I kinda like the fighter change. Maybe the best one I've seen on the boards.
I must say it was heavily inspired by the Warblade from the Tome of Battle.
Man, is this guy still trying to win the thread?
Hey, is this a competition? Someone should have told me! And there I was, just in for a conversation...
Ouch! The very existence of Kate Perry was unknown to me, and frankly, my life was just fine that way. :-P
Geeky Rick Astley wrote:
Jinx Wigglesnort wrote:
That is why I always try to take what people write as casually written or at face value before infering from a few words a whole hidden agenda and complete array of sordid motives. And if people do that - I don't think I have to change myself for them. I prefer to be naive. I they so much dominate a forum that I feel I need to meta-comment everything I write, I'll simply find another forum.
Jinx Wigglesnort wrote:
It was twofold.
First, we wanted a sword and sorcery feel (think Howard) and we felt spontaneous casters were a better fit for this, and that "oriental themed" class did not fit that mood very well. So we banned every "prepared caster class".
We also wanted to give the rogue and fighter a small boost in order for 1) - the warrior to be a "smart" martial class, the wisdom and/or brawn being held by ranger/paladin and barbarian class respectively and 2) we felt the need to boost the rogue and fighter a little because we intended to restrict the disponibility of magic items in the game, again to fit the sword and sorcery mood.
Second, we wanted to keep the bookeeping at minimum, in order to speed up combat and game preparation - we wanted a somewhat pulpy mood, and felt that by cutting the downtime (in game and IRL) needed by prepared casters, we would be able to have a somehow faster pacing. It worked very well.
As for multiclassing and prestige classes, we again felt that by restricting ourselves to archetypes, the choice was still large enough to allow for a lot of character concepts and that a clear growth path for characters was a good thing because it often allowed us to gain a level on the fly at dramatic moments.
For example, our sorceress gained a level, and a new spell level, while fighting for survival against her own son who turned bad by making a deal with a demon - she was able to pick up a new spell on the fly and cast it while raging against her son who also was the murderer of her lover. Pulpy, yes, but the player knew she would have to stay a sorceress, so it was possible to flow that into the narrative without her taking a lot of time thinking what her next class level should be, or what feat was needed for a long term build. We felt this restriction gave a more "organic" approach to character development, which was a nice fit with our play style and aim for that game.
So, as you may see, the changes were made not for argument about the perfect balance for the general game, but we took the game as a toolkit in order to craft something we wanted to experience for a specific game.
Would I always play the game this way? No. It worked very well for what it intended to do. I think next time we will restrict magic to psionics make the guns common and have a post-apocalyptic political/faction based campaign in a continent-large ruined city. No elves, gnome or dwarves, but human, goblins and rat/cat-people, maybe?
Maybe next one everybody will need to play a prepared caster, and every other character in the game world will be a npc class or a prepared caster, and we will make a world were different mage consortiums rules over the world. Divine magic won't exist and "gods" and religion will only be political tools in the hands of wizards and witches. Add Cthullu-like outsiders for the fun, and make being an elf or half-elf a necessity for spellcasting - adding racial tension between elven mages and a new cast of young half-elves trying to get the magocracy to treat humans better?
So, while I'm being served with the argument stating that by restricting the class selection, I'm somehow making the game shallow for the players, I think that restrictions on races/classes may be more of a way to draw a good setting and have a lot of fun that the vanilla game can't offer without restriction (even if it is a very fine game as it is).
Edit: So, why don't we play other game systems then? Simply put, because not everybody in our group have the time to get into another ruleset everytime we want to try some crazy idea, and everybody is competent enough with d20/pathfinder.
Ha! :-) Ok, I almost spilled my drink through my nose.
Jinx Wigglesnort wrote:
Ok, Doc. Why do I need to justify, rationalize or give evidence for a homeruling that aim to nerf spellcasters and restrict character choices in order to fit a setting idea and give a distinctive flavor to a campaign world?
Here is one try: Me and my players though it would be fun to play such a campaign?
Here is a interresting distinction:
Homebrew forum: You may want to experiment with the rules and offer advice how you can achieve a certain goal with some tweaks and houserules.
General forum: you discuss the balancing of the rules, not for a specific campaign, but as a whole, published and coherent game.
I would need to give justifications of the kind you seem to be searching for if I was talking on the general forum. I am not. I am not saying casters need to be nerfed in Patfinder. I am saying IF you want to nerf them, in order to achieve a game-specific goal (like a special mood for your game), here is how I did it and why it worked well enough.
My comment "As that is exactly what I intended to do, I fail to see your point." was made before I understood that most people here don't seem to make any distinction between a discussion on the homebrew and general forum. I really did not get that this guy was (wrongly) thinking I was proposing that the game should always be played this way, and that my houserules should be integrated in the core book, or I don't know. I really failed to see his point - because he was making a comment about the general game on the house ruling forum.
As this distinction is not made, it seems there is no place in the forum to discuss campaign specific ruling without being attacked by people defending that the sole way you should play the game is vanilla.
Well, if you want to discuss the vanilla game - stay away from the homebrew forum! You KNOW people there will be posting rule changes and modifications to the base game in order to achieve specific goals for their homebrew campaigns. Like PFS do, like Golarion do (if only by expanding and not by restricting), like (almost)all settings ever published do.
It's hilarious that you try to play the victim when you clearly just wanted to one up the person who replied to you over two months ago. It's clear by the post you necro'd with that there it had nothing at all to do with a "polite discussion" or anything like that.
Oh, here comes the board's psychoanalyst who can, reading a one line comment, know your intentions better than you do and have a complete psychological understanding of who you are.
Let it die, man, I understood - you can't discuss this topic on the forum. I won't do it gain. It is not worth the hassle. No need to get insulting.
He said it in the homebrew forum!
And yes, I did ban those options, in a game, for a specific purpose I explained. I never stated you should do that everytime. The players all knew and agreed it was a good idea to try in order to have a different flavor for a sword and sorcery world. Homebrew, remember?
If you, as a player, would not want to try this, nobody is forcing you to. And nobody is stating this is the only way the game should be played. Why is that bad? Is it bad if me and my friends install a mod on a computer game we own because we want to experience it another way?
Anyway, have it your way, man, your holier-than-thou attitude ensure I will stay away from this board, and you'll be free to spread your gaming religion all you want.
You'll have to excuse me. I just like poking fun of thread necromancy and yours really seemed like you were, for some reason, trying to get the last word in.
It is often difficult to grasp people intentions on the internet. But thanks for the apology - really decent of you.
Ok, the OP asked for ways to nerf spellcasters in his game (and he may do so if he wish, it's his game) and I offered some way I achieved the same goal in my game.
Now, how is that bad? The debate never was "should you nerf spellcasters", but, "IF you want to nerf them, for a certain story, how would you proceed?"
If you don't want to nerf them, good for you, but can we not, between people who agree that it may be, sometime and for certain storytelling purposes or world flavor,a fun thing to do, ask how to best achieve this goal?
As for the thread necromancy, well, I have been very busy at work in the past two months, but I am still interrested in the OP's problem and to know if and how he achieved his goal. That's the beauty of the written word - you can come back to a discussion when you have time!
I really ment no harm, and I am rather dazzled by the reaction and rude policing you get on this board when politely discussing something.
Hey Zaardnarr, if you still want to discuss this, pm me - it seems discussing house ruling (even in the homebrew subforum) is subject to ostracism on this board, (Where RAW is LAW. ;-)
Well, anyway, happy new year everyone!
I like your style, and gritty settings myself, but next time, maybe a warning before beginning the campaign about the mood that you intend to give it would be a good thing.
Also, I always feel you can have two different ways of playing the game. (most game a a mash-up of those, but tend to be heavily loaded on one side or the other.)
1) The GM create a story for the characters - the reward is for the player to see his character overcome challenges and shine.
2) The Players and GM togethers create a story for the sake of the story - the characters are tools to craft an interresting narrative - the reward being the global narrative. As tools, character may suffer or even (in the most extreme cases) die for the story to be good.
Both ways are very fun and I don't think one is better, but the second one is the best way to get a tragic, hopeless, game-of-throney campaign to work properly. And you MUST explain to the players that if they want to enjoy the game, they have to get in this way of thinking.
I, for one, would love to play that Paladin - the character is in a very good place to tell a great tragic story. Maybe a little positive feedback after the game, like, "wow, man, your character is really fantastic - making that choice was not easy, and what you did made the story we are telling each other so much better." or something along that line.
But, maybe your players just want to play option 1. That's cool too, and they have the right to want it and to feel betrayed if you had 2 in mind but they got into the game not knowing it and thinking they would get 1.
Maybe taking some time, before next game, to talk about what you hope to achieve and asking feedback from your players would stop the "moaning" - if they want to get into a type 2 game, good, now everybody knows what they are in for, and if they don't want it, you may switch to a type 1 game.
What wont work, I think, is to have some players in a type 1 mood along with some players in a type 2 mood. Seriously - that will be bad - and players may even come to dislike playing with each others.
Anyway, my 2 cents.
Yeah, they are Odd - they can think. ;-)
Seriously, I wanted a martial class that would rely on intelligence. If you want the sneaky type, go Ranger, for the strong intuitive type, Barbarian and for the charismatic type, Cavalier. I borrowed heavily from the ToB Warblade class.
The fighter's player also feel way more usefull out of battle, and can really shine using combat manoeuvres.
But I know it's not for everyone. Still, even with that, spellcasters still are stronger than fighters, even if we feel the gap is narrowing.
Here are my home rules, if they may inspire you. I made some serious changes to rogues and fighters, and banned prepared spellcasters. I feel they changes, when taken together, go a long way toward "balancing" casters and noncasters. I know a lot of people on these forums are against such restrictions, but the player knew about it, and it makes for a very interresting sword and sorcery world (I was thinking Robert E. Howard)- a flavor difficult to get when you play the "vanilla" game.
No Magus, Monks, Summoners, Samurais, Ninjas or Paladins allowed. No prepared casters. No multiclassing allowed. No prestige classes allowed. Archetypes are fine as long as they don't contradict home rules. Everybody is human. There is no race restriction on feats, archetypes, traits or favorite class bonuses. You may exchange your human bonus feat for any racial trait, pending approval.
Inquisitors stay the same.
The delayed access to spell levels coming with the ban on prepared casters makes for a very interresting game, and non-caster feel they are more usefull to the group as the casters can't play all roles - they have to choose spells carefully. It's still possible to scribe scrolls for utility spells.
Gunslingers stays the same.
Fighters get 4 skills points/level.
They get combat expertise for free at first level.
Starting at first level, you gain an insight bonus equal to your Intelligence bonus on reflex saves. You also gain your Int bonus on your touch AC, even when flatfooted.
Starting at 3rd level, you gain an insight bonus equal to your Intelligence bonus on rolls made to confirm critical hits.
At 7th level, you gain an insight bonus equal to your Intelligence bonus on melee damage rolls against flat-footed or flanked opponents. This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit.
At 11th level, you gain an insight bonus equal to your Intelligence bonus on any CMB and CMD check
At 15th level, you gain an insight bonus equal to your Intelligence bonus on melee attack rolls and melee damage rolls made whenever you make an attack of opportunity.
Rogues receive the scout archetype's "skirmisher" talent and normal sneak attacks at first level.
They also get a rogue talent at first level.
They also get the following:
Nimble Mind : A gets a bonus to saving throw bonus against mind-affecting spells from the Enchantment and Divination schools. This bonus is equivalent to the Fighter's Bravery bonus for level progression.
It's a fun game, we're having a blast, and those choices also keep bookeeping at a minimum. I often feel getting rid of the prepared casters is the best decision I made for the game.
If you play an elf, look at the spellbinder archetype in advanced race, or petition your DM to let you take it instead of arcane bond. It won't change anything but arcane bond, and it let you slowly build a list of spell you can always cast instead of one you prepared.
Not as versatile as the bonded item, but still pretty usefull to be able to fall back on one or two spells you know you may have to cast but don't want to prepare as an EK, even if by level 4-5 you'll have on thaht list a level one and a level two spells.
Grease, True strike, Mount, Knock, wathever. You'll be able to pull it out of your bag when needed and prepare more "combat oriented" spells for your EK.
The way I see it, it's all about the gear.
I would go for ranger (trapper archetype) with 2 levels of Shadowdancer, maybe with a dip of 2 levels or more in Alchemist (grenadier archetype.)
(A ghestalt Trapper/Grenadier would be awesome)
Drop some feats on hand to hand combat.
Have fun with all the gadgets - booby trapped batarangs and smoke bombs? Check. Remote control detonation (with a discovery?) check. Stealth, Hight Bab and tracking/disarming? Check. Analytical mind and chemical analysis? Check.
Anyway, if you really like d20 and want to play Batman, take a look at Mutant and Mastermind. - You can use the system for fantasy, and nothing prevents you from dropping Batman in a fantasy game, as the system is robust and will balance out power levels. Quite a nice alternative to Pathfinder when you want to experiment with a more pulpy fantasy feeling.
Ah, I sunk so many hours in this game.
As each expansion changes a lot in the gameplay, I would suggest you grab the latest 2 expansions already. Else, you'll have to re-learn a lot of the game mechanisms when you finally get them.
HttT is a must have anyway, and DW is pretty good. Anyway, you'll need them if you plan on playing multi.
Now, back to Crusader Kings 2!
A Diabolically Evil Villain wrote:
Damn, they say trap the soul, but they trap the body. Bastards!
And, well, I guess this thread may be a gem, but I doubt it's worth 1000 gp.
I think the thing about rogues (more than any other melee class) is you need to support them. Everyone needs to support them. If everyone treats the rogue like an artillery piece which has to have its position planned out carefully for it to be effective then the team will make sure the rogue can melt some faces. I've even seen our inquisitor use the swap places teamwork feat to make sure the rogue was in the best possible position for a full attack on his next turn.
I agree with you, a well played Rogue, with good support, can work wonders.
But it's difficult to pull of when you are still learning the rules. How to position yourself, how to delay in order too act after the buff, etc. Your Inquisitor example is the proof that you don't only need to be aware of the game rules and your character's powers, but also of the powers of other characters.
Rogue is probably the most difficult martial class to play as it requires a very good grasp of the system and of your party abilities - that is why, for a first time player, I would go with any self sufficient class who can play the roguish stealth and disarm genre like a Trapper Ranger or an Archeologist Bard.
Archaeologist's Luck is easier to use than sneak attack - you don't have to position yourself or anything. (and let him use the modified version giving rounds per day equal to bardic performances - the designers said somewhere that the number of rounds of luck was pretty much an error.)
Write down spells on cards - as a new player, it will be much easier for him.
At level 6 you gain uncanny dodge, evasion, trap sense, can disable magic traps (and take 10 on disable devices check) and have one Rogue Talent.
You are pretty much a rogue with some spontaneous spells and an easier to use ability to replace sneak attacks. Pick more "roguish" skills like stealth, and you are a better rogue than the rogue.
If you want a Dex build, go for for the Dervish Dance feat. Dump Str, have Cha just high enough for spells and pick buffs (don't go for offensive spells as your DC won't be high enough, pick things like mirror image, cats grace, heroism)and have a high dex. You may want to take a feat or two in ranged combat to be a good switch hitter.
It may seem more difficult to play than a straight rogue, but believe me, it take a lot of thinking in able to land a sneak attack and a rogue is pretty difficult to play if you do not master every rule of combat and are not able to react with delayed actions to other players' moves.
The archeologist is very straithforward in combat. Cast a spell or use luck, move and attack.
Alex Draconis wrote:
The same is true for a high fantasy world where magic is very common. Surveillance - Scry. Farcasting your ego - teleport. Ego fork - clone. Ressurection? Reincarnation? Massive access to healing spells?
If you can run that kind of fantasy (Pathfinder level 9+) it is not that difficult to run Eclipse Phase.
They don't care about their fork? Have them "killed" switch back to the main ego, and let them learn the fork is now being held hostage and interrogated for all their secrets and knowledge. They will want to get it back? Good - but the fork have been booby trapped with psych engineering and when they merge back, they are now have a trojan horse in their mind so a member of the shadow organisation can disable them, or send them on a killing spree with but a whispered word.
They'll care about the next fork.
Be creative. Be devious. They will love it.
The best storyteller game for combat(if you set Exalted aside)was, quite surprisingly, STREET FIGHTER: THE STORYTELLING GAME
Forget it, I was still thinking about 3.5. Last time I saw a paladin around our table Pahfinder did not exist.
They are not a popular class in my group.
They may spend more points in Str or Con, not having to split betweem Cha and Wis.
Sorcerers and Bards will get better will saves also.
All in all, I don't think it would unbalance the game, as the skill points will still need to be spent, and a sorcerer or Bard will save won't be better than a cleric's.
Also, it would somewhat limit "abusive" dumping, for fear of a bad will save.
You may have to look closely at racial adjustments.
But I feel it would be simple enough to houserule this and that it would benefit the game.
Take your character sheet.
cross out charisma
Use presence for all the things charisma and wisdom were used for.
Also - Paladins are less MAD and Monks don't need to grunt anymore. Yeah!
Lord Snow wrote:
The end of the episode never happened in the books.
But is strongly implied. You never read about a character seeing it, but I remember knowing that what was happening to Craster's sons, so it must be in there somewhere.
Marc Radle wrote:
Asha - Theon's sisterNatalie Dormer - Margaery Tyrell
Geico Insurance Pig wrote:
No, bacon is a vegetable. I always have vegetable in my plate. I always eat enough vegetable. Bacon IS a vegetable. In fact, I often eat vegan meals made entirely out of bacon. That is how counscious I am you need to eat more vegetable and less meat.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
However, the real value of religion comes from the fact that the scripture is inconsistent and unclear. The value comes from the debate and arguments within the church/temple/etc. So, people will disagree and beliefs will evolve. This is good.
According to the sociologist and historian of religion Marcel Gauchet, who went straight to the logical conclusion of this historical thesis in his famous book The Disenchantment of the World: A Political History of Religion, christian values ensured that the belief in god evolved until it was no longer needed, as the debate and arguments led to prefer the rational thinking involved in debating to the non-rational belief in god. Christian religion is thus for him "the religion of the end of religion."
He went as far as to say that christian values, submited to the rational pressure of theological debate, was the historical core of laicity and modern atheism.
An interresting read, in any case.
Why do they need a name. If you go for the bloodline sorcerers, let them just refer to themselves as "the family" to designate the "pure members" and "the bastards" when the pure-blooded talks about the others of lesser lineage...
Let the players find the group name. Often, criminal groups are named by people from the outside.
Edit: Or just go with the cult of Bob.
And use a ridicoulous name (always have the forename and family name start with the same consonant), a fake title and a useless profession skill, and hand over colorfull and glowing business cards to everyone you encounter.
Slap Sizzlestick, Mage extraordinaire and beekeeper