|
|
Post by dragonus45 on Mar 5, 2015 21:28:15 GMT -7
How is it NOT fair to compare it to a druid. Its not like you can just tell the druid to stay home, the druid is out there and the comparison will happen every time they sit down at the same table. So what the warder is a strong tank that can also deal damage, the idea is to make the martial higher tier right? If so then why is it suddenly bad it can do things. This is the same issue I have with people being concerned about existing Paizo feats being made irrelevant. If the feats were relevent we wouldn't need to boost the martial in the first place. Who cares if something existing is less relevant, its already irrelevant compared to most casters and the gish classes.
|
|
tkul
Death Knight
Banned
Posts: 406 
|
Post by tkul on Mar 6, 2015 8:52:14 GMT -7
Slightly off the topic of this thread I do like the idea of polls to accompany the discussion just to get a feel for the number of people that like a rule as is and don't feel like commenting on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by shroudb on Mar 6, 2015 11:26:37 GMT -7
How is it NOT fair to compare it to a druid. Its not like you can just tell the druid to stay home, the druid is out there and the comparison will happen every time they sit down at the same table. So what the warder is a strong tank that can also deal damage, the idea is to make the martial higher tier right? If so then why is it suddenly bad it can do things. This is the same issue I have with people being concerned about existing Paizo feats being made irrelevant. If the feats were relevent we wouldn't need to boost the martial in the first place. Who cares if something existing is less relevant, its already irrelevant compared to most casters and the gish classes. Gishes are for the most part t3. Druid/wizard/cleric t1. I said its not fair to compare it to druid exactly because, since we are in homebrew territory, druids need nerfing, not everyone raised to their level. A full group of t1 classes obliterates cr appropriate cr levels. Basically, needs to natural attacks, modifications to animal companions and etc changes that DG already has is a direct Nerf to druids. |
|
|
|
Post by dragonus45 on Mar 6, 2015 12:11:53 GMT -7
Then also consider how it compares to other Tier 3s. Nothing you posted it doing is op compared to a Hunter, Warpriest, Magus for example. I feel like people are comparing them to the classes they are meant to replace than the classes they are supposed to be on par with. Also most everywhere you look no one seems to rate the classes any higher than tier 3 that seems like the perfect comparison level. Alchemists, Bards, Skalds! Magus, Warpriests, Inquisitors, Aegis, Vitalist, Tactician, Psy-Warrior. Is a quick list off the top of a google search for how most people rate the tiers. What did you do there that any of these classes could not do a comparable thing, or an even better thing. The magus for example could deal as much if not more damage without needing the full attack and could be even harder to hit with an equivalent AC, and can recover the spells he uses with a mechanic that is much faster than the initiator can. A bard at that level could buff the party make all their numbers go up and deal quite a bit of damage from range if they are an archer, or make use of spells to just straight up take opponents out of the fights.
|
|
|
|
Post by shroudb on Mar 6, 2015 12:37:01 GMT -7
Then also consider how it compares to other Tier 3s. Nothing you posted it doing is op compared to a Hunter, Warpriest, Magus for example. I feel like people are comparing them to the classes they are meant to replace than the classes they are supposed to be on par with. Also most everywhere you look no one seems to rate the classes any higher than tier 3 that seems like the perfect comparison level. Alchemists, Bards, Skalds! Magus, Warpriests, Inquisitors, Aegis, Vitalist, Tactician, Psy-Warrior. Is a quick list off the top of a google search for how most people rate the tiers. What did you do there that any of these classes could not do a comparable thing, or an even better thing. The magus for example could deal as much if not more damage without needing the full attack and could be even harder to hit with an equivalent AC, and can recover the spells he uses with a mechanic that is much faster than the initiator can. A bard at that level could buff the party make all their numbers go up and deal quite a bit of damage from range if they are an archer, or make use of spells to just straight up take opponents out of the fights. i havent run recent numbers, but 85 when needing pounce or 110+ when not, dpr, is insanely high for all the other stuff he can do. your magus example can do like 35 damage with an intensified shocking grasp at lvl10, and let's say another 15-20 with his attack and that assumes a 100% attack chance, which you dont have. i dont see a way a magus, without full attack, can reach even 1/3 of 85dpr (similar damage to what he can do if he starts from distance) and magus is purely combat spec, build for damage and pretty much nothing else. a better comparison would be an inquisitor, another excellent (imo) t3 class, who can stand his ground in combat but also has similar versatility in skills and whatnot. again, he wouldn't be able to pull that high dpr. when i was checking out PoW, i was using inquisitor and alchemists, the 2 most widely accepted t3, classes for referance. and as i said, my evaluation was: compared to other t3 classes, PoW is mostly fine, but some things are out of whack. if those things are properly balanced, then i'm all for it being in DG. (p.e. no save stagger as a lvl1 maneuver is TOO much imo. a similar no save stagger is a lvl2 spell that is a limited recource and not unlimited) |
|
|
|
Post by dragonus45 on Mar 6, 2015 13:17:41 GMT -7
With something like arcane accuracy a hit is almost guaranteed when it matters, and are you remembering the DG attack cap with that math? Also remember its one attack for each hand, I saw in your math that you were giving one of those extra attacks the full bonus for the main hand. Also remember that if your using a strike you can only prepare a strike once and then have to spend a round recovering which lowers your overall damage across the fight. And yes it can probably take out a CR appropriate creature with decent odds. Guess what, if your not doing that then go home because there comes a point where they will certainly do the same things to you. Also the magus does not lose any of his versatility for building damage at all, and at level 6 will have the ability to make his weapon keen meaning one at the same optimization level as the initiator you describe will be critting on a full quarter of attacks and doesn't lose his spell if he misses the same way that the initiator does if he misses a strike or a boost, and he can recover his used spells much faster and easier than the initiator can. And still can do things like mirror image and never have to pay for a weapon enchant and get all the buffs he wants or needs plus the benefit of any arcana he happens to have chosen, like getting free maximised, quickened, haste, empowered and other such things. The Inquisitor is actually kind of bad and the alchemist requires extreem cheese to be really good so I would stick to the Magus for comparison.
Also please do not use things that are still in play test against the system, they aren't even published yet. Do you have any examples that aren't from a relativly newly released play test document? EDIT, wait just realized you said strike and not stance, what maneuver are you talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by shroudb on Mar 6, 2015 15:43:26 GMT -7
With something like arcane accuracy a hit is almost guaranteed when it matters, and are you remembering the DG attack cap with that math? Also remember its one attack for each hand, I saw in your math that you were giving one of those extra attacks the full bonus for the main hand. Also remember that if your using a strike you can only prepare a strike once and then have to spend a round recovering which lowers your overall damage across the fight. And yes it can probably take out a CR appropriate creature with decent odds. Guess what, if your not doing that then go home because there comes a point where they will certainly do the same things to you. Also the magus does not lose any of his versatility for building damage at all, and at level 6 will have the ability to make his weapon keen meaning one at the same optimization level as the initiator you describe will be critting on a full quarter of attacks and doesn't lose his spell if he misses the same way that the initiator does if he misses a strike or a boost, and he can recover his used spells much faster and easier than the initiator can. And still can do things like mirror image and never have to pay for a weapon enchant and get all the buffs he wants or needs plus the benefit of any arcana he happens to have chosen, like getting free maximised, quickened, haste, empowered and other such things. The Inquisitor is actually kind of bad and the alchemist requires extreem cheese to be really good so I would stick to the Magus for comparison. Also please do not use things that are still in play test against the system, they aren't even published yet. Do you have any examples that aren't from a relativly newly released play test document? EDIT, wait just realized you said strike and not stance, what maneuver are you talking about. a)nothing i used is from the playtest. b)also, deadly agility gives you full dex damage to offhand (not half) and dragon fury gives you power attack damage for both weapons as a one-handed mainhand weapon. so yes, basically, your offhand does exactly the same damage as your mainhand. c)once more. the dpr i've posted (84) was with NONE boost/strike/wahtever. just with a single stance. you could remove the whole maneuver list except this stance and he would still do that. d)That's my actual BEEF. that a SINGLE stance makes so much differance. The class as a whole? sure it's nice it can do a lot of stuff, and it's flavorful and etc, no problem with it. e)as for the actual stance it is the lvl3 broken blade stance (i mean srsly, all this time i'm arguing against that particular stance (as a point of referance that there are broken OP abilities in the book that need nerf)) f)as for the attack cap, no, i'm comparing the base class. even with that in place though, his dpr would still be up to (73) (he would lose only his last attack, so still 5 attacks, 4 of which at full bab-2). in comparrison, if we use the cap on wizard's druid, he would lose ~40% of it's damage g)as for magus vs inquisitor. once again: magus is a striker, his whole job is doing damage. he can pretty much do nothing else. a warder is a tank with extra utility. an inquisitor is a hybrid of skills/utility and damage. so yeah, when i compare a tank/utility, i should compare it to to a utility class and not a pure 100% do only damage thing. by this standard, everyone, including the magus is bad because a barbarian outdamages them. p.s. when i say tank i mean more than simply "has high defences" he forces people to attack him, and his high defences, instead of his allies. and he can buff them up, those are his actual class features and abilities from maneuvers. as for the ac part, he pretty much has higher ac compared to a kensai, since he also gets both dex and int to ac (in fact full int to ac from lvl1, and not 1/lvl) and he also has armor on top of that, and a scaling dodge/shield bonus. |
|
|
|
Post by dragonus45 on Mar 6, 2015 16:10:30 GMT -7
The Magus IS NOT a pure do damage thing, it has tons of utility. The inquisitor is the wrong comparison here because the inquisitor is barely hanging it at tier 3 and is at the bottom of its list. Compare to the Magus, or the Warpriest and you get a much clearer picture. In fact I say we get someone to make a session and you and I both build your TWF guy and a equally optimized magus and we each run through the combats and I promise you the magus will keep up step for step.
Also I get you what you mean when you say tank, I just see nothing wrong with it, at all. The idea is go give martial things and people are now trying to take those things away before they even see play. What is the point of all this if people are trying to ban and nerf half the book before it even gets used.
Like I said I misread the statement and thought you were referring to a stance, what non playtest maneuver did you mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by shroudb on Mar 7, 2015 1:12:29 GMT -7
What kind of utility does magus have? All of his class features are for combat. Inquisitor is solid t3, he has more than enough damage with bane and judgment and then he has way higher skills for both face (with inquisition giving wis to all face skills), intimidate, sense motive through the roof with level based bonuses, free all the detects alignments, discern lies, level based tracking, wis to most knowledge's and etc.
Magus has delayed access to just a handful of arcane spells that count as utility and nothing else. That's the definition of a striker class.
Warpriest is even worse, he doesn't even have those few arcane utility spells. He is basically a self buffing attacker.
The warder is more akin to a buffer though. He gives +6 to his allies ac, he can give up to +10. He gives attack and damage bonuses to them, he later on forces the opponents to not be able to even reach him.
Again I'm not talking about a strike. I'm talking about the lvl3 broken blade stance. I've even quoted it in the start of this debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by dragonus45 on Mar 7, 2015 12:45:20 GMT -7
What kind of utility does magus have? All of his class features are for combat. Inquisitor is solid t3, he has more than enough damage with bane and judgment and then he has way higher skills for both face (with inquisition giving wis to all face skills), intimidate, sense motive through the roof with level based bonuses, free all the detects alignments, discern lies, level based tracking, wis to most knowledge's and etc. Magus has delayed access to just a handful of arcane spells that count as utility and nothing else. That's the definition of a striker class. Warpriest is even worse, he doesn't even have those few arcane utility spells. He is basically a self buffing attacker. The warder is more akin to a buffer though. He gives +6 to his allies ac, he can give up to +10. He gives attack and damage bonuses to them, he later on forces the opponents to not be able to even reach him. Again I'm not talking about a strike. I'm talking about the lvl3 broken blade stance. I've even quoted it in the start of this debate. If you think the magus has no utility then I am just very confused. I understand the Warder can do those things, I think that is a good thing. Just as I think that the stance would be ok if the attack cap were removed because then every other way to get those extra attacks will still be in. With the attack cap in place its already nerfed and needs not be nerfed further. Yes I know you were talking about that stance but you also mentioned a no save stagger and I thought you were referencing a stance from the playtest. I am now asking what strike you meant. |
|
|
|
Post by shroudb on Mar 7, 2015 13:47:06 GMT -7
What kind of utility does magus have? All of his class features are for combat. Inquisitor is solid t3, he has more than enough damage with bane and judgment and then he has way higher skills for both face (with inquisition giving wis to all face skills), intimidate, sense motive through the roof with level based bonuses, free all the detects alignments, discern lies, level based tracking, wis to most knowledge's and etc. Magus has delayed access to just a handful of arcane spells that count as utility and nothing else. That's the definition of a striker class. Warpriest is even worse, he doesn't even have those few arcane utility spells. He is basically a self buffing attacker. The warder is more akin to a buffer though. He gives +6 to his allies ac, he can give up to +10. He gives attack and damage bonuses to them, he later on forces the opponents to not be able to even reach him. Again I'm not talking about a strike. I'm talking about the lvl3 broken blade stance. I've even quoted it in the start of this debate. If you think the magus has no utility then I am just very confused. I understand the Warder can do those things, I think that is a good thing. Just as I think that the stance would be ok if the attack cap were removed because then every other way to get those extra attacks will still be in. With the attack cap in place its already nerfed and needs not be nerfed further. Yes I know you were talking about that stance but you also mentioned a no save stagger and I thought you were referencing a stance from the playtest. I am now asking what strike you meant. i trully see 0 utility on a magus. he can do nothing else than whack things with blasts imo, but that's irrelevant. (the no save stagger was indeed a strike, i just mentioned it though as something other that bother's me. can't recall it's name, it's a lvl1 strike from broken blade again, compared to p.e. every other maneuver that at that lvl has a "save or tripped" and etc seems OP) as for "every other way" to get extra attacks. every other way gives ONE, not two. and is either similar, or higher lvl. That's the problem. If it was only giving one i would find it ok. (from my knowledge, there is ZERO ways to get +2extra attacks from an effect in pathfinder, unless you count things like timestop and whacking things while inside it^^) |
|
|
|
Post by dragonus45 on Mar 7, 2015 14:24:35 GMT -7
(the no save stagger was indeed a strike, i just mentioned it though as something other that bother's me. can't recall it's name, it's a lvl1 strike from broken blade again, compared to p.e. every other maneuver that at that lvl has a "save or tripped" and etc seems OP) as for "every other way" to get extra attacks. every other way gives ONE, not two. and is either similar, or higher lvl. That's the problem. If it was only giving one i would find it ok. (from my knowledge, there is ZERO ways to get +2extra attacks from an effect in pathfinder, unless you count things like timestop and whacking things while inside it^^) Well compared to snowball that seems fair, snowball has a save but aims for touch ac and the strike presumably aims for full ac but when it hits doesn't need the save. Fridgid touch at one spell level higher is touch for no save, that if you manage to miss with it doesn't get expended. All that seems relatively balanced. Add in that that in order to do it multiple times per fight the character has to spend a turn recovering which is only of middling use. I was referring to non PoW stuff with that like, for example, eidolons or other natural attack based characters who can do similar things. Also only gives two if you already have the TWF feats, and since the second attack is made at the attack bonus of the offhand it is more likely to miss. |
|
|
|
Post by shroudb on Mar 8, 2015 9:51:45 GMT -7
I was referring to non PoW stuff with that like, for example, eidolons or other natural attack based characters who can do similar things. Also only gives two if you already have the TWF feats, and since the second attack is made at the attack bonus of the offhand it is more likely to miss. there isn't anything that adds 2 extra attacks to whatever you are doing. everything is capped to +1 attack. as for the twf thingy i dont get it. your offhand always has exactly the same bonuses to attack as your mainhand. lastly. the save vs attack isn't even close. i mean for a full bab class, your main attack at full attack will almost always succeed. and that offers 0 chance for the other guy to resist. Such effects, like stagger which cripples an opponent, either need higher level, or a save. Due to frigid touch being lvl2, i wouldnt mind it if it was a lvl2 maneuver, but at lvl1 it needs a save. As for the recovering, i havent looked at stalker, but both warlock and warden have recovery mechanisms that make them do stuff/damage while recovering their maneuvers. it isnt like they stand still and do nothing to get them back |
|
|
|
Post by dragonus45 on Mar 8, 2015 12:48:31 GMT -7
I was referring to non PoW stuff with that like, for example, eidolons or other natural attack based characters who can do similar things. Also only gives two if you already have the TWF feats, and since the second attack is made at the attack bonus of the offhand it is more likely to miss. there isn't anything that adds 2 extra attacks to whatever you are doing. everything is capped to +1 attack. as for the twf thingy i dont get it. your offhand always has exactly the same bonuses to attack as your mainhand. lastly. the save vs attack isn't even close. i mean for a full bab class, your main attack at full attack will almost always succeed. and that offers 0 chance for the other guy to resist. Such effects, like stagger which cripples an opponent, either need higher level, or a save. Due to frigid touch being lvl2, i wouldnt mind it if it was a lvl2 maneuver, but at lvl1 it needs a save. As for the recovering, i havent looked at stalker, but both warlock and warden have recovery mechanisms that make them do stuff/damage while recovering their maneuvers. it isnt like they stand still and do nothing to get them back Not true at all, you have natural weapon fighters who have attacks out the ass all they want, and TWF feats which give you more than one attack with the off hand, plus things like Flurry of Blows and ki points which only add more. And for some reason I keep thinking the off hand is -2 -4. Either way with the way the cap we have is still there and the stance needs no further nerfs since the way it works out two of those attacks are going to be at -5, three of them at the normal -2 for twf and most strikes are standard actions that don't give you many extra attacks so your not getting the full round bonus. What world do you live in where a first attack hardly misses? I see people miss constantly especially at first level, so the balance there works out perfectly. Ranged touch attack that gives save, attack against full ac that doesn't. When you look at the 2nd level spell that hits touch ac needs no save and turns into a full minute with a crit and deals a lot of damage whereas the strike deals no bonus effect other than the stagger. How is that not balanced. Especially when you see the clear miles better 2nd level spell stays on your hand if you miss with it where the 1st level strike does not. Plus that first level strike does not get better as time goes on outside the character presumably getting better at hitting things, where snowball keeps getting an extra d6 every level potentially till level 10 if it gets intensified. Uhhh warlock? Anyways lets break these down. Well the stalker takes a full round, and as part of it he may make a move action with a bonus to his AC. His next attack will get the benefit of his bonus damage, if it hits. The Warlord has something of a risk reward thing going on with his. He spends a swift to attempt to do one of his gambits, which he sometimes has to hope is even one he can do in the fight, then acts without a boost that round because he used his swift on the gambit and if he uses a strike to help with the gambit he does not recover that strike. He is the most active on his turn of all three but he is also the only one who can fail to recover the maneuvers gaining only one and a -2 on all rolls with a d20 for the next round. The warder can be lifesaving for the whole party, but depending on the situation it can also be the least useful of the group. He gets an expanded range to threaten AOOs and that's it. The key thing to remember about all of these is that you don't get back all of your maneuvers, its stat based with a minimum of two. Yes the classes have "unlimited" resources over the course of a day but in combat, provided the combat is not a pushover combat in the first place, its a lot harder to balance the usage of strikes and boosts. |
|
