|
Meepo posted:256 pages for 40 bucks...blah. That's pretty much the standard now. The Bestiaries are also 39.99 MSRP, but they're 320 pages with a lot of art, so it's about the same amount of text over those pages.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
J. Alfred Prufrock posted:Why are you doing damage with your spells to begin with? That's like, the worst thing you can do with your spells. Hence the suggestion that if you HAD to do damage, use the buff on the guy doing damage. Saves a slot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2011 14:00
|
|
|
I assume we're starting at level 1, I'll find out from the DM to night. My personal preference is for blowing things up with spells, but that's why my last character got retired. So I think I'll take your advice on the Transmuter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2011 16:13
|
|
|
In a few weeks I'll have a trip report on both the Magus Class, and Word Spells. My group is moving over to Pathfinder in an effort to find one or two more players, and I'm rolling up a Wordcaster, Bladebound-archetype Magus. All-in-all I think the wordpsells will be slightly weaker, but my DM said he'd consider letting me switch back to a regular caster if I didn't like it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2011 01:18
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:In a few weeks I'll have a trip report on both the Magus Class, and Word Spells. I’m curious to see how it plays. On paper it looks a tad overpowered, but I’d like to think that Paizo wouldn’t succumb to the power creep problems that ruined 4E and 3.5 before. On an entirely different note, I’m planning on starting a Pathfinder conversion of the Savage Tide adventure path. Has anybody tried that, and if so, how much actual conversion was required? It seems like it wouldn’t need that much of an overhaul (especially at lower levels), but I feel like Pathfinder characters are bigger and stronger enough than their 3.5 predecessors that some of encounters will be a total cakewalk if I don’t update them a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
So far the magus is rather lackluster, but that may be more of a result of combats ending in less than two full rounds and me being at the bottom of initiative than anything else. I also intentionally built mine less-than-optimum, which the rest of the party didn't do, so I got the GM to let me tweak things a bit so I'll see how it goes this wednesday.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 20:04
|
|
|
Ballpoint Penguin posted:I’m curious to see how it plays. On paper it looks a tad overpowered, but I’d like to think that Paizo wouldn’t succumb to the power creep problems that ruined 4E and 3.5 before. The Outsider type changed from 3.5 to Pf. They now have d10 HD and only two good saves, so any of the unique or new ones will have to be rebuilt. That would be the first major thing that would come to mind. As for the rest, you can always just add on the Pathfinder Advanced simple template to the listed 3.5 monsters if you want to bring them up to the same level as Pathfinder class PCs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
Ballpoint Penguin posted:I’m curious to see how it plays. On paper it looks a tad overpowered, but I’d like to think that Paizo wouldn’t succumb to the power creep problems that ruined 4E and 3.5 before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 03:57
|
|
|
Meepo posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 05:38
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:What sort of power creep does 4E have? The only direct power creep I see is in several feats which have pretty much been made obsolete by higher powered versions in the PHB3 and the Essentials books. There are two other kinds present, though; in the first, an optimizer who is only concerned with the X best choices for his character will see more books come out with a spread of choice quality similar to the earlier books, and thus make his choices from a wider range of books. This looks like power creep because even though the original books had quality choices, new books still have to have something tempting. The other kind of power creep is all DM-side, where monsters have been made more powerful and dangerous in order to cause a certain play style. Ninja: sorry for barging in on your thread but I see a question and I gotta answer it man. I'm a junkie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 06:12
|
|
|
Tactical Bonnet posted:So far the magus is rather lackluster, but that may be more of a result of combats ending in less than two full rounds and me being at the bottom of initiative than anything else. I also intentionally built mine less-than-optimum, which the rest of the party didn't do, so I got the GM to let me tweak things a bit so I'll see how it goes this wednesday. Well, most combats tend to end in two rounds for any reasonably optimized party. Doubling a monster's hp usually just buys another round, tops.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 08:56
|
|
|
If I wanted to play a Controller in pathfinder what are my options? Preferably not a prepared caster because I loving hate prepared spells.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 09:00
|
|
|
A spellcaster is pretty much it, so its just down to picking your favorite control spells and going to town with a sorceror. Since you don't have many spells known the bloodline will have to account for the bulk of them. Using the APG, you can get the human favored class benefit to stack on extra spells known to round out your selection. If you got enough spells from that, you could throw on the Cross Blooded variant to get a second bloodline arcana. Consult with your DM if you at least get your 1 known spell every time you get a new level though. If you don't its best to stick with just one bloodline. Fey bloodline - You get Entangle early on, one of the best battlefield control spells for the level and then some. You have a sizable bonus to Compulsion spells, which are hideously good as long as the target has a mind. Starting with a Cha 20, and nabbing an Enchantment Spell Focus can get you a DC of 19 for a 1st level Compulsion. The other bloodline abilities aren't much to speak of though. Serpentine bloodline - Its pretty cool on its own, but the spells from the Fey bloodline are generally better. However, the bloodline arcana stacks beautifully with the Fey bloodline, since the better Compulsions are mind affecting and tend to be language dependent. And of course you get a familiar, which is cool. From there, you grab classics: Levels 1-3 - You rely on Sleep and ungodly DCs to KO your enemies in one shot, once you reach third level you thankfully get Entangle to mess up mindless enemies and a spare 1st level spell, which you can sink into Enlarge Person to be more versatile. Levels 4-5 - 2nd level spells come in, AND you get the big winner, your human extra spells now go into first level spells, grab all the 1st level spells you were looking at. Sleep is mostly now obsolete, replace it with Charm Person. Hideous Laughter is now your takedown spell. Throw in Create Pit or Summon Swarm to deal with those mindless things Levels 6-8 - 3rd and 4th level spells show up, and you get Deep Slumber as your new AoE takedown, don't rely on it too much though, lots of critters have a lot of HD. Suggestion(which, thanks to Serpentine, works on pretty much anything but undead, plants and constructs) lets you hijack enemies. Haste makes a good backup against mindless opponents, but at this point you'd have a crapton of 1st and 2nd level spells known anyway to cover these niches. Mind you, this is one of several possible tricks, its by no means universally effective, or the only effective one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 09:55
|
|
|
Fire posted:I am curious if the Pathfinder people will ever do anything with D20 Modern I wouldn't expect D20 Modern to see any sort of revival. It wasn't terribly popular at the time, and I don't believe it had an open licence the way stock D20 did. But if you're looking for a more developed D20 Modern, I've heard that SpyCraft makes a lot of good moves in that direction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 13:29
|
|
|
moths posted:It wasn't terribly popular at the time, and I don't believe it had an open licence the way stock D20 did. There was a d20 Modern version of the SRD. The rest of your points are valid though, and Spycraft 2.0 is a pretty decent (if complex for d20) modern system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 13:35
|
|
|
Dervish Dance works wonder on a Magus. Combined with an agi of 20 and a keen scimitar, AND spell critical, AND intensified shocking grasp. That is some pretty impressive damage to be spitting out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 14:02
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:What sort of power creep does 4E have? I suppose I shouldn't have said that power creep ruined 4E, as it's hard to ruin something that was already terrible to begin with. That said, I think Essentials is pretty much the text book example of power creep in most respects. The Essentials wizard is simply flat out better than the PHB wizard. There are a number of feats that make other feats obsolete, and the slayer Fighter is easily one of the best strikers, if not, the best striker in the game. But enough about 4E, this is the Pathfinder thread. Is it weird to anybody else that CMD is a combo of your STR plus your DEX bonus? It seems like it would make more sense if it were STR or DEX. Especially because your CMB only uses your STR bonus. I realize that most PCs/monsters would usually only have a bonus to one or the other, but it just seems like the math would be off if you ran into a guy with a decent bonus in both stats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
Ballpoint Penguin posted:Is it weird to anybody else that CMD is a combo of your STR plus your DEX bonus? It seems like it would make more sense if it were STR or DEX. Especially because your CMB only uses your STR bonus. I realize that most PCs/monsters would usually only have a bonus to one or the other, but it just seems like the math would be off if you ran into a guy with a decent bonus in both stats. Something I banged up a few days ago for a different forum on CMB/CMD and monsters quote:However, CMD now, is 10+BAB+Str+Dex+Size+pretty much anything that would add to your touch AC. So the advantage on the defense shifts towards the PCs. Most PCs have decent CMDs, unless they dumped one of the CMD stats. The short version, CMB increases with primary stat, as well as a lot of misc bonuses you'll be adding just for CMB, while CMD had a bonus from a secondary stat, but secondary stats grow much more slowly, and theres fewer bonus types available to monsters to up CMD. Theres quadrupedal to resist trip(or no legs, or aquatic), but other than that, monsters have terrible Dex and no deflection or sacred bonuses. Things change a bit if you throw down buffs, but usually, you can expect your combat maneuver to work, but less so on defense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 21:57
|
|
|
Power creep is expected in pretty much any game, it's just the degree that's the issue. If you create new options that are weaker than stuff currently available, there's really no reason to buy the book. If you create things that are better, then there is a reason to buy the book. Ideally, you want to create alternative options that are competitive with existing options and open up new character designs, but nailing that target exactly is hard work, especially in a game where there is no metric of value whatsoever. And power creep can be a good thing when the previous option that was being supplanted was mechanically bad or boring. Pathfinder itself has power creep in many areas compared to 3.5e- many of the classes are flat-out superior in every way to their predecessors. Of course, there's a problem when the design philosophy is all over the drat place and the designers can't come to an agreement as to the actual value of character resources which leads to bizarre designs wherein the same source of character currency can be used to purchase stuff which is useful and fun, or stuff which is useless in most situations, or even never actually needed in the first place (who thought this was an acceptable use for a feat?). Usually, what you don't want are situations wherein a cool and iconic concept is laden with so many catches and qualifiers that you barely get to use it, and when you do it isn't all that great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:Stuff about power creep. Let me be clear that I’m not trying to make the argument that Pathfinder is a game without flaws, and I agree with most of what you say here. I just finished running a 2 year long 4E Planescape campaign, and have been playing 4E since it came out. When we first started playing 4E (when it came out) it almost seemed deadlier than 3.5, and required a significant amount of tactical thought/planning. By the end of my Planescape campaign (it ended in May of this year), the PCs were basically invincible, and would walk through most of the challenges I threw at them, including challenges that (by the encounter building rules) should have killed them. I attribute this to two things: First, my players are very experienced and are quite good at optimization. Second, lazy writing and playtesting on the part of WotC. It really seems like they are just asleep at the wheel in terms of content quality control (especially when it comes to dragon articles), and some of the things introduced to the game in Essentials contributed to this problem. I’d call that power creep. But that’s just my opinion. For these and many other reasons I’ve decided to switch over to Pathfinder for the foreseeable future, as the quality of the content looks better to me, and it seems to fit my play style better. On the flip side of that coin, I think Paizo has done a decent* job of maintaining some balance to the game as we go forward. That being said, I think the Magus looks a little more powerful than the other classes on paper, but I’ve yet to see it in play so I really can’t judge. I trust Paizo more, to an extent because their content control seems to be a little more on the ball, and they put a lot of this stuff through the playtest process a little more. *Obviously, some crap is gonna get through. That feat you linked to is a very good example.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:And power creep can be a good thing when the previous option that was being supplanted was mechanically bad or boring. quote:I just finished running a 2 year long 4E Planescape campaign, and have been playing 4E since it came out. When we first started playing 4E (when it came out) it almost seemed deadlier than 3.5, and required a significant amount of tactical thought/planning. By the end of my Planescape campaign (it ended in May of this year), the PCs were basically invincible, and would walk through most of the challenges I threw at them, including challenges that (by the encounter building rules) should have killed them. I attribute this to two things: First, my players are very experienced and are quite good at optimization. Second, lazy writing and playtesting on the part of WotC. MadScientistWorking fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jun 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 23:16
|
|
|
veekie posted:Something I banged up a few days ago for a different forum on CMB/CMD and monsters That’s makes some sense I suppose. It was always one of my complaints back in the 3.5 days, that you could never really build a PC that would be better at grappling than the majority of the monsters in the MM. (Really, I just wanted to make a character based on Zangief) So, it’s nice to see that they made it a little more viable as an option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
MadScientistWorking posted:OOo this sounds like you completely ignored the power creep in terms of the monster side more than anything. The Essentials classes are pretty much around the same effectiveness as all the other classes. The Mage being really the only thing that actually does a better job as its original class. That is totally possible, as I was converting older 2nd edition monsters a lot of the time, so I wasn't really keeping up with what was being published monster-wise. So that could have created a false power creep effect. As I said though, "power creep" was just one of the many problems I had with 4E.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2011 23:44
|
|
|
Yeah, sounds like you're just bad at writing monsters and encounters. That's okay though, it's a pretty tricky thing to get down in a system as mechanically exacting as 4e. Even a bunch of the early published adventures struggled to establish the appropriate level of challenge, and a lot of progress has been made that you apparently weren't following. Also the fact that you think the Magus is overpowered sort of makes your opinions re: balance look silly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 01:45
|
|
|
J. Alfred Prufrock posted:Also the fact that you think the Magus is overpowered sort of makes your opinions re: balance look silly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
Magus is a PF class, in the new wank-off-wizards supplement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 02:23
|
|
|
The Magus, is primarily a Duskblade conversion from 3.5 Features -Start out with full-attack casting, especially with bonuses to defensive casting sorely needed for the type. To-hit just goes straight to hell though. -Arcane Pool lets them get a fast leg up on damage, but to-hit won't be any faster than having a Greater Magic weapon caster around. -Magus Arcana fills out the gaps. Great ones are Arcane Accuracy(casting stat to hit, helpful at lower levels), Familiar(upsize to improved familiar, give it a decent weapon and you have a flanker), Hasted Assault(unless you have a dedicated support caster), Spell Blending, Wand Mastery and Wand Wielder. -Knowledge Pool gives you near clerical versatility with spell prep. -Strong Transmutation and Evocation spell access. Its got most of the arcane staples really. Drawbacks -Medium BAB, and abilities that sap your melee to-hit. -No Heavy Armor for the bulk of your career. -No Shield(yes I know, shields are generally not such a great idea, but when your damage mostly comes out of mixing spells with melee, a shield is a good one) -Burning through the Arcane Pool FAST. -Not much in the way of spells that aren't just buffing or killing with damage. Not sure if not being super duper mega awesome is really a drawback though. Overall, its pretty good at 'burst' damage, you just drop a buff spell, go in and start beating poo poo up, while using your free spells to advantage. I think a melee specced Transmuter might give the Magus a run for his money though. Main weakness is that the Magus simply isn't very accurate, 3/4 BAB, divided primary stats and a to hit penalty while casting defensively AND the constant need to cast defensively saps accuracy. Once he hits 3rd level spells though, the weakness falls away with the polymorph subschool spells or Haste. So it's a good class at dealing a bunch of damage, but thats about it. A properly specced Paladin would be dishing out in the same region of damage, and a Fighter can expect to bang out just slightly less. EDIT: So power wise, as a fighting magic class: Weaker than the Alchemist(who has a strong ranged presence once rapid bombs come and a long lasting Mutagen to work with, and doubles as support.) Stronger than the Fighter, Barbarian and Ranger, but not enough that it'd be a surefire thing. The whole basis of the strategy is to get into melee full attack and start firing spells every round. The Magus has a lot of slots, so it'd do fine. A good sequence would be to start with Monstrous Physique before combat, get into melee, Haste up, full attack and if theres still anyone alive, rush someone with a touch spell. veekie fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Jun 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 04:42
|
|
|
Ballpoint Penguin posted:That said, I think Essentials is pretty much the text book example of power creep in most respects. The Essentials wizard is simply flat out better than the PHB wizard. There are a number of feats that make other feats obsolete, and the slayer Fighter is easily one of the best strikers, if not, the best striker in the game. Expertise feats make old expertise feats obsolete for a reason (and give a minor bonus compared to them)--the old ones were (a) required and (b) boring. Essentials classes aren't any better than the old ones, and in fact some of'em fall a bit short in Epic tier (which is where the balance starts falling apart). In addition, saying 4E has power creep is pretty laughable when you play a game where the Advanced Player's Guide had feats like Dazing/Stunning Assault, Bouncing Spell, and Persistent Spell, plus variants like the Mobile Fighter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 07:03
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:In addition, saying 4E has power creep is pretty laughable when you play a game where the Advanced Player's Guide had feats like Dazing/Stunning Assault, Bouncing Spell, and Persistent Spell, plus variants like the Mobile Fighter. Uh... the bolded are pretty crappy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 08:03
|
|
|
I'll be honest, I get really confused by a lot of peoples instant declaring of "Casters are so OP" for.. well kinda that reason with the feats. Don't get me wrong, I agree Casters, esp the likes of a Cleric are OP; it's the Spells you pick to say their OP that confuses me. Maybe its just the games I've been in.. but sleep? Color spray? I've seen those be lethal to the party 60% of the times they've been used, never a good thing to throw around. 30% of the time their just useless, a wasted spell slot to slow the party down with another bought of 'guys I need to rest'. Fighters though.. I've seen some scary scary fighters. Mostly because a guy I play with regularly loves them and is a bit scarily good at optimizing. I mean scarily good because I've seen him pick up systems he's never heard of before (like cyberpunk) be left on his own for character creation, make a character the GM thinks will be loving useless, and then saves the goddamn show every time. So yeah, my concept of what a fighter can do is a bit twisted. Ones from DnD, all after some.. issues between him and the GM(but he wasn't being allowed to just quit for various reasons) include the fighter with over 70 AC, who still dealt pretty decent damage, the archer who just hung out outside the dungeon and one shoted monsters from there, or similar sheningans (Both were at around 15-17th level, 3.5 fully within the wotc 'main books' RaP). I love pathfinder though, so far the worst I've had to deal with from him was an Alchemist, and I managed to distract him decently. Of course, the fact that the other party members were a Paladin/cleric/oracle (156 channels or so a day if I remember right, none higher than 5d6 at around 10thish level when the game died) and a rogue who.. who's player had the attention span of a newt and it showed in his leveling process (This level i'm gonna -) So that alchemist seemed a lot worse than it probably was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 09:14
|
|
|
veekie posted:Uh... the bolded are pretty crappy. Bouncing Spell is pretty strong on a save-and-negate-or-lose spell like Suggestion, which make up, like, at least a third of the spells you want to be casting. Mobile Fighter's lvl 11 benefit is also quite good (as good as making weapon attacks for hp damage can be) though if you can get lion's charge or whatever, it's obviously better (seriously, get full-attack-on-a-charge, it's kind of a requirement). Persistent Spell has very good action economy but the cost is very steep. There are somewhat few spells for which it is worthwhile, but when it is, Persistent Spell can be very strong. Discordian Angel posted:If you think that casting Sleep is somehow hindering the party, you really, really don't understand how the game works. Also the very idea of a fighter who spends every resource achieving high AC being somehow overpowered is utterly absurd in a game replete with save-or-die effects that have nothing at all to do with AC. The higher level you play at, the less AC means, to the point that it's almost worthless for at least 1/2 of the game. Just the idea that the Alchemist class could be overpowered is terribly laughable. The fact that the Alchemist is utter tripe compared to the Druid or Wizard only serves as an illustration of the overall imbalance towards caster supremacy that persists in PF, while the fact that the Alchemist is still miles above the likes of the Barbarian also speaks volumes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 10:32
|
|
|
Well, at lower levels, the purpose of the AoE takedowns like Sleep and Color Spray is that you can with one spell, take out a number of weaker foes. So at early levels, this translates to 2/3 of the kobold fighters you're targeted with the color spray, allowing your party to mop up at leisure. You do not throw them around while your party is in the line of fire unless it's some paladin with saves of ohmygod. Even if you only catch two guys, odds are one of them is going down, which is worth your action. Single target removal however, is impractical, you're gambling your spell slot and action to maybe take out one guy. Unless you're targeting the weak save on the big scary guy, not so hot. Not bad as a spell of opportunity if you can get some cheap ones out as Swift actions though. They could roll a 1. That is, until you get to compel your target to do what you want. Nothing better than taking out their guy, except taking him and using him to take out their other guy. Compare this to the inferior area/targeted damage spells. 1d6/CL on 1 kobold might not even take him to half. Much less 1d6 applied on 4. So you pack one of those. Then you compare the generally considered best combat spells for low levels. Grease, you deploy it, maybe they fall over and waste their round getting back on their feet or you just kept them where you want them, far away from you, with their reduced speed. Entangle, it's like Grease only a lot more evil, now they're rooted to the ground. You pick your time and place of engagement. Enlarge Person, slap it on the Fighter. Now hes twice as awesome. That said, the true power of a caster is basically the problem solving potential of many spells. Once you have access to three spell levels, odds are you'd never need the lowest in combat, and it can mainly go to problem solvers. My prepared spellcasters take a pattern of Attack/Debuff Spell, Control/Buff Spell, Utility Spell and repeat. The difference with what I said here and the suggested spells? He wanted a controller type. So that means battlefield control(which Entangle is going to handle until level 6 or so) and AoE removal. Area damage doesn't kill anything decently without tricks, so its save or lose. And of course being non-prepared spellcaster means using spammable spells. Save or lose are spammable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 10:36
|
|
|
veekie posted:Uh... the bolded are pretty crappy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 14:32
|
|
|
The former isn't a good idea due to the spell level increase, you're losing a LOT of DC AND impact for a double save. Saving twice vs DC 21 Suggestion, compared to saving once vs DC 23 Dominate Person. It isn't useless, if you have something like a Heavens Oracle putting it on an Awesome Display-ed Rainbow Pattern, or are banging it out with a metamagic rod, but for the majority of spells you're wasting spell levels. Meanwhile, for the latter, any archery based fighter would be doing Always Full Attack to begin with, as would anything with pounce. The thing is the Mobile Fighter makes it workable at all, and note you are making a single move action, and losing out on the heavier armor(to move properly). So...ok, crappy is overstating the matter, all it does is make a completely terrible tactic into being sometimes usable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 14:54
|
|
|
veekie posted:The former isn't a good idea due to the spell level increase, you're losing a LOT of DC AND impact for a double save. Let's take someone with a +15 Will save. Saving once vs DC 23 Dominate: need a 8+, so, 65% chance. Saving twice vs DC 21 Suggestion: need a 6+, so 75% percent chance. 0.75 * 0.75 = 0.56. That's almost a 10% improvement compared to the Dominate. How about someone with a low save, e.g. save vs DC 23 on a 15+? 30% chance to save vs Dominate, 40% chance to save vs. Suggestion... 0.16 chance to save vs. Persistent Suggestion. 50% chance to save vs dominate? 40% chance to save vs Suggestion, 0.36 chance to save vs. Persistent Suggestion. And so it goes. They're Shaken? Awesome--and even more awesome if they're saving twice. Etc. The whole "double save" thing varies from a moderate to large DC boost, where DC boosts are really hard to come by. The thing with save-or-lose is that losing is losing. You can make them lose a little harder with a high level spell, but usually, the lower-level one will suffice if it lands. DCs are the most important thing about save-or-loses. quote:Meanwhile, for the latter, any archery based fighter would be doing Always Full Attack to begin with quote:as would anything with pounce. quote:The thing is the Mobile Fighter makes it workable at all, and note you are making a single move action, and losing out on the heavier armor(to move properly). Maybe if Vital Strike was better and was a standard-action "combat maneuver", rather than feats you have to take, Mobile Fighter would be more of a fringe case. As is, being able to full attack is dramatically better than not being able to full attack. LogicNinja fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jun 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 17:29
|
|
|
So someone tell me a good Inquisitor build. Reading back a few pages (perhaps many pages), someone said a Dex build Inquisitor was very good. Someone give me a quick rundown on how you'd build one, and perhaps a melee build Inquisitor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
J. Alfred Prufrock posted:Yeah, sounds like you're just bad at writing monsters and encounters. That's okay though, it's a pretty tricky thing to get down in a system as mechanically exacting as 4e. Even a bunch of the early published adventures struggled to establish the appropriate level of challenge, and a lot of progress has been made that you apparently weren't following. Well, I was using the WotC monster builder, and their rules and guidelines for building encounters, so it's not all on me. You're probably right to an extent though, as I try to build my encounters to be fun, rather than min/maxing the monsters for the best TPK results. Also, the fact that you clearly didn't read my previous statements closely enough makes you look kind of silly. I didn't come in here and go "OMG you guyz! Magus is broken" I simply stated that I was curious to see how it played because it looks (on paper) to be a little more powerful than the other classes. To be honest, my only real concern with the class is the fact that they can cast and attack in the same round. It's a full round action, with many constraints, but I still think there might be an overpowered combo of spell+attack to be exploited. LogicNinja posted:In addition, saying 4E has power creep is pretty laughable when you play a game where the Advanced Player's Guide had feats like Dazing/Stunning Assault, Bouncing Spell, and Persistent Spell, plus variants like the Mobile Fighter. This argument has very little logic in it. Consider changing your screen name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:What it does is let the Mobile Fighter full attack every single combat round. quote:Take a sword-and-board-TWF (no TWF penalties, whee!) What? There's still TWF penalties when doing sword-and-board. You can take shield master to ignore the penalties on the shield, but you still take penalties on the weapon attack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
Meepo posted:Only after 11th level, and he has to give up his highest BAB attack to do it. Oh no, he's coming right for us with his +6/+1 attacks! quote:What? There's still TWF penalties when doing sword-and-board. You can take shield master to ignore the penalties on the shield, but you still take penalties on the weapon attack. Losing one attack out of three would be enough to make Mobile Fighter not great. Losing one attack out of six, thanks to TWF? (Make that out of seven - Haste. Add another highest-BAB shieldbash!) The TWF mobile fighter will be ridiculous compared to just about any other melee fighter. Because he can full attack all the time. I get where you're coming from: attacking at +6/+1 doesn't seem good compared to Vital Strike Power Attacking (or whatever) at +11 with a big two-hander. The problem is that extra attacks throw that completely out of whack. So now you're comparing that Vital Strike Power Attack at +11 with +11 (another +11 if Haste)/+6/+1/+4/-1. LogicNinja fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jun 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
Ballpoint Penguin posted:Well, I was using the WotC monster builder, and their rules and guidelines for building encounters, so it's not all on me. You're probably right to an extent though, as I try to build my encounters to be fun, rather than min/maxing the monsters for the best TPK results. So you weren't building encounters to be challenging, and then got frustrated when, surprise, the players weren't challenged? Ballpoint Penguin posted:To be honest, my only real concern with the class is the fact that they can cast and attack in the same round. It's a full round action, with many constraints, but I still think there might be an overpowered combo of spell+attack to be exploited. The Magus makes the trade-off of doing a very good thing (magic) significantly worse in exchange for doing a marginally okay thing (swinging a sword) somewhat better. It's not much of a bargain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2011 20:48
|
|