Alright.
Alright.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hear that Swoosh? It's the sound of a free throw making it in the net.
That's a great way of comparing the design paradigm of the two types of classes.
Your best bet to reconcile is to either houserule hard or get familiar with third party publishers because Paizo doesn't intend to fix it.
Because Paizo's status quo generates sales. Financially it's in their best interest to ignore C/MD.
Hence why I say if it matters to you and your group, grab some good 3PP material. If you need help finding some lemme know.
I just hope when and if pathfinder 2.0 comes along they won't ignore it anymore. A farfetched hope I know, but I try to be an optimist when I can.
Summoning and buffing are always solid mechanics that will do well almost completely independent of build.
Martials have no such build removed tactics.
If you take out summoning and buffing, suddenly the casters are in the same boat. The game does worsen then though. Cause everyone benefits from buffs and summons.
|
The combat maneuvers system that Pathfinder uses actually works out a bit better then the 3.5 system. For one thing, you don't have to be a combat lawyer to figure out what type of defense a given action checks against. It also makes things like Trip more useful out of the box. without any investment via feats you get Strength+BAB for trip attacks. And you know exactly what you have to beat in order to trip them, their CMD. If you beat their CMB they're tripped. If you're a full BAB class, this means you'll nearly always have a decent chance at tripping your foe even without investing to improve it. If the foe can be tripped that is.
In 3.5 you had to make the trip attempt (which may or may not trigger an AoO against you). Which AC do you make the attack against? Did the attack hit? If yes, then they merely need to roll better then 10+your strength score using their reflex save or Balance skill. At level 1 with no feat investment you might have a DC of 14. With no feat investment, you might have a DC of 19. by level 20. To get the DC high enough to be worth using regularly, you need to build specifically for tripping.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if martials got to do fantastical things it would make casters feel not as magical and could hurt their feelings? Thanks I needed a good laugh.
Goodie, it has been at least six hours since the last CMD thread.
Not sure why you would try and trip someone up when you both have weapons in hands. It seems to me that tripping should be difficult else people would be doing it all the time. Tripping being particularly annoying for both players and DMs alike as it prevents their actions in a game already limited by action economy. At the same time if that same wizard cast a spell to try and trip the enemy they would get a save. It shouldn't be automatic. There are also lots of tripping weapons that mean you can drop them instead of being tripped.
What do you want the game to be about? If you want everyone lying around on the floor then make trip easier. if you want wizards to stop buffing their friends then make spells harder/less effective.
My bigger issue with manoeuvres is that the impact of static bonuses means the die roll almost becomes auto success against many creatures and as a result tripping is ridiculously easy for some characters and impossible for others. This makes anyone who wants to trip feel like a power player for taking the right combination, and not bother otherwise. All the extra feats and improvements to manoeuvres just makes this problem worse.
Pathfinder risks becoming a game of tic tac toe where the right combination is auto win. I prefer thr flatter 5e where there is still a reasonable chance but success will never be a foregone conclusion.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread seems unlikely to lead anywhere good, and I'm probably not gonna get too involved in it therefore...but I'll throw my two cents in anyway.
The short version:
I don't actually have a huge problem with this issue in combat.
See, in combat, offensive casters are generalists, they have lots of options and useful things to do, while martial characters (or other weapon users) are specialists, they have one or two things they do, but they do them very well indeed (generally, better than casters can with the same resource investment). And since one of those areas is damage, their areas of specialty are pretty generally applicable.
So...I really don't see a huge ongoing problem in terms of combat prowess between Classes. It'd be nice if there was a non-spellcaster/magic item way to get a Haste effect, but that aside martial characters do fine in combat. Now, self-buff spellcasters can do similar things to martial characters, but they generally need buffing time...they're better, don't get me wrong, but seldom enough that it's actually a problem in combat.
Out of combat is a very different matter and lacks the same balancing factors, with spellcasters having access to whole categories of abilities martial characters cannot duplicate, approximate, or better in any way without having casting of their own (especially since spell casters can do skills as well as or better than non-casters). It's a very unfortunate situation...but not one I think is especially relevant to combat in actual play the vast majority of the time.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if martials got to do fantastical things it would make casters feel not as magical and could hurt their feelings? Thanks I needed a good laugh.Not at all.
What I am saying is when everyone can do everything as well as everyone else then the game becomes less flavorful.
If you want to see it in action play M&M. Very serious. In that game the kung fu guy can do everything the Wizard and everything the power armored guy can do.
M&M doesn't work well when people focus on mechanics for that reason. When Batman and Superman have the same limitations there is no sense of accomplishment in playing Batman.
This is...a rather gross mischaracterization of what Mutants and Masterminds is like. Due to the way Power Level works in that game, everyone's direct combat abilities are balanced...but that includes people with ridiculous accuracy and terrible damage or vice versa, also unhittable but fragile people and tanks who always get hit, but can take almost any hit.
So, even at the same power level, Superman probably has trouble hitting Batman, but Batman can't damage Superman with direct attacks very effectively...meaning he has to start being clever (or have brought kryptonite). Utility-wise, Superman can also suddenly be places very far away with flight/superspeed. Batman cannot. Now, Batman's toolbox is actually way more versatile in some ways (when he has access to a utility belt or time anyway), but Superman's has some stuff he has real trouble matching.
The system has its own issues (and version of Caster/Martial disparity) in that buying owers with lots of different equally powerful effects is pretty cheap, so people with lots of different effects of one main power tend to overshadow those who lack either powers or gadgets, or those with smaller independent powers, but it's not quite as HWalsh presents it.
Just for the record.
|
|
I'm actually joining a M&M game as a skills based character. I'm not sure if HWalsh has actually played M&M or not. But the system is very much not a case of "everyone is the same, just slightly different flavors".
I have one M&M character who's a super genius inventor. I'm talking so smart, I accidentally made them smarter then nearly everyone/thing in the DC Universe. Given a bit of time, some tools, and some parts she can do amazing things and treat the 'laws of physics' as mere suggestions, poorly worded ones at that. Maybe. If the gadget actually works the way it's intended to. But most skills are no where near as high as you might think, rank wise at least.
The character has an array of extremely excessively high tech devices, each of which is in it's own way very powerful. But can only use one of them at a time. And actual combat skills are rather low considering the character's power level. My level 5 monk has a better chance to hit (usually) then this superhero does at PL 15 (equivalent to level 15 if you have to think of it that way). Mostly has far better saves too. But if this character can connect with one of the big ticket attacks, it's GOING to hurt. And has at least a (slim) chance of hurting someone like Superman.
On the other hand, my PL 15 skills based "batman" style character is very effective in combat. If she tries to punch or kick you, odds are you're going to be punched or kicked. She has an array of useful gadgets such as grapple guns, a rocket glider pack, and other utility items. And rather impressive detective skills. But if this character were to fight the inventor I already mentioned? Odds are she couldn't even scratch the inventor, even though she is hitting all the time.
Speedster characters tend to be VERY hard to hit, and can run rings around most foes. But if you can tag them, they tend to go down rather fast. Most bricks are so durable they rarely get hurt, but often have trouble hitting their foes if the foe isn't just standing there and taking it.
Mutants & Masterminds is a system centered around checks and balances. You're durability and ability to soak hits can be insanely unreal, but you'll be pants at defense. You can have incredible, awe inspiring, unimaginatively mighty super powers. But unless it comes from your powers, your base attributes are probably fairly average. And you probably don't have much more then a high school education's worth of skills. You can be THE crowd control master, with abilities nobody's ever going to make the save against. But you'll be unable to actually do any damage with most of those abilities.
The system is actually REALLY good at creating diversity. In large part this is because you actually build your powers and abilities from the ground up. And within the system of checks and balances, the game master can easily balance adventures around what the party can likely handle. No matter what weird combinations the players come up with, the GM has a guideline of what they're within.
And I've seen some VERY weird characters. Such as Mister Spam, a four foot tall, four foot wide man who was made of living spam, and could launch his fists as projectiles. Or the Howdy Doody marionette come to life. Or someone who attacks by creating simi-solid psychic illusions of ninjas in hamster balls which slice his foes into itty bitty pieces..
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh sure, house rules, third party and gentlemen's agreements are all well and good.The better question is to ask WHY there's such a radical difference in design philosophy and expectations It's not just a matter of class design (which is obviously going to be unique for different types of characters) but a fundamental difference in expectations and character archetypes.
To provide differing playstyles and differing flavor to the world setting.
In my opinion, at least, it makes magic feel magical. It justifies the supernatural mechanically. Magic allows those who use it to go beyond what is normally thought to be possible.
It's simply how these games work.
Except that there are very few limitations to what these abilities do and the game (both 3.X and PF) have pretty much removed most of what made them "balanced" compared to non-spellcasters. And the balance that was inherently there have ways via character options to reduce or outright remove them.
•Don't I need to keep track of my spell Components? Nope there's Eschew Materials feat for that AND many (I'd say most) DMs don't bother with that level of minutia.
• Isn't casting time a problem? Nope, everyone can cast on their turn as their initiative comes up.
• What if someone is in my face about to blast you with their sword if I start casting? Easy! Just use a 5-ft step AND/OR cast defensively! PLUS there are ways of making casting defensively more effective which means by a certain level, casting defensively isn't even worth rolling for.
• But all these cosmic powers are limited by my spell slots? Naw, we gave spellcasters x/day in-class abilities that are used for things that magic doesn't neccessairly need to be used for. And you have at-will Cantrips for non-combat aspects. Being forced to not fight, or use mundane weapons you're not very good with OR forcing the entire group to rest when you're fresh out of spells is a mostly thing of the past.
• Happy Overloarding!!!
Then the flip side...
• Can I attack a guy multiple times OR with each weapon I'm wielding if I move more than 10-feet? Nope. That's preposterous!
• Can I attack a guy with my shield? Sure, but you'll need a Feat.....and it's not very effective. You'd need additional class features AND some more feats to make it worth your while. And it's just some additional damage, nothing really else to have happen here...
• But I get many attacks as I get better right? Sure! But each attack depreciates by 5, so when you finally get 4 full attacks, you're basically crit-fishing the last two anyways.
• But I get these feats, that are supposed to all be pretty awesome! Yep, so does everyone else. You get MORE than most, so that's a plus but most of the good ones are hidden behind Ability scores you have almost zero use for OR they're the 3rd, 4th, or 5th in down the line to even attempt to use. AND by the time you can most of them aren't worth the paper they're written on.
• OK but I'll get LOADS of magical Items to help! You sure do, and so does every other player and they usually spend them on making their spellcasting beter or more available during the adventuring day.
• So I don't get fancy spells or ways to make the world bend to my will but I CAN intimidate better than anyone and I can do stuff Strong and Fast people can do, probably even better! Yeah, that's pretty much what wands and other magical trinkets and baubles Wizards and Spellcasters spend their gold on, so that they don't have to worry about keep picking up other people's slack.
•.......can I impose status effects like Blind, Daze, Deafen, Paralysis, or Unconsciousness? Yes but you need magic or special elixers/poisons. No. Yes but you need feats. No. Yes but you take a substantial penalty when you try unless you have magic or a feat.
• I wanna play a spellcaster!!!
Hence why I said the only answer that matters.
This isn't a problem that exists in Paizos eyes, so the only ones that can fix it are player houserules or some 3PP use.
99 martial/caster threads in the forum, 99 martial/caster threads.
Take one down, lock the thread,
100 martial/caster threads in the forum...
You know what, magic might work, but man is it boring most of the time.
Especially most of the very effective ones.
|
I'm actually joining a M&M game as a skills based character. I'm not sure if HWalsh has actually played M&M or not. But the system is very much not a case of "everyone is the same, just slightly different flavors".Oh I have. Many games. Many years.
You are right, to a point.
Until "optimizers" get involved. Then watch as every character (especially over a long game) starts looking the same.
Eventually they all end up with, "That one full PL attack." "That one damage shifted attack." "That one accuracy shifted attack." (Because alts are cheap.)
You'll never see an "optimizer" go "defense shifted" because of issues with areas.
Having played M&M since 1st edition... Like I said... You want to see it in action... Run a roll 20 game without your close friends and with no gentleman's agreements. (The same situation that causes the supposed CMD)
Oh, the C/MD is a very real thing. In fact there's a HUGE thread about it. I recommend checking it out.
|
I'm actually joining a M&M game as a skills based character. I'm not sure if HWalsh has actually played M&M or not. But the system is very much not a case of "everyone is the same, just slightly different flavors".Oh I have. Many games. Many years.
You are right, to a point.
Until "optimizers" get involved. Then watch as every character (especially over a long game) starts looking the same.
That's pretty much inherent to pure point-buy systems. In theory they give far more choice/options. For optimizers there end up being only a very few viable builds.
That's why I prefer class-based systems - it allows for more asymmetry for optimizers. (I can't tell whether you're using "optimizers" as a dirty word.)
I'm not going to argue about how well it's executed in different systems, but from a game design standpoint class systems inherently allow more asymmetry for players with decent system mastery.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh sure, house rules, third party and gentlemen's agreements are all well and good.The better question is to ask WHY there's such a radical difference in design philosophy and expectations It's not just a matter of class design (which is obviously going to be unique for different types of characters) but a fundamental difference in expectations and character archetypes.
To provide differing playstyles and differing flavor to the world setting.
In my opinion, at least, it makes magic feel magical. It justifies the supernatural mechanically. Magic allows those who use it to go beyond what is normally thought to be possible.
It's simply how these games work.
It's okay to like the Caster/Martial disparity (which is what you're describing in this post). Totally fine to like it.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and it also doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to dislike it.
It exists, and it's okay for you to like it and for others to dislike it.
Not sure why you would try and trip someone up when you both have weapons in hands. It seems to me that tripping should be difficult else people would be doing it all the time.Yes, the nerve of that trained, experienced warrior, trying to do anything more interesting in a fight than roll hit then damage.
Well a trained experienced fighter can trip a appropriate CR enemy with a good chance of success. As good a chance as dealing damage if not a bit better depending on enemy stats.
On the other hand the specific example in the OP was of an untrained fighter provoking attacks and dying (what is his AC and why is his hp so low?). Two feats and the right mundane equipment make tripping easy against a lot of creatures.
Incidentally casting spells like summons and buffs do risk failure as the do provoke aoo and a full round casting sorcerer summoning can be disrupted. When you can use your fun skills a dozen times a day you tend to get a protective over them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just hope when and if pathfinder 2.0 comes along they won't ignore it anymore. A farfetched hope I know, but I try to be an optimist when I can.
I hope they arent "ignoring" it , i hope they just like how this game works and they dont intend to change it at all.
Other systems can do that , pathfinder should just be pathfinder.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh sure, house rules, third party and gentlemen's agreements are all well and good.The better question is to ask WHY there's such a radical difference in design philosophy and expectations It's not just a matter of class design (which is obviously going to be unique for different types of characters) but a fundamental difference in expectations and character archetypes.
To provide differing playstyles and differing flavor to the world setting.
In my opinion, at least, it makes magic feel magical. It justifies the supernatural mechanically. Magic allows those who use it to go beyond what is normally thought to be possible.
It's simply how these games work.
It's okay to like the Caster/Martial disparity (which is what you're describing in this post). Totally fine to like it.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and it also doesn't mean other people aren't allowed to dislike it.
It exists, and it's okay for you to like it and for others to dislike it.
We might as well just link this image in every C/MD thread and call it a day. Thanks, /tg/!
|
|
I'm actually joining a M&M game as a skills based character. I'm not sure if HWalsh has actually played M&M or not. But the system is very much not a case of "everyone is the same, just slightly different flavors".Oh I have. Many games. Many years.
You are right, to a point.
Until "optimizers" get involved. Then watch as every character (especially over a long game) starts looking the same.
That's pretty much inherent to pure point-buy systems. In theory they give far more choice/options. For optimizers there end up being only a very few viable builds.
That's why I prefer class-based systems - it allows for more asymmetry for optimizers. (I can't tell whether you're using "optimizers" as a dirty word.)
I'm not going to argue about how well it's executed in different systems, but from a game design standpoint class systems inherently allow more asymmetry for players with decent system mastery.
That's the thing, for min/max power gamers there is only one or two 'builds' they consider good enough to use. But one has to remember that the min/max power gamer is NOT the most common type of roleplayer. Sure they're disturbingly common. Or at least appear to be. But for every person who lives and breaths to min/max every character they will ever create into the maximum possible capabilities, there's 10 more who just play the game.
For every person who gravitates to the most overpowered flavor of the month build, there's ten more who make characters they find interesting regardless of how effective it is. And then you get people like me who ask the GM about bending the rules... to make their character weaker or more interesting without being more powerful. For every player who's willing and eager to trade away their ability to deliberately rhyme for another +1 to damage, there's at least 3 more who are willing to trade away +1 damage for the requirement they speak only in rhyme.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually joining a M&M game as a skills based character. I'm not sure if HWalsh has actually played M&M or not. But the system is very much not a case of "everyone is the same, just slightly different flavors".Oh I have. Many games. Many years.
You are right, to a point.
Until "optimizers" get involved. Then watch as every character (especially over a long game) starts looking the same.
That's pretty much inherent to pure point-buy systems. In theory they give far more choice/options. For optimizers there end up being only a very few viable builds.
That's why I prefer class-based systems - it allows for more asymmetry for optimizers. (I can't tell whether you're using "optimizers" as a dirty word.)
I'm not going to argue about how well it's executed in different systems, but from a game design standpoint class systems inherently allow more asymmetry for players with decent system mastery.
That's the thing, for min/max power gamers there is only one or two 'builds' they consider good enough to use. But one has to remember that the min/max power gamer is NOT the most common type of roleplayer. Sure they're disturbingly common. Or at least appear to be. But for every person who lives and breaths to min/max every character they will ever create into the maximum possible capabilities, there's 10 more who just play the game.
For every person who gravitates to the most overpowered flavor of the month build, there's ten more who make characters they find interesting regardless of how effective it is. And then you get people like me who ask the GM about bending the rules... to make their character weaker or more interesting without being more powerful. For every player who's willing and eager to trade away their ability to deliberately rhyme for another +1 to damage, there's at least 3 more who are willing to trade away +1 damage for the requirement they speak only in rhyme.
Because an optimizer can't enjoy roleplaying as well...right.
You know you're entitled to your opinion as is everyone else, but since when did weaker = more interesting? You want to intentionally play a weak character fine, go right ahead, knock yourself out. I would rather the class I chose be of equal standing with other classes when it comes to both combat and out of combat activities.
Oh and when I say equal standing I do not mean exactly the same, I mean as useful in its own way. Sure absolute balance without giving everyone the same class is impossible but that does not mean that their should be such a power and variety difference between the tiers of classes.
Well, for Pathfinder if you wanted to be a crossbow user before bolt ace you were playing an intentionally weak character for flavor.
|
|
Didn't say they can't enjoy role playing. And notice I didn't use the word "optimizer". That's deliberate. I'm not a power gamer, but I do to an extent optimize my characters. I do make them effective, with defenses that (usually) aren't tissue paper. Within my character concept I ask myself "What can I do to make this character not only fun to play, but effective". Everyone optimizes their character. Some better then others, true. And this is fine.
Power gamers take it to the extreme though. They don't optimize, they try to bend the rules as far as they can without actually breaking them. They make builds which technically are legal, yet at the same time are broken in the extreme. I can do this, but chose not to. I find such characters to not be fun.
There's a reason they get called min/maxers. They actively look for every advantage they can squeeze out. If there's a minor flaw they can take that wont actually affect their capability, but lets them add another advantage (minor or not) they go for it. These are the kinds of people who come to the gaming session with a level 1 character who has +8 to attack, +20 damage, and 26 AC, then they start raging. And they did it all in a way that is technically.
There's nothing inherently wrong with this playstyle, so long as you don't cheat too. But it can easily be disruptive. And they create the corner cases that then message boards like this one start considering "normal" builds. Because let's face it, most build discussions tend to be dominated by the min/max crowd. The people who think you're a useless gimp unless you hit the absolute cap of Damage per (insert apprppriate interval).
Erm, sorry for the minor rant.
|
|
Power gamers take it to the extreme though. They don't optimize, they try to bend the rules as far as they can without actually breaking them. They make builds which technically are legal, yet at the same time are broken in the extreme. I can do this, but chose not to. I find such characters to not be fun.
Except - nearly everyone disagrees on where the line is drawn between the two.
Plus - in the above mentioned M&M reference - you barely have to try at all to 'break' M&M and other point-buy systems to make most builds foolish.
To the original post, take a 1 level dip into brawler at virtually no cost or disadvantage and never have to worry about being untrained again.
|
|
Power gamers take it to the extreme though. They don't optimize, they try to bend the rules as far as they can without actually breaking them. They make builds which technically are legal, yet at the same time are broken in the extreme. I can do this, but chose not to. I find such characters to not be fun.Except - nearly everyone disagrees on where the line is drawn between the two.
Plus - in the above mentioned M&M reference - you barely have to try at all to 'break' M&M and other point-buy systems to make most builds foolish.
Power arrays in M&M are, well, powerful. But at the same time limited. Let's say you build your super Cheese swiss army knife power array. It can handle any situation, and you only had to really pay for 1 power. Everything else was only 1 point tacked on to buy.
At any given moment you can...
*shoot an electric bolt which can fry a city
*run faster then the speed of light
*regenerate any injury, even death
*toss planets like their ping pong balls
*take a nuke to the chin and not even notice
Pick ONE of the above, that's what you're doing right now. Want to do one of the other things? You have to stop doing what you're currently doing. If you can toss planets like they're nothing, a normal teenage kid can probably punch you hard enough to break your jaw. If you're able to regenerate so fast that anything short of being atomized is "just a scratch", you have no real offensive capability. If you can take a nuke to the chin, anything that DOES hurt you is a serious threat because you can't hurt it back. If you can run faster then the speed of light... better have REALLY good armor. All those dust particles you're hitting are probably tearing through you like a shotgun blast. You're not durable enough to take it, nor do you regenerate. And whatever you do, don't trip.
That's the balancing factor for power arrays vs individual powers. You can get a wide assortment of strong abilities, but each one is mutually exclusive with the others. Not to meniton, the more you spend on powers the less you have for stats, saves, raw combat ability, and skills. Want to be THE skills master? You'll have fewer points for powers. Want to be so innately strong and tough that you're like Superman? Again, fewer points for skills, combat statistics, and powers.
The system is really flexible. If you didn't get the exact character you want, it's probably because you weren't trying. But there are checks and balances. All pure point buy systems have those checks and balances hard wired in. And it's why most power gamers I've game mastered for actually hated M&M. There was no options which let them be head and shoulders better then everyone else. Everyone else was equally effective, even if in different ways.
Or from another system, BESM D20 in my opinion is a fun game system. While playing in a Magical Girl themed campaign, one player complained that someone had a Special Attack which did 15d6 dice of damage at level 1. But they ignored the major drawbacks needed to get that many dice of damage. Among them, the attack required 6 full rounds of charging it up before it finally triggers on round 7. It was wildly inaccurate, thus just as likely to hit an orphanage 3 miles away as it is to hit the actual target. And it also had a good chance of landing on the player's head, doing full damage. Oh, and could only be done during the night while outdoors and standing in grass. In short, it was a dangerous to use finishing blow. Trying to use this attack before the opponent is already effectively defeated was begging to be attacked, thus having it interrupted.
They also complained that I had a 3d6 damage special attack that also does a d6 of wisdom drain. But they ignored that this attack required charging for a full round before it goes off, thus is easily interruptible. It couldn't be used at night. And if the target was wearing any armor at all, it barely affects them due to low penetration.
Caster with solid spell choices vs fighter who makes bad in-combat decisions.
If the caster had less relevant spells or the fighter with trip chain (or fighting in a way that supported the feats chosen) would we be having this discussion?
not sure this is a solid argument imo.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Caster with solid spell choices vs fighter who makes bad in-combat decisions.
If the caster had less relevant spells or the fighter with trip chain (or fighting in a way that supported the feats chosen) would we be having this discussion?
not sure this is a solid argument imo.
Why is a Fighter who wants to trip a target a bad combat decision? It's actually a pretty great decision.
The problem is the ability gap.
A fighter is specialized to do damage, but wants to CC. He doesn't have any ability to effectively do so.
A sorcerer is specialized to do damage, but wants to CC. He casts Create pit/Ice Spears/Battering Blast.
In general the weakest classes in the game have to buy the ability to do something. The strongest classes in the game are assumed to have the ability to do stuff and can buy increased power in their choice of specialization without weakening the other options.
See my point re: a 1 level dip in brawler. It's really not a big cost as you lose nothing except a capstone ability and gain a lot. 90% of manoeuvre options are then on the table safely.
Weakest/specialised/bad/great are all subjective terms and a matter of personal optioning.
It is my opinion that tripping a trained stronger enemy when you have no training in tripping safely, will not make sense in reasonable circumstances to reasonable people.
The Sorcerer has to buy his abilities too. It's called choosing spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See my point re: a 1 level dip in brawler. It's really not a big cost as you lose nothing except a capstone ability and gain a lot. 90% of manoeuvre options are then on the table safely.
Weakest/specialised/bad/great are all subjective terms and a matter of personal optioning.
It is my opinion that tripping a trained stronger enemy when you have no training in tripping safely, will not make sense in reasonable circumstances to reasonable people.
The Sorcerer has to buy his abilities too. It's called choosing spells.
By that logic each spell level should also cost a feat and Sorcerers shouldn't get to retrain spells every 2 levels.
Also spells like Battering blast shouldn't exist since they do damage and CC at the same time.
Also each spell should have pre-reqs, like the create pit line.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine how frustrated the wizard would be if, in order to prepare Dominate Person, he also had to prepare Charm Person, Suggestion, and Charm Monster. He's stuck with those spells forever, regardless of how poorly they scale in later levels, as long as he wants to use dominate person. That is the spellcaster equivalent of a feat chain.
I didn't say the buying was equal. I just made the point that sorcerers have to buy their powers.
Most classes have to make decisions that make them better in some areas and lose out in others. It would be pretty boring system if this wasn't the case.
That said I am a big believer that most people should be able to have a decent stab at most mundane things. Unfortunately the power creep of stacking abilities means these are often either impossible or easy.
The sense from the original post is that he wants to auto trip the enemy without investing feats in it. In truth he can do that but shouldn't be surprised when it isn't more effective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine how frustrated the wizard would be if, in order to prepare Dominate Person, he also had to prepare Charm Person, Suggestion, and Charm Monster. He's stuck with those spells forever, regardless of how poorly they scale in later levels, as long as he wants to use dominate person. That is the spellcaster equivalent of a feat chain.Might be something there from house ruling to allow fighters to swap out a feat that's lost utility in later game -even- if its a pre-req. There is precedence in other classes who are allowed to get a bonus feat w/o meeting the pre-reqs.
Although I don't see it affecting the player enjoyment in my game, I do see the point that Insain was able to clear up when he and I ran down this, which is fighters as a class in particular don't get many unique and very few "cool" things to try in or out of combat that only they have access too.
I've been checking out some of the unchained things like skill unlock, and also kicking around some house rule ideas about existing feats. IE I'd already allowed access to all 3 combat expertise/or PowerAttack tree CMs by taking 1 - they still don't get tried nearly as much as you'd think. I do blame some of that on myself as GM, why spend an attack roll on trip or disarm if the outcome of the combat is dead enemy?
Also had already retro'd all classes to 4 skill ranks per level, but there is work to do as I war game through what the classic fighters of fiction could do out of combat, and then how would I let them try similar things with a skill check not focused on CHA.
Looking at the reviews from Weapon Master Handbook, it might be worth the $15 if nothing else to use for locking down some house rules.
I think you would really get a kick out of a 3PP book called Ultimate Battlelord. It's one of the very few martial character books from a 3PP that both creates a character with narrative power and remains relatively simple to play. I highly recommend it and it's only 3$.
They are limited in how often they can do this. They have to sink every feat *and* multiclassing to do this. They lose a *lot* of general ability.
And then they take Preferred Spell and gain all of their general ability back.
Because once again, Casters tend to get better bang for buck when it comes to their feat design.
With Preferred Spell, they can prepare all of their usual utility magics AND still be able to use their specialized encounter obliterator.