I like nice things, but an attack that does +100 damage in one go just seems out of place in King Arthur + Elric land. I mean, Lancelot was crazy anime in a lot of ways, but there are limits. For me, being able to literally cut an adamantite wall in half in one blow without "magic" is just a dealbreaker (and yes, a well-built Warblade can do that). I like the idea of goodies for martial characters. I didn't like some of the over-the-top flavor text of some martial maneuvers; I despised the crusader refresh mechanic; I couldn't figure out how the swordsage was supposed to generate a reliable offense with medium BAB; it seemed unfair to give warblade 4 skill points/level when they were otherwise largely on par with a fighter ("Hey, fighter! I slept with your sister." Some of the action economy breakers were not well thought out (White Raven Tactics, I'm looking at you).
And let's not forget the Nine Swords, which used the rules from Weapons of Legacy, the worst official 3e product ever published.
Eh. I've never actually looked at Tome of Battle so I can't speak to the actual BALANCE of it, but the IDEA is really good, so there's no reason to completely throw it out just because it didn't work for 3.5.
Woah. Deja vu.
FWIW, I played an (almost) pacifist cleric in 4E. He did damage maybe twice through the whole campaign. He had a whole bunch of utility spells in the form of rituals.
I dont think WotC actually took the flavor out of the game the way you're suggesting. They took it out of the rulebooks. (The flavor was predominantly PDF only for the first few years) although that changed in the later parts of the game's life.
By taking it out of the rulebooks, you take it out of the game.
By making all classes derive their effectiveness from their combat abilities, you take it out of the game.
By neutering skills and making them secondary abilities that taking ranks in won't grossly affect, you take it out of the game.
Free form is great, but rules provide a rich soil of inspiration. 4e salted the earth as far as non-combat effectiveness went. Every class was quite similar in what it was capable of.
By taking it out of the rulebooks, you take it out of the game.FWIW, I played an (almost) pacifist cleric in 4E. He did damage maybe twice through the whole campaign. He had a whole bunch of utility spells in the form of rituals.
I dont think WotC actually took the flavor out of the game the way you're suggesting. They took it out of the rulebooks. (The flavor was predominantly PDF only for the first few years) although that changed in the later parts of the game's life.
No, they put it into supplements instead of the core rulebooks, that was another big change about 4E - it's presentation. Supplements containing flavor material and adventures were (predominantly) only available in PDF format. They later seemed to regret that decision and reversed it, but early on the flavor material was still there, just not where it had used to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Free form is great, but rules provide a rich soil of inspiration.
This is ultimately a matter of preference. Although you're probably correct when it comes to most fans of PF, it works the opposite for me. I never do anything creative if we try to play PF "by the book" because there's rules, tables and subsystems for just about everything - so I look through those to see how it's supposed to work.
.In a game with very little in the way of rules (1st edition AD&D or Swords and Wizardry being my favorites) I'm much more inclined to come up with something other than 'hit it with my sword'.
I like nice things, but an attack that does +100 damage in one go just seems out of place in King Arthur + Elric land. I mean, Lancelot was crazy anime in a lot of ways, but there are limits. For me, being able to literally cut an adamantite wall in half in one blow without "magic" is just a dealbreaker (and yes, a well-built Warblade can do that). I like the idea of goodies for martial characters. I didn't like some of the over-the-top flavor text of some martial maneuvers; I despised the crusader refresh mechanic; I couldn't figure out how the swordsage was supposed to generate a reliable offense with medium BAB; it seemed unfair to give warblade 4 skill points/level when they were otherwise largely on par with a fighter ("Hey, fighter! I slept with your sister." Some of the action economy breakers were not well thought out (White Raven Tactics, I'm looking at you).
Crusader's mechanic only works with a deck of maneuver cards imo. Which is ridiculous, and I'm not a huge fan of it. I've heard replacing the other two classes refresh mechanic with the warblade's works well. Swordsage needed a buff anyway.
The 100+ damage ability was actually pretty high level. At that point your fighting reality warpers. An adamantite wall is likely thick, which is a lot of HP to burn through. Adamantite weapons actually cut through every other wall in the same way.
Maybe they were given 4+ skill points because 2+ just wasn't enough. Also remember they were skill taxed, in that whichever discipline they use actually required them to dump skill points into to be useful. They were martials that needed concentration, and a lot of it. Again, the white raven tactics on yourself thing was weird and I'm not sure how that even works.
I was just saying maybe Warblade isn't the most amazing example of a mundane fighter fix.
Oddly enough, the first thing people say on a lot of optimization boards(from what I remember) is "play a warblade!" if you wanted to play a fighter or "Player a sword sage!" if you wanted to play a monk or ninja. They just happened to do those jobs really well.
Flavor aside, they came with quiet a few fixes to melee problems. They could move and attack, their damages were mostly static and controlled, and they had options in and out of combat. They also had quiet a few abilities, and few dead levels. All 3 classes had synergy with a mental stat. They did get a lot of "its new and its not what we had, so something must be wrong!" treatment.
The 100+ damage ability was actually pretty high level. At that point your fighting reality warpers. An adamantite wall is likely thick, which is a lot of HP to burn through. Adamantite weapons actually cut through every other wall in the same way.
Sure, it's high level. But if you're playing a mortal swordsman, there's really no level at which that should happen. Even when your friend the wizard just turned Raistlin into a tiki head paperweight and the party rogue sometimes pickpockets the planetar that guards the entrance to the Garden of Eden, there are just conceptual limits to what you can do with a sword.
Two inches of admanatite has hardness 20 and 80 hp. A high level warblade can literally take an ordinary club, or even a beer mug, and cleave through that wall in one hit.
Maybe they were given 4+ skill points because 2+ just wasn't enough.
Maybe it's not. But you don't give the new class +100 damage AND mock the fighter's skill points. That's just rude, man.
The 100+ damage ability was actually pretty high level. At that point your fighting reality warpers. An adamantite wall is likely thick, which is a lot of HP to burn through. Adamantite weapons actually cut through every other wall in the same way.
Sure, it's high level. But if you're playing a mortal swordsman, there's really no level at which that should happen. Even when your friend the wizard just turned Raistlin into a tiki head paperweight and the party rogue sometimes pickpockets the planetar that guards the entrance to the Garden of Eden, there are just conceptual limits to what you can do with a sword.
Two inches of admanatite has hardness 20 and 80 hp. A high level warblade can literally take an ordinary club, or even a beer mug, and cleave through that wall in one hit.
Maybe it's not. But you don't give the new class +100 damage AND mock the fighter's skill points. That's just rude, man.Maybe they were given 4+ skill points because 2+ just wasn't enough.
I can't say I agree with the first chunk. I can build a fighter who can do 100+ damage to a wall in one hit. Leap attack gives power attack quad damage and that 5 AC is pretty easy to hit. The 80 HP is much worse than the hardness imo. Your also saying everyone else is okay getting cool epic powers, but not the fighter. By the same logic the fighter should never take down a dragon, because its huge. The things toenail clipping is big enough to kill the fighter. level games tend to be epic.
As to the second part, the warblade doesn't do 100+ dpr over the fighter. He doesn't get iteratives with his manuevers. 2+ skill points with no intellect synergy is just awful.
We should probably get back to talking about "Don't be like them!" arguments. I consider ToB to be successful in a lot of things personally, so I tend to point to it more often than I probably should for good things. Opposite of 4E, who I point to as doing balance wrong by making everyone the same.
Free form is great, but rules provide a rich soil of inspiration.This is ultimately a matter of preference. Although you're probably correct when it comes to most fans of PF, it works the opposite for me. I never do anything creative if we try to play PF "by the book" because there's rules, tables and subsystems for just about everything - so I look through those to see how it's supposed to work.
.
In a game with very little in the way of rules (1st edition AD&D or Swords and Wizardry being my favorites) I'm much more inclined to come up with something other than 'hit it with my sword'.
When you've been playing since 1E, you probably don't need much inspiration. Someone who's never played before was what I was aiming more for. You could roleplay using warhammer 40k rules if you wanted to.
When you've been playing since 1E, you probably don't need much inspiration. Someone who's never played before was what I was aiming more for. You could roleplay using warhammer 40k rules if you wanted to.Free form is great, but rules provide a rich soil of inspiration.This is ultimately a matter of preference. Although you're probably correct when it comes to most fans of PF, it works the opposite for me. I never do anything creative if we try to play PF "by the book" because there's rules, tables and subsystems for just about everything - so I look through those to see how it's supposed to work.
.
In a game with very little in the way of rules (1st edition AD&D or Swords and Wizardry being my favorites) I'm much more inclined to come up with something other than 'hit it with my sword'.
I dont think so (from reading these forums, I suspect I'm not terribly 'good' at roleplaying). What I have experienced though, is that I'm worse at it in a system with lots of rules. It's a big part of why I'm such a fan of Paizo - it seems to me they do a terrific job of keeping their rules stuff (which I pretty much ignore, by and large) from their flavor material (which I can't get enough of). In my view, 4E did a similar thing - although their solution was not around rulebooks vs sourcebooks but, initially at least, was rather across the print-PDF divide (which made their flavor largely useless to me).
Sure, it's high level. But if you're playing a mortal swordsman, there's really no level at which that should happen. Even when your friend the wizard just turned Raistlin into a tiki head paperweight and the party rogue sometimes pickpockets the planetar that guards the entrance to the Garden of Eden, there are just conceptual limits to what you can do with a sword.
So basically, your stance is that martial should never be allowed to have nice things?
Sure, it's high level. But if you're playing a mortal swordsman, there's really no level at which that should happen. Even when your friend the wizard just turned Raistlin into a tiki head paperweight and the party rogue sometimes pickpockets the planetar that guards the entrance to the Garden of Eden, there are just conceptual limits to what you can do with a sword.
Perhaps there are conceptual limits to what you can do with a sword (though I don't agree, possibly because of all the anime I watch and fiction I read), but not for the warrior themselves.
Ignore the weapon for the moment and just focus on the man. Would you say that being able to shrug off spells through sheer willpower is something that happens often in fiction? I've seen it a lot.
Unfortunately, martials generally have bad Will saves. This'd be one of the first ones I'd fix for at least Rogues and Fighters, but that's a smidge off topic.
Now take that a step further, to another fairly common one: Causing the caster to suffer some sort of effect from the backlash by disrupting his magic conduit or whatever.
In mechanical terms, perhaps "Passed Will save deals Spell Level + Casters casting stat damage to enemy caster".
Or something like that. Conceptually fitting, arguably mechanically balanced, and useful to an extent.
These are the kinds of "nice things" it would be cool to have.
Though I wouldn't be averse to limited versions of a sort of "Gale slash" that allows users to attack at range with melee attacks, and so forth as ideas either.
And let's not forget the Nine Swords, which used the rules from Weapons of Legacy, the worst official 3e product ever published.
I actually liked Weapons of Legacy, once I ditched most of the rules and just used the weapons as cool treasure :)
Sure, it's high level. But if you're playing a mortal swordsman, there's really no level at which that should happen. Even when your friend the wizard just turned Raistlin into a tiki head paperweight and the party rogue sometimes pickpockets the planetar that guards the entrance to the Garden of Eden, there are just conceptual limits to what you can do with a sword.
Perhaps there are conceptual limits to what you can do with a sword (though I don't agree, possibly because of all the anime I watch and fiction I read), but not for the warrior themselves.
Ignore the weapon for the moment and just focus on the man. Would you say that being able to shrug off spells through sheer willpower is something that happens often in fiction? I've seen it a lot.
Unfortunately, martials generally have bad Will saves. This'd be one of the first ones I'd fix for at least Rogues and Fighters, but that's a smidge off topic.
Now take that a step further, to another fairly common one: Causing the caster to suffer some sort of effect from the backlash by disrupting his magic conduit or whatever.
In mechanical terms, perhaps "Passed Will save deals Spell Level + Casters casting stat damage to enemy caster".
Or something like that. Conceptually fitting, arguably mechanically balanced, and useful to an extent.
These are the kinds of "nice things" it would be cool to have.
Though I wouldn't be averse to limited versions of a sort of "Gale slash" that allows users to attack at range with melee attacks, and so forth as ideas either.
One thing that I think Fantasy Craft did right is giving the Soldier a good Will instead of Fort. That might be a little radical for what Pathfinder was aiming for. But we do have Iron Will and Improved Iron Will, and if you don't have SR from an item or party member, it's a pretty good idea to take them. That's a good way to modularly deal with the issue, although of course it doesn't erase the necessity in the first place.
If I were to restructure the Fighter, I might give it Talents (like SGG has done) alternating with feats. Rerolls on saves would be a good Fighter Talent; the rebounding magic thing is a good idea; the Gale Slash is good for those who go for that kind of thing. As it is, I'd say the Pathfinder Fighter is definitely the best, you know, Fighter, but they aren't as good a Fighter as the Paladin is a Paladin or the Barbarian is a Barbarian. Still better off than poor little Monk.
In my mind, a high level Fighter should be capable of dealing with foes through repeated, thunder-like blows; dazzling maneuvers; unmatched grit and nerve; the ability to miraculously survive the dangerous situations they throw themselves into; and the ability to improvise amazing attacks and maneuvers on par with what you see in major action films these days. But wuxia or Hercules shouldn't be mandatory flavor to achieve that level of power. If you're on a team with Iron Man and Hulk, you should be able to play Captain America.
He has a magic shield, he can seemingly instinctively use any weapon ever created, he's damned tough, and he is unshakingly convinced of his ability to defeat sorcery by punching it in the face. He's pretty much the best fighter ever.
Second best.
(I like Deathstroke better because Evil Alternate Company Counterpart Captain America > Captain America.)
;)
But yeah, if Fighters could actually do a lot of that stuff (especially the weird "ricochet sense" or whatever type of stuff that's Extraordinary, but not magical) they'd be a lot better both mechanically and flavor-wise in my eyes.
So, in a nutshell, that's the deal. Casters are more powerful because thir abilities put them on only slightly lower footing than the DM's, when it comes to making narrative decisions. Fighters and rogues and monks can't do that. Either the DM artificially empowers them because he feels sorry for them or, far more often, he simply drags everyone else down to their level, and you end up with high-level parties still doing dungeon crawls, of all things. In which case the fighter is just fine..
To be fair, there's a lot fighters, rogues and monks can't do.
Also, this sounds more like Ars Magica than anything else.
[To be fair, there's a lot fighters, rogues and monks can't do.
Also, this sounds more like Ars Magica than anything else.
Those were exactly my points. At high levels, Pathfinder DOES play a lot like Ars Magica.
I'd like to see that change. If the fighter needs artifact weapons and world-spanning kingdoms to stay relevant at high levels, I'd like there to be relatively solid guidelines for those things, not just leave them up to whim.
|
I was hoping referencing "with a roar of effort" would tip off that I was being a little tongue in cheek. The point is that regardless of (ex) (sp) or (su) tags, the warblade is capable of some pretty crazy stuff one could interpret as wuxia. Not AS flashy as the swordsage, but still pretty far outside of classic believablility.And crazy stuff is good.
Remember, Pathfinder characters are supposed to be legendary figures. Whereas Wizards/Sorcerers are people like Merlin or some other super-powerful mythical spellcaster, Fighters and Barbarians are supposed to be people like Beowulf, Gilgamesh, Hercules, and so on. All of those guys did fantastical things, but without overt magical powers.
Gilgamesh and Hercules were demigods, while Beowulf was "just" a badass of epic proportions.
The problem we have here is Pathfinder tries to meld the two by making Fighters just extremely skilled weapon users, while Wizards are, as it was so aptly put, "Masters of the Universe".
Basically, what I would like is for "Masters of the Universe" and "Fighters" to coexist on a similar powerscale.
Remember, it was always "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe" not "The Masters of the Universe and their buff meatshield".
Is there a direct quote somewhere about Pathfinder characters being "legendary figures"? That is pretty antithetical to my fantasy vietnam humans trying to be batman style. This is just a bit more of the disconnect amongst many of us gamers.
I'd prefer to tame the casters a bit rather than make martials god like. Wish, mass teleport, polymorph, raise dead should be time consuming hard to find component rituals that most casters only dream of ever performing.
I totally get where other folks are coming from though. I really hope that D&D:N can for the first time make a D&D that's flexible enough to allow for multiple play styles. I think these arguments will be better suited as option discussions then right of way debates.
What is it that people would want a fighter to do at high levels that isn't magic, just class based?
If the fighter needs artifact weapons and world-spanning kingdoms to stay relevant at high levels, I'd like there to be relatively solid guidelines for those things, not just leave them up to whim.
What is it that people would want a fighter to do at high levels that isn't magic, just class based?
We've listed those things until we're blue in the face. Generally, they're ignored, as just happened. People just want to spout off about Wuxia and 4e; they don't bother to read each other's posts!
This thread has 200+ posts and I came in late. Meh.
I was hoping referencing "with a roar of effort" would tip off that I was being a little tongue in cheek. The point is that regardless of (ex) (sp) or (su) tags, the warblade is capable of some pretty crazy stuff one could interpret as wuxia. Not AS flashy as the swordsage, but still pretty far outside of classic believablility.And crazy stuff is good.
Remember, Pathfinder characters are supposed to be legendary figures. Whereas Wizards/Sorcerers are people like Merlin or some other super-powerful mythical spellcaster, Fighters and Barbarians are supposed to be people like Beowulf, Gilgamesh, Hercules, and so on. All of those guys did fantastical things, but without overt magical powers.
Gilgamesh and Hercules were demigods, while Beowulf was "just" a badass of epic proportions.
The problem we have here is Pathfinder tries to meld the two by making Fighters just extremely skilled weapon users, while Wizards are, as it was so aptly put, "Masters of the Universe".
Basically, what I would like is for "Masters of the Universe" and "Fighters" to coexist on a similar powerscale.
Remember, it was always "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe" not "The Masters of the Universe and their buff meatshield".
Is there a direct quote somewhere about Pathfinder characters being "legendary figures"? That is pretty antithetical to my fantasy vietnam humans trying to be batman style. This is just a bit more of the disconnect amongst many of us gamers.
I'd prefer to tame the casters a bit rather than make martials god like. Wish, mass teleport, polymorph, raise dead should be time consuming hard to find component rituals that most casters only dream of ever performing.
I totally get where other folks are coming from though. I really hope that D&D:N can for the first time make a D&D that's flexible enough to allow for multiple play styles. I think these arguments will be better suited as option discussions then right of way debates.
While I prefer high powered games(I really hate level 1, more as DM than as a player even), I really wish that on some moment Paizo make an "anti-Mythic" book for low-powered games. Specially if it includes rules for how to play without magic item o few magic items. That way everyone can have their style of game.
If the fighter needs artifact weapons and world-spanning kingdoms to stay relevant at high levels, I'd like there to be relatively solid guidelines for those things, not just leave them up to whim.What is it that people would want a fighter to do at high levels that isn't magic, just class based?We've listed those things until we're blue in the face. Generally, they're ignored, as just happened. People just want to spout off about Wuxia and 4e; they don't bother to read each other's posts!
Who is 'we", and why not list them again?
Who is 'we", and why not list them again?If the fighter needs artifact weapons and world-spanning kingdoms to stay relevant at high levels, I'd like there to be relatively solid guidelines for those things, not just leave them up to whim.What is it that people would want a fighter to do at high levels that isn't magic, just class based?We've listed those things until we're blue in the face. Generally, they're ignored, as just happened. People just want to spout off about Wuxia and 4e; they don't bother to read each other's posts!
It gets tiring. There was a small bit in the quotes. I point to ToB instead of making a big list. Personally, I'm not a fan of high level dnd/pathfinder. The game tends to break down in my experience. I hear 4th edition is actually playable until 30 though, but not from anyone reliable.
