As written, Pathfinder quite happily simulates the average classic fantasy novel. Some people would prefer it went further into fantastic forms of martial combat, and there's really no reason why it can't - it's just a matter of adding fantastic abilities (giant leaps, sundering small mountains, using non-magical blades to parry spells, channeling energy along your blade and unleashing a wave of force upon the enemy, fading and appearing behind your opponent, spinning fast enough to create a whirlwind, the list goes on) where needed.
That sort of thing should be defined by setting - or at least, it needs to be in order to satisfy everyone in this thread. A good ruleset can handle style differences by offering options to players. Perhaps alternative combat rules, perhaps archetypes, perhaps entirely new classes.
The main complaint with this is that if you're in the former group, yes PF (and D&D 3.5) gives you what you're looking for, but if you're in the latter, it very much does not. There have been some attempts to rectify this - mostly in the forms of books like Book of Nine Swords or the recently-released Path of War - but these are always very controversial options that many GMs react hostilely to on a hair-trigger.
Not everyone, admittedly, can be as fortunate as my own group and have very little opposition from anyone, players and GMs, be okay with having higher-power, more-versatile options for martial characters.
Unless you're fortunate enough to have - or make - a group like that, chances are most of the people you're going to run into are going to be antipathetic toward the idea of martial characters doing fantastic things, because it isn't baked into the core rules of the game itself. And unfortunately, unless the players of the spellcasters either (deliberately or not) heavily limit themselves OR are not experienced enough with the system to understand how magic-users can render their party members useless, this WILL eventually result in a game where, after a certain point, a martial character simply cannot contribute in the same way a spellcaster can. And at least speaking personally, I hate being the guy in that position of "well, why am I even here? It's not like they need me anymore".
Yah, don't make me punch a charm off a fool.
Heh, I couldn't help but imagine Malandraenas getting surly with Lureene or Alis when I read that! XD
As far as punching spells or cleaving fireballs, there's nothing to say the GM can't narrate the effects of a successful saving throw in such a way. Heck, maybe that's the reason why a fighter takes half damage (instead of no damage) on a successful reflex save.
IMO it would be pretty cool to describe someone saving against a spell like hydraulic push as twirling their sword in such a way as to disperse the attack. Might not work for campaigns going for a gritty feel, but for wuxia or high fantasy, why not?
The main complaint with this is that if you're in the former group, yes PF (and D&D 3.5) gives you what you're looking for, but if you're in the latter, it very much does not. There have been some attempts to rectify this - mostly in the forms of books like Book of Nine Swords or the recently-released Path of War - but these are always very controversial options that many GMs react hostilely to on a hair-trigger.Not everyone, admittedly, can be as fortunate as my own group and have very little opposition from anyone, players and GMs, be okay with having higher-power, more-versatile options for martial characters.
Unless you're fortunate enough to have - or make - a group like that, chances are most of the people you're going to run into are going to be antipathetic toward the idea of martial characters doing fantastic things, because it isn't baked into the core rules of the game itself. And unfortunately, unless the players of the spellcasters either (deliberately or not) heavily limit themselves OR are not experienced enough with the system to understand how magic-users can render their party members useless, this WILL eventually result in a game where, after a certain...
Thing is, I agree with you totally. I just don't see a need to wipe realism from the table altogether, as opposed to providing options. If fighters start coming with the innate ability to channel a blast of magic energy out of a normal sword, it's going to put off a lot of players - just as the inability to do it right now does.
I love Final Fantasy 7 and 8 (and apologies if I'm off-track here, but that's the closest thing in my own experience that seems to fit the style being asked for, by all means correct me with other references!). I don't want my normal weekly tabletop RPG to be themed like that though (and certainly don't see Golarion as written as having anything like that level of fantastic ability for martial heroes) - although I'm not adverse to the occasional diversion, mind you. I know there's a part of the player base that does, and I'd love to see you get that wish.
Yes, there is disparity between martials and casters. Yes, there are ways to fix it. Yes, those ways should be introduced. However, no, I don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater :)
More importantly, I simply don't think Paizo are likely to go away and rewrite Pathfinder to do any of this (making that change is a risk, while leaving it well enough alone means current sales should be unaffected), which makes a new supplement the only viable (IMHO) way of getting the job done.
More importantly still, I think it's such a radical change that introducing it via a supplement is the best way to gauge the overall player reaction to it, before considering it for inclusion in the core of a new edition. The last thing I'd want to see is the Pathfinder audience cut in half due to a change a lot of people didn't want forced upon them (and we all know that's occurred before in other games). With any change, I feel it's important to see how it is going to work out before committing, rather than betting the farm on it. It also gives a useful feedback window from the audience that enjoy it, to say whether it actually meets their requirements or not (and *then* it's able to be done better still in the new edition ;) )
What always gets me when these questions are asked is the answer "its all 3rd ed's fault". Having played DnD for nearly 35 years i really dont see how 3rd ed is resposible for the martial/caster disparagy. I really dont see how 3rd ed messed up magic to increase that disparagy.
Since the beginning casters could bend reality and the law of physics to there will.
Indeed. Revisionist history.
The martial/caster disparagy is there from the very beginning.If anything, 3rd edition actually put a limit on some spells like fireballs and magic missiles.
And even with the standard hp assumptions they only really make sense when dealing with human opponents. A mid-level fighter with unarmed attack can punch a rhino to death with little trouble. A high level one could put down a T-Rex with his bare hands. That's not realism or even classic fantasy.
If anything, mid-level fighters are already way and far beyond what most normal people could do. Justin Alexander on his blog The Alexandrian did a very thought provoking piece about 3.5 vs real life...how we often overestimate or underestimate character class levels. To him, Conan and Strider are not even 10th level, Einstein is not a 20th level expert but rather close to 4th or even 5th level. Even the best Olympic athletes are lucky to be even considered above 2nd level.
And, Abyssal Lord, do you mean "disparity"?
LOL, I guess Immortalis' mispelling is contagious!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Justin Alexander on his blog The Alexandrian did a very thought provoking piece about 3.5 vs real life...how we often overestimate or underestimate character class levels. To him, Conan and Strider are not even 10th level, Einstein is not a 20th level expert but rather close to 4th or even 5th level. Even the best Olympic athletes are lucky to be even considered above 2nd level.The key phrase in the above is "to him."
Yeah, but it really makes sense when you think about it.
Anyway, if you haven't read it already here
I keep it bookmarked. One of the best things and finest eye-openers I had.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What always gets me when these questions are asked is the answer "its all 3rd ed's fault". Having played DnD for nearly 35 years i really dont see how 3rd ed is resposible for the martial/caster disparagy. I really dont see how 3rd ed messed up magic to increase that disparagy.
Since the beginning casters could bend reality and the law of physics to there will.
Indeed. Revisionist history.
The martial/caster disparagy is there from the very beginning.
If anything, 3rd edition actually put a limit on some spells like fireballs and magic missiles.
How do you explain the jaw dropping fighter saves for second ed, then? They were truly amazing.
How do you explain the jaw dropping fighter saves for second ed, then? They were truly amazing.What always gets me when these questions are asked is the answer "its all 3rd ed's fault". Having played DnD for nearly 35 years i really dont see how 3rd ed is resposible for the martial/caster disparagy. I really dont see how 3rd ed messed up magic to increase that disparagy.
Since the beginning casters could bend reality and the law of physics to there will.
Indeed. Revisionist history.
The martial/caster disparagy is there from the very beginning.
If anything, 3rd edition actually put a limit on some spells like fireballs and magic missiles.
Actually I kind of skipped over second edition...
I started with basic, and stuck with advance. 2E was too similar to bother "converting" over.In hindsight, I'm glad I did....
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What always gets me when these questions are asked is the answer "its all 3rd ed's fault". Having played DnD for nearly 35 years i really dont see how 3rd ed is resposible for the martial/caster disparagy. I really dont see how 3rd ed messed up magic to increase that disparagy.
Since the beginning casters could bend reality and the law of physics to there will.
Indeed. Revisionist history.
The martial/caster disparagy is there from the very beginning.
If anything, 3rd edition actually put a limit on some spells like fireballs and magic missiles.
No, reality and history disagree with you - hard.
Casters had:
Less Spells/SLAs available
Spells took Longer to cast and you couldn't move or do anything while casting
Hyper-vulnerable while casting:
- No Dex AC while casting (2nd ed)
- If were hit, you lost your spell, no roll
Saves were not mutable or changable by the caster, i.e. no DC
manipulation on saves. Plus the target saves went up as they leveled up, so saves became easier, not harder or impossible (3rd ed/PF)
And on top of that there were:
- Less items to boost stats, especially casting stats
- Less defensive items, no concept of slots
- Rules were not set up to buy magic items
Were casters powerful in older editions - yes, if played correctly.
Could fighters still trounce them easily if the focused their attacks while making all their needed saves (easily) - yes, on a regular basis.
And the jaw dropping Fighter saves were the same from 1st edtion to 2nd, so they were there in 1st ed Advanced - the version you stuck with.
Edit to Add (so KG may want to remove his +1 on this post): What casters and martials could do in earlier editions was different from each other - but in a good way (imo). Each had their role to fill and they did it well if the covered each other.
For the most part the caster/martial disparity is a 3rd ed invention. There was some stupid/power creep at the end of 2nd's lifecycle, but even with that the core rules governing magic, ease of saves, risks in casting were all the same since 1st ed. RE: casting was risky and hard at ALL LEVELS.
Hey, if you want looney toon-esque over-the-top shenanigans in your games, more power to you. I won't stop you. You asked why they can't and I gave you an answer: it doesn't fit the default tone of the game.
However, as far as this whole "spell parrying" goes: that's basically what your Reflex save is about: deflecting part of the blow, but not avoiding all of it because it's... well, it's magic. It's supposed to be harder to deal with than a sword blow. That's why they're limited in number. Fluff it however you want.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, if you want looney toon-esque over-the-top shenanigans in your games, more power to you. I won't stop you. You asked why they can't and I gave you an answer: it doesn't fit the default tone of the game.
OK, so, to clarify:
1. Irish, Scandinavian, and other myths = Looney Toons.2. Your personal preferences = default tone of the game.
because it's... well, it's magic
I think this right here sums up the part of the mindset that we're having problems with. Magic should be harder to deal with and impossible for a normal/martial/nonmagical character to ever fully deal with... just because it's magic.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fairness to the devs I think they are sort of still stuck in pre-3rd ed mode when it comes to martials. That or they really are just failing to see the huge changes from 2nd to 3rd and not changing martials to reflect those changes
Changes to Save paradigm: Saves are harder for everyone, and harder if you can create a boost for yourself. Save DC is external (a good concept) but mutable by the source (bad concept).
Hit point inflation: You can up the damage of martial’s (and they have to considerable degree), but you can't do much but attacking the hit point track. Overall this is an uphill battle for martials because even though their hit points have increased and their damage output has increased the overall hit point increase in their foes X number foes does not measure up to those changes. When all you can do is chop down a tree in a fight - and now each tree takes an extra chop - you really have relegated direct damage dealers to the back seat (this applies to blasters also, not just martial’s). They should be able to chop down trees as fast as they could in 1st/2nd or expectations for carry-over players are going to be sullied. And they should be able to do more than chop down those trees - if we are going to apply status changing rules across the board (knockdown, stunnned, bleed, etc) martials should have a slew of those options without a feat tax commitment to create those effects. They should just be combat options already in the arsenal of tricks for anyone who uses a weapon. Feats should just make them better/more reliable -which would make Fighters masters of those tricks and options.
Mutable/meta-system manipulation and game environment: Being able to change reality (walls of force, polymorph, etc) is one thing.
Being able change a stat, which in turn changes secondary values/system manipulation is a level of cheese and stupidity which is unforgivable when it comes to game design.
Raising you Int for example should maybe give you another roll on a skill check or something to that effect - not increase all your Arcane DCs by +2 (on top of raising all you INT skill checks). This kind of manipulation is in fact the DEATH OF THE GAME and there are several instances of this level of manipulation in 3rd/PF.
These are behind-the-curtain changes that should never be in the hands of players. Meta manipulation should at best externally affect: Chance to hit, be hit, and saves on a small numeric level. Anything that changes a core stat and subsequent values is too much for the game.
Poorly thought out or not thought out at all: Example - Why oh why would you change a spell like Black Tentacles from having hit points to not having hit points/being immune to damage? This is the kind of thinking that went into 3rd ed - minimal.
Minimal impact on how this would affect encounters, how this would affect martial’s, which class ability this spell now replaces, etc, etc. This goes for most spells in core 3rd ed and PF.
So maybe it’s just that the devs don't realize the changes they made to the core rules and the way spells as the relate to martials since 2000? Maybe they are still focusing on how a weapon cord requires a move action to recover a weapon (apsect of realism) instead of a Barbarian smashing down a Wall of Force, or a Fighter getting extra saves to shake off Charm or Domination as a class feature (aspect of the game environment)....I mean c’mon, the're still are writing rules for making castles where the castle/defense concept is still in the 1st/2nd ed level of magic and 3rd ed + magic doesn't care about that technology. It could be because wards that prevent magic entry would be boring spells to write or because they don’t see it as a problem – or both, IDK.
There are a few more things but thinking about this post is making my head hurt.
So maybe it comes down to the devs having too much focus on one aspect the game - magic and spellcasting, while forgetting about the impact on all the non-casting classes?
You don't need to be able to split fireballs, but using your shield to reflect an Enervation ray back at the caster is just as reasonable as the caster casting the Enervation ray in the first place.
(And 3pp, if we want to include "making martials keep up with casters" and "expanding the uses of skills beyond Perception" as problems to be solved here.)
Come on now, not all 3PPs want to design this way. In my Kaidan setting of Japanese horror, there's not one iota of wuxia, 'crouching tiger, hidden dragon' jumping around, super crazy martial arts maneuvers - its a horror setting based on 19th century and older Japanese ghost stories and folklore tales. Anime and wire-fu are 20th century developments and are not condusive for the kind of game Kaidan is meant to emulate, and is not present in any guide or supplement for Kaidan. Kaidan is Asian and not anything like wuxia.
Example - Why oh why would you change a spell like Black Tentacles from having hit points to not having hit points/being immune to damage?
actually, in 3.0 it tentacles still had hp, but became immune to damage in 3.5. Although, 3.5 version had the "once you succeed on grapple check" caveat, which PF for some reason removed (we still play with it).
Ontopic, yeah I too have once had a view that fighters and rogues had to be mundane, but then I played a high level game. It sucked being a fighter on 15th lvl. While I don't like Bo9S (i don't like most of the mechanics or the flavor) it was a step in right direction. Now, next game I run, it's Kirthfinder all the way (who knows when, unfortunately).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(And 3pp, if we want to include "making martials keep up with casters" and "expanding the uses of skills beyond Perception" as problems to be solved here.)Come on now, not all 3PPs want to design this way.
And nowhere did I say that.
But if you DO want that in your game, like I do, 3pp - in this specific case, Dreamscarred Press and Rite Publishing respectively - is the place you have to go. Because, as stated above, for various reasons (both good and bad IMO) Paizo won't adjust the system themselves.
(In case the original post wasn't clear, I think these 3pp providing this stuff is a GOOD thing. I just wish there was something like them in Core/from Paizo. I recognize there isn't and why there isn't, but that doesn't make me stop wishing there was.)
What always gets me when these questions are asked is the answer "its all 3rd ed's fault". Having played DnD for nearly 35 years i really dont see how 3rd ed is resposible for the martial/caster disparagy. I really dont see how 3rd ed messed up magic to increase that disparagy.
Since the beginning casters could bend reality and the law of physics to there will.
Indeed. Revisionist history.
The martial/caster disparagy is there from the very beginning.
If anything, 3rd edition actually put a limit on some spells like fireballs and magic missiles.
No, reality and history disagree with you - hard.
Casters had:
Less Spells/SLAs availableSpells took Longer to cast and you couldn't move or do anything while casting
Hyper-vulnerable while casting:
- No Dex AC while casting (2nd ed)
- If were hit, you lost your spell, no rollSaves were not mutable or changable by the caster, i.e. no DC
manipulation on saves. Plus the target saves went up as they leveled up, so saves became easier, not harder or impossible (3rd ed/PF)
What I see is that 3E gave lower level spellcasters a higher survivability rate.
So much for reality and history disagreeing with me "hard".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point most people don't get is that classes aren't supposed to be balanced.
Bull. Otherwise they wouldn't have been updated from 3.5.
We wouldn't have the erratas to the monk and others.
Hell, we wouldn't have the errata this thread is predicated on if balance were not a consideration.
|
|
What I see is that 3E gave lower level spellcasters a higher survivability rate.So much for reality and history disagreeing with me "hard".
The discussion was not about lower level spell casters having a higher survivability rate - maybe in your head it was but no one in this thread was discussing that.
NO ONE WAS ARGUING, DEBATING OR DISCUSSING THAT.
So no, you don't get to do that. Your post was -
What always gets me when these questions are asked is the answer "its
all 3rd ed's fault". Having played DnD for nearly 35 years i really dont see how 3rd ed is resposible for the martial/caster disparagy. I really dont see how 3rd ed messed up magic to increase that disparagy.Since the beginning casters could bend reality and the law of physics to there will.
Indeed. Revisionist history.
The martial/caster disparagy is there from the very beginning.
If anything, 3rd edition actually put a limit on some spells like fireballs and magic missiles.
Reality and history do disagree with you, and not just "hard" but it's "jarringly obvious". I listed the changes and the increases in power to casters and spells in general which are mechanical/system truths, and not my subjective interpretation.
Incoming response from Abyssal Lord: But what about the encumbrance rules?
|
|
The point most people don't get is that classes aren't supposed to be balanced.Bull. Otherwise they wouldn't have been updated from 3.5.
We wouldn't have the erratas to the monk and others.
Hell, we wouldn't have the errata this thread is predicated on if balance were not a consideration.
Ok, let me expand. They shouldn't be balanced against each other. They should all do their own thing. And complement each other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, let me expand. They shouldn't be balanced against each other. They should all do their own thing. And complement each other.
With respect, you're saying two different things, Hama: one of which is correct, and the other of which is not.
Classes should not be homogeneous. That is true. They should complement each other. Since this is a cooperative game, we'd want it no other way.
Classes should also be balanced. If a 10th level PC fighter (CR 10) is significantly less effective (both in and out of combat) than a 10th level NPC wizard (CR 9), then we have a serious problem -- we have a situation in which "challenge rating" and "character level" are totally meaningless. We might as well abandon levels and dice and numbers and stuff altogether at that point.
When we say that PCs should be "balanced" in this sense, we are saying that they should all be able to contribute in different ways, but on more or less equal footing. We should be looking at a party consisting of Samurai and Apache Chief and Black Vulcan, not at a party consisting of Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit. We want the Magnificent Seven*, not Superman and the Seven Dwarfs.
And yes, Martials got major nerfage moving from 2E to 3E, and casters got HUGE power-ups. The disparity started right there.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, let me expand. They shouldn't be balanced against each other.They absolutely should be balanced against each other. Not the balance of checkers, but that of chess.
I can get behind that concept.
The problem comes when you start having characters whose balance is defined (for example) by being "less for combat, more for out-of-combat situations".
For me, that gives me a balanced character. For someone in a combat-focused dungeon-crawling campaign it's less balanced.
So, the solution (as far as I see) there is to ensure the character has options (via archetypes, feats, or whatever) so they can be built in a with a focus on what the player wants to focus on.
Except then someone will come along and call one of those options a "trap option" that shouldn't be in the game, because it doesn't provide balance in their game due to the type of campaign they want to play.
An alternative is to ensure everyone has an even amount of in- and out-of- combat capability. Then you run into the issue that those who want the choice to have a lower-combat higher-skill character don't have an option to do that.
So, yes, I support the concept. In practice, I can see problems that need addressing somehow, preferably in such a way that it doesn't say "Here's the balance fix. It works perfectly, except for people who were having BadWrongFun - those people will just have to change their style of play."
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yes, Martials got major nerfage moving from 2E to 3E, and casters got HUGE power-ups. The disparity started right there.
==Aelryinth
LOL, in my rageposting about 3rd/casters I forgot to mention .....
..............the Nerfing (sighing like Ray Stantz when he had the realization..."cross the streams").--------------------------------------------------
DnD 3rd ed, The Nerfing -
At low level fighters went from:
- 3 attacks every 2 rounds (at no negative to hit) at level 1 with weapon specialization. And it just got better as they leveled up.
- Having really good hp in relation to everyone/everything else by getting a full Con bonus/good HD.
- Attack and move were not an issue (no such thing as "full attack").
- Decent to outrageous save progressions
------
- Now they don't get a second attack till 6th level or higher, and it's at a major negative to BAB (-5).
- Everyone and everything now gets the Fighter Con bonus, doesn't matter what class - just what your score is. Many monsters now have more than half their hit points in CON bonus.
- Attack in place like you are mashing buttons in Street Fighter 2, hoping you will get a critical that will take down your foe quicker than everyone else who is ignore the inflated hp while using your Feat investments.
- Terrible save progression with three save categories that have a high stat dependence/assumption* as modifier. Unfortunately none of them use your prime Stat value as modifier (Str).
BLEEEEAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHARRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (throws monitor into Wall of Force, breaking it.)
And yes, Martials got major nerfage moving from 2E to 3E, and casters got HUGE power-ups. The disparity started right there.
==Aelryinth
LOL, in my rageposting about 3rd/casters I forgot to mention .....
..............the Nerfing (sighing like Ray Stantz when he had the realization..."cross the streams").--------------------------------------------------
DnD 3rd ed, The Nerfing -At low level fighters went from:
- 3 attacks every 2 rounds (at no negative to hit) at level 1 with weapon specialization. And it just got better as they leveled up.
- Having really good hp in relation to everyone/everything else by getting a full Con bonus/good HD.
- Attack and move were not an issue (no such thing as "full attack").
- Decent to outrageous save progressions
------
- Now they don't get a second attack till 6th level or higher, and it's at a major negative to BAB (-5).
- Everyone and everything now gets the Fighter Con bonus, doesn't matter what class - just what your score is. Many monsters now have more than half their hit points in CON bonus.
- Attack in place like you are mashing buttons in Street Fighter 2, hoping you will get a critical that will take down your foe quicker than everyone else who is ignore the inflated hp while using your Feat investments.
- Terrible save progression with three save categories that have a high stat dependence/assumption* as modifier. Unfortunately none of them use your prime Stat value as modifier (Str).
BLEEEEAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHARRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (throws monitor into Wall of Force, breaking it.)
The last time I did a tally of the nerfing to a Fighter that 3E did, I ended up with over twenty points, I believe. Add onto that the buffs to casters and wheee, was it a swing.
==Aelryinth
I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw things this way. I'm tempted to post my take on the fighter for my homebrew.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd not mind a look.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd not mind a look.
2nd - Put it up in the suggestion forum.
I'm personally not big on power-ups to the martial class (I'd rather roll things back a bit), but I am curious to see what people have in the form of fixes for this issue and I will give everyone a read and consideration.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yikes. I just realized a lot of my house rules for the setting are missing from that page.
Okay, also note that the +2/+2 feats also increase a related save by 1(can't post the table but it isn't hard to figure out).
Masterwork weapons now have special qualities whenever a critical hit is confirmed using them. The afflicted individual must make a Fort save with a DC equal to the damage done, or suffer the attached condition. Bludgeoning weapons cause the Staggered condition for one round, Piercing weapons cause the Sickened condition for one round, and Slashing weapons do an extra single point of damage. Should other critical hits be scored in the same round that one has these conditions, they either stack in terms of duration(Bludgeoning and Piercing), or damage(Slashing).
The Weapon Focus feat provides a +1 bonus to hit and damage. The Weapon Specialization feat provides a +2 bonus to hit and damage. The Greater Weapon Focus feat is available only to fighters 9th level or higher and provides a+3 bonus to hit and damage. The Greater Weapon Specialization feat can only be taken by fighters 13th level or higher and provides a +4 bonus to hit and damage. Furthermore, the fighter-and only the fighter- adds the bonus from these feats to their initiative modifier. Finally, it must be noted that these feats DO NOT stack with each other, the bonuses instead replace each other.
Masterwork Armor:
- Padded Armor: 1/- Optional: One critical hit eliminates this special quality
I did a little research into this and found out that modern and even a few older padded armors aren't as bad as the game makes them out to be. Several dozen layers stitched together is enough to stop shot and even low caliber bullets (although certainly not higher caliber stuff or rifle rounds), slashing weapons and even absorb some impact from baseball bats and such. However it is still the "worst" armor in the game, and as such should have a weakness, as noted in the Options.
- Leather: 1/Slashing
Did a little more research on this and found that the mainstay of many a rogue really isn't as good as portrayed in the game. However, it was quite hard and could save lives, provided a sword wasn't razor-sharp.
- Studded Leather: 2/Bludgeoning
I couldn't find much on this, but I did discover it was quite good against indirect sword blows and thrusts, so I figured that bludgeoning damage would be its weakness.
- Chain Shirt: 2/Slashing Optional: Does not absorb damage from critical hits
Everything I found on this was wrapped up in long, drawn out discussions on chainmail. From my limited experience with the stuff, it was surprisingly good against arrows and piercing weapons, almost catching it and holding it in its teeth, but occasionally leaving you a bad bruise, and something similar for bludgeoning weapons. I remember reading an excellent description of swords(or perhaps it was an axe) bursting the rings of chainmail quite readily. Optionally, since this really is little more than a shirt, with no greaves, helmet or gauntlets, you are really exposed in those areas and may not enjoy it's otherwise excellent protection with respect to critical hits. However, this is just my thinking, so YMMV.
- Hide: 2/Bludgeoning
I found a little info on Hide armor, but most of it seemed to revolve around how societies discovered other technologies and left Hide armor behind. I think of it akin to wearing an exceptionally well fitted and thick second skin, an organ which reacts quickly to being stabbed or sliced, but comparitively overreacts when bruised. Again, this is just my thinking- I'd like some of our doctors to give me their opinion on this.
- Scale Mail: 2/Piercing
This is another armor that was a lot more effective than the game(and this thread) makes it sound. It was exceptionally hard to penetrate when crafted by a master, and I think there are many examples of it that survived to present day that needed only a few plates on it replaced. Also, I needed an armor that would not fare well against piercing weapons, and since scale can have a chink in the armor if all of the scales are set up along horizontal OR vertical rows, I figured this was the best candidate. Still, give me feedback on this one, history buffs/minors/majors/professors.
- Chain Mail: 2/Slashing
As with chain shirt above, but with a helm, greaves, and other things that make sense for a full suit of armor. It would function against critical hits.
- Breastplate: 3/Bludgeoning Optional: Does not absorb damage from critical hits
I'll be the first to admit I read way too much George R. R. Martin and History channel re-enactments. But to my mind, a warhammer or another bludgeoning weapon is the bane of plate armor, since it either crumples("Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died, my khaleesi.") or does a good job of redistributing the impact so that it rattles your molars about in your skull like roaches scatter when the kitchen light comes on. I'm sure I'll get a lot of outcry on that one, too, so give it to me.
- Splint Mail: 3/Piercing
I didn't find much on this one, but going by the description of splint mail being strips of metal wrapped up along a leather backing, I'm thinking a well placed arrow could find its way between the strips.
- Banded Mail: 3/Slashing
I could only find a wikipedia article on this, and even it argued over whether or not banded mail actually exists. Still, going on the picture, I'd have to say it'd do a good job of absorbing impact from an arrow if it hit the metal part, and the leather would do a good job of absorbing blows if it was treated right, but a well placed(not necessarily critically so) sword slash could undo someone wearing it.
- Half Plate: 3/Piercing Optional: 3/-
Another hybrid armor, except in this case I think the chainmail aspect could catch rough bludgeoning blows well and the platemail part could keep away slashing blows, but since it is so piecemeal in a way similar to Banded mail but of better design/materials, piercing weapons could catch an exposed gap. But didn't I just say that Breastplate(above) was good against piercing armor and bad against bludgeoning? Looking at it that way, and considering this is the second "best" armor in the game and prohibitively expensive at 600 + (Masterwork fee*) gold, I decided to include the optional 3/- for DR instead of 3/Piercing. I briefly considered including a clause where this DR went down by one for every critical hit, but I decided against it, as it may be too much bookkeeping for some. Thoughts on this?
- Full Plate: 4/Bludgeoning Optional: 4/-
Considered a necessity for Paladins and Fighters and the like and considered by many to be the "best" armor in the game, Full Plate is just what it says. Unfortunately due to my love of reading and watching TV, I gave it a weakness against bludgeoning- but you don't have to. Consider the Optional rule, and shout back at me as above.
- Buckler: DR change
A controversial idea, even for me, Bucklers allow you to change the DR of your armor. I figured they were so good at protecting you without getting in the way, one could alter its positioning to provide better protection against certain types of attack even unconsciously.
- Shield, Light: DR 1/-
Whether wooden or steel, light shields provide protection against everything.
- Shield, Heavy: Partial Cover
Much like how tower shields provide total cover, these masterwork heavy shields allow one to take the partial cover action in the same way tower shields can let one take total cover. I did not include a DR for this because I thought it might be too powerful and to differentiate heavy shields from light ones, but I always thought that someone hiding behind a shield was an important part of the game that gets lost in the mechanics unless you're using a...
- Tower Shield: DR 2/-
This is a little powerful when it comes to DR, but tower shields are..well..towers. It's going to provide excellent protection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
- Armor check penalties also apply to the Dexterity component of an initiative modifier. So yes, you are slower while wearing armor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
- Multiple attacks are resolved by rolling 1d20 for each target, NOT each attack. For example, a fighter with three attacks per round that is in melee with a single opponent rolls 1d20 once and only once and applies the result to all of his attacks. If that same fighter gets into a melee with his victim's three friends later on that day, he would have to roll 1d20 three times, each roll symbolizing an attack against each individual opponent, if he decided to attack all of them in a single full round action.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
+ Natural 20s do not need to be re-rolled to determine if they are a critical hit- it automatically confirms.
.
Well realism is a funny thing. I think the typical notions of what "is realistic" are incredibly bland and exclude a lot of what is possible and what people do every day.
Course I did grow up on Jackie Chan films, Hong Kong action and dnd. So that skews my views of realistic a bit. :D
Then later I came across people that could do some truly amazing things, take what would normally be bone-breaking hits, deflect an attacking horse's hoof with the hand, jump straight up and leap a sword cut mid-match, attack over 10 times in 6 seconds, parry a two handed staff thrust with one bare hand, load and shoot an arrow every three seconds or less.
I do not travel with the circus I swear.
Yikes. I just realized a lot of my house rules for the setting are missing from that page.
Okay, also note that the +2/+2 feats also increase a related save by 1(can't post the table but it isn't hard to figure out).
Masterwork weapons now have special qualities whenever a critical hit is confirmed using them. The afflicted individual must make a Fort save with a DC equal to the damage done, or suffer the attached condition. Bludgeoning weapons cause the Staggered condition for one round, Piercing weapons cause the Sickened condition for one round, and Slashing weapons do an extra single point of damage. Should other critical hits be scored in the same round that one has these conditions, they either stack in terms of duration(Bludgeoning and Piercing), or damage(Slashing).
The Weapon Focus feat provides a +1 bonus to hit and damage. The Weapon Specialization feat provides a +2 bonus to hit and damage. The Greater Weapon Focus feat is available only to fighters 9th level or higher and provides a+3 bonus to hit and damage. The Greater Weapon Specialization feat can only be taken by fighters 13th level or higher and provides a +4 bonus to hit and damage. Furthermore, the fighter-and only the fighter- adds the bonus from these feats to their initiative modifier. Finally, it must be noted that these feats DO NOT stack with each other, the bonuses instead replace each other.
Masterwork Armor:
- Padded Armor: 1/- Optional: One critical hit eliminates this special quality
I did a little research into this and found out that modern and even a few older padded armors aren't as bad as the game makes them out to be. Several dozen layers stitched together is enough to stop shot and even low caliber bullets (although certainly not higher caliber stuff or rifle rounds), slashing weapons and even absorb some impact from baseball bats and such. However it is still the "worst" armor in the game, and as such should have a weakness, as noted in the Options.
- Leather: 1/Slashing
Did...
Glad to read of someone else that discovered scale mail can actually be pretty good. Low upwards stabbing is its weakness (say a spear coming up and under), but Byzantine cav got around that by reversing the direction of the scales.
|
I just think part of the problem comes in when caster daamage jumps up per caster level while martial damage doesnt really. And no i dont think multiple attacks at lower and lower modifiers is equal to just upping the damage dice. Just imagine is say every third level your longsword went up a d8 so at level 9 each hit was 3d8+str bonus. I mean Im not doing a lot of math right now, i really dont feel like it to be honest. But if a level 9 fireball does 9d6 to everything in the radius i dont see why mister fighter cant do 3d8 to one target twice...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there's one thing martials are good at it's damage.
A 10d6 Fireball sounds really awesome until you realize that's an average of 35 damage...and the party Barbarian has that as his STATIC MODIFIER.
Caster strength is not in their damage, for sure.
Averages are for the other guy. I don't know why they're so popular, but the people I play with tend to roll above average.
Averages are for the other guy. I don't know why they're so popular, but the people I play with tend to roll above average.
Every now and then? Yes. Just like every now and then you'll roll below average.
But it all averages out in the end.
I think the average damage argument is overblown at best, a cheesy way to get out of rolling dice at worst. But that's just me.
I think the average damage argument is overblown at best, a cheesy way to get out of rolling dice at worst. But that's just me.
At max, it's 60 damage.
My Barbarian at level 10 was cranking out at least 50 a shot, 40-ish MINIMUM. Still better, more reliable, and comes jam packed with shot number 2 right on its heels.
Average damage is the easiest way to evaluate something. Assuming max rolls all the time is silly. Average is much more likely than very far above average.