Ok, this is something I was explaining to a friend of mine a while back, who was looking in the 3E PHBs, and mentioning that the Fighter was obviously one of the best classes ever, if not the best because they got all kinds of bonus feats to make the perfect warrior, and really only needed strength and constitution to be effective. Obviously everyone here probably knows that's incorrect; but it does pertain to the subject of this post.
The Issue - Feats are designed to give characters options, cool abilities, and flesh out a character concept. In some cases, the feats also function pretty much like choose-it class abilities (or in the case of the pre-pathfinder fighter, their ONLY class ability). Unfortunately many, many feats require ability scores to qualify for, and most of those ability scores are in fact quite high, and while they may seem flavorful, really only cause problems as best as I can tell.
Case in point, Power Attack vs Combat Expertise. Ok, so the idea is with power-attack, your warrior sacrifices accuracy to deliver a particularly devastating blow, whereas Combat Expertise sacs accuracy to maintain a potent defense. One has Str 13, the other has Int 13 as a requirement. This SEEMs like a fair requirement, but it means that a fighter (or anyone else) will need to spread their ability scores around for what amounts to an option in combat - a maneuver or stance or fighting style or simply being more or less reckless - which has pros and cons to each.
Ok, toss in the rather HIGH dex 15 requirement for Two Weapon Fighting, Dex 13 for Dodge, or even the Str 13 for Exotic Weapon (Bastard Sword, or Dwarven Waraxe), and you find that your ability scores will determine much about your characters options - not just what you'll excel at.
Apparently my human fighter with a 15 str, 16 con, 13 dex, and 12 intelligence cannot fight with a pair of twin axes (or parry with them using two weapon defense, and god forbid improved two weapon fighting), or making use of any tactical defensive feat (or improved disarm or trip for that matter). Fortunately, while my dwarf does suck at two weapon fighting (it's the RP y'know), I can use my Power Attack, and I have my EWP-Dwarven Waraxe to keep me safe; plus I can pick up cleave and great cleave for fun.
But oh, wait...I got hit with a poison and it dropped my strength to 12, and I lost access to the entire power attack line of feats, as well as suddenly loosing my exotic weapon proficiency - on top of suffering from a hit to my ability scores which will only make me worse at combat too.
----
Pause for a bit.
----
Ok, if you haven't realized by now, the point I'm trying to make is - ability score requirements are (in my opinion) bad at least 9/10 times. They limit character development and customization, can require silly-high ability scores to qualify, and you loose access to a feat you don't qualify for (yep, you take 1 int, or 1 dex, and 1 str damage from a poison, disease, spell, whatever, and you just lost half your feats - suck it up!). In addition, the requirement for the feat is a moot point 'cause the feat is generally sub-optimal if the associated ability score is very low. For example, power attack reeks of being good for very strong 2 hander characters, and having less strength would make the feat less desirable to most characters - but you COULD take it to represent say, a potent but risky strike from a fencer (who has a low strength but high dex and weapon finesse).
Toss on the fact that most abilities suffer from a lower ability score, but don't completely go away (spells being the key exception). For example - a fighter with a strength of 1 has a huge penalty to hit and damage, but insult to injury, just lost his entire power-attack feat tree; however, a rogue with a strength of 1 has those same penalties to hit and damage, but at least if the rogue hits they keep their +5d6 sneak attack.
A creature can have an ability with a saving throw, for example, and the associated ability is really low. This doesn't prevent the creature from using it (usually, gnomes are the exception), it just means it's going to be less effective.
---
I'd much rather see ability score requirements on feats to be a VERY RARE thing, or removed completely. Or at least lowered drastically. For example, in 3E TwoWeaponFighting had a dex requirement of 15, while in d20 Modern, the same feat had a dex 13 requirement (a little more manageable) - but I would like to see them abolished all together.
I mean, take Weapon Finesse as an example. It makes just as much sense that it should require a dex bonus to qualify for as any other feat, but instead has no requirement. Obviously the higher the dex is the better, but it's not needed. Plus it also means that if the character gets physically crippled (say -3 str, -3 dex) the character can still use the better of the two ability scores while below 10 in either.
----
----
----
Please consider, and discuss. I'd like to hear others' opinions on the matter (and I hope agreements, but who doesn't, eh?) either way.
Peace.
I think many of those requirements make sense.
|
Ashiel, in general terms, I disagree. This is one of the things that 3.5 got right. There should be a cost for min-maxing ability scores and an opportunity to be rewarded for designing a character more creatively.
We can look at individual or even sub-systemic oddities, such as, for me, the Two-Weapon Fighting progression or other feats with prerequisites of 15, 17 and higher scores in non-core abilities. I approve of prerequisites of 13 in an ability score though. That's about right.
Seconding Starglim.
The entire Expertise tree is there to reward fighters for being reasonably clever. Without that, the only thing they get out of a 13+ int is one more skill point per level. Not only is that unsatistfying, it doesn't make sense.
Clever fighters should have a few tricks up their slieves
The real problem is that there are so few feats to choose from in 3.5 core. Once you gain levels, a moderate dex or a moderate int isn't just rewarded, it's REQUIRED, because you have virtually no options without it. If I had my druthers, the feat chapter would be longer than the spell chapter.
In particular, rewarding abilities like Str or Dex (that fighters benefit from immensely already) can be somewhat disheartening. When writing my own feats, I either don't use these or don't make them very high, because it's not like we need to reward the half-orc barbarian for having a 25 strength score.
When my 8 dex gold dwarf berzerker (that's hardly a min/maxed concept, guys) can't duel-wield axes (hey, isnt't that the example the OP gave?), stat requirements become little more than a grudging nod to realism.
When I really like them, though, is when they reward me for having a strength that isn't strictly required by my class. In Arcana Evolved you can take Opportunist (as per the rogue ability) as a feat, as long as you have an Int of 15+. I love that.
So what about the fact that you loose access to any and all feats you no don't currently qualify for? Like I mentioned before, if your character manages to just qualify for something, and then gets hit with even the slightest ability score penalty, they've lost all of it. It's especially noticeable with the Fighter class (seeing as their feats are their class abilities) when a shadow (CR 3 creature) uses its melee touch attack (armor be doomed) to deliver an average of 3.5 strength damage per hit, and suddenly the fighter has lost his entire power attack line of feats (along with any feats requiring strength for it) in addition to being less effective because of the strength hit itself (basically, I just smacked you with -1 or -2 or -3 to all your attack and damage rolls, more if you're a two hander, but to add insult to injury, just stole your abilities from you as well).
As for nodding to realism, I've had an interest in martial arts for virtually my entire life. I've never formally trained in any particular style, but I love sparring with friends and family who have; or participating in mock-battles with practice weapons (weighted wooden swords for example), and I myself prefer fighting with two weapons (I enjoy the ability to parry with either weapon, continually throwing attacks with each weapon, and even the "balanced" feel of it); now of course, that's real life, and this is an RPG, and it's generally frowned upon to compare the two, but follow me here...
I'm NOT a hero. In fact, I'd probably be more accurately classified as a commoner (maybe with a few prestige classes like "savvy-gamer" ^_^), and when the average person in the world has between a 10-11 in an ability score, it would seem odd to assume I have a 15 or even a 13 dexterity. Furthermore, you can teach young children (8-12 range easily) how to fight with two weapons, parry, and use the two as a single weapon (that is, not just alternate but strike with both).
My point, in short, is the ability score requirements hurt the game mechanically, and they don't really make a whole lot of sense realistically. I mean, explain to me how power-attack couldn't be used for a fencer (high dex character) to deliver a more damaging blow at a loss of accuracy? Is what amounts to a mechanical called shot really need to be based on strength?
Yes, under the current system you do have to spread your ability scores thin if you want a variety of options (see the fighter example, who while having many different feat options and bonus feats, needs a wide range of ability scores to qualify for each of the feats), which is commonly seen as bad thing (and one of the many reasons spell-casters are better than most, because they only need to focus on 1 or 2 ability scores).
It was exceptionally obvious to me when I tried making a fighter who used a pair of kusari-gamas, combat expertise, and a few other feats. I NEEDED strength to improve my hit and damage (damage especially), but also needed a 15 dex just to qualify for two weapon fighting, I NEEDED combat expertise because I was supposed to be mostly a mobile-trick-fighter, and improved disarm and trip were needed.
In point buy, it wrecks these characters by making them exceptionally weaker than anyone else because they want a certain flavor, but have to invest at least a 13 in almost every ability score, and at least a 15 in another ability score. If you roll ability scores, it means anyone who rolls high not only has better stats to begin with, but also can make use of options for their character to give them even more cool stuff to do. In games where all your ability scores are high, it's not quite as noticeable as a problem (again, 'till wizzie smacks you with a ray of enfeeblement).
I myself personally see no problem with a dwarven fighter who prances around in full plate, dual wielding axes, with a dex of 6, power attack, and improved disarm (good thing I studied those books, now I know how to rip a weapon from someone's hands!). Obviously it makes for a nice fighter, and he's already suffering in various areas from lack of skill points, AC, poor ranged attacks, and so on. Give the dwarf a cookie!
---
Finally, there should be feats which REWARD higher ability scores for certain things. For example, the Warblade class gains several abilities that work very much like a feat tree; adding their intelligence bonus to initiative, critical confirmation, and a few other things. They're primarily a melee-warrior class, but building around being a smart fighter is doable.
Just like weapon finesse, it has no dex requirement but rewards a higher dex. If you have feats which allow you to add your INT to your AC instead of dex, for example, you might find a lot more smart fighters in your games, especially there are other feats that improve your crit-confirmation, attack or damage on attacks of opportunities, or allow you to apply some of your intelligence bonus to certain maneuvers like Disarm or Trip (for those who feel the requirement makes sense for the feats Improved Disarm, or Improved Trip).
---
Does this make any sense?
|
I myself personally see no problem with a dwarven fighter who prances around in full plate, dual wielding axes, with a dex of 6, power attack, and improved disarm (good thing I studied those books, now I know how to rip a weapon from someone's hands!). Obviously it makes for a nice fighter, and he's already suffering in various areas from lack of skill points, AC, poor ranged attacks, and so on. Give the dwarf a cookie!
---
Finally, there should be feats which REWARD higher ability scores for certain things. For example, the Warblade class gains several abilities that work very much like a feat tree; adding their intelligence bonus to initiative, critical confirmation, and a few other things. They're primarily a melee-warrior class, but building around being a smart fighter is doable.
Just like weapon finesse, it has no dex requirement but rewards a higher dex. If you have feats which allow you to add your INT to your AC instead of dex, for example, you might find a lot more smart fighters in your games, especially there are other feats that improve your crit-confirmation, attack or damage on attacks of opportunities, or allow you to apply some of your intelligence bonus to certain maneuvers like Disarm or Trip (for those who feel the requirement makes sense for the feats Improved Disarm, or Improved Trip).---
Does this make any sense?
Wow that was a long post. I must have fallen asleep 2, maybe 3 times.
No, this does not make any sense. I don't have much else to say beyond what was said by the others that disagreed with your suggestion. One, it doesn't make sense thematically. Two, it doesn't make sense from a game-mechanics end and would only further allow for absurd min/maxing opportunities. Full plate wearing, two-weapon fighting, power-attacking, chain wielding, combat reflexing, combat expertizing fighters have no place in my game, and I hope they keep the standard as such. If you don't like prereqs, house-rule it.
P.S.- As a general word of advice, don't bring up Book of the Nine Swords classes when talking about increasing power levels in a game by removing feat requirements. That book already smacks of overpowerdness.
Wow that was a long post. I must have fallen asleep 2, maybe 3 times.No, this does not make any sense. I don't have much else to say beyond what was said by the others that disagreed with your suggestion. One, it doesn't make sense thematically. Two, it doesn't make sense from a game-mechanics end and would only further allow for absurd min/maxing opportunities. Full plate wearing, two-weapon fighting, power-attacking, chain wielding, combat reflexing, combat expertizing fighters have no place in my game, and I hope they keep the standard as such. If you don't like prereqs, house-rule it.
P.S.- As a general word of advice,...
There is no need to be rude (but if you want to be that way).
First off, nothing you just described in your example of min/maxing works. Unless you specifically mean kusari-gama when you mention "chain", instead of the "spiked chain", then you can't dual wield them. The character wielding full-plate is moot, and most would tell you that using power-attack and combat expertise at the same time would be sub-optimal due to the hit to accuracy (with a high enough base attack bonus, it could possibly be useful in some situations).
I mean, as the game is written right now, it becomes "you have to be THIS HIGH to have options", and reminds me of the old editions of D&D where you had to have X in Y ability score to take a CLASS. Not a good thing.
I explained the mechanical problems with ability scores as requirements (loosing entire feat trees if you suffer some ability damage; literally levels worth of power for some classes, in addition to the obvious penalties for taking hits to your abilities) and furthermore, it actually ENCOURAGES min/maxing, because players then try to make sure they can meet the ability requirements of the feats they want to take, at the loss of all the others. There's a reason why there are so many fighters with 8 or less charisma - because they want at LEAST 13 in Str, Dex, Con, and Int, and generally need more than that in their primary focus (str and con for melee fighters, for example).
In fact, it removes min/maxing from the equation, and makes it easier for new players to get into the game. A new player builds a character and decides to make a pretty rugged barbarian, and gives him a 15 constitution, a 14 strength, a 12 dex, a 12 wisdom, and a 10 intelligence and charisma.
Later he decides he thinks dodge/mobility/spring attack sound fun, and would fit his barbarian thematically (lightly armored, mobile, and strong) and decides he wants to do this. However, he can't do that 'cause he needs a 13 dex; and can't do it. But he decides to wait until 4th level and put one of his 5/20 points into his dexterity, and then picks up dodge at level 6, and then starts picking up the other feats for this fighting style at 9 and 12 respectively. However, later his character gets hit with a poison arrow and looses 3 dexterity, dropping all his dex-related stuff by -1 (AC, Reflex, Skills), but now he also just lost 9 levels worth of feats. I'm sorry, but this IS a problem with the system.
If you want power-gaming/min-maxing, then you're probably be going to look at builds like the spiked chain tripper, super charger, power attacker, and stuff that does in fact only focus on 1 or 2 ability scores to make work. The rules system would punish the barbarian who wanted to do more than just "Power Attack -5 for +10dmg", or anyone but a ranger who wants to dual wield (a style generally inferior mechanically) because they need to put a 15 into their dex (in standard D&D games, a 15 is the highest you'll likely have) to do something that is usually desired for melee combat (which needs STR to mean anything).
----
However, I would like to see your explanation as to why "it doesn't make sense thematically." and "It doesn't make sense from a game-mechanics end and would only further allow for absurd min/maxing opportunities."
Please, I'd like to hear (detailed) explanations for why this is so. You've come in and insulted me (with your rude remarks), and I must say I'm glad to see that the Pathfinder is going to have better non-spell-casters than core 3E. Also, this may sound a little insulting and rude (but since I owe ya one ^_^), I don't think you have any comprehension of fair balance and good game-play at all.
And in my opinion...
The Tome of Battle:Book of Nine Swords is incredibly well balanced, and is very difficult to break (in fact, those crazy optimizers on the WotC boards couldn't break the ToB and that is saying something). It improved the game wonderfully, gave melee characters something to do other than full attack, gave them abilities that were comparable to feats that they COULDN'T BE ROBBED OF, and is one of the finest examples of a quality source book anyone will ever find. I am happy to see that the Pathfinder book is making the core warriors as good as the ToB classes, and giving them more options and more cool features, while scaling back some of the more broken spells in the core system (thank god, a shape-change spell that doesn't make your eyes bleed).
----
I appreciate replies, whether for or against, but I do not respond well to insults and rude behavior. I'd like to hear an actual mechanical explanation as to why this would be bad for the pathfinder RPG, as well as further mechanical explanations as to why it could be good.
Either way, let it be civil. We're here to discuss, not wave hands.
|
|
I don't care for the ability requirements myself. You do not need superhuman strength to be able to swing wildly, nor have a genius intelligence to focus more on defending yourself than attacking. The dexterity requirement makes more sense, but I think having a low dex is penalty enough. You can still use two weapons. You just don't do it as well. Training means more than raw ability.
Firstly;
I do not care for the argument that it prevents min/maxing because min/max is the realm of Point Buy- which is actually *designed* to let you min/max. You choose your ability scores. You set your highs and your lows. Using point buy and then using feats to control where you put your points just annoys me to no end. Personal rant over.
Secondly;
Ability score requirements exist on feats work two fold:
it helps to minimize the cookie cutter issue. (everyone looks the same, feat wise).
It also helps to balance some feats.
Yes- balance.
Thematically there is nothing wrong with a full plate fighter dual wielding dwarven war axes.
Mathematically however it could very easily create some problems when expected damage dealt if you removed the dex component from the line.
Fighters have the highest bab and tend to have the 2nd highest STR in the game (right behind the raging barbarians). If you allow them to dual wield the best 1 handers in the game using those high strength bonuses with nothing to offset it then it skews the numbers quite dramatically.
If you take str 20, thats +5 to hit, that's 2d10+7 assuming both hits connect (and don't crit. crits just make it worse)- and two attacks with 20 strength isn't especially impressive. When you start getting multiple extra attacks from BAB and other sources, with magic weapon damage and STR damage going through the roof, adding in the fighter feats and base-class bonuses the damage can actually get fairly substantial all with very little cost to the character.
To prevent that, or at least to moderate it, they've placed some ability score requirements on some feats and feat chaines.
That's not to say that every feat needs to have a score requirement- but it is a fairly solid reason (imo) for having it on some.
Thirdly:
and somewhat absurdly, i admit-
It's some lovin to the odd ability score number.
NO other criteria in the game exists to make odd ability scores anything but the *****child of the ability score world, than odd-score requiring feats.
Not saying it should be kept just for that reason- but it is at least *a* reason, however small.
In answer to your "new character" and such:
If you stop your job today and totally reverse your career choice and go try and find something else to do- you may just find that you are ill equipped to do so.
As I sit here at my desk, I would be hard pressed to become an olympic athlete no matter how much I wished it- I just don't have the stats for it.
I am trained for what I do and I excel in it, but changing my profession would require *alot* of work and foresight before I could accomplish it.
D&D is no different. If a person neglects some ability scores and later on decides to change paths then there is a cost to doing so. The fact that the individual is "new to the game" doesn't change that.
As to the poison/spell/disease issue:
You are correct. This is what gives poison/diseases and such their bite. If you only have a 13 str and take a -2 penalty to Strength you won't be power attacking. That is the way the rules are intended. It is why most creatures with strong poison/disease type attacks also tend to suck in combat at almost every other area. (high damage + poison is relatively rare, and they tend to be relatively easy to hit, too).
In final:
Games sometimes have restrictions that are annoying. It's part of playing the games. Knowing the restrictions and building upon them for your character is what helps keep your character unique.
The reason for the rules is not always just to keep you from doing what you want- they do also occasionally have good, mechanical reasons as well.
Hope this made sense.
Congrats for making it this far. ;p
-S
Thank you Selgard. It's nice to see you offering reasons for the ability scores, without being rude or insulting. I thank you for that, my friend. ^_^
If I understood the first part of your post ("I do not care for the argument that it prevents min/maxing because min/max is the realm of Point Buy- which is actually *designed* to let you min/max. You choose your ability scores. You set your highs and your lows. Using point buy and then using feats to control where you put your points just annoys me to no end."), I will agree it is for min/maxing (but also so everyone has an equal chance to min/max), and you seem to agree that the feats require you to spread out in a lot of ways, which sort of eliminates the options you get from point-buy, while classes such as *any spell-caster* or anyone who is built for just 1 or 2 ability scores (damage dealing barbarians spring to mind) get to enjoy their nice fat 16-18 ability scores which influence all their good stuff; while the guy who wanted to do something cool is stuck with 14 as their highest score.
As to the issue of "Balance" being a reason for ability score requirements, from a designer perspective, I fail to see how this works. I mean, it means you have an innately "better" base stat than someone else, but now you also have access to a "new feature" because you're already stronger than the other guy. Kind of like back in the older editions where they guy who rolled a 15 wisdom and charisma along with a good strength got to play the Paladin while the guy who rolled low got the fighter. One got cool paladin abilities and could fight well, and the other could just fight.
Most of the feats have effects that don't need balancing, other than the fact they require a feat. Interesting fact, feats are supposed to make your character better, and you get a limited amount of them over your 20 levels (less if your campaigns end around level 12-14, which I've read is a common thing). The effects of two weapon fighting, or dodge, for example don't need a "this tall to ride" sign on them.
---
Two Weapon Fighting is generally considered inferior to simply smashing something with a big two hander. It's been proven through math on the WotC boards many times, the -2 to hit is worth roughly a -4 to effective damage when fighting enemies appropriate to your level, it is horribly sub-par against anything with damage reduction, and the off hand gets a 1/2 strength penalty on off hand attacks.
-
Compare, even a ranger (who gets TwF easy) with a d8 weapon, and a d6 off-hand weapon, with an 18 strength, would have a +3 for a 1d8+4, and a +3 for a 1d6+2 attack. That's an average damage of 8.5dmg with the main attack, and 5.5 with the off-hand, or 14 if both attacks hit. Against an AC of 15, he needs to roll at least a 12 on both attacks, and if the creature has a damage reduction (such as DR 5/Bludgeoning and he's using blades), it applies to both hits separately, so the average damage becomes 3.5 and .5 respectively.
-
Now let's say that same 18 strength character spends NO FEATS and instead just uses a greatsword, a two hander. He is still giving up a shield, but now has more options for feats (since he didn't have to spend a feat for anything), and with the same BAB and strength, instead has a +5 to hit with the greatsword, and will do an average of 13 damage per hit. He has a 10% better chance to hit AC 15 at 1st level, so a 50/50 chance to just devastate anything he hits, and with increased accuracy to boot. The minimum damage per hit is better too, as far as luck goes (minimum 8dmg), and you're expected to hit more often.
Now toss on the fact we could toss on power-attack (which the requirement means little to nothing to this character) which would allow the warrior to take a -1 (still not putting his penalty to hit equal to the TwF's penalty) netting a +2dmg, pushing him over the ranger's average damage if he lands with two hits.
Now against the same creature with DR 5, the warrior is just going to punch through that. The warrior can deal no less than 3 damage to it on the worst roll possible, and up to 15 to it at best.
-
Now why does two weapon fighting need dex 15 to balance it? At higher levels, the two hander pumps his primary weapon up hard, and grabs a dancing shield, while you spend money on a pair of magic weapons, and try to grab a shield yourself; but the warrior is still pushing his Str like a dealer, and getting more powerful constantly, and gets to enjoy better accuracy, better damage, better...
---
A dwarf dual-wielding won't unbalance a game at all, prancing in full plate with a dex of 6. The same dwarf could hurt someone a lot more just flinging around a big weapon, without spending a feat. But players like two weapon fighting, so why nerf them further?
Why deny the barbarian the chance to get dodge/mobility/spring attack, when it's a fair chance to have an effective barbarian who doesn't just full attack, and have the exact same feat selection as every other barbarian/fighter with a high strength score?
----
As for the odd numbered ability scores, I can't really say anything about this, and I'm not really sure it's important. I always enjoyed the fact a +3 gauntlet of ogre strength could serve a str 15 character better than a str 14 character, but does it really matter in game? I mean, this is more or less a meta-game concept I think.
---
In answer to your "new character" and such:
If you stop your job today and totally reverse your career choice and go try and find something else to do- you may just find that you are ill equipped to do so.
As I sit here at my desk, I would be hard pressed to become an olympic athlete no matter how much I wished it- I just don't have the stats for it.
I am trained for what I do and I excel in it, but changing my profession would require *alot* of work and foresight before I could accomplish it.
D&D is no different. If a person neglects some ability scores and later on decides to change paths then there is a cost to doing so. The fact that the individual is "new to the game" doesn't change that.
Picking up two weapons, or making a wild attack, or using defensive maneuvers, are no changing of a profession. Waaaaaay to much emphasis is being put on these ability scores. Most of what you describe falls into the line of Skills and Ranks. Sure, the barbarian's gonna have a much harder time with Linguistics or Bluff, since his ability scores may not grant a bonus (or perhaps grant a penalty), but by putting ranks into it makes them better. Comparing a called-shot style power attack, or two weapon fighting (a very classic fighting style), to suddenly switching to a brand new career or suddenly decided to go become an Olympic swimmer from a desk job is a bit stretched; don't you think? o_O;;
Games sometimes have restrictions that are annoying. It's part of playing the games. Knowing the restrictions and building upon them for your character is what helps keep your character unique.
The reason for the rules is not always just to keep you from doing what you want- they do also occasionally have good, mechanical reasons as well.
My point is, these do not have good mechanical reasons for them. In fact, the rules are supposed to be there to make the game fun and manageable. One of the biggest complaints for many with 3E was the drastic difference based on the level of "system mastery". Also, the dwarf in the full plate dual wielding axes is both traditionally classic, and at the same time very unique (because as it is now, you can't do this and not "nerf" your character into uselessness).
As to the poison/spell/disease issue:
You are correct. This is what gives poison/diseases and such their bite. If you only have a 13 str and take a -2 penalty to Strength you won't be power attacking. That is the way the rules are intended. It is why most creatures with strong poison/disease type attacks also tend to suck in combat at almost every other area. (high damage + poison is relatively rare, and they tend to be relatively easy to hit, too).
Actually, I disagree. Wyverns, monstrous insects, and many poison based enemies are very strong, and their poison alone makes it so. It's like a creature that inflicts negative levels (follow me here...) because it creates a lasting effect other than HP damage, that actually makes you worse overall at a variety of things.
Take 2 points of dex damage by a centipede? Ok, that's a -1 to your AC, Reflex, Ranged Attacks and all dex based Skill checks. This means every bite from that centipede could make you easier to hit, easier to blow up, make it harder for you to avoid a trap, or use your skills.
Take 2 points of strength, you suffer in melee, strength based skills, have less carrying capacity (which can increase your load, further restricting you).
I don't even have to show why Con damage is bad (omg, it literally kills you, and drops your saves, while hurting your HP). Unless you have anti-poison spells in the ready, these things hurt all by themselves, and even then they make you consume resources on those anti-poison effects (either potions, spells per day, scrolls, etcetera).
Also poison is not an uncommon feature among creatures that don't have natural poisons. Take for example enemies armed with giant wasp poison tipped arrows (priced at 210gp for 20 arrows) spread amongst a group of NPCs (say 1st - 3rd level archers), can inflict heavy penalties on a single character, or a group of characters really fast.
Poison robbing characters of their abilities (in the case of fighters and a few other classes, their CLASS FEATURES) is not a good way to make a balanced and fair game. It is not a good drawback. Spells do it even more easily (ray of enfeeblement, 1st level, otherwise good, and is already an excellent debuff for many brutish enemies, but also steals any Str based feat readily).
Like I mentioned in my previous example, a rogue with 1s in every ability score suffers from obviously huge penalties, just like the fighter with 1s in all ability scores. However, the rogue still gets all of his cool stuff like sneak attack, trapsense, evasion (assuming he gets lucky and makes the save), the fighter's got nothing.
---
That's about it. I hope these things are taken into account in the PRPG, and yes, I will be house-ruling most ability score requirements out of my games, as I have for quite some time (much to the joy of my players). I have mentioned these issues here because I hope to contribute to the PRPG to make it better than 3E - and this is where I see a gameplay issue that needs to get nixed.
I'll admit, I was hoping this would get a little more support, but if everyone seems to think otherwise, I guess it is for the better. I stand by the above examples, explanations, and statements because I firmly believe them to be honest and true, and I think the game would be better for more people with this modification.
Peace out,
Game on. ^_^
|
I agree with this notion, in most cases.
As already stated, there's no burning need to reward a character *even more* for taking a high Strength (an already optimal choice, so much that the guidelines for race construction suggest charging a race DOUBLE for having a Str bonus!) by letting them take Power Attack (when the lower Strength Gnome andr Halfling Fighters have *much* more need for such a Feat, to compensate for their lower racial Str and take advantage of their size bonus to hit!).
Nor do I think a 13 Int is going to be required to figure out to effectively fight defensively, since wolves already do that naturally as part of their pack tactics and they have an Int score of TWO.
IMO, the cumulative effect of higher attribute prerequisites include the following;
1) Stat inflation, leading to higher point-buys being seen as necessary to attain some of the 'bread and butter' Feats, such as Two-Weapon Fighting, Power Attack -> Cleave and Combat Expertise -> Improved Trip.
2) Increased focus on higher attributes, and stat-boosting items, which are already, IMO, overly prevalent in the game.
3) Limiting varied and interesting combat options to characters who are *already* statistically advantaged compared to others, making the strong characters even stronger and the sucky characters suck even worse. In a game that includes an option to roll dice for stats, it's just kicking people when they're down!
3) Locking these Feats out for MAD classes, such as Paladins or (especially) Monks, who already have difficult choices to make during character generation, only to be shoe-horned out of choices like Improved Disarm / Trip (because the Monk couldn't afford to squeak a 13 Intelligence into his build).
4) Disparity between melee classes and casting classes, as Metamagic Feats and other spell-improving Feats, such as Spell Focus or Arcane Thesis, has no Int/Wis/Cha requirement. A Fighter modifying his swing to strike more powerfully, at a penalty to accuracy, has to reach that Str 13 benchmark. A Wizard wishing to Empower a spell to do more damage, at a cost in increased level, has no such barrier to entry.
And no, that is not a cry for Metamagic Feats or whatever to have attribute requirements. The only prerequisites for Feats that I fully support are level-based and Feat Chain based.
'Theme' requirements, like 'must be a member of the Order of the Wobbly Wombat' I like least of all, since *every* Feat, IMO, requires you to receive some basic training from people who already know it, and having Golden Beholder Penetrating Stare be exclusive to the Dread Vitreous Eye-Gougers is just shoving some other persons 'fluff' into my peanut butter.
Thank you Set, for saying everything I was trying to in far fewer words, and far more elegantly. ^_^
I also agree with everything Set mentioned here, in addition to the things I previously pointed out.
Peace out,
Game on.
|
|
Thing is, many of us don't let our players play point build, and we don't let characters sit and alter their ability scores to make the "perfect character." We play the traditional method, via rolling. That means the arguments that are based on the idea that most players just min/max so they can meet their prereqs is moot - they don't have the ability to in games of this style.
And that leads to the #1 reason that this is not a good idea.
It's much easier to take away than to give, and it's much better to give than take away.
From a game perspective, if you DON'T like ability score requirements, you just say as a DM "there are no ability score requirements". Bam, you're good to go and everybody is on the same page. You're happy and those of us who like ability score requirements don't care because you're enjoying things at the safety of your own game table.
If they were to take away ability score requirements to reinstate what many of us think is a perfectly reasonable system have to spend hours rebuilding charts and reverse engineering existing prereqs. Furthermore, and more importantly, if new feats were released without prereqs, we'd have to - as players and DMs - sit and figure out what their prerequs would be. Suddenly, the game development activities falls in my hands, which is frankly why I play games that other companies make instead of making my own.
So play without prereqs, I don't care, but don't take away something that works for those of us who want it in place.
Thing is, many of us don't let our players play point build, and we don't let characters sit and alter their ability scores to make the "perfect character." We play the traditional method, via rolling. That means the arguments that are based on the idea that most players just min/max so they can meet their prereqs is moot - they don't have the ability to in games of this style.
Yes, but point buy is the standard and often considered "most fair", as with rolling (as we've pointed out before) there are other issues with balance, it penalizes characters who roll lower ability scores, and rewards those who got luckier. In fact, they still do have the ability to min/max, just not as precisely (first off, if you rolled an 14, a 13, and an 8, and you put an 8 into your most useless ability score, you've just min/maxed), and it not only spreads your ability scores around, but may mean you never even have the option to qualify for options.
And that leads to the #1 reason that this is not a good idea.
It's much easier to take away than to give, and it's much better to give than take away.
From a game perspective, if you DON'T like ability score requirements, you just say as a DM "there are no ability score requirements". Bam, you're good to go and everybody is on the same page. You're happy and those of us who like ability score requirements don't care because you're enjoying things at the safety of your own game table.
I'm bringing up the problems with it in-game, because we are here to discuss what is better for the game as a whole. I've offered mechanical explanations, and have addressed every other mechanical note that I have seen mentioned in the defense of ability score requirements, including ill-notions of balance - as I pointed out in a previous post, few if any of these feats need these ability scores as a balancing factor. As a balancing factor, the requirements fail. Two weapon fighting being a perfect example. The only people who "break" two weapon fighting are the rogues with sneak attack who aren't going to give a Sam-hill about strength in the first place. - and I've yet to see a solid reason for them to be included other than A) A mechanical-ignoring sense of flavor, B) what appears to be a clinging to the previous rule-set, and C) "just 'cause".
Like I said before, YES I can house-rule it in my games, and I will if it is not changed. However, many people do not like house rules and prefer a complete, working, balanced system (like you have just mentioned). Many people want something that is balanced, fair, and easier for new people to pick up on, and doesn't require a huge level of system mastery to avoid having a sub-par character.
In the same regard, it wouldn't take but a small side-bar in the GMing section of the pathfinder to list optional prerequisites to the core feats, legacy hold-overs from 3.5 for those who want to ignore the balance and just feel it needs to be that way.
I'm trying to look out for the newbie, the player, and the balance of the game (and in turn, make the GM's life easier). I'm trying to show a flaw in the system - yes, a mechanical FLAW, not a feature - during this play-testing phase, because that's what has been asked of me (and everyone else).
If they were to take away ability score requirements to reinstate what many of us think is a perfectly reasonable system have to spend hours rebuilding charts and reverse engineering existing prereqs. Furthermore, and more importantly, if new feats were released without prereqs, we'd have to - as players and DMs - sit and figure out what their prerequs would be. Suddenly, the game development activities falls in my hands, which is frankly why I play games that other companies make instead of making my own.
So play without prereqs, I don't care, but don't take away something that works for those of us who want it in place.
Ok, chill out. Firstly, you're beginning to sound like I'm trying to steal your candy. That statement is at least a little hypocritical, because it sounds like your desire to have the ability scores (despite mechanical problems) should supersede everyone else's desires for a better game. Interesting fact - that's exactly what Paizo is doing with the Pathfinder RPG. Don't believe me? Check any of the threads about power-attack, and listen to those people cling for their power attack, or argue different experiences for the betterment of the game (for the record, I liked power attack the way it was, but the game is changing and perhaps power attack will need to as well, but that's for another thread). As with everything, you can't make everyone happy and you need to do what is best for the most people (and balanced options really improve its chances to be accepted by many).
Also-!
If they were to take away ability score requirements to reinstate what many of us think is a perfectly reasonable system have to spend hours rebuilding charts and reverse engineering existing prereqs. Furthermore, and more importantly, if new feats were released without prereqs, we'd have to - as players and DMs - sit and figure out what their prerequs would be.
This is just crazy. What kinds of charts would you have to rebuild? What do you mean reverse engineering the feats to find the ability score requirement? Ok, like This.
Feat Alterations
-Power Attack: Add Strength 13+ requirement
-Dodge: Add Dexterity 13+ requirement.
-Combat Expertise: Add Intelligence 13+ requirement.
-Two Weapon Fighting: Add Dexterity 15+ as a requirement (then shoot the player).
--Improved Two Weapon Fighting: Add Dex 17+ as a requirement (shoot again).
---Greater Two Weapon Fighting: Add Dex 19+ as requirement (set body on fire).
Done, finished chart.
Also - how often did you just up and start going "Oh, this needs at least X ability score to use" when you saw a new published feat? Improved Toughness from the Complete Warrior had a Fort +2 requirement (much better than Con 13+), but how many people do you think went "Y'know, that seems like a trait of exceptional toughness and fortitude, better slap a Con 13 or 15 requirement on it!"If new feats came out and they didn't have ability prerequisites, you'd just accept the feat for the way it is, the way everyone else accepted the feats for the way they are, and how every feat that doesn't have an ability requirement is accepted.
Heck, for most of the feats, just spending a feat on it is requirement enough - if not borderline too much of one (Dodge, I'm looking at you!! >_<).
----
Peace out, Game on.
|
|
Also - how often did you just up and start going "Oh, this needs at least X ability score to use" when you saw a new published feat? Improved Toughness from the Complete Warrior had a Fort +2 requirement (much better than Con 13+), but how many people do you think went "Y'know, that seems like a trait of exceptional toughness and fortitude, better slap a Con 13 or 15 requirement on it!"
A prerequisite of base Fort save +2 has a different effect and purpose than an ability score requirement. It directs the feat towards either specific classes, or any class/multiclass at a higher level.
Arguing whether it's better or worse than an ability score requirement really misses the point that the game designer intended to apply another, higher and to some extent overlapping requirement for the feat (considering that there's a good chance a character taking a high-Fort-save class would have a reasonable CON as well). Thus, it doesn't need a further prerequisite.
A prerequisite of base Fort save +2 has a different effect and purpose than an ability score requirement. It directs the feat towards either specific classes, or any class/multiclass at a higher level.
Arguing whether it's better or worse than an ability score requirement really misses the point that the game designer intended to apply another, higher and to some extent overlapping requirement for the feat (considering that there's a good chance a character taking a high-Fort-save class would have a reasonable CON as well). Thus, it doesn't need a further prerequisite.
I think we may have a misunderstanding here. The point I was making in relation to the improved toughness feat was that it that it describes a feature of a tougher than average joe, but the designer of the feat had the good sense to make it based on the character's base fortitude than on an ability score like Constitution. The base save requirement is much more elegant and works well within the system (the tough guys can have it sooner, but everyone can eventually get it, and it doesn't matter what kind of ability score generation your group prefers).
More importantly, the main emphasis of that point was "How often do you randomly create ability prerequisites for new feats that don't have them?"
MrSlanky tried to say it would make the game horribly over-complicated for everyone who is used to the standard 3.5 system, and would have to "reverse engineer feats" and figure out the ability score requirement for new feats published without them.
But yes, Base Attack and Saves definitely trump ability scores in being better in design, and balance for the system (unless you just want to add an Int 15+ requirement to Improved Critical?) and runs a lot better.
---
Peace out, Game on.
|
|
I think part of my predisposition to this idea comes from having played Mutants & Masterminds 2E as much as I have (which has similar Feats, but no prerequisites).
It just 'feels right' for me to have a Gnome Fighter with a Str 8 being able to take Power Attack, so that he can take away from his size bonus to attack and try to buff up his damage a little bit, or for a Roman soldier, trained to stand in front of the spearmen and block incoming attacks, to be able to use Combat Expertise, despite only having an Int of 10 or 11.
On the other hand, I do understand where the recent poster is coming from about not changing things that other people might want to use.
It's *far* easier for me to house-rule prerequisites out than it is for someone else to house-rule them back in.
3) Locking these Feats out for MAD classes, such as Paladins or (especially) Monks, who already have difficult choices to make during character generation, only to be shoe-horned out of choices like Improved Disarm / Trip (because the Monk couldn't afford to squeak a 13 Intelligence into his build).
Well, the flip side of this is that without prerequisites involved, the fighter doesn't have to spread out his stats when building the character and is free to concentrate... something MAD class characters cannot do as effectively.
If MAD classes really are problematic, then one solution is to add more MAD elements to the other classes to compensate.
