|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Superman vs Goku?
I'd have to agree that the DB matchup seemed flawed. Even if you try to be neutral (or generous) and assume that two characters with rapidly escalating Power of Plot Necessity have roughly equivalent physical power, all but the most die hard fans should be able to admit that Supes is a really pathetic fighter...he doesn't have to be good at it because so few opponents can actually take one of his punches in his own universe. The off viewed World of Cardboard video pretty much sums up big blue in a fight.
Fighters in the DB universe actually, you know, Fight. Against opponents that are equal matches until Power of Plot kicks in.
Even with healing, at a 90% failure rate when 'fall only on a 1' is true, even with healing failure is -probably- the only option. Or you eschew the use of the climb skill altogether because it's terrifically unheroic to fail in the manner that the proposed change dictates.
I don't expect your players would find it either, since none of them would survive the climb with your proposed change.
Go ahead and find your favorite dice roller and make the climb. I just tried it and failed 4 out of 4 attempts. Your proposed change doesn't add challenge. It just makes failure a virtual certainty.
No, climb == easy mode in general. The only difference is at which point you get to pretend like you don't have to roll. Your suggested fix doesn't solve the problem, it just makes the climb skill completely unusable past, oh, 15 or so checks, and ridiculously likely to fail at 5 checks, assuming that you fail/fall on a 1.
I don't think that's a desirable output unless you hate your players. If you want to model fatigue and increasing difficulty you're going to have to propose a system that doesn't actively try to kill your players for investing in skill ranks and trying to be cool.
Something like 'you can make a number of climb checks equal to your strength + con modifiers before becoming fatigued. You can increase the DC of a climb check by 5 in order to search for an easier path. If you pass that check, the roll doesn't add to your tally of climb checks. Failing a roll by up to 4 below the DC will add two to the climb tally. Once your climb tally has reached three times your str+con mod, you are exhausted.'
Though in fairness, short climbs don't suffer from the will fail with multiple rolls problem. Of course, they also aren't a real threat, since you can effectively roll till you make it on a 10' climb, though you might take a little a damage on a 20' one.
If every climb DC is tailored so there's always a small chance of failure then you still fall far too often to comfortably rely on the existence of the climb skill.
Based on the OP's posts in the thread, I feel that he'd be the type of DM who would always tweak the check DC so that there's always a reason to roll and always a chance for failure, regardless of how superhuman the PC's should be, because climbing is dangerous or something.
I don't know if anyone else has already mentioned this, but the only thing that disallowing Take 10 on a climb check does is move the bar from Human to Superhuman up a few levels.
If you can't look at a wall or cliff or building and make a reasonable approximation of the difficulty (within the limits of line of sight, and spyglasses are a thing), then your DM is just trying to kill you. :(
But aside from that, determine approximate DC, add a little bit for a fudge factor, and take 10 if it's safe. If taking 10 isn't allowed, you wait a couple of levels or hunt for a few more bonuses and then you take 1.
And if you can't do that, you buy wands of levitate, because your DM hates you. :(
FWIW, even if the game was granular at the d100 level, failing on a 1 with a 40-check climb still happens something like one time in three. There's no value added in forcing people to roll all the time for all climb checks unless you hate your players and want them to just never take ranks in climb. :(
Yeah, we get it. Poor word choice is poor. Why are you still going on about it after Ashiel already admitted that he realized that poor word choice was poor and edited the original post?
Discuss the point, not the speaker, right?
The point being made is valid. Nobody starts off good at this game. Hopefully we realize that to be true as a whole and strive to increase our excellence and awesomeness. If that means that we learn that (#/2) mobs (where # is the number of players) probably isn't going to make a challenging or otherwise memorable encounter because action economy is a thing and maybe other, better reasons, then we adjust our encounters accordingly and get more skilled.
And summoners are crazy, even without learning some of the things I've learned on these forums :)
Trying to figure this out in my spare time, without the benefit of having the psionics book.
You indicate that the player should invest in a crystal bow. Why? I am missing something I am sure, but I don't see anything that suggests that the soul bolt can express his ability into a weapon. What am I missing?
Things I've mentioned in the past:
Cure X spells heal based on the natural healing rules. Cure light is 1 day's full rest, then 2, 3, and 5. I am still torn about adding a static bonus based on wisdom or spell level. On the one hand, it's important to have the healing at lower levels...on the other, it defeats the purpose of the change.
Environmental damage effects would be changed so that hp damage is not the direct result. For example, lava immersion would do 1d6 str, dex, and con damage and fort save (something like DC 20 or 30, that an appropriately heroic hero could pass) or die.
Silence is an abjuration rather than a glamor. I have HUGE personal issues with illusions being able to affect real changes on the world ;)
Assuming that by 'standard game' and reference the pregens, you're talking about something pretty different than most of the posters here seem to consider 'standard'....
Anything with earthglide/tremorsense, or druid levels for passing through plants.
More generally, anything that can attack the party from any point and the party can only respond by readying actions and/or getting away from the dangerous area. Druids are particularly nasty with the combination of entangle (to make rough terrain) and pass through plants so they can't be charged if they happen to leave themselves vulnerable because of spellcasting.
Anything with multiple status effects and decent to-hit rolls (ghouls being the primary low-level offender to me). I do not care for these creatures because they interfere with player agency. If, in the middle of a fight, you might as well just get up and watch TV for the remainder it's a poorly designed monster and/or ability.
Anything that requires magical or special weapons to damage and is CR'd earlier than you'd reasonably be expected to have those things (level 4 for a +1 sword for example, even though an argument can be made that people should be stacking potions by level 2). This is an invitation to frustration and encourages players to focus spend money on magic weapons as early as midway through level 2, because +1 sword is easier to remember, use, and book-keep than '# vials of oil of magic weapon (CL1), # vials of silversheen, # vials of ....'
Essentially, anything that interferes with players being able to do something, or anything that encourages players to ignore the game guidelines on advancement, is a Powerful Monster in a hypothetical Normal Game.
I haven't been following all of the current brouhaha about the subject, but during our last campaign we ruled it worked that way.
I prefer to let other players act as cover. It gives area control/tanky guys an additional tool to actually protect friends and party members.
You've never been in the PERFECT hiding spot playing hide and seek and gotten the hiccups?
Man, that happened to me all the time ;)
Still, I prefer the feel that nothing is impossible with skills, just insanely hard. Many of the proposals don't feel like slowly improving to above human levels, but more like suddenly gaining magical abilities.
That's one of the things I was trying to allow for with my synergy suggestion, even though I used spell effects as examples. To stick with my first example, a sufficiently high climb result, with the right synergy, should become a climb speed (ie, spider climb).
But it was supposed to look somewhat supernatural, since the idea was (partly) to reduce reliance on spells that make skills less attractive anyway.
Some interesting ideas in the thread, but I wonder if people aren't overlooking another possibility. If we peg OMG awesome at the aforementioned 8 skill ranks, or level 8, there should be a point where skill synergies are meaninful.
Now, I'm going to admit that I'll lean toward wuxia flavor because that's the first thing that comes to mind, but just because those are the only examples I can think of, don't assume that's all I believe is possible or could be intended, and it's a more conservative idea so it might be a lower power level than some of the previous suggestions.
So, say someone has ranks in acrobatics and climb. Let's start with 8 ranks. For a DC 23 (or whatever gives you a base 50% chance to succeed, trained, with, oh, +2 stats and no skill focus) climb check, you can gain the benefits of the spider climb spell for a number of rounds equal to (ROLL-DC)/5.
For a DC 28 check, if you start from a vertical surface, you can gain the benefits of levitate as you launch off the surface (same duration).
And so on.
Or, perhaps something like synergy between Intimidate and Diplomacy. 8 ranks in both open up the possibility of using Diplomacy with a DC (oh, 25) to put someone under the effect of the Peacebond spell. Or a DC 30 to put them under the effects of Hold Person.
Or use Heal and Perception with some number of ranks to gain a form of lifesense.
I'm sure the possibilities aren't limitless, and I'm equally sure that it would be much easier to focus on a few core skills and harder to find synergies with others, but I think it provides are more interesting avenue than just 'higher DC's equal better stuff'.
I'm not sure you'll get a good answer on this. Most people will tell you that some level of advancements are required to keep up. At least one person will tell you that's not true, and consumables are a better bang for your buck and anything bigger than a masterwork weapon isn't really needed until 7th level or so.
I imagine that the 'Yer Doin' it Right' answer is somewhere in the middle. IMO, most players aim for the next +1 a little sooner than they probably 'should' because it's easier and getting that early plus, especially on attacks, gives people a big sense of empowerment (IMO).
Yes, knowledges should be skills. But DM's should probably stop gating critical, important, or just plain 'hey, look at what I did' information behind them...because even if you have the skill you're banking on someone actually being able to make the roll to advance the plot.
Where I think balance worries come into play is with haste u get a free move action. So in theory u could make a full attack. Free move stealth every round.
You are talking about pathfinder, right?
Haste doesn't give a free move action. Haste increases your movement speed by 30 as an enhancement bonus, gives you an extra attack when you full attack (at your maximum attack bonus), and gives you a +1 to hit and +1 dodge to AC.
But even if it did, would it be so unbalancing? So much more so than ragepounce? Or standard action summon dire tigers RAR! Or firing off 8 or 9 arrows in a round?
I'm trying to get a grasp on your table's expectations. You're, what, 8th level? Casters are really starting to bend the fabric of reality around their fingers. Barbarians are probably lopping the heads off demigods on a successful ragepounce. Druids are turning into Huge dinosaurs and or Diminutive mice for the entire day and avoiding danger by being harmless. And someone is apparently concerned that a shadowdancer has the potential to be enough of a problem that being very specific about the usage class-defnining-power?
I know it's not my game...and I KNOW it's not RAW, but if somoene wanted to devote the time and energy into getting into the class, I'd want to reward them for the effort. I'd be authorizing WoW- or Thief-style stealth in any light level if there was a shadow big enough to hide in or near.
Sorry. Derailing the thread. Just trying to understand.
At the risk of having my D&D Card revoked, what's the advantage in being so picky about the shadowdancer's HiPS ability?
You've got a character who's devoted his life to being able to hide in shadows Really Well. He's got all kinds of magical juju to make it happen, and hey, can even see in the dark (which is a good thing). So...why would you want to throw up barriers to being Cool and Shadowy and Awesome?
And if he gets to sneak attack a little bit more often, sweet.
Likewise, my phrasing was atrocious
I intended to indicate a complete refusal of your position by saying your narrative method only works within the established rules IFF both parties always actually missed the target.
'Miss-Fu' HP explains injury poisons just fine. In that instance, under those circumstances, physical damage was taken. You really don't get what 'not necessarily' means, do you? Quit acting like I'm saying never, please.
I am not acting like anything. I'm telling you that your answer is not internally consistent within the game or the narrative.
There is no justification within the game rules, system, or design that I can locate in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook to support your position of miss-fu HP.
The only possible justification I can think of is some strange notion of realism, and if that's your basis, then I'd add that to the things that I believe need to be excised from Pathfinder ;)
I never said losing HP *never* meant you weren't taking physical damage. But if two guys are having a basic swordfight, it's entirely possible neither will make physical contact with one another until that one final strike which ends the duel.
No you didn't, but you are refusing the rever. Losing hp always means you are taking physical damage. In your example, that only works if they always miss until one does enough damage to go from full hp to 'I give up!'
Becuase if you take the exact same two guys, the exact same two rolls, and apply poison to the swords, with miss-fu hp, you've automatically got to change your narrative, because John didn't narrowly dodge that sword..it was just a grazing hit, and James didn't sidestep in time...he took that hit and bled from it.
And falling into lava just means you're dead, barring a really high fire resistance or immunity, IMG.
I like this..but I like doing stat damage better, because then you have the in-the-rules-OPTION of that BBEG rising up out of the lava/acid/whatever for One Last Hurrah before he gets kicked back in and dies. ;) It's not just fiat at that point.
I played 1e, but did not care enough at the time to try to read, figure out, and/or remember how HP were defined. I skipped 2nd edition. I cannot answer to those claims.
But what I do remember is a pretty nifty little paragraph in the 3rd edition players handbook that talks about proportional damage, and a discussion with one of the WotC answer guys that first used the injury poison example from earlier. And really, d20 hasn't changed all that much since the 3.0 players handbook. In fact, all I can find in the core book on a quick scan is a line about hit points being an abstraction of 'how robust and healthy something is' and what happens when you reach -1. My iPad is dying, though, so if there are other references I probably missed them in a rush.
So..surviving a hit from a boulder or larger rock is no more or less believable than surviving being swallowed whole by a purple wyrm, or taking a tail swipe by an ancient dragon, or being nommed by a druid's pet Animal Growthed tyranosaurus with teeth longer than your average halfling (making things up..I have no idea how long the teeth of a great big dino are, obviously).
Heroes do that sort of thing. It's part of the package when you sign on the dotted line.
Regardless, miss-fu flat doesn't work within the realm of rules. It might make things somehow more believable to (some) readers, but it just doesn't work. Losing miss-fu hit points doesn't make somoene less robust or healthy. It doesn't deal with injury poisons. It doesn't deal with massive damage saves, and it doesn't answer the question about how hard it is to heal damage that...never happened?
Abstraction...sure. But no. I just can't see it.
And I stand by 'must always mean', otherwise you have different conceptual visualizations for sword chopping or poisoned needles or falling masonry or whatever. Every hit point has a component of real, physical damage in it.
IMO, and I've said this before in other places, the biggest problem is people assuming that damage has to mean equal things to different people. 8 HP of damage, dealt to an average commoner, puts them down. Probably for good, since they're bleeding out at -4. 8 HP of damage, dealt to an average fighter (both 1st level), is not the same thing. It could be the same stroke, the same sword, the same attacker, but the fighter can deal with the hit better...and he still bleeds. No matter if it was 1 hp of damage, or 100% of his hp in damage. He bleeds in the same way that Lara Croft does in the new Tomb Raider, or Arnold does in your movie of choice, or Harry Dresden does after getting battered by a hexenwulf (or any of a hundred other times). He bleeds because he got hit, and he keeps fighting because he can...well, until he can't anymore ;)
'Miss-fu' hit points are pretty absurd, IMO (how do you heal a miss?). I'm glad that's not really what D&D, d20, or Pathfinder have ever really seemed to encourage to me.
This also gets compounded with the abstraction of HP. Losing HP doesn't necessarily mean physical damage was done...
Trivially easy to disprove. Injury poisons always call for a save, regardless of how much damage they inflict, ergo some damage MUST have been done.
On that tangent, I find the 'Cure (light/moderate/severe/critical)' line of spells to be absurd. 1d8+X hp is not a 'light wound' to a commoner, and is trivial to the point of laughter for an ancient wyrm.
Likewise, I find the idea of HP damage from environmental effects to be laughable and absurd. Environmental damage should be handled as status effects and stat damage (as applicable).
Hey, just reference some popular media for examples. I'll use Hajime No Ippo because it's got good examples of all of these.
Power Attack: Literally any punch thrown by Ippo
Doomed Hero wrote:
Feat Chains need to be done away with all together.
I don't agree with this completely.
I think that it fits within the various source materials to have to train to learn a new Special Move, and that some moves build on the things that the hero has learned before.
Feats just set the bar too low. These are the 'spells' of the martial classes...the abilities they gain in order to balance the scales between martial and caster. And so many of them are 'add +2 to your schtick'. It isn't surprising that people develop issues with that.
Doomed Hero wrote:
Combat Feats should just scale with level.
Yes. IMO, it's disingenuous to claim that, oh, Improved Trip, scales with level because that +2 remains and your ability to trip continues to grow when the effects of spells are typically caster level dependent and get more impressive over time (even if it's just lasting longer).
Feats need the same sorts of considerations. In some fashion, the effect should scale up and combat feats that rely on other combat feats should be rolled into a single scaling feat. I don't think Cleave should turn into Whirlwind Attack, but Weapon Focus scaling up by BAB makes sense to me.
]And it's bypassing the magical protection, which is MY point you're completely missing.
The piece of this that the idea of 'magical ablative/protection hit points' ignores is the unlikely, but rules-possible scenario of being attacked by a whole bunch of young vipers (apply as many templates as required to make the damage line be (1-1+DC 10 poison))
I don't care if you have 2 hit points or 200,000,000. You MUST make a saving throw for each successful bite. Ergo, every hit point of damage taken involves real injury. You're not ever 'just missed'. If your hit point model cannot explain that, then your hit point model is, by nature, flawed.
If I were really going to try on a rule like that, then those extra results would probably be the result of a failed reflex save, with the DC based on the distance fallen. Some fraction of the CON damage would be unavoidable.
So 0-20 ft, 0 con damage on save, failed save, 1 CON, 1 DEX
But this is all just off the top of my head. The end result is that falling becomes dangerous again...at least until you can spam lesser restoration :)
I usually think in terms of Con damage, actually, but you could make a good argument for hits to almost every stat.
In The Ghost King by Salvatore...he has a passage of a high level monk, Danica, falling off a cliff. She does her monk thing of slowing her fall and then backflipping into a large pine tree off the wall, using it to slow her fall the whole way then tries to roll with it and os left near death, broken but still alive. I guess that damage could be somewhat explained like sword damage can be (graze, or small cutd wearing them down). Dunno about the lava though.
Systemic problem, IMO. I think that someone got lazy and decided that environmental damage should be handled with hit points. Lava shouldn't be hit point damage. Falling shouldn't be hit point damage. They should be sliding scales of stat damage and saving throws based on how cinematic you want the game to be.
But hit point damage is what we have, so I just sigh and ignore it. :)
Personally, I prefer to think of HP it as a mix of luck, skill, fatigue, physical toughness, etc. It's more cinematic and, IMO, more interesting. But from a rules perspective, hp is treated as if it were plain physical toughness.
I prefer to refer to the idea of proportional damage implied in the 3.0 PHB. IMO, environmental damage is the only thing that really isn't covered well.
We already know (as you agree with) that every single hit does real damage. It has to, or fort saves vs poison don't work anymore (what, I gotta make a poison save but my Magical Awesomeness kept me from taking damage? wtf?) We also have a couple lines of text that say that 4 hp of damage to a level 1 fighter is about as damaging as 40 hp of damage to a level 10 fighter.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
That's a high-level martial.
Awesome visuals, but I do have one problem..well, maybe more than one, but I think it boils down to one problem with this.
Martials already fight well enough (*). Almost everything that you ascribed to Cú Chulainn is a feat of amazing martial prowess, and it's been demonstrated that with a PhD in System Mastery (SYM-603 Making Monks Rock is an optional course for the degree) you can make martial characters of any class that can already perform feats of amazing martial prowess.
I don't need my fighter to fight better (**), because if he fights better, then there's less incentive to make him useful in any other situation. He's the Best Damn Fighting Class There Is, and if you expand outside that role, you start to run into possibility of the cleric/wizard/druid problem that we face, just in reverse.
I want to see fighters shake off spells by sheer force of personality (reliably!). I was to see a paladin consecrate the ground he walks on, just by virtue of his grace. I want to see a ranger that is all but undetectable in his element (by any means). I want to see a rogue/ranger make a staircase out of arrows and run up a wall (not anime...LEGO games :) ) A martial built for intimidate should be able to manifest the same kind of terrifying aura that a dragon can....I mean, why not?! He's probably wearing armor taken from a dragon's hoard! I want a barbarian to be able to grab ahold of reality and rip it open (or pull it closed). Or a monk to deflect a dragon's bite (well, they used to be able to...).
What I want is cool, meaningful, options that are available to all classes so that no player ever has to feel useless unless they deliberately set out to be useless.
Don't try to tell me that's the way it works now. It's not. Untrained skill checks and non-class skills do not keep up with level appropriate DC's IN MY EXPERIENCE. Either a skill check is balanced so that everyone can do it (DC 10), or it's setup so that someone specialized in the skill will be challenged (and nobody else even need bother to try) (DC >=15+level, varies depending on the targetted class...IME, DMs just point to the skillful person and say 'roll 15+' and nobody else is even permitted a chance without argument). Failed saves and stupid monsters (ghouls) put people out of fights completely. In order to cover the PROBABILITY of being dead weight, you have to expend character resources in an attempt to patch holes, and the amount of resource expended varies greatly based on the class, from LOTS to very few, and those resources have to be taken from the pool of 'wow, I want to do Neat Things' when it comes to any feat-based class.
EDIT: oops, forgot my footnotes
(*) Remember my previous post that 'we're doing it wrong'. The game is not balanced around hyperspecialization. It's balanced around filling holes and actually taking some time to realize those feat combos and not trying to break or game the system.
(**) I would like to see martial combat, at least for specialist classes, divorced from the full attack paradigm. I think that it contributes to less-fun table time. That said, the full attack is arguably well supported by fiction and source material. I just no longer believe that it's good for the game.
I don't know about that. If martials could be able to do that, why would anyone play a caster? I look at it in the opposite direction. Martials should be so antimagic, they bust down Walls of Force no problem. Or at least get bonuses to save against magic effects because come on.
I sat on this thought for a little while, but there are a few obvious answers to your question.
People will play casters because that's the type of character they want to play.
People will play casters because they bend reality over and spank it like a bad little child. This is a separate function from influencing narrative at the table. Casters make wishes come true and call down the very stars from the sky to punish their foes! Rawr! Bend over, reality! I've got you right where I want you!
And finally, in a game where narrative control is somewhat balanced between classes, people will play casters because there are, and SHOULD ALWAYS BE, things that they can do better than everyone else (or good enough as to not matter...remember what I said about the game being balanced in the player's favor in an earlier post)...as long as that list of things isn't 'everything that (x) other class can do today, and a different list tomorrow'
I believe that a fighter, or a barbarian, or a paladin, or a rogue, should be able to rival the legendary characters that we've been told that they were made to model. I believe that NO MATTER WHAT, a straight wizard shouldn't be able to be a better sneak than a straight rogue. I believe that NO COMBINATION OF SPELLS should enable a cleric to lay down the righteous smackdown that a paladin or fighter can bring. I believe that when a high level fighter steps up, he should have the option (because this is a game, and options are good) to be so awesome in his own right that people who have never heard of his name or deeds will realize, immediately, that they are in the presence of a great warrior, and that should have an impact on the story and the dice rolls. You know why? Because those are the things I grew up reading off my parents (and later, my) bookshelves, and watching on TV and Saturday morning cartoons.
And, by jove, yes, a fighter should get some better saves. Because!
I won't argue with intent, because I generally believe that the paizo devs believe we (most players, definately most forum-goers) play the game wrong.
The game is already so weighed in the players direction as far as they are concerned, that gaming the system to be low-level demigods is 'badwrongfun'.
Doesn't change my fundamental 'want' though. I want martials to be able to influence the narrative in the same fashion casters can, as a function of the class, because otherwise you are applying inequity of expectation amongst the players, where casters are expected to be able to solve more and more varied problems than martials, and that's, IMO, badwrongfun.
You're both missing and strengthening my point.
You list things that should be done to counter various high level spells. I already know all of those things. That's not the point. The point is that, as I said, STEPS MUST BE TAKEN. And every time a new splat book comes out (assumption: and is permitted at the table), NEW spells must also be dealt with. I also didn't say that these are overpowered spells. I said that they were game-changing. Fireball IS a game-changing spell, for both players and GMS, because once you expect it to be available, you orient your groups differently, so that not everyone can be caught in the blast. Events at the table change directly because of the existence of burst damage spells (of which fireball is simply the most iconic).
By virtue of existing, these spells influence the narrative of the game. By virtue of being available, you have to make rulings, mortar your castles with gorgon blood, spend bajillions to magically protect your borders, or whatever. You, as the GM, have been forced to make concessions to the narrative-changing power of one or more spells. That's what spells DO. And that's awesome!
And that's what I want martials to be able to do.
Spells very much are the 'make the GM do this' class feature. By virtue of the existence of Plane Shift, Greater Teleport, Scry, Commune, Dominate Monster, Fireball, Simulacrum, Blood Money, or any of a host of other game changing spells, the GM must either deal with or plan around their existence. The only thing he has to do to plan for a fighter is put down a bad guy.
By virtue of spells, the GM must change the narrative, adapt the narrative, or accept that, whoops, the 15 'random' encounters I had planned to provide an awesome buildup to my story climax won't happen because the wizard just teleported the party from San Diego to New York and, <insert profanity here>...
No martial can do that. The more supernatural a martial is (magus, paladin, ranger, barbarian), the more potential they might prosess to move in that direction, but they never really possess the same game changing power of 'well, <insert profanity here>, I didn't think of that spell.'
Also, your last paragraph emphasises my point. Sometimes players can overcome these limitations, but the classes do nothing to help with that.
Me, I know there are some crazy spells when I play a higher level caster. But isn't part of the game to play together? Shouldn't the philosophy be to play strengths instead of deliberately showing up everyone else with broken mechanics? If someone's playing a glory hog, maybe they're the problem more than the class is.
There are probably 99,999 different points of view in this thread, but in my opinion the problem with martials has a lot less to do with someone being a glory hound than someone being dead weight in anything other than a stand up fight.
This is about players as much as classes for me, and it's really easy to see that with new players. My experience with new players is that if it's not listed on the character sheet, they won't think to try it without prodding. If you sit down and look at a fighter, you'll see 'hit it in the face with a hammer' all over the place, and you'll be really good at hitting it in the face with a hammer (as long as it's on the ground, standing still). But what does he do when the king asks him a direct question he maybe doesn't want to answer? (Probably) untrained bluff? (Maybe) trained Intimidate? Or just say something stupid?
What does he do when the obstacle is a cliff, a pit, an ocean, or a mystery? Hope he has just the right magic item, wait for a buff from the friendly neighborhood caster, or just wait for someone else to come up with a solution.
What power does the martial have to assist the party in getting from point A to point B (or Plane A to Plane B)? What power does the fighter have to strip the magical defenses from an opponent? What power does a martial have to inspire his comrades to do greater and better things? What form of martial awesome allows Billy BA to grab ahold of the fabric of reality and rip it open (or closed!)
What power does a martial have to alter the narrative of the story rather than being swept along by the flow?
That's what I want to see a martial character do. Experienced players can get around some of these problems in various ways, but that's the power of the PLAYER imposing his will on the game. That's got nothing at all to do with the classes. And that's my problem.
Just to be clear, your arguement is that the RULE BOOKS do not support E6/E8/E(whatever) play because there are no published ADVENTURE PATHS that cater to it?
Regardless of my stance on the issue, you do realize that you're comparing apples and kumquats, right?
(fwiw, I agree, the core books do not support E# play, where # is a value less than 20, since house or optional rules must be enacted to continue character advancement. The only form of E# (#<20) play that is supported is ending a campaign at that level.)
gustavo iglesias wrote:
I never thought I'd say this..but I am sad I cannot like this post more than once.
We're seeing evidence, presented in game terms, and taken from the source material, that suggests the common trope 'fighters are fine' examples (Aragorn, Conan, etc) are E6 range heroes, and the classic fighters of mythology (the ones even Gygax referenced) are amazing. And that, while fighters can still be impressive, they're not standing up to the referenced heroes very well.
Sweet. I can't wait to see the rebuttal for this.
I'll steal a flag from Kirth here. Everyone should have the capability to have narrative defining powers of equivalent potency at equivalent levels.
Since we're now running into the requirement for definitions, I'll simplify by saying that martials, as a rule, lack -and need- some ability to alter or manipulate the campaign narrative.
I do not mean this as a caster vs martial post, but it is inevitiable that some of that comparison be made, so please bear with me.
At 3rd level, some casters get the ability to either derail the current adventure with a quick short-circuit, force the GM to take the ability into account, or take the adventure completely off the rails and go do something else entirely. The ability? The spell "Create Treasure Map". The untimely death of a single underling housed at Hidden Base #2 suddenly puts a great big X on the map...literally.
Are there similar narrative defining abilities available to non-casters at 3rd level?
At 5th level, a druid could take a vacation from adventuring and make sure that his kingdom of choice will have fewer food issues over the next year, possibly bringing a whole new level of prosperity or freeing up people from farming to do other things, or maybe even helping a war-torn country recover.
What's your 5th level non-druid doing that has that potential level of impact on a campaign world?
IMO, this is what's lacking from martial characters. They can fight. They can fight better than anyone (well, maybe rogues and monks excluded but I don't want to open th...oops). They need ways to twist the campaign around into a pretzel and make it beg for mercy, like a wizard or druid or cleric does just by virtue of existing.
A rogue should be able to make a 'get inside the GM's head' check and get a straight answer about something every now and then, using his extensive contacts to piece it together. A bard, maybe something similar with obscure knowledge.
A fighter could snap his fingers and rally all of the peons around him into a rousing song and turns them into brave little zealots (/~ No one hits like Gaston ..... ~/). A paladin (who is already darn good) should be able to make people want to be better just by being himself and presenting a good example.
I'm afraid gunslingers should still be verbally abused though. :) No help for those guys. :)
My experience with Crang Wing was that it was a very good feat and it saved my bacon (and annoyed the DM to no end) on a few occasions...but I still have concerns about this errata.
I'm afraid that at any table, it's going to slow down combat a bit more, by forcing anyone attacking a target with Crane style to stop and ask questions about attack styles, or force the attacker to roll a single die at a time (which never happens IME).
I think it will also force some passive rerolls at more lax tables ( 'no, wait...I was going to crane wing that bite attack! I was just ...' ). It seems socially abuseble and not friendly to a smooth flow of activity.
There are some good alternatives here, but I think that anything that calls for a 'before roll' solution isn't a great idea.
All that said...as has been pointed out, it was a multi-feat chain and taking it away just feels too much like 'martials can't have nice things' on the surface.
My first thought would be to adopt a second-wind like effect from 4e and allow players to suck it up and keep fighting (or, after combat, take a breather and get some hit points back, depending).
My second thought would be to have a profession/craft skill that gave relatively inexpensive access to stims. Replace alchemy with this and let your doctor make stims for the party out of radioactive moss and rat droppings (or whatever).
My third thought would be a series of specialized feats that allowed someone to perform a Heal check (with an easily approachable DC) to replicate the effects of various potions of cure (x) wounds, perhaps requiring the use of reagents that you could replace as loot drops. Something like 'I'm a doctor...', prereq: Heal 2 ranks, whatever, effect: Can use 1 bandage and 1 bullet to close wounds and heal damage. Make a DC 13 Heal check. If you pass, heal 1d8+(ranks in heal, max 5) damage.
I think the main problem with the Rogue class is that too many people have played too many MMOs or other RPG's where Rogues are on of the top damage classes.
Can't speak for anyone else, but my main problem with the rogue is how difficult it is for an iconic rogue (dex, light weapon) to do the things that people seem to believe he should be able to do handily. Some of this is playstyle, some of it is expectation, and some of it is just not getting it.
See, most of my groups' combats happen in two general battleground types. Doorways/constrained areas, and long range.
In a breaching fight, a rogue cannot reliably flank in my experience. IF he can SOMEHOW manage to defeat the CMD of multiple targets to move through them safely, he'll find himself behind enemy lines where the next wave of fodder (or miniboss) is ready to reduce him to slimy paste, because he's now the first or only viable target.
In an open fight, rogues can sometimes flank. Circumstances depend on the actual fight and the tactics used to approach it. Most of the time, the rogues I've dealt with, just can't get to the target before something else (usually some kind of summoned creature) has charged or pounced into range and is blocking access.
With UC and 'Ooh, I'm a prancing pony' Performance Combat, maybe you can do neat things in combat with a rogue, but I believe it's still easier to mess up and make a useless rogue than it is to make one that's interesting and useful. Out of combat, the utility of any given rogue is constrained or boosted by the GM. I can't say much about out of combat utility because my GMs tend to make omg-deadly traps that only the party rogue can solve, if one exists, or not so much if there is no rogue.
Silver, I'm sorry you ran into one bad rogue who either didn't know how to build his character, or didn't know how to play it.
Thank you for agreeing with my point. It's too easy to screw up when playing a rogue, and lots of those screw-ups happen at creation or level-up time.
Besides, saying the role is two-weapon fighting is stupid. What do you want him to accomplish with the two-weapon fight? If it's melee damage, that can be better accomplished in other ways. If it's something else, state what it is and don't hide behind the straw man of two-weapon fighting.
Nit pick much? The character was built, and spent his feats, skills, and stats, to do the things I listed. It's stupid to nitpick minor quibbles in terminology when you apparently understood exactly what I was saying.
That said, I didn't run into one bad rogue. I've never run into a good one. I've never successfully played a good one. I've never actually shaken hands with a player who has admitted to playing at a table with a good one (though, to be fully honest, nobody ever asks the question). I just used that story because it was the most recent and clearest in memory.
I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else, but, ok.
This is from a now-dead campaign. Had a group with Lion Shaman druid, Cleric, off-again, on-again gunslinger (mostly not there), wizard, and straight rogue.
The rogue was setup to be trapfinder (marginally useful in the duration of the campaign), scout (not useful at all unless the rogue was far enough ahead of the party to get killed when he was spotted due to the Very Noisy cleric, underworld face, and TWF in combat.
He did his face thing pretty well, I guess. 3/4 of what he did was under the table and most of the party had no idea how much he actually shared. Trapfinding was kinda useful at times. But then, the DM was tossing out 15d6 lightning bolt traps just to encourage us to use him. Scouting was a mixed bag. He got destroyed once or twice, and set off alarms that made subsequent combats harder more than once. The odds are really against the rogue. All it takes is one screwy roll to set things off.
But in combat, he was useless. Utterly and completely useless. He couldn't ever flank. Most combats took place in enclosed quarters and CMD's were too high to deal with, and in the two or three rounds it took him to actually work around the fights, he lost all chance at flanking when summoned monsters (cleric and druid) ate up all of the available space. I deliberately tried to leave spots for him a few times, but it was useless. His chances to hit and his damage and his AC were all bad in comparison to anything else on the board.
So, yeah. That's my story. Maybe rogues rock royally if you know exactly what to do, but there are so many more ways to permanently screw up the class that it's just not worth the effort. Pick an easier, just-about-as-good class and win. (Same player did a similar Ranger in our next campaign, seemed much more effective overall. Not so much of the underworld face aspect, but since that had no notable impact At The Table, the rest of us never knew the difference)
No it's not. What it is, is contrary to your expectations because the system has already beat into your head that Magic > Martial. 'Of course Magic should trump non-magic...It's Magic!' or 'It's a limited resource!', or 'because Lina Inverse can destroy planets and Goury can't!'
But that doesn't make it silly. It's not silly in books, games, or movies when Ezio vanishes into thin air by getting out of sight and blending with a crowd, or when Tom Cruise climbs up incredibly tall buildings, defying reality, or when ... gah...total brain fart, can't spew out a good book example without research!
The point is, these superhuman, non-magical feats of acumen and BadAssery are already part of our collective conscience. Why is it silly that a highly-skilled non-caster, if he rolls Really Well, and puts a significant portion of his character development into being able to do something Really Well, should be able to perform feats that are on-par with what a magical character can do? The Magical Guy gets to do it if he wants to, and can actually make that decision from day to day (in many cases), or even minute to minute (scrolls/wands/whatever). The non-magical guy doesn't get to un-pick his skills and feats (well, without retraining). Despite that it's not a limited resource Per Day, it's very much a limited resource Per Build. He should be able to ThatWasTotallyWicked! things without having to pretend to be a Magical Guy.
It's just...right. It fits with source material. It fits in game..and it's just fair.
As stated, there have been some developer comments that more or less state that they're happy with balance. The part of me that reads into things and tries to read between the lines believes that they're more or less suggesting that we're largely Doin' It Wrong, and a lot of the people posting in favor of caster-martial disparity and/or class power concerns are concerned with the wrong things.
That is 3 additional rounds per encounter to factor in. ;)
You don't know the strength and location of each aura until the third round of concentration, after all. Plus any actions required to loot.
We could move faster if we didn't loot after each fight, true, but that's more murder than hobo, and that might be a hard sell for the group! :) :)
The minimum time to listen at a door is a round (or StdAction). My groups do not believe that's enough time to determine residence. It's too much of a crapshoot. Typically time spent is on the order of 3-5 rounds, depending on what we've encountered.
That's paid off for us multiple times. What works for you, at your table, by what you perceive to be a strict reading of the rules, would very likely end up with you rolling new characters at our table. So, I'll repeat, 1 min/lvl buffs are, At My Table, typically single encounter buffs and do not often last long enough to be considered top-tier spells to learn (protection from evil being an exception, only because it's ridiculously good against some types of enemies). In a shameless appeal to popularity, I'd suspect that my experiences are far closer to the norm than yours based off my experience in this and other forums, but that's pure supposition. Feel free to laugh and ignore, of course.
So, to further return to my original points, no, I don't think you'd fare well against the ghost. And no, I don't think that you can adequetly cover for the high save DCs present on CR-appropriate encounters (through level+3) without magic item support. All of this caveated by 'at my table' and 'in my experience'. But continue to have a great time at your table, because that's what the game is really about...having a great time. :)