Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6218264" data-attributes="member: 87792">If Ultimate Combat had included the Magus (credit where it's due, that's a good class) I wouldn't be having this problem to the same degree - the Magus' place is definitely arguable.    But there are almost 20 first level sorceror/wizard spells in the book.  Four are gun related (five if you count Jury Rig, six for Air Bubble).  32 second level spells - there's no reason for Protection from Chaos, Communal to be combat as opposed to magic.And you are making my point.  If we want context, there should be more in Ultimate Combat to support non-casters in beating up casters than there is to support casters being even more awesome than they already were.  This is Pathfinder doubling down on one type of assumption (wizard supremacy) and with the failure to perform of the gunslinger further doubling down on the Fighters Don't Get Nice Things issue of Pathfinder.Or if we want context your way should the ways to deal with spellcasters without magic be all over Ultimate Magic?  After all we want to put the mages in context.But that you think further increasing wizard supremacy is the right thing to do for Ultimate Combat is only making my point.  It's a very pathfinder approach that turns many other people off.  And that they do it all over the combat book further indicates that they have no interest in people who don't want magic uber allies.  Limited playstyles supported indeed - your worldbuilding assumptions are whereas mine aren't.  I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with your assumption there, merely that it is narrow and puts others off.  There is more than one way to do things, and Pathfinder goes the Pathfinder way rather than trying to broaden the tent where there are obvious opportunities to.</blockquote>

Verification