We all know now that 3e for a very long time had a faulty assumption of the way casters would be played, in that they would predominantly use blasting for offensive purposes ... even though they were given the tools to do significantly better than that.
I think in Pathfinder a similar assumption is now showing itself, but this time for martials. The assumption that martials will predominantly use walk and strike for offensive purposes ... even though they are given the tools to do significantly better than that.
I'm not sure I understand your complaint.
There is certainly an assumption that people are going to focus on killing things, if that's what you mean, because every class in d20 is defined by how it helps bring the enemy below 0. It's how the system is focused.
If you mean something else then please elaborate.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem isn't martial damage so much as PF's complete and utter nerfing of any martial option that isn't damage. Grapple is super hard-nerfed, trip can't be used on nearly as many things, maneuvers succeed less often than in 3E due to CMD accrual rate of monsters, it takes more feats and higher level to get identical benefits to the 3E "Improved [maneuver]" feats... Stand Still was turned from the keystone of any reach tripper build that nearly always worked into a worthless adjacent-squares-only feat that runs against the exact same broken CMD score.
Other badass options like Staggering Strike or Imperious Command to inflict hefty status effects have either been wholly absent, are very specific for race or class, tend to have high requirements, and/or are extremely situationally dependent.
I'd personally like to see options for less full attacking and more movement. Relatively speaking martials are on a down-hill journey from 1st level while other classes are moving on up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem isn't martial damage so much as PF's complete and utter nerfing of any martial option that isn't damage. Grapple is super hard-nerfed, trip can't be used on nearly as many things, maneuvers succeed less often than in 3E due to CMD accrual rate of monsters, it takes more feats and higher level to get identical benefits to the 3E "Improved [maneuver]" feats... Stand Still was turned from the keystone of any reach tripper build that nearly always worked into a worthless adjacent-squares-only feat that runs against the exact same broken CMD score.
Other badass options like Staggering Strike or Imperious Command to inflict hefty status effects have either been wholly absent, are very specific for race or class, tend to have high requirements, and/or are extremely situationally dependent.
Pretty much this.
Needs more Tome of Battle.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tome of Battle was great for that. Gave a ton of standard action strike maneuvers to skirmish with that had potent effects for their levels.
Of course, PF also instituted the "full attack stand still-fest" by making tumble suicidally hard. Perhaps if it was still flat DC 15, people would move around more.
Or perhaps if Spring Attack stacked with....freaking anything else.
EDIT: Wow, you ninja'd my reply to your own post!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tome of Battle was great for that. Gave a ton of standard action strike maneuvers to skirmish with that had potent effects for their levels.
Of course, PF also instituted the "full attack stand still-fest" by making tumble suicidally hard. Perhaps if it was still flat DC 15, people would move around more.
Or perhaps if Spring Attack stacked with....freaking anything else.
EDIT: Wow, you ninja'd my reply to your own post!
It's 'cause I haven't got dressed for the day. I'm still in my sleep clothes. Thus my check penalties are way lower. :P
|
We all know now that 3e for a very long time had a faulty assumption of the way casters would be played, in that they would predominantly use blasting for offensive purposes ... even though they were given the tools to do significantly better than that.
I think in Pathfinder a similar assumption is now showing itself, but this time for martials. The assumption that martials will predominantly use walk and strike for offensive purposes ... even though they are given the tools to do significantly better than that.
I'm not sure I understand your complaint.
I also fail to grasp the nature of your complaint. As I see it, martials are focused on striking for offensive purposes because that is their role, to kill people and break things. Perhaps it would help me understand your point if you gave some examples of what you would like to see martials do that they cannot do right now.
Well yes, that's the issue. The pouncers, archers, etc.. are strong, viable builds, albeit boring as hell. But the problem isn't them being too strong. It's "walk and strike" - the skirmisher type builds -- being incredibly pathetic and weak.
That's why the tumble nerf, lack of Tome of Battle or other source of powerful single attack options, etc... is the heart of the issue. Nearly every martial combat change in PF has been to the detriment of the skirmisher guy. And any buffs to the martials have almost all been in the form of bigger #'s to hit and damage with.
This has been pointed out for many years now, right from the start. But instead of addressing it, paizo and its defenders just shouted back and turtled up like they were besieged.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tome of Battle? We don't that anime wuxia crap round these parts, gentlemen!
Yep. Parrying incoming attacks was strictly forbidden in western martial styles. Likewise, breaking out of magical spells is so reminiscent of that one anime...what was it called? Oh yeah, Conan the Barbarian. It's commonly known that in western fighting you never did anything like pin your opponent's weapon long enough to let your rogue get into position to flank him.
And it's not like western martial arts (such as germanic martial arts) used fanciful names like "wrath guard" or "iron wall" for their techniques instead of technical names like "blocking position #2".
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the proper response to all this grognardism is
"Get back on your lawn!"
|
Actualy, some fighter archtypes allow for pretty interesting builds - see the archer from the APG, for example. Being able to disarm or trip opponents from a distance is super solid, and there's also a feat the increase ranged damage with intelligence, allowing anyone to create a fighter with high INT score without feeling guilty about it!
Actualy, some fighter archtypes allow for pretty interesting builds - see the archer from the APG, for example. Being able to disarm or trip opponents from a distance is super solid, and there's also a feat the increase ranged damage with intelligence, allowing anyone to create a fighter with high INT score without feeling guilty about it!
Except in 3E there were just feats for that which anyone could take and often gain them at a lower level than the Archer gets access to his ranged maneuvers to do that stuff. Like I said in my first post...
As for the int to damage feat, that requires a single standard action attack that doesn't even stack w/ Vital Strike or Shot on the Run. Not to mention the whole appeal of archery is always full attacking -- the incentive has to be a lot higher than Int to damage to make any other form of archery anywhere near competitive.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They aren't pathetic and weak. They are better.
A fighter that has a low speed, high armor, and lots of damage is just asking the GM to never, ever have a fight that is too hard because he will always end up dead.
A skirmisher can't fight as high level opponents, but he can try to get away. That is a big deal.
If you are playing a story, the GM will just cater to you and let you win anyway.
If you are in any kind of sandbox, you can walk away from anything you can't kill, unless you made some dumpy speed 20' character with no initiative and no magic. Then you deserve to die. Adventuring isn't like guarding a doorway. You shouldn't use the guarding a doorway build for someone who may have to and who will be allowed to run.
Speaking of falty assumptions...
1. Maybe if the skirmishers fought nearly as well as the "lots of damage" guys, they wouldn't *need* to run.
2. You can do a lot of damage without losing mobility to heavy armor just fine.
3. Not every DM is just going to deus ex machina a win for you, IME most will let a TPK happen just fine.
4. Unless you are in barren, flat, wide open terrain or the enemy out-reaches you, you can actually pretty reliably get away just using the Withdraw action. That lets you double move w/o provoking from the space you leave. The enemy can double move to pursue you, but he can't do that and attack. He can double move and attack by charging, but...unlike withdraw, that has to be unhindered in a straight line. So in most cases, to chase you down AND kill you, the enemy needs to have at least twice your speed.
5. Running away is not the only way to evade an encounter. You could hide. The mage could teleport the party away. You could use diplomacy to negotiate an end to the conflict.
I've played with plenty of people who think like you, that it's more important to be able to escape and live than to fight well. They tend to get other characters killed due to not contributing enough in a fight and being quick to bail out. Those people tend to not be welcome back in the group after such occurrences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gorbacz's group: Got eaten by some flumphs while they were too busy roleplaying out an argument their characters were having. :p
It is too bad melee fighters aren't allowed to carry ranged weapons. Why don't they fix that?
Sometimes it seems like other people play games where you only ever fight armed humanoids, and the other 95% of the bestiary doesn't exist...
In any case, if the foes do have ranged weapons and are stopping to shoot, slowing themselves down, the escapees are likely to get away unless said ranged attackers are actually skilled with their bows beyond "I have one, and I'm proficient."
|
It is too bad melee fighters aren't allowed to carry ranged weapons. Why don't they fix that?Sometimes it seems like other people play games where you only ever fight armed humanoids, and the other 95% of the bestiary doesn't exist...
In any case, if the foes do have ranged weapons and are stopping to shoot, slowing themselves down, the escapees are likely to get away unless said ranged attackers are actually skilled with their bows beyond "I have one, and I'm proficient."
It is too bad that fighters don't have any proficiencies with ranged weapons. And that their full base attack only applies to melee weapons. And that they don't have any extra feats to take something that makes them decent with ranged weapons.
What were they thinking!
Tome of Battle was great for that. Gave a ton of standard action strike maneuvers to skirmish with that had potent effects for their levels.
Of course, PF also instituted the "full attack stand still-fest" by making tumble suicidally hard. Perhaps if it was still flat DC 15, people would move around more.
Or perhaps if Spring Attack stacked with....freaking anything else.
EDIT: Wow, you ninja'd my reply to your own post!
Actually, tumbling is really not that difficult to do. I remember doing the math for a rogue with a 16 Dex, a +2 Belt of Dex, and no feats or traits to increase their Acrobatics (Skill Focus, Acrobatics), and they could still tumble about 60% of the time against large creatures (I believe the example was an Ancient Red Dragon). I'll have to find the post I made about it, but it's really not that difficult.
EDIT: Rediscovered the post. Was a little off above, since it did include Skill Focus and a +6 Dex belt, but still came out to 60% chance to make it against a very old red dragon. So apologies for misremembering.
Streamofthesky's group - 4 guys nervously looking at each other, afraid that one of them will be called out as The One That Didn't Contribute Enough And Will Not Be Invited Again. No wonder it becomes rocket tag. :)
I actually figured Stream meant from a verisimilitude/roleplaying perspective. As in if every time the poop hits the fan the PC bails on their allies leaving them to die then they (the PC, not necessarily the player) wouldn't be welcome in that adventuring party anymore.
Brave brave sir Garrick... :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, Ashiel.
The most amusing was a psionic character who did nothing but use his powers to buff his own AC to insane levels and avoid the conflict, maybe occasionally flinging some ranged offense but only rarely.
Anytime the tide seemed to be against us, or if he just plain failed to identify the creature attacking, he would immediately teleport the party away to safety.
We were greatly annoyed, but at the same time it was kind of funny and at least he wasn't leaving US to die, so we tolerated it for months before the game ended.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is the need for a distinction?
It's a roleplaying game. If someone doesn't pull his weight at all in a fight and leaves you all to die running away, you would dump him from the adventuring group. At the same time, a player doing such things with his character is being selfish and annoying, and it reaches a point where you don't want to play with him/her anymore.
On both levels, it's a pretty crappy way to treat the people around you.
Sometimes it seems like other people play games where you only ever fight armed humanoids, and the other 95% of the bestiary doesn't exist...
Well, 95% may be a bit high but I would say most of the enemies we face (in our game) are humanoids. The BBEG is almost always a humanoid (and often a family member of someone in the party, I think my DM may have some issues). We still fight "monsters" but they are either random encounters (which don't happen too often for our group) or something placed there by the BBEG.
Quick edit to reply to the above post:
We also play with our friends and so tend to have fun regardless of the outcome of the game. We even stop playing occasionally to talk and catch up with each other, maybe talk about new movies, video games, etc. We've never based our fun on "effectiveness" (although winning is more fun than losing but sometimes running away can be fun as well)
Yes, Ashiel.
The most amusing was a psionic character who did nothing but use his powers to buff his own AC to insane levels and avoid the conflict, maybe occasionally flinging some ranged offense but only rarely.
Anytime the tide seemed to be against us, or if he just plain failed to identify the creature attacking, he would immediately teleport the party away to safety.
We were greatly annoyed, but at the same time it was kind of funny and at least he wasn't leaving US to die, so we tolerated it for months before the game ended.
Yeaaaaah...that does sound kind of like a bad situation. Perhaps it's me being old fashioned but I tend to think of characters from an actual roleplaying perspective. I mean, it seems like most adventuring parties aren't made up of childhood friends or family members or some other thing preventing people from being more than friends or peers.
Honestly I couldn't imagine anyone in their right mind being alright with me contributing little to nothing to conflicts and then expecting an equal share of any treasures gained. It becomes very meta-game when everyone in the party finally fells the dragon or finds the lost trove of the Sultan of Golden Souls and then turns and looks at...
Sir Ronald Wannabe who was paralyzed the entire fight against the mummy, turned to stone by the basilisk, had to be rescued from the pit trap, stumbled around helpess in the dark, couldn't hit the broad side of the minotaur king, has needed more healing than anyone else in the group, slayer of that one group of kobold zombies (which he has yet to shut up about how awesome the slaying was) now wants 1/4th the treasure because of his grand "contributions" to the success of the quest.
Bonus points if he refused to help pay for the cleric's cure light wound wand that was exhausted on his face to keep him alive because "I'm not the healer, that's your job to heal me".
Tome of Battle? We don't that anime wuxia crap round these parts, gentlemen!
You are kidding, right?
A little from column A and a little from column B. Like always with me, duh.Tome of Battle? We don't that anime wuxia crap round these parts, gentlemen!You are kidding, right?
I'm new to the forums and haven't yet divined most poster's SOPs. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like martial classes to do less damage, melee damage significantly outpacing ranged damage, damage lower saves and SR under certain circumstance and martials being able to perform large AoE and terrain modifying effects either through magic weapons designed to give high BAB classes more bang for buck or through class abilities (wuxia).That's all neither here nor there though, that would require a fundamental change in Pathfinder from the ground up.
What Paizo can do though is understand their own high level game, introduce more options for full attack at range for everyone (quickrunner shirt is a start, but that it requires you to do something cheesy like put on a different shirt after every encounter is not pretty) and don't introduce stuff like Litany of Righteousness which makes those full attacks hit so hard it creates problems for the DM.
Gee, that sounds very much like a different ED, (maybe something that may go forth), which has been admitted by that company to be a failure after lasting only 5 years, half that of the previous edition (s).
Honestly I am pretty sure JJ & crew "understands their own high level game" better than you do.
But yes, play styles do differ. For example, some folks build glass cannon who go nova each combat, blowing the foes away by round 3. Other write up a stack of "toons", ready to drop another "better" one dimensional "character" into play the instant the old one dies. In neither case, for example, is in combat healing needed.
Our group plays like what JJ sez his own games do- combats take long enough so that rounds pre level spells sometimes go down, in-combat healing is a necessity, characters are built with serious background so that the Player dread their loss, RPing is emphasized too, etc, usually several encounters before a rest, etc.
So, perhaps your game is played not like what the mainstream does?
I'm personally not a fan of the more supernatural based fighter (wuxia, myths, anime, etc), preferring more my fighter that uses magic equipment and his skills at fighting. Still, I'd be okay with options for those that like their fighters more supernatural than I do. More options for different playstyles is better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like martial classes to do less damage, melee damage significantly outpacing ranged damage, damage lower saves and SR under certain circumstance and martials being able to perform large AoE and terrain modifying effects either through magic weapons designed to give high BAB classes more bang for buck or through class abilities (wuxia).That's all neither here nor there though, that would require a fundamental change in Pathfinder from the ground up.
What Paizo can do though is understand their own high level game, introduce more options for full attack at range for everyone (quickrunner shirt is a start, but that it requires you to do something cheesy like put on a different shirt after every encounter is not pretty) and don't introduce stuff like Litany of Righteousness which makes those full attacks hit so hard it creates problems for the DM.
Gee, that sounds very much like a different ED, (maybe something that may go forth), which has been admitted by that company to be a failure after lasting only 5 years, half that of the previous edition (s).
Honestly I am pretty sure JJ & crew "understands their own high level game" better than you do.
But yes, play styles do differ. For example, some folks build glass cannon who go nova each combat, blowing the foes away by round 3. Other write up a stack of "toons", ready to drop another "better" one dimensional "character" into play the instant the old one dies. In neither case, for example, is in combat healing needed.
Our group plays like what JJ sez his own games do- combats take long enough so that rounds pre level spells sometimes go down, in-combat healing is a necessity, characters are built with serious background so that the Player dread their loss, RPing is emphasized too, etc, usually several encounters before a rest, etc.
So, perhaps your game is played not like what the mainstream does?
They really don't. Everything "JJ & crew" has ever said leads me to believe that they have a thoroughly average level of system mastery, and a very poor grasp of what optimized characters look like.
They just don't have to deal with the ridiculous twink garbage from 3.x splat-books, so their house-rules end up looking good enough to sell. Add some Wayne Reynolds art, and well done APs supporting your system, and shazam, you have a successful game on your hands.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wondered when this thread would descend into dev bashing.
Welp, time to play the Message Board Drinking Game...
For the record, I don't think the devs are perfect, nor superior to us. But, I think they do a much better job than people give them credit for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly claiming that devs have a better understanding of the game isn't really true at all, they're just people. They're roughly as smart as we are and to be honest a lot of us probably have more hands on experience with the system than they do because we play more. They will almost always have a better understanding of the intent behind the rules but when they're written down wrong that doesn't really help.
Also claiming that the way you play is by default mainstream is a little jerkish. Round per level spells are combat spells by 10th level, why? Because a combat that takes more than 10 rounds is going to be a 5 hour sit down to run through and then there's no room for all that "serious background" or RP you apparently emphasize.
They *ARE* just people. But the people that designed and built my car have a better understanding of how it works than I do.
Why? I compare my game to other games I have seen plus how JJ sez his games are bing played. I only said our games are "mainstream" i didn't say or imply other games are in any way "badwrongfun". Are you having fun? If the answer is YES! Then you're playing it RIGHT, even if not as envisioned. We get thru a 10 round combat in about an hour or maybe two. In a 4-5 hour nite we get in 2-4 combats, most of them at least 6 rounds. And RPing.
Heck, I played for a while with some guys who had an elaborate and deadly Critical/fumble system. Even spells like Fireball could be fumbled (usually by some typo, Fireball= Furball, etc). They were having HUGE fun. But then one guy had a dual wielding type who was getting a lot of fumbles. He then complained that D&D was nerfing TWF. Now true, it does- but not because
of their home-brewed fumble system.
The OP makes many assumptions himself, then complains the devs make 'faulty assumptions".
Perhaps it's me being old fashioned but I tend to think of characters from an actual roleplaying perspective. I mean, it seems like most adventuring parties aren't made up of childhood friends or family members or some other thing preventing people from being more than friends or peers.
My groups tend to be longtime friends or family members. At least if we are talking about a campaign. We have done one-shots with a motley crew before but in a "Save-the-World" type game the "band of strangers" seems odd. Most fantasy fiction is done the same way (at least the ones I've read) there is some beforehand knowledge of each other before calamity strikes. Otherwise it would just be silly for the Gnome Alchemist and the Kobold Sorcerer to team up with the Half-Orc Ranger with favored enemy (small creatures) without some sort of reason.
