Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Stronfeur Uherer

Trogdar's page

1,226 posts (1,229 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,226 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4e fallacy is just another kind of false dilemma. Balance does not lead to homogenized systems inherently. It has nothing to do with the financial success of said gaming system.


I think I will wait and see how unchained looks before coming to any concrete decision one way or another.

If unchained can modify the core game mechanics enough to bring the linear scale of the martial classes closer to those of the quadratic casters, then I will be fairly satisfied. If not, then we may have to have this discussion again.


Since skirmish tricks are attack riders, I would probably just state that only one could reasonably be applied to each attack.

It would still be cool to set up combo moves with your pets attacks. "Attack pattern gamma Kittykins!"


... I don't think you've run the numbers when you looked at TWF. It is pretty much never better unless you are getting massive bonuses to hit and damage from a class feature like the dawnflower bard archetype.


More like the fighter gets power attack and is better at it than anyone else, as opposed to free retraining of the feat itself.


I always felt that the weapon group system was the opposite of what I wanted in a fighter. The fighter class has no versatility out of combat, and I think that it makes sense that the class can basically pick up a sharp stick off the ground and ruin your day. If I were to change the fighter class, it would be to remove weapon training and add class features that modify feats in a way that no other class could emulate.


Beopere wrote:

One issue with Crane wing was a low level character could deflect a level 20 Barbarian T-rex with rocket boosters 100% of the time. A swashbuckler will not be able to deflect that.

Perhaps not a big deal in actual play for the majority of the time, but an unsettling thought to many players including myself.

While technically true(as long as the t-Rex doesn't use attacks from bab gained through barb levels), this seems like a very niche concern at best.


Just seems like a typo. I would grant those additional feat options when the normal swashbuckler feats become available.

Edit: ninja'd by the Op of all people :)


I 100% agree Aelryinth, but it does take up space on the table, which I think at least has an effect on the perception of the classes balance.


Okay, so looking through the first level spells for inspiration, I came across swallow your fear which, while not granting the exact bonuses I would apply, gives insight as to how powerful a class feature of this level should be.

With that in mind, here is my offering.

Bravery(Ex): Starting at the 2nd level, a fighter becomes a bulwark against which fear falters. When the fighter is subject to hit point damage or must make a save against a fear or compulsion effect, he gains a +1 morale bonus to will saves and a bonus to healing effects equal to his class level for rounds equal to half his class level. This morale bonus stacks to a maximum of +5, and each stacking effect refreshes the number of rounds the effect lasts.

So basically this gives the class a kind of momentum as rounds of combat play out, making the fighter stronger in more protracted battles. The second benefit is that bravery is now something that takes up a second level class feature and that is it, which really opens up the design space.


sure, i can come up with something, but balance is subjective.

give me a few minutes.


It would be an infrequent boon at the best of times. At least the current iteration is always on. If you want to improve the bravery class feature, it should actually get better...


I wasn't stating that it should be based off of damage, just that basing it off your team taking critical hits would make it worse than the original bravery.


If its based on your party suffering damage, then it should function whenever they take damage. Unless you want bravery to be worse than it is in the core.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know what would make DPR calculations more accurate? Have the PC in question make a level appropriate save every other round. That would give you a better ballpark for the actual damage output of a "combat" class.


Its troubling to me that three feats are required to get you a +1 weapon property. I really feel like that is the design bias that is crippling any combat class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that if we are being honest about the opportunity cost associated with feats versus spells, we can say that feats should have a relative effect similar to one line of spells. What I mean is that a feat should accomplish one thing, and that thing should improve as your character does. Its the only way to make a class with ten class features compete with a class that has 60 or so.

An example might be something like blindfight working as it does now up to BAB 6 and then granting blindsense and then tremorsense at BAB 11 and then finally something akin to blindsight at bab 16.

All that said, I think effects like blindsight should grant large bonuses to spotting stealthed characters as apposed to hard countering the ability altogether. Regardless, I think you get the idea.


Investigator is the clear choice for the detective without peer. That said, if you want to play up the ninja side of the batman mythos, then ninja works well. Just make sure that if you go that route, take all the necessary traits and feats to make UMD easy for you (to simulate his gadgets).


Its worth noting though. Even humans could make a planet given time and technology. Could we make a new dimension with laws that we set though?


Harpoon with a rope attached would be epic actually.


phantom1592 wrote:
...

This actually happens to me all the time... stupid tidbits from weird parts of the brain.


No, I just think that it should grant some sort of bonus to int based skills... maybe the circumstance bonus or something, and that it should grant real benefits to those skills because, again, that is the point.


If you want to balance casters, then restrict their access to spells of wildly different sorts. If a wizard has to choose a field to specialize in, and has three barred schools, then I think you would find their power becomes much more reasonable.*

Still cosmic in their area of specialization, but not the omni-tool they currently are.

*example off the top of my head


Because if you want to play a spellcaster, then you have to accept that progression in your class choice will occur infrequently as compared to the other players.

In essence, the whole reason they got rid of these sort of balancing mechanics is because of the dynamic it creates in the real world, not the consequences within the game itself.


Okay, so basically you have a whole series of complex house rules to prevent bluff from working.

I would then have to suggest that no one lie, its a waste of time.


JoeJ wrote:

This may not be popular, but I think it might be good to look at going back to different xp levels to advance in different classes. What I would suggest is set the xp requirement at 6 xp for Rogue, 12 xp for Druid, all the other classes somewhere in between. Then instead of giving xp for monsters killed, give 1-3 xp per adventure. (1 point for successful completion, +1 if it was especially long or tough, +1 for good roleplaying.) Whenever a PC accumulates enough xp they can buy a level in whatever class they want.

Martial characters will gain levels faster than magical ones with this system, which will restore some of the balance.

While it may rebalance the game some, this is probably the most un-fun way of doing it possible.


Low level access to haste and inspire courage are not weak. The bard is the best force multiplier in the game.


So if your lying and get 100 on the dc, its better than lying and getting a 40? The ability is supposed to grant benefits to your intelligence based checks, your house rule does nothing of the sort.

Diminishing returns...


Still. Just. Bluffing.


yeah... still just bluff. I think your player is just better off by planning to take glibness to eat the impossible lie penalties and buy himself a ring of wizardry.


Dreamscarred Press: Ultimate Psionics.

This book has casters that will do everything you want with a lot of the flavour built in.


Rudy2 wrote:

It depends on how roleplay-centric the game is. Thematically, it is a roleplay-heavy ability.

But yes, in any case, if you're going to place an interpretation of this sort on it, I definitely agree the player should have the option to retrain it.

Right, but I would point out that your "roleplay-centric" game simply benefits more from keeping the spell, because at least it will see use more than once a year... or four.


Sure, that could work, but I would offer your player the option to retrain the ability for nothing because Rudy2's suggestion is hugely situational(like on the verge of never going to see this happen, and if said opportunity does arise, the player with the ability doesn't even remember they have it any more).... Though that may be what you want?


Dude, these people are not lying to you. You want help with your build but don't listen to advice...?


Just keep in mind that the effect in question is supernatural in nature. The bard is not, in fact, just making stuff up. He/she has to consume performance rounds, which are inherently magical in nature to manifest this ability.

Another thing to note is that the house rule you employed is essentially the bog standard bluff skill in action, albeit with a circumstance bonus, which offers no mechanical benefit to the player so invested whatsoever.


Okay, so basically A is A. Valid, but trivial Joe.


What genre, setting, and power level does PF represent then? Its M&M for casters and Savage Worlds for martials?


christos gurd wrote:
Instead of substituting an attack, id rather have them get early access to the critical feats and have vital strike count as a critical hit for the purposes of it. it lends itself to something more than just higher damage. or you could bypass the critical feats and just let them inflict many of the conditions from the antipaladin's cruelties.

+1 I think that would lend itself to an awesome debuffing fighter style instead of the usual DPR rat race.


JoeJ wrote:
AndIMustMask wrote:

I just want martials to be able to screw with tye world as much as casters can. If your wizard can tear space and time asunder with an errant thought, i should be able to make the air shiver and the mountains quake by drawing my sword. If your wizard can rip the soul out of a demigod just for funzies, i should be able to cleave a damn mountain with the same effort.

So far the wizard's getting their phenominal cosmic power, so where is the fighter's?

I wouldn't call somebody who could do those things a fighter; they're just a different flavor of wizard.

To me, an epic martial would be somebody who can do only a tiny fraction of the damage that a t-rex can dish out, but manages to beat it anyway. Not somebody who can dive off a 500 foot cliff, hit the ground, and walk away, but rather somebody who can dive off the cliff, shoot an arrow with a rope attached into a crack in the rock, and swing to safety. Somebody who can shoot an incoming arrow out of the sky on a reaction. Somebody who doesn't think twice about having a sword fight while balancing on a tightrope. I want a martial who doesn't have superhuman strength or toughness, or quasi-magical powers, but who can beat enemies who do using nothing but an epic level of skill. Put another way, an epic martial isn't the Hulk, it's Captain America, or Green Arrow, or Batman.

If the fighter should be batman, then I would say that your going to have to throw some GM fiat powers onto their chassis so beating the superman equivalent makes some sort of sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is definitely a valid concern, which I think tying the bonuses to bravery solves by spreading those penalty reductions over 20 levels.


Secane wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

remove penalties that come from combat feats up to your bravery bonus.

That will cover the attack bonus without tying the fighter down to a weapon group.

So something like, power attacks don't cause a high level fighter to suffer the minus to attack?

Yes. Basically, a high level fighter will be running around with a whole series of bonuses without suffering any penalties whatsoever. They would then be the king of feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ham-fisted is the barbarian MO, to be fair.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

remove penalties that come from combat feats up to your bravery bonus.

That will cover the attack bonus without tying the fighter down to a weapon group.


On the monk front, just change the ki movement thingy to a swift action and base the additional movement off the monks enhanced move speed. It isn't identical to pounce, but I think that's a good thing.


Here is a thought for "rebalancing" wizards.

Occult Training(Ex): At first level, and every level thereafter, the wizard may choose two spell schools(or two plus the specialized school if the wizard is a specialist, ) from which he may learn spells. Each time this choice is made, the wizard gains access to a higher spell level of the school chosen, up to level 9. A specialist wizard may choose to learn a spell level of a barred school, but must spend two of his school choices to access that spell level.

I'm not sure if the wording is crystal clear, but the intent is to push wizards(and other full casters) to either focus their attention on a handful of schools of magic, or have access to all of them up to a lower level. If your choose the second route, you would have to heighten spells to use your higher level slots.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

@Odraude - I think we're getting lost in examples here. The core issue is this:

As the game progresses, you face bigger and badder foes. As a result, this is inescapable: You need sufficient X to overcome the increasing challenges.

In theory, X could be anything: levels, magic, gear, whatever. But the reason you're able to defeat now what you couldn't defeat before is because you've now acquired enough X.

Now if this is going to be a game where you can choose how you approach (such as by choosing a class), then for the game to be as fun as it can be, the following also needs to be true: Every class needs access to X.

X could still be anything, just as long as it's the same X. If continuing to advance requires sufficient poodles, then every class needs access to poodles. Or from the other direction, if the only thing you want every class to have access to is rhubarbs, then rhubarbs had better be capable of letting you advance.

Whatever you pick for one, you need to pick the same for the other.

Currently, Pathfinder fails in this regard: the only thing that everyone has access to is levels, but the thing you have to have in order to advance is magic.

The fighter MUST acquire magic in some form in order to keep playing, no matter what else he has. The wizard (or other PC with magic) can keep playing with relatively little regard for what other (nonmagical) things he lacks.

This is a flaw in the system: there's a mismatch between what you need and what you can access.

For Pathfinder to improve, it needs to align the two: either change what lets you advance from "magic" to "levels" (letting everyone gain tools to keep playing the game, as a function of level, independent of other factors); or else take the thing that's required to advance (magic) and make it more evenly accessible.

Either path is fine, as long as where we end up is that what's required to keep playing the game is readily and evenly accessible to everyone.

+1 totally on point Jiggy!


If you want a vampire, then you may want to consider the undead anatomy 2 polymorph spell and restrict the form to vampire only. It will grant some of the benefits of being a vampire without getting out of hand.

Im not a huge fan of cursed items to be honest. Well, that's not entirely true, they can be interesting plot points, but I wouldn't say that a magic crafter should be forced to craft cursed items.


JoeJ wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Indeed. Even in PF mechanics, they are completely different. One is a skill check, the other is a grapple attempt.

Can Batman, without using any gear or trick, grapple a T-Rex? Can he survive jumping from the moon or being immersed in lava? Is he as powerful as a Pit Fiend?

Batman isn't anywhere near 20th level. I'd be surprised if he reached the double digits.

IMO, he's a 6~8th level character who rolled 4~6 18s for his attributes, is using an extremely broken gestalt (or homebrew) class and has wealth way over the expected for his level.

But he's in an adventuring party with a guy who can tear mountains apart with his bare hands and shrug off nuclear weapons, a woman who can defeat the freakin' god of war in melee, and a guy with a magic ring-of-whatever-I-want. It must be really boring to be Batman, since he obviously can't contribute anything.

While your right in that batman seems to play in the big kid pool with no issue, it does not invalidate the fact that batman cannot, in fact, fall from orbit or take a lava bath or wrestle an eight tonne animal into submission. I would have to argue, then, that batman is not a level twenty character because those qualities are true of twentieth level characters.


I think the only way to approach it is through the polymorph rules. If the effects are limited to one shape, then I could see the cost being consistent with the crafting rules for custom items. It won't be as awesome as the spell, but will give some of the special abilities that the player covets without having to sell their soul.


The problem is that I can't imagine anyone taking wings of the gargoyle to use. Its effects are not proportional to the cost. Its the same price as a +6 weapon. The effects that it grants aren't even that hard to get and it prevents you from increasing your saves, which matter far more at the levels that this kind of item become feasible to pay for.

In effect, its cost makes it vender loot.

1 to 50 of 1,226 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.