How well do these classes transfer to Pathfinder?

[BRC]

So I'm about to start up a campaign, and I'm consideriing running it with the Pathfinder rules, however, one of my players has already decided to play a Warlock, while the other is very much considering a Duskblade. How well do these classes transfer over to Pathfinder.

[BlueInc]

Duskblade is probably a trap; have them play the Magus instead.

[Krazzman]

The Warlock will need some fixing (Blast progression like rogues sneak attack + a few more/change some invos and hes done)

Have a nice day, Krazzman

[BRC]

The Warlock will need some fixing (Blast progression like rogues sneak attack + a few more/change some invos and hes done)

Have a nice day, Krazzman
Anything more specific? Or would it just be switching Spell-simulating Invocations to their PF versions.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I agree that the Magus is much better than the Duskblade so it would be a better idea to steer your player towards it; but if he wants to play a duskblade I think a minor revision to it's spell list (adding some spells and changing spells that are different in pathfinder) and a minor tweak to it's skill list...adding fly perhaps should be enough.

Give Warlock 1d6/2 levels eldritch blast advancement and I would suggest giving two pools for invocations, one for eldritch shapes and essences and other for normal invocations (changing the ones which the spell changed) and some revision to the skill list (add fly).

[MeeposFire]

To clarify the duskblade is a better warrior. The magus is a better caster. The magus is considered better due to its better spell list (hense the caster are better than warriors) however if your friend is really wanting to play a warrior type with magic help the duskblade gives a better impression (magus is better if you want to be a caster that has some warrior in it).

[Godskook]

Except Duskblade isn't a caster, he's a gish that's not 'really' supposed to be casting spells other than the ones he channels. The fact that he can anyway is more of a utility bonus than anything else.

[BRC]

The player who was thinking about a Duskblade is now going for a Fighter/Witch with some potential levels in Eldrich Knight, we're not exactly high-optimization, so she should be fine.
Other guy has his heart set on a Warlock though, but it sounds like that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

[Curious]

The player who was thinking about a Duskblade is now going for a Fighter/Witch with some potential levels in Eldrich Knight, we're not exactly high-optimization, so she should be fine.
Other guy has his heart set on a Warlock though, but it sounds like that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

This is kind of funny; the Magus has an archetype called the Hex Crafter that swaps out some Magus Arcana for Witch Hexes, so it's still a better choice than what he's going for. :smallamused:

[Starbuck_II]

So I'm about to start up a campaign, and I'm consideriing running it with the Pathfinder rules, however, one of my players has already decided to play a Warlock, while the other is very much considering a Duskblade. How well do these classes transfer over to Pathfinder.

A way to improve Duskblade? Give him Bard spell known number (insteasd of the small amount they normally get).
As in Cantrips at will, casting in any armor (instead of needing to wait), Magus Arcane pool ability (just the base ability), and you have all you need I think.

[Elitarismo]

Not very well at all. Just look at the Magus, which is a weaker Duskblade in every way.

[Curious]

Not very well at all. Just look at the Magus, which is a weaker Duskblade in every way.

. . .
I'm sorry, care to expand on that statement? :smallconfused:

[Elitarismo]

. . .
I'm sorry, care to expand on that statement? :smallconfused:

They are worse at fighting, worse at supporting themselves in melee combat... At best, they're a Wizard with lower DCs, weaker spells, and fewer spells, and that's if you ignore most of the class features and just focus on the few good spells they get.

Duskblades do one thing. Damage. But they at least do that one thing well.

[Hiro Protagonest]

They are worse at fighting, worse at supporting themselves in melee combat... At best, they're a Wizard with lower DCs, weaker spells, and fewer spells, and that's if you ignore most of the class features and just focus on the few good spells they get.

Well, I agree if you take away all their class features they're worse. Now what were you saying?

[Elitarismo]

Well, I agree if you take away all their class features they're worse. Now what were you saying?

I was saying they were worse in every possible way, and that the only way to make them remotely useful was to focus on the few good things they get.

If you actually pay attention to all of their class features, you get a Monk style class that can technically do many different things, but as they will not be able to successfully do any of them they have no options at all. A Duskblade is in every way superior to a Magus at being a Fighter/Mage. Given that the Duskblade is an NPC WARRIOR with some minor casting tacked on, that's quite the accomplishment. But not in a good way.

The only way to make a useful character whose class is "Magus" is to ignore most of the "Magus" style things and be a Wizard Lite. Even then, you should just play a Wizard. That isn't my point though. My point is that part of the reason why Magus isn't so horrible isn't because of the class itself, but because Fighter/Mage is not a supported archetype of that system. In other words Magus would be better in 3.5 (but still be bad). Conversely, Duskblade is worse in Pathfinder simply by being moved to Pathfinder.

Which is why I said that they did not translate well.

[Curious]

-Snip-

Only, not really. The Magus not only has better casting than the Duskblade, but they have a much superior spell list, which leads to increased versatility and ability to contribute. Beyond that, their DC's and spell level don't really matter as they aren't built around the assumption that they are going to be de-buffing. Rather, they are built around damage-dealing, buffing, utility, and crowd control. They do each of these things better than the Duskblade (with the exception of damage), and are still quite able to contribute in combat, especially with their ability to paste extra attack bonuses onto themselves and their weapons.

So, taken all together, the Magus is Duskblade +, and certainly more suitable as a gish-in-the-can.

[MeeposFire]

Well the magus would be worse if you don't use the quality spells that it has access to. Spell combat can be a lame flurry if you don't use decent spells but it does have some nice utility since it can be used with almost every spell they have. This allows for interesting tactics that a duskblade can't do (due to only being able to channel touch spells).

A good magus should not be played like a duskblade (warrior type that just constantly channeling damage spells). The magus uses his far better spell list and his acceptable melee prowess to make a versatile combatant.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I was saying they were worse in every possible way, and that the only way to make them remotely useful was to focus on the few good things they get.

If you actually pay attention to all of their class features, you get a Monk style class that can technically do many different things, but as they will not be able to successfully do any of them they have no options at all. A Duskblade is in every way superior to a Magus at being a Fighter/Mage. Given that the Duskblade is an NPC WARRIOR with some minor casting tacked on, that's quite the accomplishment. But not in a good way.

The only way to make a useful character whose class is "Magus" is to ignore most of the "Magus" style things and be a Wizard Lite. Even then, you should just play a Wizard. That isn't my point though. My point is that part of the reason why Magus isn't so horrible isn't because of the class itself, but because Fighter/Mage is not a supported archetype of that system. In other words Magus would be better in 3.5 (but still be bad). Conversely, Duskblade is worse in Pathfinder simply by being moved to Pathfinder.

Which is why I said that they did not translate well.

Magus is a combat focused bard with a better spell list. Do you think fighters are better than generalist wizards?

[Elitarismo]

Only, not really. The Magus not only has better casting than the Duskblade, but they have a much superior spell list, which leads to increased versatility and ability to contribute. Beyond that, their DC's and spell level don't really matter as they aren't built around the assumption that they are going to be de-buffing. Rather, they are built around damage-dealing, buffing, utility, and crowd control. They do each of these things better than the Duskblade (with the exception of damage), and are still quite able to contribute in combat, especially with their ability to paste extra attack bonuses onto themselves and their weapons.

So, taken all together, the Magus is Duskblade +, and certainly more suitable as a gish-in-the-can.

Damage dealing = still DC dependent, and also meaningless without houserules that greatly increase the effectiveness of blasting spells.

Buffing = They get no good buffs (granted, neither do most classes).

Utility = With what?

Crowd control = With what DCs?

Swift: A combat focused Bard does all of the following:

Boosts both his own, and the rest of the parties' attack and damage by 8, 10 on the second and subsequent rounds. That's at level 6, this number will increase at higher levels.

Has spells such as Mirror Image, to give himself viable defenses.

Will get Arcane Strike (3.5 version) later, for even more to hit and damage.

Will use Knowledge Devotion, for... even more to hit and damage. And then sacrifice all that extra to hit into Power Attack, for still more damage.

He's also still a Bard, so he can do all the usual Bard stuff.

Now if you meant a PF Bard, you're right. Those are pretty terrible at everything. A Magus would be better than a PF Bard. So would a Monk, so that's not saying much. But 3.5 Bards? They run circles around the Magus (and Duskblade).

I'd also take a 3.5 Fighter over a Magus. Fighters are bad, the Magus is worse.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Buffing = They get no good buffs (granted, neither do most classes).

Utility = With what?

...

You can't be serious. Fly. Invisibility. Expeditious Retreat. Haste. Mount. Vanish. Alter Self (it may have gotten nerfed, but it still has some good stuff). Blur. Spider Climb. Levitate. And those are all 3rd level and below.


Crowd control = With what DCs?

Who cares? Plenty of spells still have effects if they succeed on their save, or don't allow one at all. Web. Grease. Stone Call. Glitterdust is save or be blinded. Wind Wall. Black Tentacles. Plus, you make it sound like level 20 wizards only use 9th level spell slots.

[Psyren]

Crowd control = With what DCs?


None, of course. Wind Wall, Sleet Storm, Black Tentacles, Acid/Solid Fog, Telekinesis, Wall of Iron, the Hand spells, Enlarge Person, Grease, and I haven't even gotten into Spell Access yet. Face it, Duskblade is thoroughly outclassed.



I'd also take a 3.5 Fighter over a Magus. Fighters are bad, the Magus is worse.

LOL! Pull the other one :smallbiggrin:

[Curious]

-Snip-

{{scrubbed}} (Look at Mongoose and Psyren's posts for their answers to the rest of your post, I'm just going to answer about damage dealing.)

First, Magus don't use spell DC's to deal damage; they use touch attacks. And their best touch attack is Shocking Grasp. It may only do 5d6 damage, but it is a 1st level spell slot, and there are two things that make in very good for spellstriking.

1. Intensified metamagic increases its damage die by another 5d6, for only one extra spell level.

2. The trait Magical Lineage, which acts as a -1 metamagic reducer.

So, you get to make a 10d6 touch attack, using an extra attack with your scimitar rather than an unarmed strike to deliver it, with only a 1st level spell slot. Combine this with the ability to full attack at the same time, and your damage potential is solid, if not phenomenal.

[MeeposFire]

{{scrubbed}} (Look at Mongoose and Psyren's posts for their answers to the rest of your post, I'm just going to answer about damage dealing.)

First, Magus don't use spell DC's to deal damage; they use touch attacks. And their best touch attack is Shocking Grasp. It may only do 5d6 damage, but it is a 1st level spell slot, and there are two things that make in very good for spellstriking.

1. Intensified metamagic increases its damage die by another 5d6, for only one extra spell level.

2. The trait Magical Lineage, which acts as a -1 metamagic reducer.

So, you get to make a 10d6 touch attack, using an extra attack with your scimitar rather than an unarmed strike to deliver it, with only a 1st level spell slot. Combine this with the ability to full attack at the same time, and your damage potential is solid, if not phenomenal.

More like alright. It is worse than what the dusblade is going to do but it is far better at doing things other than damage. A straight up damage discussion is not something a magus is going to win as other classes are far better at that. The benefit to the magus are the non-damage spells which it can use at the same time as full attacking while also getting a channel ability (it gets penalized for provoking and not getting a spell on each target of a full attack but it also works on quickened spells so get spell perfection and you can get two extra attacks and that is getting better especially on a standard action).

[Elitarismo]

...

You can't be serious. Fly. Invisibility. Expeditious Retreat. Haste. Mount. Vanish. Alter Self (it may have gotten nerfed, but it still has some good stuff). Blur. Spider Climb. Levitate. And those are all 3rd level and below.

So, Wizard lite?


Who cares? Plenty of spells still have effects if they succeed on their save, or don't allow one at all. Web. Grease. Stone Call. Glitterdust is save or be blinded. Wind Wall. Black Tentacles. Plus, you make it sound like level 20 wizards only use 9th level spell slots.

Most of those are nerfed. The ones that aren't are reliant upon the DCs you do not have. If you do have them, see Wizard lite.


None, of course. Wind Wall, Sleet Storm, Black Tentacles, Acid/Solid Fog, Telekinesis, Wall of Iron, the Hand spells, Enlarge Person, Grease, and I haven't even gotten into Spell Access yet. Face it, Duskblade is thoroughly outclassed.

All of which are DC based or quite nerfed.

If you cannot provide an original argument, then do not provide one at all.

[Psyren]

All of which are DC based or quite nerfed.

What nerfs?
Please show me the spell on that list that has a save DC.



If you cannot provide an original argument, then do not provide one at all.

If you cannot refute an argument, admit it.

[Elitarismo]

What nerfs?
Please show me the spell on that list that has a save DC.

The bolded spells were nerfed:


Wind Wall, Sleet Storm, Black Tentacles, Acid/Solid Fog, Telekinesis, Wall of Iron, the Hand spells, Enlarge Person, Grease

Additionally, Grease is DC based, Wind Wall, while not directly nerfed is only useful against archers. As archers are nerfed, a thing that has the sole purpose of negating archers is also nerfed, and I don't remember if Sleet Storm is nerfed or not. I also believe it is DC based.

At best, that's all but one of them nerfed. And you'll have bad DCs on the DC based spells, and even worse DCs if you think you're supposed to swing a weapon around as well.

Meanwhile the level 10 Wizard is throwing out encounter wide save or loses with 2 DC 25 Will saves that both have to be passed. And as that's only a 3rd level slot, it represents very little resources expended. Which is why the Magus is Wizard lite, as the best thing he can do is be a pale shadow of a Wizard.

[Psyren]

You're comparing Magus to Wizard now? Weren't you comparing it to 3.5 Fighter? Which is it? Fighters can't cast any of those spells.


The bolded spells were nerfed

And still plenty useful for battlefield control. "X is weaker" and "X is useless" are two very different things.

[Elitarismo]

You're comparing Magus to Wizard now? Weren't you comparing it to 3.5 Fighter? Which is it? Fighters can't cast any of those spells.

"I would take a 3.5 Fighter over a Magus, as it is a more useful class."
"Maguses are at best Wizard lite."

These are not incompatible concepts.


And still plenty useful for battlefield control. "X is weaker" and "X is useless" are two very different things.

Most of those were nerfed to the point of uselessness. They interact with the maneuver rules, and anything that interacts with those is useless. For the others, it is merely that x is weaker... however if you are casting x, you are not casting y. And it is that opportunity cost that makes it not a factor either, as y is a fight ender for a Wizard, and trying to emulate that means you are Wizard lite.

[Psyren]

"I would take a 3.5 Fighter over a Magus, as it is a more useful class."
"Maguses are at best Wizard lite."

These are not incompatible concepts.

Being a "Wizard-lite" is not damning, unless you exclusively play games geared at T2 and T1 parties. This may be the case for you but is certainly not the majority and needs to be stated up front in any discussion of class usefulness.

You could just as well call the Bard a "Sorcerer-Lite," and they're stronger than Fighters too (especially 3.5 Fighters.)

Your first statement is simply false no matter how many times you repeat it.


Most of those were nerfed to the point of uselessness. They interact with the maneuver rules, and anything that interacts with those is useless.

Still not true. Can you explain this? For the maneuver spells, you use your key ability modifier on attack while the defender still has to hope they are strong or agile enough to break free - and the kinds of enemies it makes sense to grapple/trip etc. are typically weak in that department. You wouldn't try to grab the Tarrasque (though even if you did, as an old man in a dress, you'd have a much better chance using a magic hand than simply leaping onto his back - which is the point.)

For the spells - the only nerf to PF Wall of Iron I see is that you can't make infinite money from it any more, which has nothing to do with its ability to section off the battlefield.

Solid Fog lowers you to half speed instead of 5 feet, but slower is slower, and it still shuts off your ability to 5-foot step. Black Tentacles has a slightly lower "grapple check" but this is offset by creating difficult terrain, which has benefits like shutting down running and charging. They all still control the battlefield, and if spells such as these are a little weaker in Pathfinder, it just means that the melee has more of a chance to be useful. (And, particularly in the Magus' case, that his ability to grab a sword and wait at the edge of his solid fog or tentacles for whatever emerges first is also going to be useful.)


For the others, it is merely that x is weaker... however if you are casting x, you are not casting y. And it is that opportunity cost that makes it not a factor either, as y is a fight ender for a Wizard, and trying to emulate that means you are Wizard lite.

If you have a wizard in the party, you have no reason to cast y as he can do it. But if you don't or he is not available, it may be that you're the only one around who can cast y (such as making everyone Fly or giving everyone a Phantom Steed) and therefore that the utility is welcome. And you can do all this while also handling the front line should a fight arise.

[Elitarismo]

Being a "Wizard-lite" is not damning, unless you exclusively play games geared at T2 and T1 parties. This may be the case for you but is certainly not the majority and needs to be stated up front in any discussion of class usefulness.

You could just as well call the Bard a "Sorcerer-Lite," and they're stronger than Fighters too (especially 3.5 Fighters.)

Your first statement is simply false no matter how many times you repeat it.

Bards have a different role than Sorcerers, and are not Sorcerer lite. Being a Wizard lite is damning, as you are a Wizard with all your numbers much lower.


Still not true. Can you explain this? For the maneuver spells, you use your key ability modifier on attack while the defender still has to hope they are strong or agile enough to break free - and the kinds of enemies it makes sense to grapple/trip etc. are typically weak in that department. You wouldn't try to grab the Tarrasque (though even if you did, as an old man in a dress, you'd have a much better chance using a magic hand than simply leaping onto his back - which is the point.)

What is there to explain? PF nerfed all maneuvers massively. This has the side effect of nerfing anything that interacts with maneuver rules massively, such as the Hand spells, Telekinesis, Black Tentacles. It also includes many things that are not spells or maneuvers, such as the Tumble skill.


Solid Fog lowers you to half speed instead of 5 feet, but slower is slower, and it still shuts off your ability to 5-foot step. Black Tentacles has a slightly lower "grapple check" but this is offset by creating difficult terrain, which has benefits like shutting down running and charging. They all still control the battlefield, and if spells such as these are a little weaker in Pathfinder, it just means that the melee has more of a chance to be useful. (And, particularly in the Magus' case, that his ability to grab a sword and wait at the edge of his solid fog or tentacles for whatever emerges first is also going to be useful.)

Which means that you cast Slow, which has a greater effect, still near perfect effectiveness, and does not block line of sight. It also shuts down any martial characters entirely, though I haven't the slightest idea why those would concern you in PF. Well, unless you're a Wizard lite. Then you don't have the DCs for that. Lastly, since we are assuming a PF game, there is no such thing as melee characters being useful. The party will succeed or fail based entirely upon their ability to cast spells, as all middle ground between class power was removed, and then that rift was widened by a cosmic crowbar.


If you have a wizard in the party, you have no reason to cast y as he can do it. But if you don't or he is not available, it may be that you're the only one around who can cast y (such as making everyone Fly or giving everyone a Phantom Steed) and therefore that the utility is welcome. And you can do all this while also handling the front line should a fight arise.

Or you could be another Wizard. Because your Rogue level defenses aren't going to cut it if anything attacks you, so you most certainly will not be holding any front lines even if such a concept existed in D&D.

Compare to the actual topic, where a Duskblade at least serves as glass cannon damage. Not the best role, to be sure, but it's the same role as any, and every other melee character.

[Psyren]

Bards have a different role than Sorcerers, and are not Sorcerer lite. Being a Wizard lite is damning, as you are a Wizard with all your numbers much lower.

That's like saying being weaker than Hercules is damning. I don't need Herculean strength to be effective unless I'm exclusively attempting Herculean tasks. And I agree with you, picking a Magus in a T1-level game would be folly, but that is not a strike against the Magus itself at all. Most games do not assume T1 power as a baseline - theres a reason that T3 and T4 are considered average.


What is there to explain? PF nerfed all maneuvers massively. This has the side effect of nerfing anything that interacts with maneuver rules massively, such as the Hand spells, Telekinesis, Black Tentacles. It also includes many things that are not spells or maneuvers, such as the Tumble skill.

Maneuvers and battlefield control are not the same thing. Laying down a pool of Black Tentacles between you and a dire lion still protects you from its pounce attack. Grappling an orog with a giant hand still keeps him away from you so that you can cast, and so on.


Which means that you cast Slow, which has a greater effect, still near perfect effectiveness, and does not block line of sight.

1) Slow has a will save and is subject to SR; Solid Fog ignores both of these.
2) Slow requires you to target your enemy; meanwhile Solid Fog works even on enemies you can't see.
3) Solid Fog is "fire and forget" - you can lay some down and keep the battlefield sectioned off while worrying about other things, rather than worrying about casting Slow on new arrivals, summons, enemies you didn't notice, and so on.


It also shuts down any martial characters entirely, though I haven't the slightest idea why those would concern you in PF. Well, unless you're a Wizard lite. Then you don't have the DCs for that.

In Pathfinder, casting defensively is much, much more difficult than in 3.5. 5-foot steps are still an option, but there is a feat to keep those in check as well, or the enemy could simply have long reach. So for any casting class (even a gish) the wisest course of action is to buff ahead of time and then wade into melee, rather than trying to cast up close like, say, a Duskblade would.

And again, the spells I listed either have limited saving throws or don't allow one at all. If your argument is hinging on this you may want to try a different tack.


Lastly, since we are assuming a PF game, there is no such thing as melee characters being useful. The party will succeed or fail based entirely upon their ability to cast spells, as all middle ground between class power was removed, and then that rift was widened by a cosmic crowbar.

Now you're confusing me :smallconfused: you make a statement like this, then go on to say that Fighter is more useful than Magus despite that being a direct contradiction. Which is it?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Alright, everyone, stop!

Yes, he is a wizard-lite. A wizard-lite that can survive in combat. And has more class features. And the "lite" part means he's not single-handedly dealing with every encounter. There's a reason wizards are tier 1. Maguses are tier 3. Fighters are tier 5, maybe tier 4 with the release of UC.

[Shadow Lord]

Eltarismo, I get the feeling that you don't much understand the rules, based on the remarks you have made so far. If you believe the melee classes are completely outclassed and pointless in Pathfinder, and you believe that of all things, a Duskblade is better than a Magus, then perhaps I can invite you to please give a new argument that does not consist of, " You haz no high DCs so you are not good. There is no middle ground in Pathfinder, everything that's not caster is teh suckz0rz! All the Maneuvers were nerfed, so anything that deals with any of them is completely pointless! Duskblade is better because it can do lots of damage! "

Even though most of those aren't true. Y'know, like how Combat isn't the only thing you do in Pathfinder. Or, how there's actually a larger percent of classes in the Tier 4/3/2 zone than there was in D&D. And that's without pointing out that a Magus player can get High DCs if it wants to.

[Elitarismo]

That's like saying being weaker than Hercules is damning. I don't need Herculean strength to be effective unless I'm exclusively attempting Herculean tasks. And I agree with you, picking a Magus in a T1-level game would be folly, but that is not a strike against the Magus itself at all. Most games do not assume T1 power as a baseline - theres a reason that T3 and T4 are considered average.

Given that Hercules is a fairly average level 5 character, being weaker than him is likely to be damning. Unless you are lower level than 5. Given that the Magus faceplants when compared to the low Tier 3 Duskblade, I am not sure why you continue to bring Tier 1 into it, as the only reason I mentioned Wizards was to point out that the only way to get an effective character from the Magus class is to become a pale mockery of the Wizard. Whereas the Duskblade at least covers different ground from the Wizard.


Maneuvers and battlefield control are not the same thing. Laying down a pool of Black Tentacles between you and a dire lion still protects you from its pounce attack. Grappling an orog with a giant hand still keeps him away from you so that you can cast, and so on.

If creating squares of difficult terrain were a viable contribution, you'd see a lot more sword and board builds by people that know what they are doing. I don't think I even need to explain why grappling the thing that already laughs at grappling, in the system in which maneuvers have been simplified by removing all incentives to perform them, starting with the one in which they actually work is a bad idea.


1) Slow has a will save and is subject to SR; Solid Fog ignores both of these.
2) Slow requires you to target your enemy; meanwhile Solid Fog works even on enemies you can't see.
3) Solid Fog is "fire and forget" - you can lay some down and keep the battlefield sectioned off while worrying about other things, rather than worrying about casting Slow on new arrivals, summons, enemies you didn't notice, and so on.

2 DC 25 Will saves, at level 10, and they have to pass both of them. It's not 100%, but it is very, very close to it. SR is not, and will never be a factor to any decent caster.
So you cannot see the enemy, and yet know where to put the fog? By that logic, you cast Glitterdust and now you can see them, and they have to make two saves or be blinded, which means out of the combat.


In Pathfinder, casting defensively is much, much more difficult than in 3.5. 5-foot steps are still an option, but there is a feat to keep those in check as well, or the enemy could simply have long reach. So for any casting class (even a gish) the wisest course of action is to buff ahead of time and then wade into melee, rather than trying to cast up close like, say, a Duskblade would.

Melee characters can no longer threaten reach + adjacent. It is easier than ever to cast defensively, especially since the 3.5 feat Mage Slayer was replaced with around 3-5 feats that collectively are not as good as Mage Slayer alone. Additionally, the Duskblade's channeling explicitly does not provoke AoOs.


Now you're confusing me :smallconfused: you make a statement like this, then go on to say that Fighter is more useful than Magus despite that being a direct contradiction. Which is it?

A 3.5 Fighter is more useful than a [PF] Magus.
A [PF] melee character is not useful.

These are not contradictory concepts. Indeed, the fact I specified that the Fighter was 3.5 was a clue.

So let us say that both characters are level 6. What are they doing?

Well, the 3.5 Fighter can do Power Attack + Leap Attack (two feats), Improved Bull Rush + Knockback + Dungeoncrasher (three or four feats), or EWP: Spiked Chain + Feat Tax Expertise + Improved Trip + Combat Reflexes (four feats). He cannot do all three of those things, both because he won't have enough feats to do so until later, and by the time he does get enough feats any of those things would take more investment to stay meaningful. Even so, that gives him one, or being generous two tricks.

Now how about that Magus? Unfortunately, he's Monk like. He has a lot of things that he technically can do, but he cannot actually do any of them effectively. Any action he takes is effectively wasted. The same is true of a poorly made 3.5 Fighter, except that the Magus is stuck with no means of contributing in a level appropriate way even if built well. Even "Wizard lite" falls flat on its face because it lacks the DCs to back it.

Both are quite bad, and I would take a Duskblade, or any number of other classes before either of them. But one of these is worse than the other, and the guy who wins at losing is the PF guy.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Whereas the Duskblade at least covers different ground from the Wizard.

It does? Really?

*searches everywhere*

Sorry bud. Wizards have better ways of keeping the enemies away from the team, at least just as good ways for dealing damage, better buffs and utility, and more.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Now how about that Magus? Unfortunately, he's Monk like. He has a lot of things that he technically can do, but he cannot actually do any of them effectively. Any action he takes is effectively wasted. The same is true of a poorly made 3.5 Fighter, except that the Magus is stuck with no means of contributing in a level appropriate way even if built well. Even "Wizard lite" falls flat on its face because it lacks the DCs to back it.
Some examples? Evidence?

[Elitarismo]

It does? Really?

*searches everywhere*

Sorry bud. Wizards have better ways of keeping the enemies away from the team, at least just as good ways for dealing damage, better buffs and utility, and more.

Conceptual ground. While a Duskblade isn't as good as a Wizard built for gishing (which involves various gish PRCs) it does at least do something different from the basic Wizard.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Conceptual ground. While a Duskblade isn't as good as a Wizard built for gishing (which involves various gish PRCs) it does at least do something different from the basic Wizard.

Wait, the magus isn't a gish, but instead just a weaker wizard? You're gonna need some evidence to convince that a straight 3.5 fighter is better than a magus. Charger? Flight, invisibility, illusions. Jack B. Quick? Don't attack him in melee, instead just using flight or battlefield control, then taking out your backup ranged weapon, which you can make magical with Arcane Pool or Magic Weapon/Greater Magic Weapon. Tripper? You guessed it, don't let him reach you or use battlefield control.

[Starbuck_II]

Only, not really. The Magus not only has better casting than the Duskblade, but they have a much superior spell list, which leads to increased versatility and ability to contribute. Beyond that, their DC's and spell level don't really matter as they aren't built around the assumption that they are going to be de-buffing. Rather, they are built around damage-dealing, buffing, utility, and crowd control. They do each of these things better than the Duskblade (with the exception of damage), and are still quite able to contribute in combat, especially with their ability to paste extra attack bonuses onto themselves and their weapons.

So, taken all together, the Magus is Duskblade +, and certainly more suitable as a gish-in-the-can.

Magus has worst casting, but better spell list.
Compare Duskblade's spell/day vs Magus? Duskblade Wins.
Compare damaging touch spells? Duskblade wins.
Compare buffs? Magus.
Compare utility? About equal at low low levels, magus wins at higher.
Crowd control? Magus slight win.

There is no way you can show a agus havinga better casting: spontanous + more spells/day (even more than most spontanous) = better caster.

[BlueInc]

Now how about that Magus? Unfortunately, he's Monk like. He has a lot of things that he technically can do, but he cannot actually do any of them effectively. Any action he takes is effectively wasted. The same is true of a poorly made 3.5 Fighter, except that the Magus is stuck with no means of contributing in a level appropriate way even if built well. Even "Wizard lite" falls flat on its face because it lacks the DCs to back it.

Let's say we've got a 3.5 Fighter. We'll make him human. At level 2, he's got 4 feats, so he can pick up
EWP: Spiked Chain + Feat Tax Expertise + Improved Trip + Combat Reflexes and trip like a boss. He will be very, very good at tripping people, but if a situation calls for him doing anything but tripping, he's SoL. This is the definition of low tier 4/high tier 5.

A level 2 human Magus has 2 feats, but they're secondary to the power he has as a spellcaster. He gets at least 2 first level spells a day (more for his intelligence bonus) and knows at least 3 first level spells, and can choose off a sizable list (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/magus-spell-list) that includes battlefield control (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/o/obscuring-mist), buffs (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/enlarge-person), damage (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/shocking-grasp), heck, even healing (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/infernal-healing).

As long as the situation can be handled by tripping, the Fighter is a god. But when the party gets attacked by archers, flying enemies, enemies that can't be tripped, ranged spellcasters, more mooks than the Fighter has AoOs to deal with, the Magus will probably have an option to deal with it. Not to mention out of combat spells like Alter Self (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/alter-self).

Fighter: "What's that guys, stealth mission? I can still bring my heavy armor, right guys?

Edit: Being a little kinder.

[Starbuck_II]

You really need to add "Trollface.jpg" when you make statements like that.

Let's say we've got a 3.5 Fighter. We'll make him human. At level 2, he's got 4 feats, so he can pick up and trip like a boss. He will be very, very good at tripping people, but if a situation calls for him doing anything but tripping, he's SoL. This is the definition of low tier 4/high tier 5.

A level 2 human Magus has 2 feats, but they're secondary to the power he has as a spellcaster. He gets at least 2 first level spells a day (more for his intelligence bonus) and knows at least 3 first level spells, and can choose off a sizable list (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/spell-lists-and-domains/magus-spell-list) that includes battlefield control (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/o/obscuring-mist), buffs (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/enlarge-person), damage (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/s/shocking-grasp), heck, even healing (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/i/infernal-healing).

As long as the situation can be handled by tripping, the Fighter is a god. But when the party gets attacked by archers, flying enemies, enemies that can't be tripped, ranged spellcasters, more mooks than the Fighter has AoOs to deal with, the Magus will probably have an option to deal with it. Not to mention out of combat spells like Alter Self (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/a/alter-self).

Fighter: "What's that guys, stealth mission? I can still bring my heavy armor, right guys?

Psst: spiked chain was nerfed. So there is no reason to use it anymore.
Did you mean Heavy Flail?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Psst: spiked chain was nerfed. So there is no reason to use it anymore.
Did you mean Heavy Flail?

Or guisarme plus armor spikes/spiked gauntlet.

[BlueInc]

Psst: spiked chain was nerfed. So there is no reason to use it anymore.
Did you mean Heavy Flail?

Well, yeah, but I was assuming the 3.5 Fighter was operating under 3.5 rules.

[Elitarismo]

Wait, the magus isn't a gish, but instead just a weaker wizard? You're gonna need some evidence to convince that a straight 3.5 fighter is better than a magus. Charger? Flight, invisibility, illusions. Jack B. Quick? Don't attack him in melee, instead just sing flight or battlefield control, then taking out your backup ranged weapon, which you can make magical with Arcane Pool or Magic Weapon/Greater Magic Weapon. Tripper? You guessed it, don't let him reach you or use battlefield control.

He is supposedly a gish, but is unable to perform that role at all. That is why the only way to make a character of the Magus class good is to make them a watered down Wizard. How many times have I said that now? Because if I made a drinking game of it, I would probably be in the hospital by now.

And PvP combat? In response to "I would take a 3.5 Fighter over a Magus" which in no way says or implies PvP combat and does imply party selection, as in PvM? Now if you meant that the charger would encounter those things in PvM, that is likely true. Having a trick to be negated is still a better deal than the Magus gets, however.

I also looked through the Magus' list. He has about... 3 1st level spells worth casting. Color Spray (Wizard lite, Duskblade also has this), Silent Image (again Wizard lite, I don't remember if Duskblade has this), and Shocking Grasp (only useful if you can channel it... which I don't think that a level 2 Magus can, though neither can a level 2 Duskblade). All of the others were either junk to begin with, or nerfed into oblivion. Every single one. I checked the list multiple times just to be sure I didn't miss any.

Granted, those spells are not as badly nerfed as Alter Self.

But here's what a level 3 Duskblade is doing:

Prebuff: Swift action cast Blade of Blood.
Swift action: Activate Arcanist's Gloves.
Move action (if needed): Close to opponent.
Standard action: Channel Shocking Grasp through weapon, doing [polearm or spiked chain damage] + 8d6, with a likely +3 to hit bonus. You take 5 damage, your target takes a long nap as you are actually doing enough damage to threaten things at this level. You do all this without any chance to fail, as neither the casting nor the channel have a sub 100% success rate.
Free action: Post the "Trollface.gif" you are apparently fond of to the Magus, who has two separate, and fairly high chances of wasting his action entirely, that will yield lower payoffs even if he does manage to succeed, and he gets fewer attempts at it.

You have 5 1st level spells, so you can perform this combo once, then perform it without the Blade of Blood part once, and then without the BoB and Arcanist's Gloves part twice... which isn't a lot of stamina, but is more than the Magus.

The Fighter Tripper's answer to everything is to knock them all down, even if pulling a Garland is a bad idea. However there are a number of situations greater than zero in which commanding the enemies to "Down!" and "Stay!" is effective. Whereas there is a number of situations equaling zero in which the Magus accomplishes anything other than failing in a humorous manner, and being treated as a pinata by the enemies. Perhaps he hails from Soviet Russia? Whatever his origin, he apparently missed the memo that adventurers are supposed to be on the other side of the pinata.

Edit: The Spiked Chain being nerfed into oblivion is one of the many reasons why I specified that the Fighter be from 3.5, so that swinging a sword around isn't as inferior to reshaping reality.

[BlueInc]

He is supposedly a gish, but is unable to perform that role at all.

I think we've got very different points of view that aren't going to be changed by arguing on a forum. I like the Magus, you like the Duskblade; the OP and his players can look at the classes and this discussion and figure out which class is closer to how the player envisioned his character.

[Shadow Lord]

Eltarismo, I believe that you do not understand the correct definition of the word ' gish. '

It is, in a shortened version, a warrior-caster.

Now, do I see anything in there that specifies that a Gish is to only do damage? No! It seems like a better interpretation of the archetype of Gish would be to say that it is a Warrior who happens to cast spells. A Duskblade could be more properly called a Mage-Knight; someone who enhances his fighting ability using spells. A Magus, however, more closely resembles the Gish; someone who uses his Fighting Ability in tandem with his Spells.

Notice the difference? It's like a Duskblade is normally a Ballista, then turns into a Cannon, whilst a Magus is a Tactician, who's always a Tactician.

Notice the difference?

[Starbuck_II]

Eltarismo, I believe that you do not understand the correct definition of the word ' gish. '

It is, in a shortened version, a warrior-caster.

Now, do I see anything in there that specifies that a Gish is to only do damage? No! It seems like a better interpretation of the archetype of Gish would be to say that it is a Warrior who happens to cast spells. A Duskblade could be more properly called a Mage-Knight; someone who enhances his fighting ability using spells. A Magus, however, more closely resembles the Gish; someone who uses his Fighting Ability in tandem with his Spells.

Notice the difference? It's like a Duskblade is normally a Ballista, then turns into a Cannon, whilst a Magus is a Tactician, who's always a Tactician.

Notice the difference?

But the Magus is only a Mage-Knight at low levels as well. It is only mid-high level that Magus converts to a real gish.

[Elitarismo]

I think we've got very different points of view that aren't going to be changed by arguing on a forum. I like the Magus, you like the Duskblade; the OP and his players can look at the classes and this discussion and figure out which class is closer to how the player envisioned his character.

I think that not a single word of that has anything at all to do with the fact that the Magus is a bad class, and the Duskblade is a better class.

To the people defending Magus: Next you will tell me that the Monk is an interesting and flavorful class with something to look forward to at every level.

[Hiro Protagonest]

He is supposedly a gish, but is unable to perform that role at all. That is why the only way to make a character of the Magus class good is to make them a watered down Wizard.
Arcane Pool has at least 3 points at 1st level. Each one can basically give you +1 to attack and damage for 1 minute. Combine that with the 2 1st level spells you get, that's one use of something for every encounter, plus some creative use of your 3 0 level spells can sustain you past that. And once you get to 5th level, you can use two spells per encounter, or one per encounter and have four out of combat utility, plus cantrips.
How many times have I said that now? Because if I made a drinking game of it, I would probably be in the hospital by now.
How many times have you backed it up instead of just saying that?

And PvP combat? In response to "I would take a 3.5 Fighter over a Magus" which in no way says or implies PvP combat and does imply party selection, as in PvM? Now if you meant that the charger would encounter those things in PvM, that is likely true. Having a trick to be negated is still a better deal than the Magus gets, however.
Alright, send them both through a dungeon for solo guys. One at a time.

I also looked through the Magus' list. He has about... 3 1st level spells worth casting. Color Spray (Wizard lite, Duskblade also has this), Silent Image (again Wizard lite, I don't remember if Duskblade has this), and Shocking Grasp (only useful if you can channel it... which I don't think that a level 2 Magus can, though neither can a level 2 Duskblade). All of the others were either junk to begin with, or nerfed into oblivion. Every single one. I checked the list multiple times just to be sure I didn't miss any.
Vanish for short-term utility, Ray of Enfeeblement for a solid debuff, Grease may have been nerfed, but it's still good for making the enemy stand still or be flat-footed, Expeditious Retreat for mobility and a +12 on jump checks, Mount for traveling quickly, and Feather Fall if you're traveling through mountains just in case.


To the people defending Magus: Next you will tell me that the Monk is an interesting and flavorful class with something to look forward to at every level.
Yay strawmen.

[Shadow Lord]

But the Magus isn't a bad class! It's rather flavorful and interesting, with something to look forward to at every level!

And Monk... well... it's a flavorful and interesting class, which has something to look forward to at every level if you're using the Archetypes from Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic!

[Elitarismo]

Arcane Pool has at least 3 points at 1st level. Each one can basically give you +1 to attack and damage for 1 minute. Combine that with the 2 1st level spells you get, that's one use of something for every encounter, plus some creative use of your 3 0 level spells can sustain you past that. And once you get to 5th level, you can use two spells per encounter, or one per encounter and have four out of combat utility, plus cantrips.

Let me guess: Weapon Focus is as good as Natural Spell? +1 to hit and damage, with a short duration is your answer? I don't even remember what kind of action that is. I'm assuming free, if not it's even worse.


Alright, send them both through a dungeon for solo guys. One at a time.


Yay strawmen.

I moved your quote to a more appropriate place. You see, when someone makes a comment that indicates they have a poor grasp of system mechanics, making another comment to the same effect - "Next you will tell me that the Monk is an interesting and flavorful class with something to look forward to at every level." is not a strawman, as it is a logical follow up.

However when someone's response to a comment that made it even more clear this was about party taking 3.5 Fighter vs party taking PF Magus is to suggest running them through a solo dungeon, that IS a strawman. Though my money is still on the Fighter. The Magus is getting blown away on encounter 1. The Fighter is either getting blown away on encounter 1 (if fighting a caster) or lasting a little ways (if fighting melee opponents). That means a non zero chance of seeing fight number 2.


Vanish for short-term utility, Ray of Enfeeblement for a solid debuff, Grease may have been nerfed, but it's still good for making the enemy stand still or be flat-footed, Expeditious Retreat for mobility and a +12 on jump checks, Mount for traveling quickly, and Feather Fall if you're traveling through mountains just in case.

Vanish = Hey look, it's Invisibility but with 10 times less duration. Ray of Enfeeblement = nerfed into uselessness. Also DC dependent. These two things are related. Grease means you spend your Standard action, the enemy spends an extra 5 feet of their movement. And Expeditious Retreat, Mount, and Feather Fall? Bringing up Monk like class features and running away is your answer? Fine. I will concur that the Magus is better at being a Monk and a Brave Sir Robin. Feel better?

However, as being a Monk and running away well are both very bad things...

Shadow Lord: You forgot the "Trollface.gif".

[Greenish]

the only way to get an effective character from the Magus class is to become a pale mockery of the Wizard.I don't see a problem.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Let me guess: Weapon Focus is as good as Natural Spell? +1 to hit and damage, with a short duration is your answer? I don't even remember what kind of action that is. I'm assuming free, if not it's even worse.
Since when do fighters get wild shape? Or do you expect magus to be on par with the most powerful class in the game? And don't you remember that Arcane Pool scales with level, so it doesn't become an obsolete +1?

I moved your quote to a more appropriate place. You see, when someone makes a comment that indicates they have a poor grasp of system mechanics, making another comment to the same effect - "Next you will tell me that the Monk is an interesting and flavorful class with something to look forward to at every level." is not a strawman, as it is a logical follow up.
Oh, so in face of facts, you insult my system mastery, and that's not strawman? Because I remember listing some quite good 1st level magus abilities. You think that's underwhelming at higher levels? I can show you higher level abilities.

However when someone's response to a comment that made it even more clear this was about party taking 3.5 Fighter vs party taking PF Magus is to suggest running them through a solo dungeon, that IS a strawman. Though my money is still on the Fighter. The Magus is getting blown away on encounter 1. The Fighter is either getting blown away on encounter 1 (if fighting a caster) or lasting a little ways (if fighting melee opponents). That means a non zero chance of seeing fight number 2.
Okay. I'll build a magus, you'll build a fighter, and someone else will build a dungeon. Levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20.

Vanish = Hey look, it's Invisibility but with 10 times less duration. Ray of Enfeeblement = nerfed into uselessness. Also DC dependent. These two things are related. Grease means you spend your Standard action, the enemy spends an extra 5 feet of their movement. And Expeditious Retreat, Mount, and Feather Fall? Bringing up Monk like class features and running away is your answer? Fine. I will concur that the Magus is better at being a Monk and a Brave Sir Robin. Feel better?

You can't find anything useful for short-term invisilibilty, such as the ability to sneak past a wide open area up to 60 feet long without being detected at first level, and thinking expeditious retreat can only be used to retreat? Plus, at the level monk's getting +30 fast movement, magus is using Haste, Fly, Invisibility.

[Elitarismo]

I don't see a problem.

You don't see a problem with a class completely and entirely failing to perform its intended function, instead requiring you to jump through lateral hoops in order to find some use for them?

You must have loved 3.5 Rogues then, which have more in common with WoW Rogues than Thieves, despite not telling you that.

To preempt the obvious rebuttal, the role of the PF Rogue involves making sure the Magus isn't lonely in his pit of incompetence.


Since when do fighters get wild shape? Or do you expect magus to be on par with the most powerful class in the game? And don't you remember that Arcane Pool scales with level, so it doesn't become an obsolete +1?


Yay strawmen.


Oh, so in face of facts, you insult my system mastery, and that's not strawman? Because I remember listing some quite good 1st level magus abilities. You think that's underwhelming at higher levels? I can show you higher level abilities.Okay. I'll build a magus, you'll build a fighter, and someone else will build a dungeon. Levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20.


Yay strawmen.

You listed a bunch of quite terrible abilities, and a handful of Wizard lite ones. If you looked at higher levels, you'd find... a bunch of quite terrible abilities, and a handful of Wizard lite ones.

The argument you are trying (without success) to defeat is that the Magus is full of a bunch of quite terrible abilities, and a handful of Wizard lite ones, such that the only way to save it is to ignore most of it and focus on the few good parts.


You can't find anything useful for short-term invisilibilty, such as the ability to sneak past a wide open area up to 60 feet long without being detected at first level, and thinking expeditious retreat can only be used to retreat? Plus, at the level monk's getting +30 fast movement, magus is using Haste, Fly, Invisibility.


Bringing up Monk class abilities and running away is your answer?

But I will humor you. You are now cut off from the rest of the party at level 1, assuming that there was a wide, but not too wide area there, and assuming they did not have any of the long list of things that automatically defeat this, starting with a guard dog (or anything with the Scent ability). Housecats have Scent, right? Fluffy vs Magus, go! :D

[Coidzor]

And Expeditious Retreat, Mount, and Feather Fall? Bringing up Monk like class features and running away is your answer? Fine. I will concur that the Magus is better at being a Monk and a Brave Sir Robin. Feel better?

However, as being a Monk and running away well are both very bad things...

Despite the name, Expeditious Retreat is generally not used for running away and would have more use for getting more advantageous acrobatics in and other positioning uses. It is superior to the monk because it's right there from the word go, isn't taking up space that a more useful class feature could take up, and doesn't scale poorly, it just is what it is, a first level spell equivalent to a 9th level class feature. This makes the monk look bad, not the spell, even though the spell is not particularly impressive.

Mount has use in overland travel, some utility, a disposable mount for anyone who wants to do a mounted charge. And so on, and is not merely for running away as you characterize it.

Feather fall is not "being a Monk," feather fall is the reason that monk's slow fall is a joke in 3.X, you've got the order completely backwards there.

[Hiro Protagonest]

So it's settled. I'll build a magus, Elitarismo builds a 3.5 fighter. At levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20.

Requesting for five people to build a solo dungeon each!

[Elitarismo]

Despite the name, Expeditious Retreat is generally not used for running away and would have more use for getting more advantageous acrobatics in and other positioning uses. It is superior to the monk because it's right there from the word go, isn't taking up space that a more useful class feature could take up, and doesn't scale poorly, it just is what it is, a first level spell equivalent to a 9th level class feature. This makes the monk look bad, not the spell, even though the spell is not particularly impressive.

Mount has use in overland travel, some utility, a disposable mount for anyone who wants to do a mounted charge. And so on, and is not merely for running away as you characterize it.

Feather fall is not "being a Monk," feather fall is the reason that monk's slow fall is a joke in 3.X, you've got the order completely backwards there.

You are missing the point. The point is that Monk class features are absolutely terrible. Yet, he is continually comparing what he does to Monk class features, as if that were a point in his favor, or as if it were a meaningful argument.

Compare Standard: Cast short duration speed buff. Move: Move 60 feet. to Standard: Move 30 feet. Move: Move 30 feet. It takes more than one round to pay for itself, and it's short duration, so you are not casting it in advance. These are D&D combats we're talking about, so that round you're spending making yourself faster is the round everyone else is launching jacked up attacks in. The thing about launching jacked up attacks is that you don't have to launch very many before one side or the other emerges victorious.

Slow Fall would be terrible regardless of whether Feather Fall existed or not.

[Hiro Protagonest]

This swordsage thing happens a lot. I must be getting to high levels.

[Coidzor]

You are missing the point. The point is that Monk class features are absolutely terrible.

And you're missing the point when you forget that it's because they're obviated by low level spells, and instead assert that the spells are bad because they do something the monk wishes it could.

[Psyren]

You don't see a problem with a class completely and entirely failing to perform its intended function?

Its function was never to be a wizard, so that comparison doesn't add anything meaningful to a discussion on their power level.

Its function is to be a gish-in-a-can. There are better ways to make a gish certainly - a Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight is more powerful, just like a Psion/Ranger/Slayer is always going to be more powerful than a Psywar 20, but power isn't the only goal that players have when approaching a game.

And if 9th-level spells were necessary to have fun, nobody would play anything that gets less.

[Elitarismo]

And you're missing the point when you forget that it's because they're obviated by low level spells, and instead assert that the spells are bad because they do something the monk wishes it could.

Monk abilities are terrible regardless of spells. They are terrible on their own merits. The spells have their own problems.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Monk abilities are terrible regardless of spells. They are terrible on their own merits. The spells have their own problems.

Wait, so 1st level core-only wizards are also terrible, because the only good spells they have are Grease, Mage Armor, Expeditious Retreat, Silent Image, Shocking Grasp, Feather Fall, Magic Missile, and Expeditious Retreat?

[Zonasiy]

Elitarismo, I'm having difficulty understanding your argument. It looks like you're saying Magus is useless because it's a lesser wizard with worthless class features. Are you arguing that because the Magus is not as powerful as a tier 1 class, it is useless?

[Elitarismo]

Wait, so 1st level core-only wizards are also terrible, because the only good spells they have are Grease, Mage Armor, Expeditious Retreat, Silent Image, Shocking Grasp, Feather Fall, Magic Missile, and Expeditious Retreat?

You forgot Color Spray, which I have mentioned several times. Yet you mentioned Magic Missile for some inexplicable reason... You're really having a hard time following along here. The Wizard, however has the DCs to back it up.

Zonasiy: My argument is simple to follow.

A: The Magus is supposed to be someone that combines sword and spell.
B: The Magus entirely fails to successfully do this.
C: The Magus can only accomplish anything at all when attempting to be a pale mockery of a Wizard.
D: The Duskblade is supposed to be someone that combines sword and spell.
E: The Duskblade successfully does this, albeit not in a way that makes it the best at it, as that title goes to PRCed Wizards.
F:The Duskblade performs its intended function, and does not require lateral sidesteps to find a use for it.
G:The Wizard is a save or lose caster with many things boosting his DCs.
H: The Wizard is very successful in winning fights in one move.
I: If the Magus attempts to play Wizard, he lacks the DCs to back it up.
J: As a result, the Magus is not very successful in winning fights with one move.
K: Due to point C, he has nothing else he could be doing as everything else will yield worse results.
L: If something is better than something else in every possible way, and that other something offers nothing unique, than it is worthless.
M: The Magus meets this criteria, as the Duskblade blows it out of the water in its intended function, and the Wizard, not to mention the opposition blow it out of the water in the only thing it has that is remotely useful.
N: Magus is worthless. Duskblade is a better gish, and Wizard is a much better save or lose spammer.
O: A 3.5 Fighter has one trick, two if you are generous.
P: A Magus has 0 tricks.
Q: 1 or 2 > 0, therefore a 3.5 Fighter is more useful than a Magus.
R: Wizard >>> Duskblade >>> Fighter >>> Magus.

[BlueInc]

Elitarismo, I'm having difficulty understanding your argument. It looks like you're saying Magus is useless because it's a lesser wizard with worthless class features. Are you arguing that because the Magus is not as powerful as a tier 1 class, it is useless?

By the same token, he argues that the (tier 5) 3.5 fighter is better than a Magus because it's more focused.

Brain hurt.

Edit: More constructive criticism in next post.

[Psyren]

B: The Magus entirely fails to successfully do this.

Your train already runs off the rails here, rendering the rest moot.

[BlueInc]

G:The Wizard is a save or lose caster with many things boosting his DCs.
H: The Wizard is very successful in winning fights in one move.
I: If the Magus attempts to play Wizard, he lacks the DCs to back it up.
J: As a result, the Magus is not very successful in winning fights with one move.

Aha! Now we can get into a real discussion.

What we disagree about is the role of a Wizard/other spellcaster.

Wizards do lots of things besides save or suck spells, though those are a staple. The best Wizard spells are "Saving Throw: None; SR: No"; all suck, no save; besides, Wizards and other spellcasters who try for save or x spells generally pick up at least three - one that targets reflex, one that targets fortitude, and one that targets will - and tailor their choice of spells to the opponent's weaknesses.

Wizards can also accomplish things by buffing themselves and their party (requires no save), doing direct damage (not optimal, but consider Mailman builds that do damage without allowing enemy saves), altering terrain (through spells like Wall of Stone), Utility spells, and so forth.

Check out the Batman Wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104002) post.

[Hiro Protagonest]

You forgot Color Spray, which I have mentioned several times. Yet you mentioned Magic Missile for some inexplicable reason... You're really having a hard time following along here. The Wizard, however has the DCs to back it up.
Wait, when did a wizard get higher DCs with the same level spell slot? Through feats the magus can also take?

Zonasiy: My argument is simple to follow.

A: The Magus is supposed to be someone that combines sword and spell.
B: The Magus entirely fails to successfully do this.
C: The Magus can only accomplish anything at all when attempting to be a pale mockery of a Wizard.
D: The Duskblade is supposed to be someone that combines sword and spell.
E: The Duskblade successfully does this, albeit not in a way that makes it the best at it, as that title goes to PRCed Wizards.
F:The Duskblade performs its intended function, and does not require lateral sidesteps to find a use for it....Spell Combat. And d8 hit die and 3/4 BAB also make him a part-time fighter, plus he has buff spells the fighter doesn't.

G:The Wizard is a save or lose caster with many things boosting his DCs.
H: The Wizard is very successful in winning fights in one move.
I: If the Magus attempts to play Wizard, he lacks the DCs to back it up.
J: As a result, the Magus is not very successful in winning fights with one move.Wait, where did you get the idea that the wizard only uses SoLs? And again, how is he getting higher DCs with the same level spells?

K: Due to point C, he has nothing else he could be doing as everything else will yield worse results.Buffs, Utility, Battlefield Control. Sure, the wizard could do it better, but the wizard can do everything better. That's not specific to the magus.

L: If something is better than something else in every possible way, and that other something offers nothing unique, than it is worthless.
M: The Magus meets this criteria, as the Duskblade blows it out of the water in its intended function, and the Wizard, not to mention the opposition blow it out of the water in the only thing it has that is remotely useful.
N: Magus is worthless. Duskblade is a better gish, and Wizard is a much better save or lose spammer.Wait, when did we spam spells instead using one or two well played ones? You seem like a blaster type caster who thinks all durations under 1 hour/level are short and you're better off spamming fireball and disintegrate.

O: A 3.5 Fighter has one trick, two if you are generous.
P: A Magus has 0 tricks.
Q: 1 or 2 > 0, therefore a 3.5 Fighter is more useful than a Magus.
R: Wizard >>> Duskblade >>> Fighter >>> Magus.

And how did you come to the conclusion a magus has zero tricks? By taking away his spellcasting and class features and just leaving a guy with d8 hit die and 3/4 BAB? Because a magus can be a sneaky guy with invisibility and illusions, a fighter with buffs, and a mass-mook-killer with AoEs.

[Zonasiy]

B: The Magus entirely fails to successfully do this.


This is the first part I'm having trouble with. All I have right now is you telling me that this is the case, with no evidence backing it up. The Magus can cast some Wizard spells, has class features that boost melee, and has class features that let it do both at the same time. In what way does it fail to combine spellcasting and melee abilities?



L: If something is better than something else in every possible way, and that other something offers nothing unique, than it is worthless.


This is the second part I fail to follow. Not being the best at something does not make a class useless. The mere fact that its power level is between the Wizard and the Fighter proves that it has a use - having a specific power level you can match the rest of your party with.

You speak in absolutes, but that does not mesh with how d&d and pf usually play.

[Drelua]

Elitarismo, all I've seen from you so far is insults and unsupported claims based wholly on opinion. If you're going to argue your opinion, try to formulate an argument instead of trying to win on the grounds of 'I've said it so many times it has to be true'. I'm paraphrasing here, but you've pretty much said that.You have your right to an opinion of course, but you seem to be neglecting the fact that, well, so do we. The difference is, in a fairly subjective argument, other people are actually supporting their claims.

Now, this may just be my opinion, but I don't think that 11 feats and a BAB that's better by one step is a fair trade for one good save, 2/3 casting with a good spell list, and they ability to, basically, dual wield a one-handed weapon and a spell, like shocking grasp for 10d6 as a first level spell slot. I'm no system master, but this hardly even seems arguable to me. Even bringing fighter up a tier with dungeoncrasher, at the cost of 3 of your apparently incredibly valuable feats (counting improved bull rush but not power attack, since you'll just about always have that anyway in 3.5), it hardly seems comparable in power to a magus.

Oh look, in one post I've provided 10 times the backup for my opinion that you ever did.

One other thing; monks aren't all bad in Pathfinder. Hungry ghost, Snake Style, and you're gonna be pretty hard to kill, and you'll get a lot of attacks from Snake Fang for a free attack any time you get attacked, plus the immediate action to hit someone again as soon as one of these attacks hits. Then try and find a guided weapon for wisdom to attack and damage in place of strength. Once you get to high levels, take the dimensional feats from, also from UC so you can actually use your flurry regularly, without some way to get Accelerate (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/words-of-power/effect-words/accelerate), which, by the way, your magus should get from a feat just about as soon as possible.

Normally, I wouldn't get involved in a debate about the power level of various classes, but I figure with the strength of your arguments, I might as well. Sorry if I come across as rude and disrespectful, but with you that seems to be par for the course, so I'm being a bit less polite than usual.

[Starbuck_II]

Okay. I'll build a magus, you'll build a fighter, and someone else will build a dungeon. Levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20.


It would be better to compare a Fighter, Duskblade, and Magus at those levels: not just F and M.
My estimation:
At low levels, Duskblade wins Fighter>Magus easily. Mid levels: Magus wins with Duskblade/Fighter very close behind. Higher: Magus>Duskblade>Fighter

[Elitarismo]

By the same token, he argues that the (tier 5) 3.5 fighter is better than a Magus because it's more focused.

Brain hurt.

Edit: More constructive criticism in next post.

That is not what I said.

The 3.5 Fighter does one thing well, two if you're generous.
The Magus does zero things well.
One or two is a greater number than zero, therefore 3.5 Fighter > Magus.

That's not about focus, that's about doing something right.


Aha! Now we can get into a real discussion.

What we disagree about is the role of a Wizard/other spellcaster.

Wizards do lots of things besides save or suck spells, though those are a staple. The best Wizard spells are "Saving Throw: None; SR: No"; all suck, no save; besides, Wizards and other spellcasters who try for save or x spells generally pick up at least three - one that targets reflex, one that targets fortitude, and one that targets will - and tailor their choice of spells to the opponent's weaknesses.

Wizards can also accomplish things by buffing themselves and their party (requires no save), doing direct damage (not optimal, but consider Mailman builds that do damage without allowing enemy saves), altering terrain (through spells like Wall of Stone), Utility spells, and so forth.

Check out the Batman Wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104002) post.

The no save, just loses are called Persistent Spell Boosted DC save or loses. Core only buffs are quite weak, and were further nerfed, direct damage is nerfed as you can no longer do the things required to get it to meaningful levels.


Wait, when did a wizard get higher DCs with the same level spell slot? Through feats the magus can also take?

So, playing Wizard lite? He gets it via higher Int, feats, class features, and other things.


...Spell Combat. And d8 hit die and 3/4 BAB also make him a part-time fighter, plus he has buff spells the fighter doesn't.

Know who else has a D8 HD and 3/4th BAB?


Wait, where did you get the idea that the wizard only uses SoLs? And again, how is he getting higher DCs with the same level spells?

He is a PF caster. That was my first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth clues.


Wait, when did we spam spells instead using one or two well played ones? You seem like a blaster type caster who thinks all durations under 1 hour/level are short and you're better off spamming fireball and disintegrate.

You're funny. Spam = cast spell, win fight, cast spell, win next fight... It's called spam, because it's all you're doing.


And how did you come to the conclusion a magus has zero tricks? By taking away his spellcasting and class features and just leaving a guy with d8 hit die and 3/4 BAB? Because a magus can be a sneaky guy with invisibility and illusions, a fighter with buffs, and a mass-mook-killer with AoEs.

By ignoring the things that are wastes of time and action, I am left with... nothing. Just like that other D8 HD 3/4th BAB guy.


This is the first part I'm having trouble with. All I have right now is you telling me that this is the case, with no evidence backing it up. The Magus can cast some Wizard spells, has class features that boost melee, and has class features that let it do both at the same time. In what way does it fail to combine spellcasting and melee abilities?

Can cast with lower DCs (aka Wizard lite) and if he tries to bring sword swinging into it he has multiple and high chances of wasting the action entirely, on top of the existing chance of wasting it by it not working.


This is the second part I fail to follow. Not being the best at something does not make a class useless. The mere fact that its power level is between the Wizard and the Fighter proves that it has a use - having a specific power level you can match the rest of your party with.

You speak in absolutes, but that does not mesh with how d&d and pf usually play.

To have a place, you must either be the best at something or do something unique. If you are defined by being inferior to x, and you do nothing that x does not, you do not have a place.

The Duskblade has a place because while not the best, it offers something unique.
Even the Fighter has a place as a random dip for bonus feats.
The Magus has no place.

As for the rest of it, the people attempting to defend Pathfinder have yet to present a single substantive argument of any kind. There has been much ignoring/misinterpretation/disregarding/misrepresentation of points. There have been a lot of words said. But in terms of actual arguments? Nothing. A quick Google search does explain quite a lot though. When a community has a logical fallacy named after them, there is something very wrong.

[Drelua]

Really? No valid arguments are being given? You seem to have confused yourself with everybody else. You have given opinions without grounds, and nothing else but insults. You are not providing rational arguments, you are trying to pound your point into our heads by repeating it, not supporting it. It's like you're trying to drive a nail with a screwdriver. And you've got the head of the nail down. That is no way to form a valid argument, that just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that what you have said is, in fact, your honest opinion. You just keep saying magi suck, but you don't even say why, beyond they're 'wizard lite', then you try to say that you're not comparing them to a wizard, which is clearly false.

PS: 3/4 BAB and d8 HD go hand in hand in pathfinder, as illustrated by two out of three core tier 1 classes: the Druid and the Cleric. What exactly is your point in implying that they have the same BAB as monk?

[Elitarismo]

Same BAB as Monk, same problems as Monk... If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck...

Clerics and Druids have save or loses, so this does not apply to them.

[MeeposFire]

To me the magus and duskblade are in a similar psostion as the fighter and warblade.

Fighters are less versatile but can be more damaging than a warblade.

Duskblades are better warriors and can deal more damage than a magus. A magus is much more versatile though with its better spell list.

Do note there is a good point here in that the magus is not worth much in its class features. Comparing the duskblade and the magus the duskblade wins outside of the spell list. Thankfully for the magus the spell list is more important than all the duskblade class features.

I think both classes have a place at the table one is more warrior one is more caster.

[AMFV]

So it's settled. I'll build a magus, Elitarismo builds a 3.5 fighter. At levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20.

Requesting for five people to build a solo dungeon each!

This seems to be a request for money where the mouth is. I see it's been ignored and all there is more mouth, I'm beginning to think there isn't any money at all...

[Hiro Protagonest]

This seems to be a request for money where the mouth is. I see it's been ignored and all there is more mouth, I'm beginning to think there isn't any money at all...

I don't really care if it happens or not. If it does, I'll play the level 1 and 5 versions smart, as they can only use their spells a certain number of times/day. Things with durations of longer than 1 round, using a single battlefield control to keep the enemies down then using sword or bow to take them out. At 10th level and up, I can afford to use quite a few spells, plus I have a good sized Arcane Pool and some decent Magus Arcana in place of buff spells. But if it doesn't happen, meh, the other playgrounders will continue the argument for me if I'm right.

Edit: Oh, by the way, Elitarismo, you should keep track of how many people agree with you, and how many disagree with you. And maybe you could also try to think outside the box when using spells, rather than just spamming debuffs, blasts, and SoDs/SoLs. The magus' strength isn't spells, it's knowing when to use a spell, and knowing when to use a sword or bow.

[BlueInc]

Duskblades are better warriors and can deal more damage than a magus. A magus is much more versatile though with its better spell list.

I think both classes have a place at the table one is more warrior one is more caster.

^This.

Elitarismo seems to feel that since the Magus is neither as good a caster as a Wizard, nor as good a melee character as a Fighter, it has no purpose in existing.

I personally (having grown up reading The Hobbit several dozen times and seeing Gandalf both use a sword and cast spells) have been wanting a caster/melee 1-20 class since I started roleplaying.

I don't mind playing a character who isn't the absolute best at what they so long as they are contributing meaningfully in what they do; I usually play characters about tier 3 and try to get my players to do the same.

To put it simply: I think a Magus has two tricks built into the class.

1. Hit things.
2. Cast spells.

And that's good enough for me. YMMV.

[Shadow Lord]

Well, by your definition of useless, everything except for Wizard, Cleric, and Druid are useless. Because they are all better than everything else, at everything else.

See what I did there? Cool, isn't it. Now come and make a real argument, so we can continue this like Civilized Nerds.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Now come and make a real argument, so we can continue this like Civilized Nerds.

I think his ability to argue about PF vanished when he banned all Paizo content from his games.

[Shadow Lord]

I think his ability to argue about PF vanished when he banned all Paizo content from his games.

That explains everything.

[Drelua]

Same BAB as Monk, same problems as Monk... If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck...

Clerics and Druids have save or loses, so this does not apply to them.

Well that's just plain wrong. Monks can easily gain access to save or lose abilities. In Pathfinder, Stunning Fist eventually gains the option to blind instead of stun. That constitutes a save or lose, correct? Of course, 3.5 has something even better than blinded: Freezing the Lifeblood. Fortitude save or be paralyzed for d4+1 rounds? I'm pretty sure that might as well kill you. Now, it's only available at later levels, but there are other options before then. The DC can get pretty high, too. Take Ability Focus and it's 12+1/2 your monk character level+Wisdom modifier. Say you started with 16 wisdom, and by level 20 you put all five points from leveling into it, plus a +5 tome, with a +6 periapt or headband, depending whether you're playing 3.5 or PF. That's what, DC 38 at level 20? Not great, but not much worse than a mildly optimized caster. Does this mean monks are a good class? No. But the save or die ability that you seem to see as all-important is there. :smalltongue:

[MeeposFire]

Well that's just plain wrong. Monks can easily gain access to save or lose abilities. In Pathfinder, Stunning Fist eventually gains the option to blind instead of stun. That constitutes a save or lose, correct? Of course, 3.5 has something even better than blinded: Freezing the Lifeblood. Fortitude save or be paralyzed for d4+1 rounds? I'm pretty sure that might as well kill you. Now, it's only available at later levels, but there are other options before then. The DC can get pretty high, too. Take Ability Focus and it's 12+1/2 your monk level+Wisdom modifier. Say you started with 16 wisdom, and by level 20 you put all five points from leveling into it, plus a +5 tome, with a +6 periapt or headband, depending whether you're playing 3.5 or PF. That's what, DC 38 at level 20? Not great, but not much worse than a mildly optimized caster. Does this mean monks are a good class? No. But the save or die ability that you seem to see as all-important is there. :smalltongue:

Oddly while you are refuting the save or suck you are actually improving his case for the magus class features, outside spells of course, are not much better than the monk.

[Drelua]

Oddly while you are refuting the save or suck you are actually improving his case for the magus class features, outside spells of course, are not much better than the monk.

Oh crap, I was just trying to make sure he had absolutely no credibility within the context of this thread, although I suppose that has already been accomplished by his own ramblings.:smallwink: I admit that I was also trying to defend the monk, as they can be pretty damn good with the right feats and archetype. And by pretty damn good, I mean almost approaching the realm of a 2/3 caster, maybe.

[Earthwalker]

The 3.5 Fighter does one thing well, two if you're generous.
The Magus does zero things well.
One or two is a greater number than zero, therefore 3.5 Fighter > Magus.


One thing I am curious about is, the original post was about playing duskblades in PF. Wouldn't better comparisons for power be.
A PF fighter using only PF books is better or worse then a Magus.

Its kinda like saying don't play a Magus becuase a Street Sam from SR4 has the ability to use rocket launchers.

Now Magus might be bad becuase it doesn't have the splat book back up of the classes in 3.5.

Maybe approach it from, if you just moved a duskbalde from 3.5 to PF, only used PF books (and spells and such) what fills the role of "Gish from a box" best ?

[MeeposFire]

One thing I am curious about is, the original post was about playing duskblades in PF. Wouldn't better comparisons for power be.
A PF fighter using only PF books is better or worse then a Magus.

Its kinda like saying don't play a Magus becuase a Street Sam from SR4 has the ability to use rocket launchers.

Now Magus might be bad becuase it doesn't have the splat book back up of the classes in 3.5.

Maybe approach it from, if you just moved a duskbalde from 3.5 to PF, only used PF books (and spells and such) what fills the role of "Gish from a box" best ?

Duskblade will do damage better and will be a better warrior while the magus has a better spell list that is more versatile and is only a fair warrior.

[Elitarismo]

To me the magus and duskblade are in a similar psostion as the fighter and warblade.

Fighters are less versatile but can be more damaging than a warblade.

Duskblades are better warriors and can deal more damage than a magus. A magus is much more versatile though with its better spell list.

Do note there is a good point here in that the magus is not worth much in its class features. Comparing the duskblade and the magus the duskblade wins outside of the spell list. Thankfully for the magus the spell list is more important than all the duskblade class features.

I think both classes have a place at the table one is more warrior one is more caster.

Versatility only matters when you have the power to back it up. Otherwise Monks would be the best class in the game and not the worst. Compare to the Bard, which has versatility and some power to back it up. Compare to the Wizard, who has versatility and a LOT of power to back it up.


Well that's just plain wrong. Monks can easily gain access to save or lose abilities. In Pathfinder, Stunning Fist eventually gains the option to blind instead of stun. That constitutes a save or lose, correct? Of course, 3.5 has something even better than blinded: Freezing the Lifeblood. Fortitude save or be paralyzed for d4+1 rounds? I'm pretty sure that might as well kill you. Now, it's only available at later levels, but there are other options before then. The DC can get pretty high, too. Take Ability Focus and it's 12+1/2 your monk character level+Wisdom modifier. Say you started with 16 wisdom, and by level 20 you put all five points from leveling into it, plus a +5 tome, with a +6 periapt or headband, depending whether you're playing 3.5 or PF. That's what, DC 38 at level 20? Not great, but not much worse than a mildly optimized caster. Does this mean monks are a good class? No. But the save or die ability that you seem to see as all-important is there. :smalltongue:

So to summarize all that: Someone typoed a statblock that was supposed to be 10 + half level, you think a DC too lower to matter effect became a DC good enough effect, and that is your argument?


One thing I am curious about is, the original post was about playing duskblades in PF. Wouldn't better comparisons for power be.
A PF fighter using only PF books is better or worse then a Magus.

Its kinda like saying don't play a Magus becuase a Street Sam from SR4 has the ability to use rocket launchers.

Now Magus might be bad becuase it doesn't have the splat book back up of the classes in 3.5.

Maybe approach it from, if you just moved a duskbalde from 3.5 to PF, only used PF books (and spells and such) what fills the role of "Gish from a box" best ?

Part of the reason why the Magus class is terrible isn't that the Magus itself is terrible, it is that the concept of someone who combines sword and spell is terrible within the PF system. As a result, Magus would be better in 3.5, and Duskblade would be worse in PF. I already said this, but given the swarm of people that came out to mindlessly defend PF the moment someone began to attack it I am not surprised that you missed it.

On top of that, the concept of swinging a sword around at all is terrible in PF, which is when I said I would take a Fighter over a Magus, I specified that that Fighter was 3.5. The role of the PF Fighter is to join the Magus (and the Monk, and the Bard, and quite a few other PF classes) in the pit of incompetence and despair, to lament over the fact that they are but mere pinatas for their opposition.

After all, my 3.5 Duskblade example assumed only core things, PHB2 (the book it is in), and one item from the MIC, namely Arcanist's Gloves. That's hardly pulling from a bunch of 3.5 sources. The 3.5 Fighter pulled from many different 3.5 sources, but they're a non caster in a 3.x edition. You might as well complain that the sun is hot. The Magus can draw from every Paizo source he wants, it won't save him.

As for the games I run, I have assessed the PF rules, determined that they are anathema to balance, and then banned them. Same as I banned Forgotten Realms material as it is nothing more than a source of Venomfire, Greenbound Summoning, Incantrix, That Mystra thing to ignore Anti Magic Fields, Spellblades, and many others. That is not losing credibility, it is gaining it. Unless your argument now is that because I don't want a whole party of casters spamming Glitterdust/Slow/etc to be the only viable tactic, that that somehow diminishes from my games rather than adds to them? Because if that is what you're saying, it does a whole lot more to erode your own credibility than it does to negatively influence my own.


This seems to be a request for money where the mouth is. I see it's been ignored and all there is more mouth, I'm beginning to think there isn't any money at all...

Either you are just as bad at following an argument as swift here, or you just arrived on the scene. Here, I will help you.

Swift, after a long series of strawman and nonsequitor responses to my posts: Okay. I'll build a magus, you'll build a fighter, and someone else will build a dungeon. Levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20.
Me: Yay strawmen. < Copy pasted again in response to him, as the discussion has absolutely nothing to do with PvP, or solo dungeons, and absolutely everything to do with contribution to a party which I have said several times.
Swift: So it's settled. I'll build a magus, Elitarismo builds a 3.5 fighter. At levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20.

Requesting for five people to build a solo dungeon each! < Because when someone in no way indicates that they are open to something, and instead points out that it has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand, that means they're agreeing to do it right? Of course it doesn't, this is yet another one of swift's completely devoid of logic and reason responses.
Me: *simply ignores him, as it is not possible to have a reasonable conversation with him*
AMFV: This seems to be a request for money where the mouth is. I see it's been ignored and all there is more mouth, I'm beginning to think there isn't any money at all... < Because when someone says no, they mean yes right?

Swift is not the only one that shows he cannot follow an argument and provide logical responses to it. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, but some of these other people here...

Which is the last thing I will say about it. Yes, there are a lot of people disagreeing. Not a single one of them are presenting any valid counterpoints. Nonsequitors, straw man arguments, and statements that avoid saying anything substantive are not valid counterpoints. Statements that are flat out false are also not valid counterpoints.

Consider the source though.


I admit that I was also trying to defend the monk, as they can be pretty damn good with the right feats and archetype. And by pretty damn good, I mean almost approaching the realm of a 2/3 caster, maybe.

When someone says that Monks are good, that means that whenever they say something you should regard the opposite of what they say as true. And yet, that's who is on your side. People with demonstrably and critically flawed judgment.

[Earthwalker]

Part of the reason why the Magus class is terrible isn't that the Magus itself is terrible, it is that the concept of someone who combines sword and spell is terrible within the PF system. As a result, Magus would be better in 3.5, and Duskblade would be worse in PF. I already said this, but given the swarm of people that came out to mindlessly defend PF the moment someone began to attack it I am not surprised that you missed it.

So a point I was trying to alude to was that perhaps the magus and duskblade are comparable. They just both have to be view as if they were in the same system.


On top of that, the concept of swinging a sword around at all is terrible in PF, which is when I said I would take a Fighter over a Magus, I specified that that Fighter was 3.5. The role of the PF Fighter is to join the Magus (and the Monk, and the Bard, and quite a few other PF classes) in the pit of incompetence and despair, to lament over the fact that they are but mere pinatas for their opposition.

I have no argument with this.


After all, my 3.5 Duskblade example assumed only core things, PHB2 (the book it is in), and one item from the MIC, namely Arcanist's Gloves. That's hardly pulling from a bunch of 3.5 sources. The 3.5 Fighter pulled from many different 3.5 sources, but they're a non caster in a 3.x edition. You might as well complain that the sun is hot. The Magus can draw from every Paizo source he wants, it won't save him.

I was only asking a question, why I have quoted and decided to reply to this is the laugage or perhaps phrasing used. You drawn from two 3.5 sources, I am complety flumuxed how you think this is not call from 3.5 sources.


As for the games I run, I have assessed the PF rules, determined that they are anathema to balance, and then banned them. Same as I banned Forgotten Realms material as it is nothing more than a source of Venomfire, Greenbound Summoning, Incantrix, That Mystra thing to ignore Anti Magic Fields, Spellblades, and many others. That is not losing credibility, it is gaining it. Unless your argument now is that because I don't want a whole party of casters spamming Glitterdust/Slow/etc to be the only viable tactic, that that somehow diminishes from my games rather than adds to them? Because if that is what you're saying, it does a whole lot more to erode your own credibility than it does to negatively influence my own.


I have no argument, if I have given that impression then I apologize. I do not wish to defend Pathfinder or 3.5 I was mearly wanting to know your opinions on a PF duskblade compared to a PF Magus. I play in a group where system mastery and optimization is almost non existant, I would expect in terms of credibility on those subjects I have none.

[Elitarismo]

So a point I was trying to alude to was that perhaps the magus and duskblade are comparable. They just both have to be view as if they were in the same system.

In such a circumstance, Duskblade > Magus still, but both are bad and you should pick option C: Neither.


I was only asking a question, why I have quoted and decided to reply to this is the laugage or perhaps phrasing used. You drawn from two 3.5 sources, I am complety flumuxed how you think this is not call from 3.5 sources.

Someone said that I drew from a lot of 3.5 sources. I don't remember if that was you or not, as all these threads are largely the same. 2 is not a lot. That is what I was saying.


I have no argument, if I have given that impression then I apologize. I do not wish to defend Pathfinder or 3.5 I was mearly wanting to know your opinions on a PF duskblade compared to a PF Magus. I play in a group where system mastery and optimization is almost non existant, I would expect in terms of credibility on those subjects I have none.

Duskblade is better, but both are crap in PF. You should instead play a primary spellcaster as especially with no system mastery and optimization it's the only way a PF group is getting through encounters alive. Though in this case that is also true in 3.5, as without high grade system mastery and optimization non casters will never contribute either. It's worse in PF but dead is dead.

[Shadow Lord]

If you don't allow any Pathfinder material, then why are you in a Pathfinder discussion?

Also: What you said, y'know, the thing about Fighters, Bards, Monks, And Just About Everything In Pathfinder Being Useless?

Yeah, no.

[Elitarismo]

If you don't allow any Pathfinder material, then why are you in a Pathfinder discussion?

Also: What you said, y'know, the thing about Fighters, Bards, Monks, And Just About Everything In Pathfinder Being Useless?

Yeah, no.

To answer the original poster's question, which is the point of the discussion. And as I reviewed the material before denying it, I am qualified to do so. That is more than can be said for someone whose entire response to large swaths of PF characters being useless is a "Yeah, no." Particularly when there are plenty of explanations to be found on why this is so.

For the record, I mentioned Fighters, Bards, Monks, Maguses. I might have said other non casters.

[Shadow Lord]

To answer the original poster's question, which is the point of the discussion. And as I reviewed the material before denying it, I am qualified to do so. That is more than can be said for someone whose entire response to large swaths of PF characters being useless is a "Yeah, no." Particularly when there are plenty of explanations to be found on why this is so.

For the record, I mentioned Fighters, Bards, Monks, Maguses. I might have said other non casters.

Could you please outline to me exactly what makes the Fighter, Bard, Monk, and Magus useless?

[Elitarismo]

Could you please outline to me exactly what makes the Fighter, Bard, Monk, and Magus useless?

Magus has been covered extremely extensively.

Fighter and Monk suffer from every single one of their 3.5 problems, and on top of that suffer from feat nerfs, general melee nerfs, maneuver nerfs, damage nerfs... every aspect of them is nerfed. Many of those nerfs are stealth nerfs, so you will now respond by claiming that you cannot see them either because you really can't, or simply to start an argument but they are there, and those classes are worse for it.

Bard song was nerfed heavily, both in the scope of what it can do and in how it does it. Their defining feature went from being a fairly respectable melee buff to being an entirely inconsequential waste of turns. Not to mention that as melee characters themselves were nerfed, something that doesn't do anything but buff them is also nerfed.

[Seatbelt]

I agree the bard got nerfed. But I think you play a higher level of optimization than my table does. I think thats an important facet of the discussion. Maybe at T1 and T-1 the Magus is bad and the monk is awful. But my group plays closer to T3 or T2, where the Wizard is strong but not God. The Magus becomes good at that level. Monk still sucks though. Monk will always suck.

[Elitarismo]

I agree the bard got nerfed. But I think you play a higher level of optimization than my table does. I think thats an important facet of the discussion. Maybe at T1 and T-1 the Magus is bad and the monk is awful. But my group plays closer to T3 or T2, where the Wizard is strong but not God. The Magus becomes good at that level. Monk still sucks though. Monk will always suck.

Nah. Even assuming a middle groundish party (that does not exist in PF, as everything is either one extreme or the other) the Magus class is bad. Whereas the Duskblade (a low tier 3) would be fine were it not for the PF rules hindering him. A combat Bard (also tier 3) is better than the Magus in every way in 3.5, but ruined by various nerfs in PF. A Warblade (tier 3 again)? Fine in 3.5, screwed in PF.

[Shadow Lord]

Ok, can you please give me examples of how Melee was so nerfed? I find this will help me understand your argument.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Alright, everything Elitarismo says about Pathfinder is going to be negative, seeing as how he put a blanket ban on all things Paizo in his games. I honestly think he might be posting in PF threads just to insult or provoke everyone who tries to argue in favor of it.

Shadow Lord: It doesn't have Tome of Battle! It must be terrible, horrible, and never doing anything good for melee! [/sarcasm]

[Elitarismo]

Ok, can you please give me examples of how Melee was so nerfed? I find this will help me understand your argument.

In order to be good at melee, you have to raid through many different books to get the things necessary. This is because there are so few things worth taking, and they are scattered everywhere. So even a level 2 character might very well be drawing from core + ToB + UA + MIC + PHB2 + CC just to do... anything meaningful.

It is possible that this could have been fixed by taking the good material, and putting it all in one book. In this case, that would mean that making a Whirling Frenzy Lion Totem Barb 1/Warblade 1 with Brute's Gauntlet's and Steadfast Determination was one stop shopping.

It is also possible that this could be fixed by making up new, but good stuff, and putting it all in one place.

PF did neither of these things. PF core will not give you a viable melee character, nor will you get one by allowing all PF sources. More feats are truly a novel idea, but only if there are worthwhile feats to take. If not, it doesn't matter.

PF did not stop there, however. They then went on to nerf every single good thing that melee had. Power Attack, Improved Trip, Spiked Chains, Animated Shields, stat boosting items that do not come with price hikes... if it existed, and was a nice thing for someone other than a caster, it was nerfed. This means that melee is fundamentally nerfed, and even if say... you brought a Warblade to a PF game they would still be bad. Or a Lion Totem Barb. Or... any other melee that would otherwise be acceptable.

It still does not stop there though, as it then goes on to buff the best classes in the entire game by making the best tactic in the entire game ten times better. While save or lose spam is not a concept unique to PF, it is one that has became considerably more effective. As much as it is hyped up in 3.5, it actually is possible to challenge intelligently played casters there, primarily because the people that aren't dead yet have realized that dealing with spells are a primary concern, and as a result everyone bulks up their saves as much as they possibly can. Save or loses are a quite manageable threat when they have 5% chances to land.

In PF, this is not possible. Lower saves + higher save DCs + more saves (PF Persist Spell and others).

There is no middle ground. Either you are a caster, casting super buffed spells that end the encounter instantaneously, or you are anything else, doing anything else and are accomplishing nothing at all meaningful.

In 3.5 while core only is subject to an only somewhat milder form of this no middle ground, adding in splatbooks does move things towards some sort of equilibrium. In PF, core only starts with the same imbalance, and it only grows as you add more PF sourcebooks.

Yes, I ban PF material from my games because I analyzed it and determined that Paizo should really stick to fluff writing as they handle crunchy stuff about as well as a man with no teeth.

[Shadow Lord]

In order to be good at melee, you have to raid through many different books to get the things necessary. This is because there are so few things worth taking, and they are scattered everywhere. So even a level 2 character might very well be drawing from core + ToB + UA + MIC + PHB2 + CC just to do... anything meaningful.

It is possible that this could have been fixed by taking the good material, and putting it all in one book. In this case, that would mean that making a Whirling Frenzy Lion Totem Barb 1/Warblade 1 with Brute's Gauntlet's and Steadfast Determination was one stop shopping.

It is also possible that this could be fixed by making up new, but good stuff, and putting it all in one place.

Incorrect. You could very well make a fairly good character drawing only from one source.


PF did neither of these things. PF core will not give you a viable melee character, nor will you get one by allowing all PF sources. More feats are truly a novel idea, but only if there are worthwhile feats to take. If not, it doesn't matter.

Correct. However, there are several very good melee feats in Pathfinder. Therefore, your point is not correct.


PF did not stop there, however. They then went on to nerf every single good thing that melee had. Power Attack, Improved Trip, Spiked Chains, Animated Shields, stat boosting items that do not come with price hikes... if it existed, and was a nice thing for someone other than a caster, it was nerfed. This means that melee is fundamentally nerfed, and even if say... you brought a Warblade to a PF game they would still be bad. Or a Lion Totem Barb. Or... any other melee that would otherwise be acceptable.

Incorrect. There are still many viable things for Melee to do, and those things that were ' Nerf'd ' Also happen to now make, y'know, sense.


It still does not stop there though, as it then goes on to buff the best classes in the entire game by making the best tactic in the entire game ten times better. While save or lose spam is not a concept unique to PF, it is one that has became considerably more effective. As much as it is hyped up in 3.5, it actually is possible to challenge intelligently played casters there, primarily because the people that aren't dead yet have realized that dealing with spells are a primary concern, and as a result everyone bulks up their saves as much as they possibly can. Save or loses are a quite manageable threat when they have 5% chances to land.

Incorrect, in 3.5 the best tactic of the game was No Save Just Suck spells.


In PF, this is not possible. Lower saves + higher save DCs + more saves (PF Persist Spell and others).

Incorrect, in Pathfinder many of the most problematic spells have been fixed. Also: Your point is completely false. Saves are not lower. DCs are not higher. There are no more saves.


There is no middle ground. Either you are a caster, casting super buffed spells that end the encounter instantaneously, or you are anything else, doing anything else and are accomplishing nothing at all meaningful.

Incorrect. I am currently playing in the Council of Thieves adventure path. Guess what the party is? It would be a Monk, two Fighters, a Kellus Truenamer, and a Blaster Sorceress New Player. And guess what? We're doing pretty damn good. And you know how many of us are optimized at all? None of us. Not one.


In 3.5 while core only is subject to an only somewhat milder form of this no middle ground, adding in splatbooks does move things towards some sort of equilibrium. In PF, core only starts with the same imbalance, and it only grows as you add more PF sourcebooks.

Incorrect. The gap actually been bridged with the newer Pathfinder sourcebooks, with the new Archetypes, Feats, and Rules of each one helping to bring Melee up to Tier 3.


Yes, I ban PF material from my games because I analyzed it and determined that Paizo should really stick to fluff writing as they handle crunchy stuff about as well as a man with no teeth.

Read the above and tell me that again. Or, if you prefer, I can do a detailed comparison that outlines key issues that Pathfinder fixes.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

Incorrect, in Pathfinder many of the most problematic spells have been fixed.
Well, I wouldn't say most. Some, yes, but not most. Or did PF fix more spells in new handbooks? Even if, there still are broken spells in Core PF.

[Shadow Lord]

Well, I wouldn't say most. Some, yes, but not most. Or did PF fix more spells in new handbooks? Even if, there still are broken spells in Core PF.

Notice the word Many, my friend. They fixed many, but not most.

[Elitarismo]

{{scrubbed}}

[Drelua]

So to summarize all that: Someone typoed a statblock that was supposed to be 10 + half level, you think a DC too lower to matter effect became a DC good enough effect, and that is your argument?

Assuming I've properly sorted through the headache that is your grammar in the above sentence, I still don't know what you're talking about! What typo? I clearly mentioned Ability Focus, if that 12 is what you're referring to. And I'd say even at level 20, a DC 38 Fortitude DC is nothing to sneeze at, especially when you're saving against paralysis for d4+1 rounds. Let's see, what would a level 20 Wizard have? 6 + what, 3 CON + 5 resistance. 14.

I'm sure in a decently optimized group it could get higher or they'd just get too much AC for the monk to hit or they'd get some immunity, but not everyone plays like that. I sure don't. In my group, the DC would be lower, and the wizards save would be no higher. Even without a few of the things that brought that DC up, the wizards still screwed. Let's say it's 20 + 8 wisdom in a low-op group. That's still high enough to screw most people over in a group in which it gets no higher than that.


When someone says that Monks are good, that means that whenever they say something you should regard the opposite of what they say as true. And yet, that's who is on your side. People with demonstrably and critically flawed judgment.

I would like to point out that I never really took a side in the whole Magus vs. Duskblade debate. I don't personally like either class because I don't really play casters. I guess that means they're both good, hmm? According to you, I only play classes that are utterly useless, usually better than the groups wizard or sorcerer too.

I also never even said that monks are good. Wow, did you properly understand one thing that I said? Or maybe you're purposely getting it wrong to make me look like an idiot, as ad hominem certainly seems to be your favoured style of argument. What I said about monks is that they can be decently good with A LOT of work. You have to choose the right archetypes and feats for it to be as good as an unoptimized decently good class like, say, an inquisitor, assuming you haven't arbitrarily decided that they're useless too.

Now, I find it unlikely that your research into Pathfinder included reading every new book by Paizo, such as Ultimate Combat and the Advanced Player's Guide which include some great things for monks, namely the Hungry Ghost archetype which I've already mentioned and some of the Style Feats from UC, as well as a few other archetypes.

To summarize, you've completely misunderstood everything I've said, and your insults to my judgement seem to have back fired, since I don't like either class that you seem to hate. Grow up and learn to formulate a real argument that consists of something a little bit more sophisticated than unsupported claims and insults. You have repeatedly stated your opinion, but you have not once explained it, you've just gotten mad when people didn't assume it was true because you said, and jumped to the illogical conclusion that you're the only one that knows what he's talking about because everyone disagrees with you. Does not Occam's Razor state that it is more likely that you are incorrect?

[Bovine Colonel]

Elitarismo, I'd like to point something out real quick.

When you have most of the active posters from two frickin' threads arguing against you and no one on your side it's probably time to review your opinion.

[Elitarismo]

Assuming I've properly sorted through the headache that is your grammar in the above sentence, I still don't know what you're talking about! What typo? I clearly mentioned Ability Focus, if that 12 is what you're referring to. And I'd say even at level 20, a DC 38 Fortitude DC is nothing to sneeze at, especially when you're saving against paralysis for d4+1 rounds. Let's see, what would a level 20 Wizard have? 6 + what, 3 CON + 5 resistance. 14.

Getting full level instead of half level is an obvious typo. All the other abilities of that type get half level, which means that the DC is too low to matter. You also misspelled level 5. A level 20 Wizard has far more than a mere +14 Fort, and far more than the 16 Con he had at level 1. Not to mention that even if the target does roll a 1, so many things are immune to being paralyzed at that level that it does not matter.


I'm sure in a decently optimized group it could get higher or they'd just get too much AC for the monk to hit or they'd get some immunity, but not everyone plays like that. I sure don't. In my group, the DC would be lower, and the wizards save would be no higher. Even without a few of the things that brought that DC up, the wizards still screwed. Let's say it's 20 + 8 wisdom in a low-op group. That's still high enough to screw most people over in a group in which it gets no higher than that.

They are a Monk, they are not going to be able to hit things with any degree of reliability regardless. Plenty of stuff is immune to stun and paralysis already. Meanwhile the caster has bonuses to DC from all manner of sources. Anything at level 20 treats a DC 28 effect as save on a 2 or better, or very close to it. Especially since it is Fort.


I would like to point out that I never really took a side in the whole Magus vs. Duskblade debate. I don't personally like either class because I don't really play casters. I guess that means they're both good, hmm? According to you, I only play classes that are utterly useless, usually better than the groups wizard or sorcerer too.

While we're on the subject of incomprehensible statements...


I also never even said that monks are good. Wow, did you properly understand one thing that I said? Or maybe you're purposely getting it wrong to make me look like an idiot, as ad hominem certainly seems to be your favoured style of argument. What I said about monks is that they can be decently good with A LOT of work. You have to choose the right archetypes and feats for it to be as good as an unoptimized decently good class like, say, an inquisitor, assuming you haven't arbitrarily decided that they're useless too.


I admit that I was also trying to defend the monk, as they can be pretty damn good with the right feats and archetype. And by pretty damn good, I mean almost approaching the realm of a 2/3 caster, maybe.

I understood just fine. It is your ability to keep track of your words and mine that is in question.

An inquisitor is a Bard, but worse. But continue to make my points for me.


Now, I find it unlikely that your research into Pathfinder included reading every new book by Paizo, such as Ultimate Combat and the Advanced Player's Guide which include some great things for monks, namely the Hungry Ghost archetype which I've already mentioned and some of the Style Feats from UC, as well as a few other archetypes.

It was more junk, so I paid little attention to it once I determined that it was useless.

To summarize, you've completely misunderstood everything I've said, and your insults to my judgement seem to have back fired, as you have only succeeded in destroying your own arguments. Wise up and learn to formulate a real argument that consists of something a little bit more substantial than unsupported claims, empty statements, and blatant falsehoods. You have repeatedly repeated* the same falsehoods, but you have not addressed the arguments presented to you, you've just gotten mad when people didn't assume it was true because you said, and jumped to the illogical conclusion that you're the only one that knows what he's talking about because some people just as wrong as you are decided to back you up. Does not Occam's Razor state that it is more likely that you are incorrect?

I took that last part and slightly modified it for accuracy before using it as my own words.

* - Yes, I am a fan of irony.

Having a lot of people spout the same falsehoods does not make them more true. If so, the earth would be flat because many people hundreds of years ago said it was.

[Dimers]

Elitarismo, I'd like to point something out real quick.

When you have most of the active posters from two frickin' threads arguing against you and no one on your side it's probably time to review your opinion.

Heh, yeah, I learned that one early in my time here on the GitP forums. I'd state something I considered plainly obvious and have six or seven people saying "Nope" right away ... kind of a wake-up call. And with plenty of people willing and able to back up their "nope" with math-based reasoning, I quickly learned that the amount of answer would often translate over to value of answer. Doesn't mean that I've stopped asking for reasoning to go along with volume, of course.

[Retech]

Have you read the new monk stuff though? It is good enough that I would honestly consider trying one out, as my first fully martial class that I've ever played.

Usually I play a class with at good 2/3 casting (Summoner and Bard are pretty good) so that I can bail out my party in event of TPK.

[Drelua]

{{scrubbed}}

[Elitarismo]

Have you read the new monk stuff though? It is good enough that I would honestly consider trying one out, as my first fully martial class that I've ever played.

Usually I play a class with at good 2/3 casting (Summoner and Bard are pretty good) so that I can bail out my party in event of TPK.

Sure. It's mostly stuff that looks good but has no substantive value. Sometimes it forgets to look good. That means it tricks new players into thinking it is good, but is not actually good. Kind of like Toughness in 3.5. But then with Sean "Poverty is hard." K Reynolds in charge I do not find this surprising, as he seems to have a thing for deliberately producing things that suck mechanically with the justification that they are somehow better for roleplaying.

Drelua: All PF Wizards have 22 Con at level 20. In a low opt game he might have nothing but a mere +19 save (6 base, 6 con, 5 resistance, 2 familiar) but he can go higher than that fairly easily.

The only things that have Fortitude as a bad save and are not immune to most Fortitude save based effects are Rogues... which you have long since became immune to. That is why I made fun of it being a Fortitude save.

A level 5 Wizard gets... oops, it's only +13. Close enough. Any smart Wizard will have saves like that, so he doesn't get one shotted so easily. Wizards are an Int based class.

[Drelua]

Could you show me the math that gets a +1 base save up to 13? Seeing as WBL for a level 5 in Pathfinder is 10,500 gold, try not to spend more than half of that, and see how you can get +12 from CON and magic, maybe feats (if you don't mid wasting them in, say, great fortitude) and spells up to level 3. I can't see that happening because, as with all your other arguments, you've said it's true, but haven't said how or why.

[Shadow Lord]

Y'know what, Eltarismo? I make a PF Fighter, you make a 3.5 Fighter. Best build wins.

[Elitarismo]

1 base, 2 familiar, 4 Con (16 base, +2 item), +1 resistance, then start the long duration buffing for another +5 all. Quite standard for anyone not looking to die all the time.

You could probably do better than this. The point is that nothing has bad Fort saves and isn't immune to most Fort save effects except for Rogues.

Edit: Goliath Fighter 6, Dungeon Crasher, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper, Knockback, Power Attack, Improved Initiative. That was easy. I'm getting bored now though, so is there anything further?

[Shadow Lord]

Here's mine!

12th level Vanilla Fighter:
Name: Vanilla
Class/Lv: Core Fighter 12
Race: Human (most common race, plus other races change abilities differently, and some give free exotic proficiency, so anything else would simply add too many variable to deal with atm)
Strength: 16 base + 2 race + 3 levels + 4 enhancement = 25 (+7)
Other Stats: not important for this exercise. If 10pt buy, 16,10,10,10,10,10 is possible, and str is the only prereq for the feats selected below. I think any point buy vanilla fighter looking for damage output without being super-optimized would be happy with a 16 str.
Feats: Human Bonus: Exotic Weapon Proficiency: any OR any other if your not using an exotic weapon... lets say: Endurance
Regular 1st level: Power Attack
Fighter Bonus at 1st: Weapon Focus
2nd -B: Cleave
3rd: Furious Focus
4th -B: Weapon Specialization
5th: Great Cleave
6th -B: Vital Strike
7th: Lunge
8th -B: Improved Critical
9th: Critical Focus
10th -B: Greater Weapon Focus
11th: Improved Vital Strike
12th -B: Greater Weapon Specialization
Bravery: +3
Armor Training: +3 (max dex, reduction in ACP, move normal in heavy)
Weapon Training: +2 (to hit, to damage, to CMB, and to CMD with weapon group selected)
Gear: 108000gp worth. CRB suggests 25% to weapons, 25% to armor & protection, 25% to other magic, 15% to consumables, and 10% to mundane gear. As this is a vanilla damage fighter, I decided to shift it slightly in his favor (more akin to what you’d actually see in game). This gear works out to about 37% weapons, 24% armor & protection, 36% other magic, 3 % mundane/consumables/left over wealth.
Primary Weapon +4 = 32000gp (would only be +3 if I limited him to 25% total wealth to weapons)
Secondary Weapon +2 (most likely something ranged) = 8000gp
Full Plate +3 = 10500gp
Ring of Protection +2 = 8000gp
Amulet of Natural Armor +2 = 8000
Belt of Giant Strength +4 = 16000gp
Cloak of Resistance +3 = 9000gp
Boots of Speed = 12000
Handy Haversack = 2000
Belt Pouch = 1gp
Waterskin = 1gp
Traveler’s clothing = 1gp
Cold Weather clothing = 8gp
Wealth left over: 2489gp
The only thing not from the CRB is Furious Focus (from the APG). Simply put: I really like it. I think he’s as vanilla as it gets while still focusing on doing damage. I’d hardly call him sub-optimal either. Sure, he’s not tricked out to be super-optimal, but neither does he suck. His gear I think is pretty standard for 12th level, and his feat selection is pretty basic. It gives him the power he wants and some versatility in his attack options. If faced with a single enemy that is within range of a move, he can move and vital strike. If faced with several enemies within range of a single move, he can move and cleave. If he’s within range to full attack, he does so; and for 10 rounds a day he’s self hasted. Lunge gives him some nice tactical/reach options as well, but that won’t come into play for this exercise.
And now, to give him various weapons under various attack options. Charge average damage, Cleave average damage (a.k.a. a regular hit, but against a variable number of foes), Vital Strike average damage, Full Attack average DPR, and a Hasted (from Boots of Speed) Full Attack average DPR.
Target AC = 27 (bestiary average AC for CR 12)
Damage breakdowns: +10 Str (7 x 1.5 for 2H), +4 Enh (weapon), +4 Weapon Specialization, +2 Weapon Training, +2[w] Improved Vital Strike, +12 Power Attack
Attack breakdowns: +12/7/2 BAB, +7 Str, +4 Enh +2 Weapon Focus, +2 Weapon Training, -0/-4/-4 Power Attack w/Furious Focus, +2 when Charging, +1 when Hasted

The numbers I give are a complete average, which includes miss chance, auto misses on a rolled 1, critical threats that do not confirm, and critical threats that do confirm. They are orders from lowest to highest (though I consider these the most damaging melee weapons. Most other weapons will be lower than the lowest here, while some will be the same… for example, a Long Sword has the same stats as a Sawtooth Sabre, and a Flamebard has the same stats as a Bastard Sword, etc.). I did not include the Lance this time as (in my opinion) any fighter who would specialize in the lance will have a different feat selection, and that would add too many variables for this post. Because there’s talk of making it 1handed only, I’ve also included the 1Handed damage for 1Handed weapons (it is clearly marked). Everything else is assumed to be wielded 2Handed.
Charging damage by weapon:

33.63 - *Sawtooth Sabre* Wielded One-Handed
34.77 - *Bastard Sword* Wielded One-Handed
34.77 - *Dwarven WarAxe* Wielded One-Handed
36.4325 - *Rhoka* Wielded One-Handed
36.4325 - *Urumi* Wielded One-Handed
36.48 - *Large Sawtooth Sabre* Wielded One-Handed
39.235 - *Falcata* Wielded One-Handed
41.61 - Sawtooth Sabre
42.75 - Bastard Sword
42.75 - Dwarven WarAxe
44.46 - Earth Breaker
44.46 - Great Sword
44.46 - Large Sawtooth Sabre
45.0775 - Rhoka
45.0775 - Urumi
45.695 - Falchion
45.695 - Scythe
46.3125 - Elven Curve Blade
46.74 - Large Bastard Sword
46.74 - Large Dwarven WarAxe
48.165 - Large Rhoka
48.165 - Large Urumi
48.45 - Huge Sawtooth Sabre
48.545 – Falcata
51.87 - Large Falcata
Move and Cleave/Regular by weapon:

33.63 - *Sawtooth Sabre* Wielded One-Handed
34.77 - *Bastard Sword* Wielded One-Handed
34.77 - *Dwarven WarAxe* Wielded One-Handed
36.4325 - *Rhoka* Wielded One-Handed
36.4325 - *Urumi* Wielded One-Handed
36.48 - *Large Sawtooth Sabre* Wielded One-Handed
39.235 - *Falcata* Wielded One-Handed
41.61 - Sawtooth Sabre
42.75 - Bastard Sword
42.75 - Dwarven WarAxe
44.2 - Huge Sawtooth Sabre
44.46 - Earth Breaker
44.46 - Great Sword
44.46 - Large Sawtooth Sabre
45.0775 - Rhoka
45.0775 - Urumi
45.695 - Falchion
45.695 - Scythe
46.3125 - Elven Curve Blade
46.74 - Large Bastard Sword
46.74 - Large Dwarven WarAxe
48.165 - Large Rhoka
48.165 - Large Urumi
48.545 – Falcata
51.87 - Large Falcata
Move and Vital Strike by weapon:

42.18 - *Sawtooth Sabre* Wielded One-Handed
44.9825 - *Rhoka* Wielded One-Handed
44.9825 - *Urumi* Wielded One-Handed
45.22 - *Bastard Sword* Wielded One-Handed
45.22 - *Dwarven WarAxe* Wielded One-Handed
47.785 - *Falcata* Wielded One-Handed
49.78 - *Large Sawtooth Sabre* Wielded One-Handed
50.16 - Sawtooth Sabre
53.2 - Bastard Sword
53.2 - Dwarven WarAxe
53.6275 - Rhoka
53.6275 - Urumi
55.195 - Falchion
55.195 - Scythe
56.7625 - Elven Curve Blade
57.096 - Falcata
57.76 - Earth Breaker
57.76 - Great Sword
57.76 - Large Sawtooth Sabre
61.465 - Large Rhoka
61.465 - Large Urumi
62.05 - Huge Sawtooth Sabre
63.84 - Large Bastard Sword
63.84 - Large Dwarven WarAxe
65.17 - Large Falcata
Full Attack DPR by weapon:

67.84 - *Large Sawtooth Sabre* Wielded One-Handed
69.62 - *Sawtooth Sabre* Wielded One-Handed
71.98 - *Bastard Sword* Wielded One-Handed
71.98 - *Dwarven WarAxe* Wielded One-Handed
75.65 - Huge Sawtooth Sabre
76.405 - *Rhoka* Wielded One-Handed
76.405 - *Urumi* Wielded One-Handed
82.68 - Large Sawtooth Sabre
83.19 - *Falcata* Wielded One-Handed
86.14 - Sawtooth Sabre
86.92 - Large Basterd Sword
86.92 - Large Dwarven WarAxe
88.5 - Bastard Sword
88.5 - Dwarven WarAxe
90.87 - Large Rhoka
90.87 - Large Urumi
92.04 - Earth Breaker
92.04 - Great Sword
94.535 - Rhoka
94.535 - Urumi
95.83 - Falchion
95.83 - Scythe
97.125 - Elven Curve Blade
99.06 - Large Falcata
102.93 - Falcata
Hasted Full Attack DPR by weapon:

103.36 - *Large Sawtooth Sabre* Wielded One-Handed
105.315 - *Sawtooth Sabre* Wielded One-Handed
108.885 - *Bastard Sword* Wielded One-Handed
108.885 - *Dwarven WarAxe* Wielded One-Handed
115.198 - *Rhoka* Wielded One-Handed
115.198 - *Urumi* Wielded One-Handed
120.275 - Huge Sawtooth Sabre
125.08 - *Falcata* Wielded One-Handed
125.97 - Large Sawtooth Sabre
130.305 - Sawtooth Sabre
132.43 - Large Bastard Sword
132.43 - Large Dwarven Waraxe
133.875 - Bastard Sword
133.875 - Dwarven WarAxe
138.255 - Large Rhoka
138.255 - Large Urumi
139.23 - Earth Breaker
139.23 - Great Sword
142.533 - Rhoka
142.544 - Urumi
144.485 - Falchion
144.485 - Scythe
146.438 - Elven Curve Blade
150.54 - Large Falcata
154.76 - Falcata


If you'd like, I can make some more.

[Elitarismo]

Ah yes, picking a drastically different level. That really helps you. And assuming a weak enemy too.

[Shadow Lord]

No, it uses the recommended values for Challenge Ratting 12 as described in the Bestiary. You can improve your build to level 12, but mine uses a very complex mathematical formula to determine damage, and it would take for freaking ever to do it again for all the weapons.

[Drelua]

1 base, 2 familiar, 4 Con (16 base, +2 item), +1 resistance, then start the long duration buffing for another +5 all. Quite standard for anyone not looking to die all the time.

You could probably do better than this. The point is that nothing has bad Fort saves and isn't immune to most Fort save effects except for Rogues.

Okay, I guess that's possible with a good bit of optimization, certainly a lot more than my groups used to, so maybe in the games you play a lot of classes are useless, but that's not how it usually works. I'm curious, what spells can give an all day +5 to Fort without using higher than a 3rd level spell slot? The CON might be a bit too high, but that's not really a big deal.

I'd also like to clarify about monks: core, even I can see they're terrible, but the healing from Hungry Ghost Monk (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/hungry-ghost-monk) and some of the abilities from Qinggong Monk (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/qinggong-monk) really help power up the class, maybe making them comparable to a decent class, whatever you consider that to be. I can't say I disagree about the Inquisitor, I don't know why I made that my example, but what do you consider to be a good PF class?

[Curious]

Okay, I guess that's possible with a good bit of optimization, certainly a lot more than my groups used to, so maybe in the games you play a lot of classes are useless, but that's not how it usually works. I'm curious, what spells can give an all day +5 to Fort without using higher than a 3rd level spell slot? The CON might be a bit too high, but that's not really a big deal.

I'd also like to clarify about monks: core, even I can see they're terrible, but the healing from Hungry Ghost Monk (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/hungry-ghost-monk) and some of the abilities from Qinggong Monk (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/qinggong-monk) really help power up the class, maybe making them comparable to a decent class, whatever you consider that to be. I can't say I disagree about the Inquisitor, I don't know why I made that my example, but what do you consider to be a good PF class?

What are you talking about? The Inquisitor is a good class. 2/3rds casting, medium BAB, d8 hit die, and nice class features. Sounds good to me.

[Drelua]

What are you talking about? The Inquisitor is a good class. 2/3rds casting, medium BAB, d8 hit die, and nice class features. Sounds good to me.

Probably my anti-caster bias acting up again. I guess it's just my play style; I prefer hitting things to casting spells, optimization be damned.

[Elitarismo]

Okay, I guess that's possible with a good bit of optimization, certainly a lot more than my groups used to, so maybe in the games you play a lot of classes are useless, but that's not how it usually works. I'm curious, what spells can give an all day +5 to Fort without using higher than a 3rd level spell slot? The CON might be a bit too high, but that's not really a big deal.

It's a one two combo. One part of it is Conviction. I forget the other part.

In the games I play, many classes are useful because they are heavily houseruled 3.5 games. But by RAW 3.5, and especially by RAW PF many classes are bad.

As for the Con, with the changes to how the PB system works there is no reason to ever make a caster with less than 20 to their primary stat and 16 to their Con. The problem with this isn't so much that that is possible, but that the same changes screw over MAD classes very badly.


I'd also like to clarify about monks: core, even I can see they're terrible, but the healing from Hungry Ghost Monk (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/hungry-ghost-monk) and some of the abilities from Qinggong Monk (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/qinggong-monk) really help power up the class, maybe making them comparable to a decent class, whatever you consider that to be. I can't say I disagree about the Inquisitor, I don't know why I made that my example, but what do you consider to be a good PF class?

You mean "heal = monk level on around about 1 attack out of 40"? That is something that you could honestly forget you have as you could go entire levels without confirming a natural 20 with Monk's Flurry of Misses style attack bonus. And even if you do get it... it's 1 point a level. 10% of your health, if you're feeling generous. And to do that... you have to be a Monk. Pure classed (otherwise it's even weaker).

At least Wholeness of Body heals double Monk level and is usable out of combat! It's still terrible of course, but even it is better than that terrible feature.

Good PF classes: Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard. All are about on the same level, maybe the Sorcerer is slightly lower but not enough to make any real difference. What PF did is reduce 6 tiers to 2. Those four classes are Tier 1. The others? Tier 6.

Shadow Lord: Average damage calcs are hardly very complex. They're also invalid for presenting examples, as is assuming such a weak enemy. AC 27? At level 12? Are you kidding me? If you used the table in the back of the bestiary to get that number, it isn't even accurate to itself, much less accurate to the enemies you will actually fight as even if it actually did list the correct average stats it completely ignores buffs and treasure even if the enemy has both of those things, and they very often do.

But even if we ignore all the horrible premises your argument is based on, what do you get out of it? Low hundreds. On the full attacks you aren't getting, with the critical hits you aren't getting either.

Meanwhile, that level 6 Goliath has a Str of 23, and 13k which he spends on a +1 polearm type weapon, brute's gauntlets, armbands of might, and the other 5.5kish can be assumed to be spent on defensive gear. He PAs for 2, still has +11/+6 to hit, and does 2d8+16. Which admittedly is a bit weak. But every hit he is making a Bull Rush check at +22 to slam enemies into walls. And every time he does that, that's 8d6+18. Not so weak anymore, particularly since maneuvers actually work in 3.5. This is also without using the Brute's Gauntlet's at all which can be used to give +2 to the damage and the maneuver checks for 3 rounds every day. Average 71 a hit with two swings, while 5 levels lower is looking a whole lot better than whatever the Fighter would muster at level 7 (since Goliath is LA 1). If you added 5 levels to this, say by Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy Barb 1, and 4 levels of... some other martial class worth taking, it would clearly perform a lot better.

That's just on its own though. What happens when you add it to a party? Haste suddenly becomes a worthwhile spell to cast. As do many other buffs. Enlarge Person would be one, but that spell does not work on Goliaths. That's a far cry from the PF situation in which buff spells, and their typical recipients in this case are much weaker, so the potential buff casters simply don't do that.

Edit: He got it right. Inquisitor is a bad class.

[Retech]

Well if you're going from a wizard to a monk, anything for a monk that isn't blatantly overpowered will make the monk seem like "IT'S A TRAP, ADMIRAL."

In the context of melee, the new archetypes help bump up the monk to a reasonable balance with other melee classes. The thing that made 3.5 melee stronger than their PF counterparts was the big use of splatbooks and comboes in specific builds. For example, I would say that PF Power attack is more ubiquitously useful for builds, while using a giant PA in 3.5 without shock trooper just means that you never hit.

I think Paizo is succeeding at their mission, which was to make sure all classes fit well with their flavor and were balanced with each other, without fundamentally altering the game.

[Drelua]

Actually, I was referring to their Sipping Demon ability. 1 temporary hit point anytime I hit something? Sounds good to me! Sure, they max out at your level, but with temporary hit points being lost first and all, that makes you a lot more durable without using up any action. Besides, who says you're going unarmed? maybe I'm using a keen temple sword a nine section whip (d8/19-20, tripping, blocking, distracting) with Imp Crit.That let's you heal a number of hit points equal to your class level on 1 in every 5 attacks. A lot of this doesn't help at lower levels, but it can still help a lot later on. Like I said, not great, but it beats the crap out of wholeness of body. I'd say 2 ki points is a lot more limited than anytime you crit.

[Shadow Lord]

You're correct, Eltarismo. If you're in the right place, at the right time, and you combine feats and races, and variants, and other things from multiple source books, yours might be able to do more damage than mine. But, then again, mine draws from two source books, and he can do that any time, any where. Also: This hasn't even began to be strong. I haven't even added in Archetypes, or really chosen feats intelligently.

Want to continue? Because I can make this character so much better than it is right now.

Also, the calculation is very complicated. Like, h(d+s)+ft(cd+cb+r) complicated.

[Elitarismo]

Well if you're going from a wizard to a monk, anything for a monk that isn't blatantly overpowered will make the monk seem like "IT'S A TRAP, ADMIRAL."

In the context of melee, the new archetypes help bump up the monk to a reasonable balance with other melee classes. The thing that made 3.5 melee stronger than their PF counterparts was the big use of splatbooks and comboes in specific builds. For example, I would say that PF Power attack is more ubiquitously useful for builds, while using a giant PA in 3.5 without shock trooper just means that you never hit.

I think Paizo is succeeding at their mission, which was to make sure all classes fit well with their flavor and were balanced with each other, without fundamentally altering the game.

And not using a giant Power Attack means it doesn't matter if you hit or not, because you are not doing enough damage to make a difference. Shock Trooper's the easiest way to do that, but it is possible to optimize enough to where your basic to hit can handle it. It's just a lot harder. And someone has to be a 3.5 Bard.

And if you regard all classes as Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard they could even be argued to have succeeded... however there are more classes than those four, and they are not even a tactical or strategic consideration anymore.

Drelua: Try 1/10 attacks, and that's being generous. You have to confirm using Monk's horrid accuracy. Even so, 1 temp HP a hit. That's about 1/10th of a level 1 enemy's attack, and it gets worse from there. That's not even worth writing down. It's something you can get several times better from a cheap item (Lesser Crystal of Lifedrinking = heal 3 HP/hit, max 30/day, cost: 1.5k, which is much less than the opportunity cost of being a Monk)

Shadow: You are a non caster. If you are expecting to be anything other than highly situational, you will be disappointed. You are depending on being able to full attack for example. That's a lot less likely to happen than the chances of being able to knock a target into the nearest solid object with an unbuffed modifier of +22, particularly since the nearest solid object can be another enemy, and if it is they both take Dungeon Crasher damage, and both have to make a successful check vs +12 or be tripped. He can also Shock Trooper charge things of course, in addition to using it to slam enemies together and knock them down.

Still not that good, but far better than anything the PF guy is going to offer.

If you consider 6th grade math extremely complicated, that explains a lot.

[jindra34]

Elitarismo, you consider the witch PF class not a good class. Even with all the tricks it can end up, and all the save-or-lose spells and abilities it has in its lists? And if raw power were everything then blaster type casters would not be the short end of the stick considering they bring a lot of power to a significant number of enemies.

[Elitarismo]

Elitarismo, you consider the witch PF class not a good class. Even with all the tricks it can end up, and all the save-or-lose spells and abilities it has in its lists? And if raw power were everything then blaster type casters would not be the short end of the stick considering they bring a lot of power to a significant number of enemies.

Witches are Wizards who lack the DC boosting and only have a few of the good spells, so no I don't.

Raw power is fine when you can apply that power. The problem with martial characters is that they cannot apply that power most of the time (and that in PF, they don't have any to apply). Blaster type casters do not bring a lot of power. They need more dakka, and cannot get it. What they do is accomplish a whole lot of nothing. This is true in both 3.5 and PF. However in 3.5 you can stack on metamagic feats and things that reduce the cost of metamagic feats to cast a spell that is around 30th level, but only takes up a 7th level slot. This is the Mailman approach, and it seems fine until you consider that you're having to use a lot of resources and what is effectively a 30th level spell to do the job of a basic 7th level spell, which gives you an idea of just how far blasting is behind the curve. More than that though, that trick doesn't work in PF so blaster casters are just as incapable of doing meaningful amounts of damage as the sword swingers. The difference is blaster casters can cast different spells. The other guys don't have another and better trick to switch in for better results.

[jindra34]

What Pathfinder feats/options do the wizard have that the witch doesn't? And from my count of the witch's spell list there are at least 4 or 5 practical, useful spells per level. and another 10+ dang good abilities on the hex lists.

And is your definition of power the ability to bring monsters down fast?

[Elitarismo]

What Pathfinder feats/options do the wizard have that the witch doesn't? And from my count of the witch's spell list there are at least 4 or 5 practical, useful spells per level. and another 10+ dang good abilities on the hex lists.

And is your definition of power the ability to bring monsters down fast?

For starters, the Witch does not have Color Spray. Given that even the lowly Magus does... The Witch does get Glitterdust, so that's one useful spell on her list. She can also make animals into furries, for some reason...

Given that PF renders all else nerfed in some way, yes that is what I am referring to. And Wizards and Sorcerers get various DC boosting class features. I think Wizards also get more spells, but don't quote me on this. It might be the same, just the Wizard has better spells.

Mostly, the Witch just has a lot of random stuff. This isn't Witch specific, as all of the Paizo made classes subscribe to the Monk philosophy of "give everything a lot of random stuff". The only reason the Fantastic Four turned out alright is because their core features are already defined, and were simply copied in. Adding in random stuff can only help them.

[jindra34]

So missing the absolute best spell for a given spell level (or one of a few) makes a class worthless?

And the witches abilities are thematically nature, bridging life and death or affecting a targets luck (buff/de-buff). And it also gets to borrow significant and powerful spells from both the druid and cleric spell list. So you end up with a slightly worse wizard who can also act as a slightly worse druid or cleric for casting. And thats before patron or hexes.

[Elitarismo]

So missing the absolute best spell for a given spell level (or one of a few) makes a class worthless?

And the witches abilities are thematically nature, bridging life and death or affecting a targets luck (buff/de-buff). And it also gets to borrow significant and powerful spells from both the druid and cleric spell list. So you end up with a slightly worse wizard who can also act as a slightly worse druid or cleric for casting. And thats before patron or hexes.

When you basically have nothing to cast until level 3 and then have one spell to cast etc... Absolutely. See, that's what happens when all the other spells either were never good, or were nerfed.

[jindra34]

When you basically have nothing to cast until level 3 and then have one spell to cast etc... Absolutely. See, that's what happens when all the other spells either were never good, or were nerfed.

Ill Omen, Charm person, Burning Hands (it is useful at low levels), and Command aren't useful spells? Yeesh those are strict standards.

[Curious]

Well, considering the Witchs main strength is not it's spell list, but rather its array of unlimited use hexes (although the Witch would be a tier 1 class even if it had nothing but spells), I would think that missing one out of many very good spells is acceptable.

[Starbuck_II]

Ill Omen, Charm person, Burning Hands (it is useful at low levels), and Command aren't useful spells? Yeesh those are strict standards.

Burning hands? Deals less than magic missile at 1st.
Command: useful though 1 rd dur.
Charm: in combat boost save by +4. Plus, requires DM adjucation (to see if it does anything useful).
Ill Omen: 'On the next d20 roll the target makes, it must roll twice and take the less favorable result"
Mostly good as Command, but a target "can negate one reroll by spending a move action to utter a brief prayer or good luck charm to appease the spirits of ill fortune."

[Elitarismo]

Ill Omen, Charm person, Burning Hands (it is useful at low levels), and Command aren't useful spells? Yeesh those are strict standards.

Burning Hands = Completely worthless. At all levels.

Command = only fine for Clerics because they have nothing better. You're an arcane caster.

Charm Person = nerfed.

Ill Omen = Would actually be very good if it didn't take a round, wasn't easy to remove, and didn't have tricky limitations (the next roll means make sure you do something pointless to waste it). Even ignoring all of those things, with jacked up DCs, and cheap Persist rods you're already landing spells near 100%, so you're better off getting another high chance at it than to add more rerolls. Not to mention that first level wands are cheap.

[Gnaeus]

When you basically have nothing to cast until level 3 and then have one spell to cast etc... Absolutely. See, that's what happens when all the other spells either were never good, or were nerfed.

:smallbiggrin:. Thats really funny. I mean, really, hilariously funny. Witches have at will, no SR, cant be interrupted save or lose powers with good DC starting at level 1, and round that out with at will buffs, debuffs, and a tier 1 spell list. And you think they suck because they don't have color spray?

Dragoncon is the biggest gaming con in the SE U.S. Cheesegrinder is their high-op competitive pathfinder tournament. I won it last year with my witch. I made it to the finals this year with my witch. I can tell you with some authority that the witch is fully the equal of any low-mid level tier 1. Yeah, wizards beat them in high-level, high-op play, when the wizard can kill everything in the dungeon without leaving his demiplane. Anything lower than that and the witch is probably at least as good, may be better depending on build. I would absolutely take a witch over a druid for any purpose other than melee or direct damage blasting, or a witch over a cleric for any purpose other than healing (and since melee, blasting and healing are all kind of suboptimal.....).

[Elitarismo]

:smallbiggrin:. Thats really funny. I mean, really, hilariously funny. Witches have at will, no SR, cant be interrupted save or lose powers with good DC starting at level 1, and round that out with at will buffs, debuffs, and a tier 1 spell list. And you think they suck because they don't have color spray?

Pics or it didn't happen.


Dragoncon is the biggest gaming con in the SE U.S. Cheesegrinder is their high-op competitive pathfinder tournament. I won it last year with my witch. I made it to the finals this year with my witch. I can tell you with some authority that the witch is fully the equal of any low-mid level tier 1. Yeah, wizards beat them in high-level, high-op play, when the wizard can kill everything in the dungeon without leaving his demiplane. Anything lower than that and the witch is probably at least as good, may be better depending on build. I would absolutely take a witch over a druid for any purpose other than melee or direct damage blasting, or a witch over a cleric for any purpose other than healing (and since melee, blasting and healing are all kind of suboptimal.....).

Given what I have seen of Pathfinder players here and elsewhere, I'd say that can be chalked up to big fish little pond and not anything specific you used. In other words, you had no real competition. Remember, most of these guys are the same ones saying Monks are good, something that even many new players figure out on their own without guidance. It sounds to me more like beating a 9 year old at Street Fighter and declaring yourself the fighting game champion. Nothing wrong with you, just you had no real competition.

[jindra34]

:smallbiggrin:. Thats really funny. I mean, really, hilariously funny. Witches have at will, no SR, cant be interrupted save or lose powers with good DC starting at level 1, and round that out with at will buffs, debuffs, and a tier 1 spell list. And you think they suck because they don't have color spray?

Apparently Elitarismo thinks class features are worthless. Or something because yeah a witch has massively useful good tricks in the hex list.

[BlueInc]

I feel like this thread could be summed up "Elitarismo hates Pathfinder; some people enjoy Pathfinder."

[Elitarismo]

Apparently Elitarismo thinks class features are worthless. Or something because yeah a witch has massively useful good tricks in the hex list.

My initial consensus is that they were random, useless junk. I went over them again several more times. There are exactly two in there that are useful. One is ruined by the fact it uses your entire turn, but the reroll you give has to be used in the next 1-3 rounds and can't be put on the same person more than once per day. The other is ruined by the fact it's a reroll with a save... which is worse than that 1st level spell you just mentioned that is a reroll without a save. All the rest are things like weak spells once a day, or weird things like pedoscent. I wish I were making that up. How could you write something like that?


I feel like this thread could be summed up "Elitarismo says Pathfinder is a bad system; some people play Pathfinder anyways and take anything negative said about it as a personal attack."

Fixed.

[Starbuck_II]

Pics or it didn't happen.



He means Hexes:
Slumber (that sleeping one) has no no MAX HD and standard action to cast (unlike sleep spell which is full rd).
Misfortune is Ill omen but can't be removed.
Evil Eye is like -2 penalty, you choose where on opponent (AC, hit, etc).
Cackle can improve duration of other hexes.

[jindra34]

My initial consensus is that they were random, useless junk. I went over them again several more times. There are exactly two in there that are useful. One is ruined by the fact it uses your entire turn, but the reroll you give has to be used in the next 1-3 rounds and can't be put on the same person more than once per day. The other is ruined by the fact it's a reroll with a save... which is worse than that 1st level spell you just mentioned that is a reroll without a save. All the rest are things like weak spells once a day, or weird things like pedoscent. I wish I were making that up. How could you write something like that?

Once per day per target. Makes a big difference when you can use an ability to regularly knock out one enemy around, or make something easier to hit, or make it hit less often, or less likely to make a save . And the second can be used multiple times per target in a day. And then there are they ones like ward and fortune that can really save a party member.

[Bovine Colonel]

Pathfinder is a bad systemNot a personal attack.

some people...take anything negative said about it as a personal attack.Still not a personal attack, but it's pretty darn close.

[Tvtyrant]

Personally I feel you should add more spells like Shocking Grasp to the Duskblades list, and add the ability to TWF with those spells. Getting 5d6x6 without the SA requirements is a good deal, and with something like Chilling Touch can do a lot of strength damage.

[Elitarismo]

He means Hexes:
Slumber (that sleeping one) has no no MAX HD and standard action to cast (unlike sleep spell which is full rd).
Misfortune is Ill omen but can't be removed.
Evil Eye is like -2 penalty, you choose where on opponent (AC, hit, etc).
Cackle can improve duration of other hexes.

Slumber: Close range, single target, and a save. Why are you not casting Color Spray?
Misfortune: Already covered.
Evil Eye: Completely worthless. Even Shaken of all things puts a -2 at several different places and all manner of minor effects can produce that.
Cackle: Close range, doesn't work on the good ones.


Once per day per target. Makes a big difference when you can use an ability to regularly knock out one enemy around, or make something easier to hit, or make it hit less often, or less likely to make a save . And the second can be used multiple times per target in a day. And then there are they ones like ward and fortune that can really save a party member.

It does not. Read what I said again. The others are already addressed.


Not a personal attack.
Still not a personal attack, but it's pretty darn close.

How is that close to a personal attack? Any Pathfinder discussion anywhere is one of two things:

1: A bunch of people calling it the greatest thing since sliced bread.
2: One or more people pointing out its many flaws, and the pro Pathfinder crowd becoming mortally offended and zealous. It doesn't matter if it's one person pointing out the flaws and many getting their fervor up, or many people pointing out the flaws and just one getting mad that their system of choice is less than perfect. This is especially true if the people pointing out the flaws are admitting 3.5 is not perfect and even pointing out flaws with it themselves.

[Tvtyrant]

For Warlock I would find a way to seriously improve their damage output. Low BaB and then allowing them to attack with iteratives is one way (3 touch attacks at level 20 means 81 damage a round avg. Not optimal, but better). Then do not allow Hellfire Warlock and your good.

[Elitarismo]

For Warlock I would find a way to seriously improve their damage output. Low BaB and then allowing them to attack with iteratives is one way (3 touch attacks at level 20 means 81 damage a round avg. Not optimal, but better). Then do not allow Hellfire Warlock and your good.

I fixed that for you.

[Tvtyrant]

I fixed that for you.

Of course you did.

Considering that you can maximize and empower SLAs, you can do 243 damage in a turn already. I don't think it really needs more damage.

[jindra34]

On slumber it has twice the range of color spray and takes an enemy out for longer once the enemy exceeds 2 HD. And its save scales directly with level. And you can use it more often.

And honestly looking at classes solely on what they can do at low levels and on their own seems kinda silly.

[Gnaeus]

Once per day per target. Makes a big difference when you can use an ability to regularly knock out one enemy around, or make something easier to hit, or make it hit less often, or less likely to make a save .

Twice per day per target. You can take Accursed hex at level 1.


Pics or it didn't happen.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/witch

I will direct you to Slumber, an at will save or lose you can take at level 1. Also Evil Eye, Misfortune and Cackle, a combo that will keep a witch much more useful than a low level wizard who has already cast his color spray for that fight. A level 1 witch can easily take Slumber, Misfortune, and Accursed hex (allowing you to retarget opponent who makes his save) all at level 1. So your first level wizard has at most 5 color sprays. 1 per combat, with a spare. But he probably has less than that, since he might be packing a Sleep for enemies more than 15 feet away, or a buff or a running away spell for fights where color spray won't work. So for the witch's 3 spells, he will take Ear Piercing Scream, Enlarge, and Mount.

So, if you have less than 4 color sprays, the witch has more more fights where he can use save or lose mojo than you. So you have one chance to disable enemies within 15 feet per combat. Witch has 2 chances per enemy. Single target, but longer range, no concern about accidentally tagging a friend, ignores SR (probably not an issue at that level) and can't provoke (which may be) and can target a boss with 5 HD. Undead? No color spray, no Slumber, but hey, Misfortune still works just fine. I have a running away spell, a direct damage fort based save or suck, and a buff for my fighter. You have maybe one of those, and the witch is still going to be dropping opponents with sleep effects while you are plinking them with low damage energy attacks or pulling out your crossbow.


Given what I have seen of Pathfinder players here and elsewhere, I'd say that can be chalked up to big fish little pond and not anything specific you used. In other words, you had no real competition. Remember, most of these guys are the same ones saying Monks are good, something that even many new players figure out on their own without guidance. It sounds to me more like beating a 9 year old at Street Fighter and declaring yourself the fighting game champion. Nothing wrong with you, just you had no real competition.

Bring it. I'll see you Labor Day next year in Atlanta if you think you are better than a 9 year old. If not, I guess we know who is willing to man up. :smallwink:

[Elitarismo]

On slumber it has twice the range of color spray and takes an enemy out for longer once the enemy exceeds 2 HD. And its save scales directly with level. And you can use it more often.

And honestly looking at classes solely on what they can do at low levels and on their own seems kinda silly.

Still in move and attack or charge range, so it doesn't matter. Color Spray is AoE though. And by the time Color Spray becomes obsolete you have better spells.

I've already addressed the rest of that.

[Frosty]

If most of the classes are so weak, then that means when they are used against you they are also weak. Weak vs Weak = ok.

Our DM regularly pits us against NPCs with class levels, and our party of Inquisitor, Witch, Cavalier, and Ninja are doing just fine against enemy Rogues and enemy Fighters, for example. We're even doing fine against hordes of zombies right now (we're not high level)

[Gnaeus]

Still in move and attack or charge range, so it doesn't matter. Color Spray is AoE though. And by the time Color Spray becomes obsolete you have better spells.

I've already addressed the rest of that.

Color spray is already obsolete at level 2 when you are facing a 5 HD boss (i.e. an ecl +3 or 4 encounter) .

[Paul H]

Hi

Can't say much about Witches - haven't played one (yet).

Magus is another matter.

Playing Magus in PFS campaign, doing really well. The ability to use wands in off hand as part of full attack allowed our party to complete the last scenario.

It doesn't have all the combat tricks a fighter does, nor the full list of spells of a wizard. But what it does have compliments Fighter/Wizards.

Would you allow your wizard to cast touch spells like Frortbite? (D6+CL cold non-lethal damage. Auto fatigue - no save. 1 attack/CL, no max on CL. 1st Lvl spell). Use as spell combat only 1st round, normal attacks after that. (I use Bastard sword for 1H or 2H attacks).

Good self buffs, area effects, debuffs. Cleric BAB & saves. Could be better, but not as bad as some say.

Thanks
Paul H

[jindra34]

Still in move and attack or charge range, so it doesn't matter. Color Spray is AoE though. And by the time Color Spray becomes obsolete you have better spells.

I've already addressed the rest of that.

Charge range is about 60' for most things. Which means the witch can move and then use slumber against a charge threat while Mr. Colorspray can't. And an ability with close to unlimited use, no AoO, and never goes obsolete, isn't good?

[Starbuck_II]

Color spray is already obsolete at level 2 when you are facing a 5 HD boss (i.e. an ecl +3 or 4 encounter) .

Obsolete? Why stunning someone for 1 rd isn't worth an action?

[Gnaeus]

Obsolete? Why stunning someone for 1 rd isn't worth an action?

Not when the action could be used with the same will save to remove them from the combat completely. Not when the action could be done without spending any disposable resources, and can be tried again if enemy boss rolls well the first time.

[XenoGeno]

Okay, just read through this thread, and I gotta tell ya, Eli: your logic isn't very logical.

First off, you're comparing classes from two different systems. It's like comparing an OWoD character to a NWoD character, or an M&M character to a 3.5 D&D character. Just because one system is based off another does not make them comparable. If a 3.5 fighter were to try and grapple his Pathfinder equivalent, the 3.5 fighter would need an opposed grapple check, yet the PF fighter would need his opponent to make a roll using CMB against his CMD. Since these rules clash, these two alternate-reality versions of the same fighter cannot hug each other, which makes them sad. Do not make the fighters sad. :smallfrown:

Second, this topic is about porting Duskblade to Pathfinder. In this discussion, it is only appropriate to talk about a Duskblade, or any other class, with Pathfinder rules. Mentioning any sort of build that uses any 3.5 versions of feats, spells, class features, etc. is off topic and irrelevant.

Third, you keep arguing that if a and b have the same function, and a does that function better, then b is useless. Let's list out the logical steps here, with a and b representing two different characters, with c representing some function (it's been a while since I've done logic, so if I misstep on the description, forgive me; also, I don't have the right font on my computer for logic, A!x in front of a parentheses indicates that every x within the parentheses stands for "for all things x," ie anything that can fill the criteria of x; also also, if you do not understand logical notation, Something(x,y) means x does something to y).

1: Performs(a,c) & Performs(b,c)
2: If Performs(a,c) > Performs(b,c), then a>b, and b is worthless and should never be played.
3: Performs(duskblade, gish) > Performs(magus, gish)
Conclusion: duskblade>magus, and magus is worthless and should never be played.

Okay, fine. I can understand that, sorta. There's a bit of a problem though if you change line three to include something else, though. Let's see...

1: Performs(a,c) & Performs(b,c)
2: If Performs(a,c) > Performs(b,c), then a>b, and b is worthless and should never be played.
3: A!b(A!c(Performs(pun-pun,c) > Performs(b,c)))
Conclusion: Pun-Pun is better than everything else at any given task. Therefore, everything else is worthless and should never be played.


For you to be consistent with everything you've said, you can only ever play Pun-Pun in your games. If that's how you have fun, then fine. But if I want to play something a bit less than completely optimized, then don't criticize me. Sometimes playing the same thing that wins in the same way over and over again is unenjoyable.

[jindra34]

Thank you XenoGeno. Although I might add that even in A does X greater than B, and C does Y greater than B, does not make B worthless unless there exists a class D that does both X and Y better than B. And it seems to take a lot of effort to get that across.

[Elitarismo]

If most of the classes are so weak, then that means when they are used against you they are also weak. Weak vs Weak = ok.

Our DM regularly pits us against NPCs with class levels, and our party of Inquisitor, Witch, Cavalier, and Ninja are doing just fine against enemy Rogues and enemy Fighters, for example. We're even doing fine against hordes of zombies right now (we're not high level)

If you defeat a 9 year old at Street Fighter, are you proud of yourself, or do you determine that fighting worthy opponents would be a better display of your ability?

NPC Fighters and Rogues are the weakest and easiest things you could possibly fight, except for NPC Monks and especially in PF.

Zombies can be kited indefinitely by anyone.

When you fight worthy opponents, those being monsters and NPC casters, there will be suffering, there will be pain, and there will be death.

Pun Pun is absurd, and a non example. Wizard however is a playable class. Duskblade is a playable class. To say that one of them > something else, when they do is a valid argument to make.

[jindra34]

So being able to handle things that are by the system proper challenges does not make a character competent?

And part was superiority does not make something superior. And not everyone sees playing DnD/PF as a game of rocket tag as a good thing.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: This seems to have become a pointless off topic argument. Thread locked.