Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hm.
This fills me with concern. I will check out the book and may do some switching, but like most gamers my age, im more interested in getting ideas from this book to use in the future as opposed to abandoning everything I know currently.
People who share your viewpoint are very much in mind here.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Makes me wonder what this very thread is for then? Just to simply say "Yay!" or "Nay!" to said product?
Talking in generic terms about what you might like to see here is fine. But if one person says "I want to see a new X", we can't have this thread turn into a debate about whether or not we need a new X, or exactly how broken X is or isn't. We have other places for that sort of discussion. Stay on target.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
When Jason pitched the outline for this book, my first comments were about the proposed list of classes, and mirror many of the comments seen here: Why A and B, but not C and D?
I can assure you he had really good answers, though I can't really share most of them right now. But i will give you one: a couple of the classes that are not called out in the Classes chapter on the outline rely heavily on systems that are called out in other chapters.
I can assure you he had really good answers, though I can't really share most of them right now. But i will give you one: a couple of the classes that are not called out in the Classes chapter on the outline rely heavily on systems that are called out in other chapters.
Hypothetical clarification:
As in, the reason Fighter isn't listed as a class fix is maybe a chapter deals with fixing feats or something? Just as an example of what you mean?
This sounds really interesting!
When Jason pitched the outline for this book, my first comments were about the proposed list of classes, and mirror many of the comments seen here: Why A and B, but not C and D?
I can assure you he had really good answers, though I can't really share most of them right now. But i will give you one: a couple of the classes that are not called out in the Classes chapter on the outline rely heavily on systems that are called out in other chapters.
Every buff to feats and game systems is a buff to all martials. If a Barb/paladin/ranger is 10 score and a fighter is 5 score and these changed systems add 5 to the score then the Fighter is still 5 behind the others.
As long as the fighter is based on feats he can never gain an edge, hence why he needs to be unchained from feats.
Caster Martial disparity isn't the Fighters biggest problem. His biggest problem is that their is no plausible reason to take one over any of the other full BAB classes.
Also if you and Jason could check out that discussion thread it would be ace. It has had an overwhelmingly positive response with currently 51 for and 7 against
I can assure you he had really good answers, though I can't really share most of them right now. But i will give you one: a couple of the classes that are not called out in the Classes chapter on the outline rely heavily on systems that are called out in other chapters.Hypothetical clarification:
As in, the reason Fighter isn't listed as a class fix is maybe a chapter deals with fixing feats or something? Just as an example of what you mean?
So like Feats Reforged?
Sounds like Paizo has another opportunity to profit by copy/pasting others' work.
You realize that was a hypothetical example right?
Another one might be that Wizards get nerfed not through the class, but through the toning down of magic itself. The class stays exactly the same, but magic over-all gets weaker.
Or another example of a class getting fixed by fixing another system at the root of the problem is Sorcerer/Wizard relation getting fixed by fixing Vancian Casting.
Or maybe Cavalier charges aren't so OMGWTF powerful because they fixed mounted combat?
These are just hypothetical examples to clarify what Vic meant by addressing a class by addressing the underlying system. So maybe we won't see casters getting worked on in the class section of Pathfinder Unchained because the Design team is going to address the Caster/Martial disparity in the Magic chapter by nerfing magic or something.
[Edit] Also, you could tone down the snark. Humanity as it exists does so by building off the work of others. Everything we do today, happens because someone else took the first step. Paizo building off Wizards isn't a bad thing, and it's not bad if they make money off of it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The preliminary description also suggests ways in which the non-made over classes might be benefiting:
Players will love the book's new resource pool for martial characters, allowing for exciting new tactical options, as well as the robust new system that allows spellcasters to modify their spells with powerful spell components.
(emphasis mine)
Honestly, I really am increasingly tired of living in the "nownowNOW!" generation. I sometimes wonder if the folks at Paizo and elsewhere might not be better served not announcing products so far in advance of their release, if only to tone down the requests/demands.
Gonna copy Vic's remarks from the Pathfinder Unchained thread over here:
When Jason pitched the outline for this book, my first comments were about the proposed list of classes, and mirror many of the comments seen here: Why A and B, but not C and D?
I can assure you he had really good answers, though I can't really share most of them right now. But i will give you one: a couple of the classes that are not called out in the Classes chapter on the outline rely heavily on systems that are called out in other chapters.
I'm wondering if one of these "systems" is a feat scaling system. If some feats "grew up" into their Improved Versions, that could be a huge benefit to the Fighter. Maybe we'll also see some tweaks to the Combat Maneuver system, though I honestly can't think of any aspect of the Combat Maneuver system that's still chained to 3.5.
The "robust new system for casters upgrading their spells with components" honestly sounds like a more fleshed-out alchemical power component type deal.
Players will love the book's new resource pool for martial characters, allowing for exciting new tactical options, as well as the robust new system that allows spellcasters to modify their spells with powerful spell components.
when we are talking about a resource pool here, should I imagine a pool of options for character customization or something more akin to a pool ki- or grit pool?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Paizo should scrap the extra HP while raging and replace it with DR/- equal to 1/2 of the Barbarians level. IMO this would do the same thing as extra temp hit points and be an easier mechanic for players to use. The Extra Con given by raging will still give the Barbarian at least a +2 on their Fort save more when the Barbarian gets greater rage.
Actually, temporary hit points would be less of a problem than the current approach, as it would avoid the problem of the sudden hit point drop when the rage ends. Saying that you gain +2 to melee attack and damage, +2 to Fortitude saves, and 2x level temporary hit points when you go into a rage creates far fewer problems than +4 to Str and Con.
As I recall, rage cycling is a problem in and of itself. We might want that explicitly rather than implicitly forbidden.
Love this book's idea. I know we weren't supposed to hope for the sky, but there are a couple things on my wishlist:
1. A revamped poison/alchemy system, so that they're more viable at all levels and poison is less all or nothing with little chance of success at higher levels and heavy gp cost.
2. A better stealth system and sneak attack that will help the rogue feel more useful.
3. A generally reworked Monk.
4. More martial class options that make 2 weapon fighting more viable for different classes, and generally more options to help mobile martial characters be more useful. Less standing still and full attack mechanics. I'd like to see a more flexible barbarian and a little fighter love.
5. A slightly nerffed summoner and generally reworked gunslinger to make guns less costly and no longer just touch AC kick butting. I just really don't like gunslinger mechanics.
If I got all these, I'd be a very happy Pathfinder fan. Even just a couple of these would be awesome! The ones I hope most for is a good change to the Monk and the poison rework. :)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I can assure you he had really good answers, though I can't really share most of them right now. But i will give you one: a couple of the classes that are not called out in the Classes chapter on the outline rely heavily on systems that are called out in other chapters.Hypothetical clarification:
As in, the reason Fighter isn't listed as a class fix is maybe a chapter deals with fixing feats or something? Just as an example of what you mean?
I've said all I'm going to say for now!
|
Lead Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Be patient folks.
While I cannot promise we will address every concern (the book is only 256 pages after all), I think that most will be very pleased by some of the parts of this book.
No more spoilers for now though. You are just going to have to wait.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Be patient folks.
While I cannot promise we will address every concern (the book is only 256 pages after all), I think that most will be very pleased by some of the parts of this book.
No more spoilers for now though. You are just going to have to wait.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Would you mind stopping by this thread and saying hi? It would be nice to know that our feedback is at least being read even if you don't have any comments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you mind stopping by this thread and saying hi? It would be nice to know that our feedback is at least being read even if you don't have any comments.Be patient folks.
While I cannot promise we will address every concern (the book is only 256 pages after all), I think that most will be very pleased by some of the parts of this book.
No more spoilers for now though. You are just going to have to wait.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I am reading that thread, but I'm not sure it would be a good idea for a designer to post in it--don't let us stifle your creative process in there. Heck, if you guys come up with enough different good ideas there, I'm sure by the end of your brainstorm there will be enough for more than one 3pp class, and there's clearly enough passion in there to see a product through.
The problem can't be solved by a third party. Paizo has acknowledged that Rogue and Monk needed to be fixed in Pathfinder Unchained, so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.
Last I checked we hit 60:9 in favor of the Fighter being Unchained.
The problem can't be solved by a third party. Paizo has acknowledged that Rogue and Monk needed to be fixed in Pathfinder Unchained, so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.
Last I checked we hit 60:9 in favor of the Fighter being Unchained.
My post was not meant to be a counterpoint to the thread, but merely a side observation. No matter what is in Unchained, there will still be enough other interesting ideas in your thread to make several fun 3pp classes (and archetypes) if you guys workshopped them and put them together.
The problem can't be solved by a third party. Paizo has acknowledged that Rogue and Monk needed to be fixed in Pathfinder Unchained, so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.
Last I checked we hit 60:9 in favor of the Fighter being Unchained.
They acknowledged that some people wanted a different take. That's not exactly the same thing.
Disclaimer: I was reading an old RavingDork post...
about the StoneShape Spell. and after reading RossByers discussions on unchaining PlanarBinding spells from the way things have always been done, it seemed that StoneShape would be a great candidate for a look in Unchained.
I'm definitely not looking for any freakish volume calculations to make stone prisons and spiked pits...but i've seen alot of player/gm arguments on how to use this spell...touch vs area, how crude is crude, exactly 1 stone or the side of a hill up to my volume? etc...
stoneshape is one of my alltime favorite thematic spells but it would be nice to more specifically enumerate what the 3rd/4th level spell can/cannot do...especially in like of other spells like wall of stone, spiked pit, spikedstones.
earthbenders everywhere would appreciate some concrete elaboration on this one. at least i would :-)
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Last I checked we hit 60:9 in favor of the Fighter being Unchained.
ID, I've seen you use these numbers a couple times. Allow me to suggest that you not read too much into those numbers. They aren't much good as evidence for the point you appear to want them to support (i.e. that there is a majority opinion in favor of the Fighter getting a rewrite in Unchained). Here's why.
Mostly, this is a concern about self-selection. It seems likely that a thread with such a "click-if-you-agree!" title, and such a crowd of committed "we agree!" partisans, is going to draw a certain group of readers—those who already agree with you. There's good reason to think, then, that those numbers you're bringing up will be significantly influenced by a self-selection effect. Kinda like when Fox News makes a big deal about the results of an "online poll!" run on Fox.com. :-)
(We should also keep in mind the general self-selection point, too, that the forums themselves are hardly representative of the general population of all PF players.)
Plus, what Mark said, about not interfering with the creative process, also applies to other posters. I haven't posted in the thread, though I've been following it with some interest, because I don't really think the Fighter is so badly in need of "Unchaining." But it wouldn't be very polite or helpful to interrupt y'all's interesting brainstorming session to say, "hey guys, I don't agree!" (In fact, haven't you posted a couple times over there explicitly asking that the thread stay focused on what a rewritten fighter might look like, rather than a discussion of whether the fighter needs a rewrite? I agree with you that that seems like a better approach for the thread. I'd rather not contribute to yet another pointless forum squabble.)
They acknowledged that some people wanted a different take. That's not exactly the same thing.The problem can't be solved by a third party. Paizo has acknowledged that Rogue and Monk needed to be fixed in Pathfinder Unchained, so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.
Last I checked we hit 60:9 in favor of the Fighter being Unchained.
Agreed, it is only a coincidence that people have titled Rogue and Monk as the "worst classes in the game" and have been asking for their rewrite for ages. Same with Fighter, but they don't have a confirmed rewrite.
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.
Agreed, it is only a coincidence that people have titled Rogue and Monk as the "worst classes in the game" and have been asking for their rewrite for ages. Same with Fighter, but they don't have a confirmed rewrite.They acknowledged that some people wanted a different take. That's not exactly the same thing.The problem can't be solved by a third party. Paizo has acknowledged that Rogue and Monk needed to be fixed in Pathfinder Unchained, so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.
Last I checked we hit 60:9 in favor of the Fighter being Unchained.
I will also add that it's rather irritating, to me at least, when you frame your distaste for the Fighter class as something that *everybody* shares, or as something that *only an idiot would disagree with* (this is how your posts can come off, at least to me).
Though I can see how many of the complaints aired in your thread and others like it can get traction, I'm not sure I agree with the strength of the conclusions that you and others draw from those perceived shortcomings with the Fighter class. So when I'm thinking to myself well, there are some valid points here but I'm not sure I want to go all the way with these guys, and you come along and adopt that confrontational tone, it riles me up a bit and I find myself less sympathetic to your case and tempted to start what I've characterized above as "yet another pointless forum squabble."
Which leads me to suggest that, flies with honey, you'd do a lot more for your cause if you adopted a less confrontational tone. In other words—which is more important, building consensus for your viewpoint on what you see as an important issue, or telling folks who disagree with you that they're stupid? Framed like that, it seems an obvious choice. At least to me. :-)
|
Worst class in the game is clearly the Commoner. Look at all those dead levels! And the Warrior is like a Fighter without class features. Which, since the Fighter is already a Fighter without class features, is kind of like an Ouroboran Mandelbrot pattern of suck.
NPC Classes Unchained, y'all!
.
Seriously 'though, Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might 2 expanded on the notion of combat feats having two 'levels,' one for any old schmoe who took them, and then a little something extra for if they were taken with a Fighter's bonus feats from class levels, so that anyone could use Power Attack, but a Fighter who took it as one of his Fighter class bonus feats got a +2 damage over and above the usual effects.
He had the extra effects gated off by levels (so the above damage bonus only applied at 11th level), which seemed a bit weak, but he also had 'boost' effects that allowed a Fighter to perform a few stunts a day, with each Combat feat having an associated 'stunt' he could use by spending one of his boosts, so there were a couple levels of increased combat feat utility for Fighters.
(The Power Attack 'boost' for instance was to be able to reroll a melee damage roll.)
The downside of this sort of concept is that it would require extra lines of text for every combat feat, for abilities that will mostly only be relevant to Fighters (or, perhaps in special circumstances, other martials, perhaps limited to Combat feats selected with Ranger, Cavalier, Monk, etc. bonus feats, or as Rogue Talents?).
For a game system that spends 165 pages on magic and spells and 25 pages on melee and ranged combat and maneuvers, that could be crazytalk. :)
.
I kind of feel that one problem with the feats in general is that there are just too many of them, and a *lot* of them 'feel' more like they should be options that anyone can attempt, almost as if some of these feats aren't adding options to the game, so much as subtracting them by taking something that anyone should be able to attempt, and gating them off as only able to be done by someone who has spent a limited resource to train to do something that, thematically, might only happen a couple times in their life.
My post was not meant to be a counterpoint to the thread, but merely a side observation. No matter what is in Unchained, there will still be enough other interesting ideas in your thread to make several fun 3pp classes (and archetypes) if you guys workshopped them and put them together.The problem can't be solved by a third party. Paizo has acknowledged that Rogue and Monk needed to be fixed in Pathfinder Unchained, so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.
Last I checked we hit 60:9 in favor of the Fighter being Unchained.
As true as that may be, that does not change the fact that any 3pp class that may be inspired by that thread will not be PFS compatible. It does not change that GMs who say "Paizo books only" will deny that class.
When Insain Dragoon said he wanted dev presence in his thread, he didn't mean that he wanted a dev to go in and judge the ideas in people's post. He wanted something more like a "You concerns are noted. We are watching this thread."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My post was not meant to be a counterpoint to the thread, but merely a side observation. No matter what is in Unchained, there will still be enough other interesting ideas in your thread to make several fun 3pp classes (and archetypes) if you guys workshopped them and put them together.The problem can't be solved by a third party. Paizo has acknowledged that Rogue and Monk needed to be fixed in Pathfinder Unchained, so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.
Last I checked we hit 60:9 in favor of the Fighter being Unchained.
As true as that may be, that does not change the fact that any 3pp class that may be inspired by that thread will not be PFS compatible. It does not change that GMs who say "Paizo books only" will deny that class.
When Insain Dragoon said he wanted dev presence in his thread, he didn't mean that he wanted a dev to go in and judge the ideas in people's post. He wanted something more like a "You concerns are noted. We are watching this thread."
I have no idea what will happen vis-a-vis Unchained and PFS, but were I a betting men, I wouldn't throw too much of a bet on many parts of Unchained being sanctioned.
As to watching the thread, I did lead with "I am reading that thread", so hope that helps! As always, I appreciate all feedback. Whether we use it or not, varied feedback from all opinions is better than just hearing one viewpoint, so I'd much rather hear everyone's voice than only those who agree, as long as its a constructive voice.
My post was not meant to be a counterpoint to the thread, but merely a side observation. No matter what is in Unchained, there will still be enough other interesting ideas in your thread to make several fun 3pp classes (and archetypes) if you guys workshopped them and put them together.The problem can't be solved by a third party. Paizo has acknowledged that Rogue and Monk needed to be fixed in Pathfinder Unchained, so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.
Last I checked we hit 60:9 in favor of the Fighter being Unchained.
As true as that may be, that does not change the fact that any 3pp class that may be inspired by that thread will not be PFS compatible. It does not change that GMs who say "Paizo books only" will deny that class.
When Insain Dragoon said he wanted dev presence in his thread, he didn't mean that he wanted a dev to go in and judge the ideas in people's post. He wanted something more like a "You concerns are noted. We are watching this thread."
Isn't that pretty much what Mark said in "I'm reading that thread"? Intellectual property concerns notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure the devs are always noting concerns and getting ideas from what people say about their product.
Plus, as the new guy on the block (and without putting words in Mark's mouth), I'm betting he's still figuring out where Paizo policy puts the line between "inspiration" and "plagiarism".
|
|
Plus, as the new guy on the block (and without putting words in Mark's mouth), I'm betting he's still figuring out where Paizo policy puts the line between "inspiration" and "plagiarism".
FAQ'd!. :-)
Who owns my comments?
While Paizo Publishing does not pre-screen message content, Paizo Publishing does reserve the right to edit or remove submitted messages or material at any time. Paizo Publishing is not responsible for the content of messages submitted by users of the site. Users posting messages to the site automatically grant Paizo Publishing the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, sublicense, copy and distribute such messages throughout the world in any media.
Plus, as the new guy on the block (and without putting words in Mark's mouth), I'm betting he's still figuring out where Paizo policy puts the line between "inspiration" and "plagiarism".Who owns my comments?
While Paizo Publishing does not pre-screen message content, Paizo Publishing does reserve the right to edit or remove submitted messages or material at any time. Paizo Publishing is not responsible for the content of messages submitted by users of the site. Users posting messages to the site automatically grant Paizo Publishing the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, sublicense, copy and distribute such messages throughout the world in any media.
Touche legalese. Touche. :-)
I think what Paizo is doing here is very smart. With D&D 5e coming out and focusing on modularity, options, better balance between martials and casters, more dynamic martial movement during combat, and a "play-it-your-way" philosophy, this is potentially a great response. Giving people options in Pathfinder (outside of the default assumptions) is an effective way to retain players who may see more of what they want in the options being presented by D&D 5e. I am definitely in the "target audience" for this book. Well played, Paizo. My only wish is that this book was coming out sooner than 2015.
My post was not meant to be a counterpoint to the thread, but merely a side observation. No matter what is in Unchained, there will still be enough other interesting ideas in your thread to make several fun 3pp classes (and archetypes) if you guys workshopped them and put them together.The problem can't be solved by a third party. Paizo has acknowledged that Rogue and Monk needed to be fixed in Pathfinder Unchained, so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.
Last I checked we hit 60:9 in favor of the Fighter being Unchained.
As true as that may be, that does not change the fact that any 3pp class that may be inspired by that thread will not be PFS compatible. It does not change that GMs who say "Paizo books only" will deny that class.
When Insain Dragoon said he wanted dev presence in his thread, he didn't mean that he wanted a dev to go in and judge the ideas in people's post. He wanted something more like a "You concerns are noted. We are watching this thread."
Isn't that pretty much what Mark said in "I'm reading that thread"? Intellectual property concerns notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure the devs are always noting concerns and getting ideas from what people say about their product.
Plus, as the new guy on the block (and without putting words in Mark's mouth), I'm betting he's still figuring out where Paizo policy puts the line between "inspiration" and "plagiarism".
I did not miss that Mark Seifter said that he was reading it. However my words:
"When Insain Dragoon said he wanted dev presence in his thread, he didn't mean that he wanted a dev to go in and judge the ideas in people's post. He wanted something more like a "You concerns are noted. We are watching this thread.'" show that you perhaps have read my post incorrectly. Sorry for any confusion.
I sometimes wonder if the folks at Paizo and elsewhere might not be better served not announcing products so far in advance of their release, if only to tone down the requests/demands.
There are limits to this: at a certain point, Paizo has to make announcements into the book and hobby trades for new products (this is why Amazon always has mockup covers that do not get updated.) For what I hope are obvious reasons, Paizo makes those announcements at the same time on the website, or slightly earlier to large groups at conventions.
Imagine what things would be like if we learned about this product by seeing it pop up on Amazon, instead of getting an announcement at PaizoCon?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like Paizo has another opportunity to profit by copy/pasting others' work.
What?
Sounds like Paizo has another opportunity to profit by copy/pasting others' work.What?
Agreed, it seems the whole point of "Unchained" is actually to completely break themselves off from 3.5 inspiration by making new action economy systems and subsystems + rewriting certain classes without the trappings of the past. I would honestly be more surprised than anything is Unchained does copy paste previous content.
I did not miss that Mark Seifter said that he was reading it. However my words:
"When Insain Dragoon said he wanted dev presence in his thread, he didn't mean that he wanted a dev to go in and judge the ideas in people's post. He wanted something more like a "You concerns are noted. We are watching this thread.'" show that you perhaps have read my post incorrectly. Sorry for any confusion.
Respectfully, a lurker is present in the thread. I think Mark is giving what you indicate you want, if not exactly what you asked for. I just happened to put more emphasis on the "like" than you did and less on the specifics of how to communicate attention.
But, I see that I have helped create enough of a digression for now. Thanks for humoring me.
Agreed, it is only a coincidence that people have titled Rogue and Monk as the "worst classes in the game" and have been asking for their rewrite for ages. Same with Fighter, but they don't have a confirmed rewrite.They acknowledged that some people wanted a different take. That's not exactly the same thing.The problem can't be solved by a third party. Paizo has acknowledged that Rogue and Monk needed to be fixed in Pathfinder Unchained, so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.
Last I checked we hit 60:9 in favor of the Fighter being Unchained.
Not coincidental, just not necessarily representative, personally i think the druid is the worst class in the game, but I'm not going to go onto someone's druid thread and start knocking them or start an argument. I like the rogue and monk as they are, and I even like the fighter, but ya'll are having fun in your thread and I don't feel any need to come in and start stomping on your fun just because i disagree.
So... Pathfinder Essentials?
I think Paizo should scrap the extra HP while raging and replace it with DR/- equal to 1/2 of the Barbarians level.This is one of the two basic components of my Rage rewrite.
So basically a straight nerf then?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My reading of the quoted text was that a 3pp had produced something that was thematically/mechanically consistent with Paizo's design goals and that Paizo could benefit by either using or reviewing and being inspired by the material.Sounds like Paizo has another opportunity to profit by copy/pasting others' work.What?
That's the idea behind Open Game Content... Anybody, Paizo or third-party publishers, can take Open Game Content and run with it. And people have.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as the fighter is based on feats he can never gain an edge, hence why he needs to be unchained from feats.
Caster Martial disparity isn't the Fighters biggest problem. His biggest problem is that their is no plausible reason to take one over any of the other full BAB classes.
While I don't mean to contribute significantly to further derailment of the thread, I feel that I must note here that my current leading idea for a character for Iron Gods is a fighter, is only mechanically feasible as a fighter in the currently-available character classes*, and is feasible solely as a result of the class' bonus feats.
You may now return to your regularly-scheduled fighter-bashing.
*it is possible that he might work as a brawler, but I'd need to see the final class to be sure. Right now I don't think it would work, but I might be surprised.