|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Its not just the narrative, its because it significantly reduces weapon-based characters usefulness.
I hate the full-attack action. With a blinding hot passion. I find it unfathomable that a highly trained warrior that can survive dragon fire, liches spells, takes on giants and trolls, and can be an overall awesome warrior cannot move and swing his weapon 2, 3, 4 times. Completely ridiculous.
tony gent wrote:
I feel "Old School" is all in how you approach a game, adhering to specific tenants and ideals instead of a particular system. For a more in-depth analysis...
• Resource Management:
• Obtaining Features:
• Healing/Hit Points
These are some of the things that always jump out at me when I discussions on old school. Luckily every version of D&D can do this so its not tied to a specific version. At least, the way I see it
This is one particular reason why I've come to love E6 (E7 PF) as a whole game. 4th level Spells seems to be the start where magic takes a far stronger sense in the game but Martials (in this instance, any class with a full-BAB is considered so) still do significantly well because they're the only ones that have 2 attacks compared to the spellcasters.
If I am the GM I would talk this out with my players before the campaign s to set expectations.
That's a good idea. When I joined a 3.5 game a LONG time ago the DM was very up-front on how staunch he was in adhering to alignments, especially the Paladin and it's Code. Wanting to play a similar-style character, I decided to go Fighter/Cleric so I didn't get hit with all sorts of similar catch-22 situations. Worked out well considering the Cleric/Fighter combination is just straight-up better than the Paladin mechanics wise (well, in v3.5 anyways).
Fair enough. I'm coming from the angle that because feats are highly prized, choosing one and realizing that it doesn't mesh well or work as well as one thought sort of saddles your character a bit. A Fighter who took Toughness at 1st level, for example, only sees a very marginal gain as they advance so that would be one feat that had some early potential that significantly depreciated over a character's career. Swapping that out, later one, for something that allows them to qualify for a better feat at a later level should be encouraged.
By the by, no my character didn't use the retraining rules to reshape the character. Since we all were basically exchanging a whole new system for another, our DM figured that a re-write was the best solution. And when you look at it my Rogue/Swashbuckler/Swordmage turned Rogue/Stalker pretty much did all the stuff the previous one did except maybe buckle a few less swashes? I never really understood the Swashbuckler (3.x OR PF) flavor in anything outside of a pirate/sea setting, I just grabbed the class because it had a full BAB and added Intelligence to damage rolls. With the Stalker and the Unchained Rogue I get amazing stance (Battle Dragon Stance) and still retain Dex to damage rolls, which is nice.
In my experience, it depends. For example we have an ongoing Pathfinder game that started when Burnt Offerings came out. It was 3.5. I made my Rogue from a 3.5 standpoint. Since then LOADS have changed and going back to that particular campaign (now on The Hook Mt. Massacre) we've converted fully to PF rules. I went from a 3.5 Rogue 6/ Swashbuckler 3/ Swordsage 1 to a Rogue 7/ Stalker 3 and the difference are pretty significant and I'm having more fun with the Stalker and his disciplines than I was with the Swordsage. Not to mention my character is better as an Unchained Rogue than the 3.5 version.
The problem is this game is FULL of such stuff. Why can't the character stay good over the course of 20,levels compared to just a few? I mean look at most spellcasters, the lot of them can replace old spells with new and better ones as they level so why penalize other characters further?
SO what you're saying is no matter what a creature does, they cannot change alignment sub-type ever? Then why are we even talking about redemption when it's actually impossible? If you're sub-type is ALWAYS going to be Chaotic, Evil then by that standard you cannot EVER act against you're nature.
Either sub-type alignment is being played up far too much OR you've just noticed a serious flaw in the game design. Or, most likely, a combination of both.
There is zero hate here as this is a theoretical situation, and not a real current game situation.
I hope my post didn't come off as "Hate" or anything like that. I feel alignment of the creature and it's association with a divine class (especially a Paladin) far out ranks that of the creature's sub-type.
That's not how detect evil works...
Standard Action to cast.
Detects the presence of evil in a 60-ft. cone. The level of evil is determined by how long the paladin remains concentrating on the spell.
Round 1- the Presence of evil.
At this junction, the level and class of the creature would play into effect (Paladin) and her alignment along with it. BOTH would be NOT Evil. You're putting FAR FAR too much emphasis on their sub-type.
That's a start...
Aside from Feats, there's nothing on this list I'd consider "sacred" and quite a few I'd list as negative contributors to the system overall. The reliance on magical gear, healing being tied almost exclusively to magic, penalizing iterative attacks, auto-stacking of buff spells to nearly outshine non-spellcasting classes, and poor saves for classes who really need them are all (IMO) design flaws better left in the dust and really don't contribute anything positive to the game overall.
Milo v3 wrote:
Exactly. What the ToB did was allow non-spell casters (namely the Warblade, which didn't have access to Disciplines that used Supernatural effects) to have unique features similar to spells on an encounter-basis. That's about it.
on Unchained Classes: I just converted my Rogue to the Unchained version and after playing him for a session last night, was a significant difference in playability. I like that they get Weapon Finesse for free AND that their Dex adds to damage for specific weapons. It frees up two feats right there and makes them better overall.
On Caster / Martial disparity: After playing last night with a Shadow-based Wizard and a Summoner (unchained version) I've come to the conclusion that if they have absolutely zero idea what they're doing, they're going to stink. The Summoner player really didn't know what feats to grab, what magical items to use, or to use his Eidilon for any specific purposes. The wizard was better but mostly because he was using spells that made everyone else better like giving everyone Darkvision for 10 hours and Haste during combat (which was really nice for my Rogue).
When classes like these are put into the hands of experienced, well-knowledgeable players they have the potential to steal the spotlight but I feel, after this experience, that my Rogue/Stalker will still be a viable ally to the group well into mid-levels due to the DPR just being crazy at 200 per round.
Also, I'd like to point out that the DM should have a very prominent role in tailoring the adventures (either homemade or an adventure path) so that it allows for everyone to shine. If the Wizard or other spellcaster is making it difficult for others to do their thing, the DM needs to step up the game and alter the situation.
Full BAB =/= Martial. Martial is, in most cases, classes that don't rely on magic or supernatural abilities as class features or staple points in their design. I'd make the exception of the Rogue and minor/major magic talent because that's an added buff that supplements their mostly martial abilities.
As for Fighter "hate"...really? The Fighter is one of my favorite classes that started with AD&D 2e, 4e, and 5e. 3e and, by that extension, Pathfinder I felt really hampered the class (and the Bab system in general). I want the Fighter to succeed! I want the fighter to be distinguished from other classes but instead we got a tier 5 class that has one or two gimmicks and that's about it. THIS does an amazing job of summarizing the deficiency within the class and potential ways to make it better.
Lol, you don't see a problem for the Martial because you're not really playing one. In your examples you've just illustrated how good a paladin can be with supernatural attacks and spells. A martial is supposed to do that how again??
System fixes would include the removal of descending attacks overall, giving the wizard (and other full-arcane class) 1 weapon base attack over 20 levels, cleric/druid 2 weapon base attacks over 20 levels, barbarian, paladin, ranger 3 weapon-based attacks over 20 levels, and the Fighter 4 attacks over 20 levels. Remove full-round attacks altogether and allow fighters to use Combat Maneuvers as swift actions (WITHOUT elaborate feat chains) and no penalties to pull off stunts. Maybe give them automatic buffs to their CMB/CMD too. Also more skill points per level wouldn't hurt.
Then they (fighter specifically), can use all weapons including non-racial exotic weapons, apply feats like weapon focus to any weapon wielded, and ignore armor penalties / speed restrictions when wearing any armor. PF does some of this, but not far enough IMO.
I've felt the CORE system mechanics were so terribly bad for weapon-based users that it pushes the game towards playing spellcasters. Look at the diminishing attack progression. Look at the Full-Attack Action. Look at ALL the examples where you have to have a feat or take extreme penalties or get attacks with AoO. It's exclusionary-design means that if you don't have X to perform Y, then you're going to pay for it significantly OR it'll be very difficult to perform. To me, that's poor design.
Further the Fighter, in particular, really has nothing distinctive about it. It's focus on [Fighter] Feats in v3.5 and [Combat] Feats in Pathfinder still give it nothing concrete that says THIS is a Fighter. Not more attacks like in 5e, not distinctive abilities and powers like in 4e and not even weapon specialization like they had in AD&D 2e (if I remember correctly?). To distinguish the strength of the Fighter in d20 (3e/PF) they needed to give him ways around the systemic issues that applies to everyone using a weapon like ignores the Full-Attack + move restriction, makes a full 5th attack at their full BAB, increase ALL BAB by +1 or +2 at specific levels, automatic proficiency with all non-racial Exotic Weapons, bonus to saves against ALL magic / SLA's.
Looking at these, I'd actually want to play a Fighter besides for the usual 1 or 2 level dip.
Do you like this game (Pathfinder)?
Yes and No.
Yes because it's practically free and it's close enough to v3.5 that the majority of my System Mastery has remained in tact. Further, their Adventure Paths are pretty good and I have a Rogue 7/ Stalker 3 that is just fun as HELL to play.
No because the model it's based from, 3e/v3.5, sucks at it's core concept. Its system is actively punitive to anyone wielding a weapon, pushes for specific builds to be "the best", has traps ALL over the place that requires system-mastery to dodge, and is in general a mess due to the extreme amount of material to draw from. Not only that but it practically says "play spellcasters past X-level to be relevant" and it's HIGHLY dependent on magical items to even come close to making it "fair". The vast disparity all over makes it a game I can play in small doses at low- to mid-levels. When my Rogue hits 12th to 14th level in a group with a Wizard and Summoner, I can play second fiddle to the Wizard's extreme ease to create/use magical items that make me irrelevant OR the Summoner's Eidolon which will be able to make more attacks at equal or higher value, heal others, self-heal, teleport, grow in size, gain DR, by-pass DR, gain breath weapons, fly, etc.
It's a matter of time before my Rogue retires to a nice spot to grow old before I create a Cleric or Druid that will be able to complement the team for the remainder of the Rise of the Runelord's AP.
All 18's across the board?!! Wow, that's sorta crazy. No wonder they feel weak, since they're pretty much superheroes (stat-wise) early on. Well if they're feeling too weak, you could throw easier enemies at them but make their significance to the story higher. And throw lots at them that make combats that much more grand. I mean a 3d4 burning hands spell looks a lot better when it wipes out 5-7 goblins compared to 1 orc.
So with all the Martial / Caster discrepancy threads coming in I figured that I delve into probably is one of the most systemic problems facing Martials with v3.5 and Pathfinder. The two being a Full-Attack action and descending attack bonuses. Now this isn't just a problem for Martials as all classes are affected by this to some degree however I feel Martial classes are affected, by far, more than spellcasters since they are the ones that use that particular system the most.
The first problem is Full-Attack. One of the problems this creates is rooting a weapon-based user in place. It doesn't matter if they wield a sword or bow, they only ever benefit from one of their biggest class features when they're standing completely still or have only moved 5-ft. Now imagine if a spellcaster, to cast higher level spells (5th level +), was under the same limitation. I think the entire game would shift in a different way in the way it's played. This also creates a divide in melee-weapon choices, thus making reach weapons FAR more preferable to one-handed/light weapons IF you want to make sure enemies don't slip by you and conversely, weapons like the Spiked Chain become #1 overall.
I'm not entirely sure why the rule of Full-Attack is in place? I don't really understand what it's exactly trying to emulate within the narrative of the game world? Why can't a warrior move 30-ft. and swing a weapon in 6-seconds? Is the time constraint of a round that pivotal to maintain that ALL classes are reduced to move + 1 attack or don't move + ALL attacks? Why is it there?
The second problem are descending attack modifiers. As the AC is static, the modifier is static too and the die roll represents chance / luck / fate / etc. But then why make it further complicated by making iterative attacks worse? What exactly changed between attack #1 and #2 or #3 or #4? What is this specific rule attempting to simulate? I don't think it's endurance or fatigue because it's the same with the opposed hand (a hand that is often 'weaker' by comparison). Does the monster somehow react exceptionally fast after the first swing is created? Even if you take a more narrative view of multi-attacking (each attack isn't 1 swing but the whole round is a commotion of parries and thrusts) then descending attacks don't necessarily make much sense. In sword fighting it's often the 1st attack that is a decoy or ruse that will open up you opponent to secondary and iterative attacks. Except in D&D/PF-Land where the first attack is always swung hardest and all other attacks sort of become weaker and slower and less useful.
So what this boils down to is a Warrior/Martial character who has to stand-still (barring a 5-ft. step) to get his full benefit BUT even then that benefit is hampered as those last attacks become just hopefull-critial threats anyways.
Now imagine if both those rules were removed! Yep, what would happen if the Martial / Warrior didn't have to stand in a 5-ft. area to be a Weapons-Master? What would happen if ALL of their attacks were accurate (and deadly)?
Now one serious downside to removing these restrictions is that you have to remove them from everyone. That means creatuers like Dragons and Hydras and the like can make all their attacks, fly, and be destructive forces of nature in their own right. Well, honestly, I'm OK with that. Dragons are scary dangerous and walking into it's DEN to throw down should be a sure-fire way to get eaten. If a Hydra has come upon you in surprise, best to scatter and used Ranged options until it's close to death. It would change the way the game is played but I think that change is ultimately for the better.
I'm not entirely sure you need something home-brewed?
I'm not sure why they don't? I've used that, and its predecessor the Time of Battle, extensively and I've yet to encounter any sort of broken shenanigans that I often see with simple spellcasters. Its a fun supplement and a reason why I still occasionally play Pathfinder
This is pretty spot on from my experiences as well. In addition to all of that the system itself is pretty hard to weapon-based classes as well. Descending attack bonuses, full-round attacks being the two major hindrances.
Possibly, it really depends on what you're looking for in an RPG. Saying the system more smooth is sort of hard to determine because if you're already geared towards the micromanaging nature of Pathfinder then you only notice a lack of it in 5e as there are FAR less fiddly bits in that system. For some, those fiddly bits are what drives the fun of the game where as for others it's more of a burden.
If you have a better understanding of the two systems, would you either point me to a link that describes the differences or would you take a few moment to quickly point out the finer points of 5th edition?
Magic is more limited in the later stages, gaining only a few spells from 6th through 9th level. Magic is also limited because of the Concentration mechanic. Because of this, magic-users aren't slapping multiple stacking spells to own encounters so quickly.
There is more emphasis on encounters and short rests compared to an all-day or X/day limit. Even spellcasters get benefits with short rests.
Healing doesn't require a spellcaster OR days of rest to regain due to full HP regain and Hit Die healing.
Many unnecessary restrictions were removed from hindering weapon-based classes. Example: Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't require feats or stat requirements; you can move-attack-move without a feat; no more god-awful Full-attack action, no more lengthy feat chains to get one good benefit.
Magic items take a back seat to character power, no longer required to possess 15 magical items just to keep up with the maths. Also, maths hacked down to normal levels so we don't have monsters with AC 45, +57 to attack & dealing 235 points of damage a turn.
Death is slightly harder to come by but much more permanent.
There aren't ridiculously obvious trap choices to get fooled by.
What does that feat do?
In 4e it allows you to use another stat besides Strength for Melee Basic Attacks however the damage is only 1/2 the modifier.
In 5e it adds +1 to the stat if your choice (to a Max of 20) and you can use that stat to make melee weapon attacks. The damage is still only 1/2 the modifier. So a Paladin could take the feat and use Charisma for melee attacks or a Wizard could use Intelligence.
Overall me and my group are having fun with 5e. We're currently playing through the Tiamat adventure and while we're only 1st level, its been entertaining. Its quite easily replaced 3.5/PF in our rotation of games so now it's either 4e or 5e. Couple hours of things that I feel have worked well...
• bounded accuracy
We've added a few elements from 4e like Melee Training feat and they have worked out rather well.
Why is it that the Paladin and Ranger always get royally shanked when it comes to their spellcasting in 3.5? I mean it's bad enough that they're consistently tier 4 and 5 classes to begin with due to their extremely specific class features and the next-to-zero aid in spellcasting doesn't help them out at all. At the very least I'd give them half the amount of points the Bard gets. Really, anything to help them out because they struggled so bad in this edition.
Forever Slayer wrote:
Big corporations are the bane of RPG's and Hasbro is no exception.
Why? By all accounts 5E is doing exceedingly well. 4E did exceedingly well at first go, and many believe 3E sold extremely well too. So if by "Bane" you mean making lots of profit, then......sure?
Forever Slayer wrote:
I believe D&D would be better off in the hands of a smaller company who does not see D&D as a mega money maker but as a table top game that may not earn you billions, will earn you a nice profit while giving gamers the game they want.
They did, back in 2000. It's called the OGL. Your welcome.
Forever Slayer wrote:
I see Hasbro as the kind of company that would continue to work on a brand to make it larger than it has. I see Hasbro as a company that wants to make it more interesting to people who might not ever have gamed before. I see Hasbro as a company that wants to do more with the brand other than basically sit on it for coppers a day. I see Hasbro as a company that wants to branch into other spheres of the entertainment industry so that we can enjoy D&D-ish things in addition to just the TTRPG side of it.
To me those are all great things to strive for. They've hit some set backs, yes but I think they're learning.
Core is difficult since a lot of the better feats resides in other supplements or even in Dragon magazine. That being said I'd go with Fighter 4/ Rogue 16. You'll still get 4 attacks per turn and you'll amp up your damage by making attacks with Sneak Attack.
Stats (25 pts)
I'm not sure if this thread is still relevant but I'll throw in my 2cp.
Lets see, as a Human Monk you'll get (not including bonus feats)---
Human - Improved Initiative
The last two are pretty much filler. Same thing with Blind-Fight. Being blind really sucks so being able to roll an extra d20 is really nice to have when magical items aren't forthcoming.
As for Stats: 20,18,16,16,16,10
Without any magical aid @ 20th level:
The "feeling" of D&D, for me, is pretty general because I tend to think of D&D as the Original trope Fantasy RPG. Other games need to distance itself from D&D, not the other way around. Because of that, I tend to D&D a very large margin of variation. Things that stick out as distinctly D&D are:
• Wizards use Intelligence and spellbooks to ready and cast their spells. Every edition so far as had this feature.
• Fighters are tough, weapon-specializing warriors that excel in combat. AD&D and 4E (and to an extent 5E) did this pretty well while 3E, v3.5, and PF need specific builds to make this true (mostly due to excelling in combat part).
• Clerics are mortal instruments of their deities and channel their divine power in wondrous displays of magics and miracles. Again, every edition so far has had this feature.
• Rogues and Thieves are cunning knaves who use a specific set of weapons and tools for unscrupulous acts. Every edition has met this so far.
• Monsters should include Dragons, Mindflayers, and Beholders.
Perfection........? Now THAT is the real head scratcher
Some of the stuff I've incorporated:
• Starting HP = Constitution score. Hit Die + Con modifier at every level thereafter.
• Ported over 4E's Melee Training feat, which now grants a +1 bonus to one Ability score of your choice (without going over 20) and you now use that particular score's modifier when rolling for weapon attacks. You only deal half the modifier's number in damage (rounded down). So a Cleric who choose Melee Training (Wisdom) gets +1 to his/her Wisdom score and say they now have a Wisdom 17 (+3), they would add +1 to weapon damage rolls.
• Daggers are more deadly when used in close combat such as grappling, increasing their damage die to d8.
• I'll probably also convert more 4E powers into maneuvers for the Battle Master to pick, as well as anyone who grabs the maneuver-based feat.
• Figuring out a homebrew for the Warlord as well.
Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
Just remember that 5th Edition does not need the crazy bonuses that 3.5 and Pathfinder use. Magic bonuses per item cap at +3 for a reason and the system is meant to be low magic when it comes to items. You could make masterwork weapons cost half the price of a +1 magic weapon, since masterwork only gives you the bonus on the hit and not damage. Masterwork armor is more of a problem, since it would be identical to +1 magic armor, just not being magic.
Masterwork armor in 3e/v3.5/Pathfinder just gives reduces the armor check penalty by 1. So 5e's Masterwork armor could remove Disadvantage on Stealth checks or maybe lower the Strength requirement to wear it properly?