
Vigilantes with pounce (mad rush) don't get their version of sneak attack and vice versa.
But yes, vigilante makes a better TWFer than a barbarian. And barbarian makes a better greataxe-swinging lunatic than a vigilante. Horses for courses.
You literally aren't following the conversation.
Vigilante: Should just give out both specializations, if a class doesn't have 6th spell casting there is no reason it should lack full BAB.
My position is that simply applying both specializations to vigilante creates an Ur-Martial that has a strong potential to wildly outshine all the others by virtue of being equal to superior in combat output, and better even than a number of 6 level casters at out of combat engagement.
What book is the advanced weapon training/armor training?
Would love updated/overhauled versions of many archetypes. Lets not be afraid to replace class abilities with stuff that is actually close to be as good as the original class feature(s).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
6+ int skill modifiers, Every "bonus feat" is actually 2 to 3 combat feats, access to pounce, a +1/2 level to damage choice, higher class based speed boost than anything but monk, bypasses prerequisites all over the place on feat chains.
But if we remove Mad Rush from the equation those are all things a Stalker Vigilante can already do. Would adding +1 to Attack every fourth level really break the class? (Not to mention that Lethal Grace is more about catching up than adding more)
High level martials are expected to have pounce or similar abilities to be competitive. That's why people always act smug when someone brings up their immobile TWF UnRogue while claiming the class is broken.
Every "bonus feat" is actually 2 to 3 combat feats
Cunning Feint is a really nice talent, ngl. Unfortunately most of the Vigilante Talents doesn't hold up to that standard and those that grant several feats are usually rather specific in their build application. Like Whip of Vengeance and Shield of Fury.
If high level martials were EXPECTED to have pounce there would be more options for it than...what bard monk vigilante and shifter? Someone would have wrote a feat that keyed off whirlwind attack or something.
Stalker vigilantes don't get ITWF til 8, which means TWrend comes late.
Also, im sorry but the mad rush/stalker thing is a big deal. Pounce is a big deal when you have vigilante sneak and are two weapon fighting. Its nearly 30 damage a hit, even if it doesnt multiply on a crit. Like the commentary there about peoples unchained rogue?
Literally irrelevant given that we're talking about a "sneak attack" martial with full BAB and pounce. You can parse and ignore aspects of the class and try to restrict or widen focus however you want but the package of stalker+avenger would wildly outclass other martials quickly.
If high level martials were EXPECTED to have pounce
But they are (to stay competitive). They are expected to deal damage and not moving means not dealing damage.
Stalker vigilantes don't get ITWF til 8, which means TWrend comes late.
Please don't take TWrend on your dex-based Stalker Vigilante.
Literally irrelevant given that we're talking about a "sneak attack" martial with full BAB and pounce. You can parse and ignore aspects of the class and try to restrict or widen focus however you want but the package of stalker+avenger would wildly outclass other martials quickly.
Assuming 24 in Dex at this level and +2 weapons, the attack routine (while using Cunning Feint) is +20/+15/+15/+10 (~30 dmg) vs the median Flat-Footed AC of 24. So an average of 72 dmg per full-attack (84 on a pounce). If you fail the Bluff check the damage drops considerably, and I do not recommend Piranha/Power Attack.
The most standard Cavalier build of them all, Power Attack Spirited Charge with a Lance, would without challenge deal an average of ~70 dmg vs the median AC of 27 (or 84 with Furious Focus).
***
As you can see, your fears are unfounded. You're free to tweak the Vigilante and add in Haste but I fear it will still fall behind a very standard Beast Totem Barbarian in combat potential. The Vigilante still has all those Social Talents but it won't "wildly outclass" anything any time soon.
There are pounce-like options out there. Pummeling charge comes to mind. Then there are the pseudo pounces like the magus spell combat with bladed dash. Then there are the pounce alternatives like vital strike.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gunslinger: Needs a full rework that gives selectable deeds at every even level to put them more on pace with the Ki Power/Rogue Talent/Slayer Talent and a more signature class ability than "can use guns". Give them the slo-mo dodge roll or something.
Gunslinger as a 'chassis' that can be built around any ranged weapon, like bow, crossbow, sling or even thrown daggers, would be my ideal, but would obviously require a rewrite.
Swashbuckler: Same as the Gunslinger treatment, again give them a better signature class ability because right now they don't have one.
And that's the other one. Open it up to staff specialist or spear-dancer (evoking the epic sweeping acrobatic spear styles of that elf from Hellboy 2, or the dude in Game of Thrones who fought the Mountain) or various other weapons, even the longsword (Crouching Tiger, Hidden What?). Game balance isn't going to collapse into fiery oblivion if the 'Swashbuckler' uses a weapon with a d8 base damage instead of a d6.
Both would become more of a weapon specialist / kensai sort of class, a lightly armored prodigy at their weapon, only instead of it being the gun or rapier, it would open up to bows, crossbows, thrown daggers (Merisiel as a 'Knifechucker?' Yes!), spears, staves, whips, paired fighting batons, etc.
Sneak Attack is also quite difficult to add to a charge attack except during that surprise round. Notably, the Vigilante sneak attack is usually d4s which means its on average about 1.25 damage per level. Which makes it a bad Smite Evil.
As for 6+Int Skills, yeah thats a lot. For the concenpt of the Vigilante I think its necessary. If you're not playing them as a caped crusader hiding their identity you could probably get away with 4+ Int but they need those extra skill points by default for Disguise, Bluff, and probably Stealth.
Anyway, point is that nothing that you can fight at level 12 is hideously broken by a player character pouncing. On the flip side there are some 6th level spells that will completely destroy an encounter...
Look, I hate to harp on the martial/caster disparity but its really prevalent at the levels we're talking about here. Its not even scry and fry, spells can just instantly end fights or circumvent puzzles/challenges in ways martials can't begin to emulate. Martials need to be good at something, and if killing things and using mundane skills is OP then we might need to reevaluate all the s&$* casters can do.
The more I look upon this discussion I tend to a rewrite of Monte Cooks Unearthed Arcana (or Arcana Unearthed?)
6 Classes, each for one attribute. STR for offense, DEX for ranged combat, CON for tanks, WIS for divines, INT for arcanists, CHA for the magic show types like bards.
Pathfinder has a multitude of ideas for sooo many great classes, archetypes and abilities. And Pathfinder introduced the pretty much linear progression for most abilities plus that (most often) single main attribute bonus you needed for all your favorite monster annihilation tactics.
Where's Monte when you need him ;)?
Edit: Now rewrite all that great 1st edition PF stuff with a good balancing team and write ALL classes with options like rogue talents or arcanists exploits ... all those nice goodies from alle archetypes and multiclass archetypes.
Sneak Attack is also quite difficult to add to a charge attack except during that surprise round. Notably, the Vigilante sneak attack is usually d4s which means its on average about 1.25 damage per level. Which makes it a bad Smite Evil.
It is insanely frustrating when you point out situations where something is going to be overpowered and people continually argue something else from a completely different situation.
In this thread I've had to explain that yes, we're talking about a hypothetical vigilante that combined avenger and stalker with access to all the talents options from both twice.
and now we have a response to my "in the surprise round this" that answers with something that has nothing to do with in the surprise round.
I do not believe you people have very good arguments as to why it would not eclipse every other martial out there.
In this thread I've had to explain that yes, we're talking about a hypothetical vigilante that combined avenger and stalker with access to all the talents options from both twice.
"both twice"?
We're talking about what's effectively a Stalker Vigilante with full BAB and access to Avenger talents. Not getting twice the Vigilante Talents, right?
I do not believe you people have very good arguments as to why it would not eclipse every other martial out there.
You've claimed that it will wildly outclass other martials and provided what abilities you think would result in this scenario. But you've failed to form an argument because you've not shown any correlation between the abilities and the supposed eclipse.
I used those abilities you believe to be disruptive to make an example build of a full BAB TWF Stalker Vigilante. Those talents were Lethal Grace, Cunning Feint, Mad Rush, Signature Weapon, and Shadow's Speed. Compared to a very barebone Cavalier that doesn't use Challenge it had equal damage output. If the Stalker succeeds on the bluff check.
That's an argument for that it won't eclipse "every other martial out there". If you do not believe this argument to be any good I'd like to hear why.