Search Posts
I know nothing of nameless, I just know what I read of the class and yeah it reads as a cleric/paladin build http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_(2002_film) Nameless is from this movie. Likewise, Li Mu Bai could not be accurately represented by any of the base classes.
What does that have to do with telling people how to make the classes they want using existing mechanics? Just say "I don't want Paizo to waste time on making this". Anything else is telling someone else how to play the game.If a class can be made with existing mechanics, then it needs to be made with existing mechanics, not made as a new class. It's not telling you how to play the game, it's telling you that Paizo has a budget and they're going to focus on the best uses of that budget. Making classes that are only slight variations from already-existing classes, or classes that just plain ARE already-existing classes, isn't going to happen. Explain to me, then, why having a summoner class is necessary at all. Why can't you just take a Sorcerer or Wizard and take Augment summoning, and focus on spells that summon things? You don't get to say that your pet character-idea needs it's own class, but then tell someone else that theirs does not. A Wuxia-swordsman is just as different from a generic "Fighter" as an FF-Summoner is from a Sorcerer or Wizard.
sword saint is a kensei, or a FF tactics class, A Kensei is just a fighter, while the other class reads like a sword focused paladin No. Nameless was nothing like a Paladin.
If there's going to be generic classes I'd rather they be something like fighter, expert and spellcaster then based around ability scores. I'd rather just have a shadowrun-style point-buy system for the character's skills and powers. You could have sample Templates in the book that give players an idea of what party roles might be like, but still have the actual character system be open. For example, there is no hard, fast difference between a "Street Samurai" and "Mercenary" and "Weapon Expert" and "Covert Ops Specialist" in Shadowrun. The difference is in degrees, in the way each build is tweaked, and the way the emphasis is placed. And even then, an individual player wouldn't have to pick any of these, because they're not classes, just sample templates created using the build system. About the only thing that seperates characters is whether they are Magically Active or not. But even then, it only divides them into two general, large populations, and everything it still customizable from there.
I believe that the d20 license for Traveller will be available soon. I cannot think of a better fit for that version of Traveller than to have it graced by Paizo and its Pathfinder engine. I don't really think the d20/D&D system is well suited to simulating Gunbattles and Firefights, especially if things like powered armor and such are involved. Especially if cybernetics and biotechnology are available. Plus, "Classes" do not really work for a modern/future setting. In real life, people, even in the military, do not fall into Archetypes and Tropes. I supposed you could dumb it down and just lump everyone into a couple of Combat-arms and Support classes, but that would be stupid. They need to have a classless system if they do a Future book.
What concept do you need that can't simply be filled by Wizard and Cleric?Final Fantasy/Advanced Player's Guide style Summoner. My first response was mostly sarcasm. Obviously there are plenty of character types that cannot *really* be represented by just the four basic classes, or even all the ones in the PFRPG book. I was simply turning the same concept around on you. Just like you cannot simulate a Sword-Saint/Nameless style character with the existing melee classes, you cannot accurately represent an FF type summoner with the existing casters. Ergo the need for either: A) More classes to select from B) A more free-form, classless character build system. Since Paizo is unwilling to do B, A is the only option. So you need more classes.
Reading about things like this make me glad I live in Texas, where the judges and law will be on my side if I ever need to use my 870 on an intruder. (The "Castle-Law" amendment passed a few years ago allows us to use maximum force on any threatening intruder, with no warning and with no Duty To Retreat first.) It both saddens and disgusts me that Britain has fallen to the state that it has, where criminals are allowed to go free and viewed as oppressed victims of society, while law-abiding citizens are both not allowed to bear arms and also not allowed to defend themselves. But, at least judging from the ridiculous court cases I hear about, this seems to be a trend in England: Hate all traditional british culture, hate everything that made western civilization great, protect the criminal and punish the citizen.
The thing is well most non magic stuff you can pull off with the base 6 you have. I mean what concept do you need filled that can not be done by the fighter, rogue, barbarian, monk, or cavalier. Two responses to this: Firstly, you can say the same thing about spellcasters. What concept do you need that can't simply be filled by Wizard and Cleric? You've got your arcane and divine right there. Everything else is just personal flavor. If you really want to get down to brass tacks, there should only be 4 classes: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. Everything else is unnecessary. It's also easily arguable that the distinction between Wizard and Cleric is unnecessary. One spellcasting class should be enough, by your standard. So Fighter, Rogue, Caster, should be enough, if you want to be that minimalistic. Secondly: What if I wanted to play a character who wielded a sword, but also had innate supernatural abilities resulting from mystic training? There is no base class that would let me simulate that very accurately. The Swordsage class from Book of Nine Swords would, but it's not in Pathfinder. Multiclassing Monk and Fighter wouldn't work, since Monks don't get most of their powers if they're not unarmed or wielding "special monk weapons", of which a sword is not one. I could not play a Hero/Crouching Tiger/House-of-Flying-Daggers type character now, with the rules being the way they are. That's just one example. The D&D/Pathfinder character format is just not one that encourages alot of character customization and individualism. Your character concept, the way they look, the way they act, is already pretty narrowly defined for you. You have a set of archetypes to choose from, and not alot of customization options. Hence the need for more classes to give players more choice. Since Paizo is either unable or unwilling to make the structure of the game character creation system more free-form, the only way to satisfy players who have more unusual preferences is to make more classes. Personally I wish they'd made 2 non-casters, 2 half-casters, and 2 full casters. But instead they only included 1 non-caster in the playtest. Oh well.
Oh hey! Set! There you are! You can stop hiding on Earth now. All the other System Lords are dead.
My favorite sci-fi / fantasy setting is Shadowrun. I enjoyed the d20 Modern urban arcana (?) setting a lot for its similarity. I know Shadowrun being its own intellectual property would be off limits. but a similarly toned sci-fi game with magic would be great. The biggest bogdown of shadowrun is that its not a tactical combat game for fights. you think D&D combats stretch out? shadowrun combats can take three or four times as long, and the tables are typically smaller than d&d tables. so i'd vote for a futuristic Pathfinder setting, with magic and technology, maybe space travel ( spelljammer was great, except for powering the ship with your spells ) What Shadowrun are you playing? I'm running a 3rd edition game, and I've always loved how fast, smooth, and elegant the firefight and combat mechanics are in Shadowrun. Most of the combats I've run are resolved much more quickly, and are much more deadly, than D&D combats. I suppose that if you had a GM that didn't know the rules and didn't know what he was doing, it might stretch out. But that's true of any RPG.
I honestly feel that Herbert is the Tolkien of Sci-Fi.I respectfully disagree. Isaac Asimov is the Tolkien of science fiction. Herbert himself said this, as well. He drew much of his inspiration for writing Dune from having read Foundation. Having said that, though, I think both of them told similar stories, but while Asimov came first and was Herbert's muse, Herbert himself was the superior author and the Dune books became part of the public literary consciousness in a way that Foundation did not.
I honestly feel that Herbert is the Tolkien of Sci-Fi.I'd have to agree. The only problem is that he, like Tolkien, was in desprate need a better editor. Six book and I have yet to meet anyone who made it through all of them. In my college SF club, bragging rights belonged to the one that made it the furthest. As a writer myself, I'd take that as a mark against me. I've read all the way through Chapterhouse Dune. They are not difficult reads, they merely ask that you actually pay attention to what is happening, instead of being able to autopilot through the book like most novels. Tolkien was a master wordsmith and craftsman of language, and needs no editor. Instead, you need a reading tutor.
While I realize that Gygax et al. didn't rely solely on Tolkien for the flavor of D&D, Tolkien did establish the classic concepts of the core archetypes of sword & sorcery/fantasy, to which the classic D&D fighter belongs. No, he did not. There are no clerics in Middle Earth. There were only 5 Wizards, ever, and they were not a "class" that you could simply join. Wizards were incarnate Maiar sent by the Lords of the West. They did not study spellbooks nor prepare spells in advance. Vancian Magic did not exist, ever, in Tolkien's world. There were no "Fighters" or "Rangers" either. There were men of war (alot of them). Ranger was a title taken by the Numenoreans who wandered the North after Arnor fell, and the Rangers of Ithillien were warriors who were adept at scouting and ambushing the agents of Mordor. They did not cast spells. Furthermore, half the "Fighter" type people we see in Tolkien's writing had at least some of the blood of Westernesse in them, and were exceptionally resistant to mental domination or fear. Aragorn himself was describing as having the hands of a healer. So what is he? Is he a Ranger? Is he a Paladin? More likely, none the above. So, no, Tolkien did not establish the core archetypes. Those were invented by Gygax or the other game creators later as a way to shoehorn players into a specific role in the game. The actual characters in Tolkien's writing were much more complex people, and cannot be easily summarized into a class.
I could get behind the idea of maybe gestalting the Monk and Fighter classes together into a new Fighter class. The Fighter is, strictly speaking, a Martial Artist. All he knows is the art of war. I don't see why as he gains levels, his skill at combat and war shouldn't grow to the point where it acquires a supernatural edge. Suppose that, in addition to how the Fighter is now, we gave him the Monk's saves and class ability progression, AC bonus increase (but while wearing armor) and movement progression? Do you think that would make him, again, the undisputed master of battle? Would they rock hard in personal play once more? Come to think of it, I actually am a little suprised that the Warblade from Tome of Battle didn't become the new archetypal melee-fighter class. Why didn't Paizo choose to imitate it, rather than the standard Fighter?
The Dune Saga, the Foundation, Man-Kzin Wars/Ringworld, Starship Troopers (the novel), Enders Game. This is the stuff we should be thinking about. Instead of "modern space opera", we should be aiming for the height of classic space opera, of which the modern stuff is only a pale shadow.
To be honest, his original name was "Fighter". I changed it to "FighterMan" because that sounded more flippant. FighterMan and LawnmowerMan, then. They make a cute pair. Anyone with artistic skills want to sketch these two guys?
Couple things: Regarding "situational" bonuses, this onus falls on the GM. Ultimately, he is there to make sure the players have a good time. If one of his players takes skills or feats that only apply in certain situations, he better damn well make sure that those situations come up, to give that player a chance to shine. This is the old Favored Enemy debate all over again. The answer to this is always that the GM ought, and has a duty, to tailor the game to the strengths of the party, unless he wants to piss off his players and ruin their fun. Secondly: We should start calling him ArcherMan, not FighterMan. I mean, yes, he's a fighter, but he's like a human machinegun. Perhaps MG42Man would work? Likewise, human lawnmower guy with the double oversized weapons... what do we call him?
Not just with flanking. Any time that the enemy is denied their dex bonus to AC. There are a multitude of things than can do this. Casting Greater Invisibility on the Rogue, for example. Flick of the Wrist. Moving around a huge creature isn't a problem at all. You only get attacks of oppurtunity on you when you *leave* their threatened area. Not when you enter it or move around inside it. Besides, going up against a creature with reach is not something the party's fighter (the usual Flank partner for the Rogue) should be afraid of. That's what he's there for, to go Toe-to-Toe with big bads and hold their attention while the rest of the party does their things.
Monks are at their best when they ignore the enemy fodder and go after the squishy guy in the back. Fighter beats Monk, Monk beats Mage, Mage beats Fighter. Which a Rogue can do better. And is also a flanking striker to boot. I know a GM that makes all players who want to play Monks, play Rogues with Improved Unarmed Strike instead. They're usually better off for it.
Don't use Star-Trek technology as an example here. It's insulting. Star Trek is not real science fiction, it's science-fantasy just as Star Wars is. (I prefer Star Wars because it, at least, does not pretend to be anything else besides pulpy space-opera) If you can't see the difference, the fault of perception is yours.
*rolls eyes* I knew somebody would bust out Clarke's tired old quote. Sure, if you want to play a game where everyone is a Herald of Galactus or some equally ultra-ultra-advanced setting. I'm presuming that in a Paizo-Sci-Fi game, the player characters would not be able to create and destroy planets with a wave of their hands. In a nearer, more reasonable Sci-Fi setting, technology and magic are going to be very distinguishable, and even when it might become hard to tell (with Psychology powers and such) there should still be a clear indicator that it has a scientific process behind it.
Rather than try to fix them I'd just rather see them replaced with a different finess-fighter type class. Something like a Musketeer or a Dervish, that wears no/light armor, gets some movement and AC bonuses and neat powers, but uses western style weapons like Rapiers or Scimitars. Actually, a Dervish would be perfect. Persia was still "the east" for old europe, but it's far closer thematically to medieval/pastoral fantasy. Plus, Dervishes are mystics, which would give an in-game reason for some of the unusual abilities they might have. Full BAB for the class, of course. To answer earlier comments, BTW, Rogues are much more effect caster-hunters than Monks are, from what I've seen at the table.
And yes, it will have magic! Anyone who says they don't want magic in sci-fi, but is cool with spaceships that have artificial gravity, warp drive, and from a distance look like anything but giant heat radiators, needs to ask themselves some questions. I call BS here. In Science Fiction it's fine to have technology that currently surpasses the limits of our physical sciences, or for characters to have abilities beyond what humans have. This is one of the main points of science fiction, it speculates about the future. All of these things, however, are all assumed to follow scientific laws and have a naturalistic process which they follow. Within the context of the fictional world, it is still science, can still be understood by the characters in the setting. That is the important difference. It is not magic. It still follows a naturalist, materialist worldview. I think it's perfectly fine for people to want to keep their Science Fiction and their Fantasy seperate, for the most part. They do not need to "ask themselves some questions". For some of us, that difference (one being based on a future-science and the other on superstitious magic) is a key, extremely important difference. If you can't see the distinction between speculative future-science and magic, perhaps it is you that needs to ask yourself some questions. Also, for the record, many spacecraft designs that have been put forth by real engineers do *not* look like giant heat radiators.
Dune wasn't High Fantasy at all, though. Herbert said that he was mostly inspired to write from having read Foundation, combined with wanting to write something with heavy ecobiology themes. (He was an ecologist, IIRC) Foundation was a retelling of the Fall of the Roman Empire, in the future. Dune was more like a retelling of the early Medieval period, in the far future. But there were no mythical race, no overarching sense of good vs evil, and no "Hero's Journey", unless you want to rename it "The Tyrant's Journey".
Pretty much what it comes down to is: As long as it doesn't interfere with the game, it doesn't matter. I don't care one way or another about what another player at the table does or doesn't self-identify as. People are people. But if during sessions you're constantly talking about the gay community or transgender issues or your Furry hobbies... Well, I would get pretty annoyed at that after a while. Because it is taking away from table time. I'm there to play Pathfinder, not to hear your life story. That's my two cents: Stay in character, play the game (and have fun doing so), and everything's cool.
I'd really love to see a classic, far-future space opera setting. Something with elements of Asimov's Foundation, Frank Herbert's Dune, and maybe just a touch of newer Sci-Fi franchises like Stargate, Mass Effect or Ridley Scott's Aliens. Magic shouldn't be present, but biotechnology, cybernetics, and some poorly-understood super-ability are staples of the setting. (the Psychology powers of the Foundation, the Biotic-powers induced by Element Zero, the bio-memetic and mental abilities of the Bene Gesserit/Honored-Matres/Mentats, etc) The game Burning Empires presented a truly awesome Sci-Fi setting, but I dislike somewhat the mechanics and the GM/Player dynamic in that game. If Paizo were to tackle it (or something like it anyway) using the OGL and Pathfinder rules, I think it would turn out awesome.
Indeed. We've tested this in-game, too. A Fighter who's specced all the way up the Archery tree of combat feats, along with improved critical, etc, and has a nice composite bow (+2 shocking burst, or Bane against whatever enemy you're fighting, etc) can deal absurd levels of ranged damage every round. At 10th level the Archer-fighter we tested was dealing 60 to 70 points of damage per round.
Let's not forget that Cavaliers are essentially knights. There were plenty of Knights were were black-hearted villians who thought nothing of breaking laws or betraying comrades if it increased their own glory. The Oath of Greed and Order of the Dragon, for example, certainly do not require any degree of lawfulness. An oath can be a goal that a character has become obsessed with. Take the Sons of Feanor in the Silmarillion, who swore oaths to recover the Silmarils at any cost, and to slay anyone, friend or foe, who would prevent them from doing so. That's definitely an oath that doesn't require any sort of lawfulness. And, indeed, the sons of Feanor violates just about *every* law and performed exceedingly evil deeds, in the name of recovering those damned gems. So, +1 to No Alignment Restrictions, from me.
Well, I read through this product and posted a short review. Here's a longer description with more details... There's nothing in this book I can recommend. Thanks for the free look, Josh, and I wish I could have seen something I liked. It just sounds like he's in desperate need of a professional editor. Amateurish prose and glaring inconsistencies is what editors live to correct. A good editor will fix your book without making fundamental changes to the spirit of the text.
I wonder if the real problem for the store owner is that he can't sell the pdf, if there was a book, he could sell that. Perfectly valid complaint, though. Store-owners have to sell things to stay in business. And certainly we must acknowledge that the tabletop companies depend on stores in order to have most of thier market. I don't begrudge the man for pointing them towards White Wolf, either. Fine system, that. Of course, hopefully they'll come back, once the Pathfinder book is out.
Lack of education does not equal stupidity. Conan, the archetypal barbarian, was not stupid, not by any stretch of the imagination. He did sometimes have poor impulse control.
You can't make me "dead" if you're not even at the table. I certainly would not care to show up at any game where a player with your attitudes was playing. It has never been worth it, in my experience. I think your attitude was condescending to begin with. If you feel that I am being condescending, you have no room to point fingers. If this "gets old", feel free to not respond to this thread anymore. Furthermroe, This is not a purely mechanical discussion, and even if it were, attacking the premise behind a discussion has always been considere a valid discussion tactic. You seem to be under the mistaken impression, also, that you can somehow threaten me, or any roleplayer, with your blustering about how superior your spellcaster is. What you accomplish is, instead, to outline just how immature of a gamer you are. If you want to brag about how much you own, you should go play WoW, not waste your time around a gaming table.
Hogwash. Math is irrelevant. In my group, if a player describes something sufficiently well, they do not have to roll, they simple succeed. D&D is whatever I decide it is when I sit down at the table. It is primarly a roleplaying game, it happens to have some mechanics and rules, that we can use, or toss aside if we feel like. By the way, nobody except you has used the phrase "Superior Playing Style". If I want to play a fantasy game that was purely mechanics, stats, and numbers, I will go play Final Fantasy Tactics on my gameboy, which does this flawlessly and without the encumbrance of human error. I do not sit down at a table with other human beings and play a roleplaying game in order to *crunch numbers* Mechanics serve roleplaying and fun, or they should be thrown out with the rest of the garbage.
Firstly, I don't know what you mean by "E6 stuff". Secondly, this isn't a discussion of Vanilla D&D (There is no such thing, anyways) but a discussion about Fighters in general. Thirdly, what rest options, other than sleeping? Which means having a safe camp and being able to sleep an amount of time that nobody I know ever gets except on weekends when they're not working, and that nobody in wilderness-related or military-related fields fields that I know *ever* get. I have considered house-ruling away the rest requirement before, and simply using a 24 hour reset, simply because the idea of 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep *while on an adventure* is ludicrous. Who doesn't wake up a few times during the night when they sleep? Nobody I know. Wars *do* exist in my D&D games, and in every D&D game that I've played in. If the casters are out of spells, that means the party has to get really creative, use thier environment and good tactics, or look at options like diplomacy, running away, or surrender. Are you not able to see past the end of your rulebook?
It's your game, so it's your perogative. I think this is foolish, however. Players should not be pigeonholed into a stereotype. Fighters are generic *precisely* so that players aren't forced into a mold, so they can make it thier own. I would never play in a game with a GM that has these sorts of attitudes. Better not to play at all. Nor would I allow a player into my group that thinks this way.
The point must be made, also, that if the Fighter seems underpowered, or if he doesn't seem to be contributing, then the GM is "doing it wrong". A GM should tailor the game to the needs and abilities of the player to roleplay and the character to act. One could just as easily run a game where the fighter was the absolute lynchpin and wizards were a useless class to play, as one in which fighters seem underpowered.
A character is only as boring or fun as you make it. The player determines whether something has flavor, whether something is fun to play. A good roleplaying could play a Commoner and still have a great time doing it. Those folks complaining about how Fighters are boring need to look past the numbers and character sheet. Also, House-Rules exist for a reason, guys. Use them.
I'm not one of these Denites, whatever that means. The message boards I post on are the Relic Forums and Comic Book Rumbles. I posted this thread because I felt that there must be people out there who enjoy playing Fighters (and fighter-variants) and so I wanted to see what they have to say. Also, I wanted to get, in thier own words, why it is that people seem to hate fighters. I see now that the hatred of fighters is based on rather shallow reasons. Reasons that have little or nothing to do with actual roleplaying. All the justifications people are giving sound like they're coming from a WoW player or a Guild Wars player, who sees thier characters as only a collection of stats and powers, instead of a real character.
This seems like a very juvenile attitude. Somebody who talks about "owning the game" shouldn't be playing D&D. You should be playing Guild Wars or some other computer game instead. I certain detest when players who think they can "win" show up at my table, or who measure thier success based on whether they could "own" other players in the party. How the GM runs the game, also, has a tremendous, overwhelming impact on which class is "better". Spellcasters have some overwhelming weaknesses that always make me reluctant to play them. For example: depending on rest. Casters have to rest 8 hours. How often does anybody ever get 8 hours of sleep? Really? A GM that simply started observing this would suddenly put casteres at a great disadvantage. Suppose that you're in a war, and you're catching sleep in 3 or 4 hour increments, at best? Suddenly, that fighter matters, alot. He's mortal, so he needs *some* rest. But not much. He's also much tougher, and can continue to operate when everyone else is exhausted. (So can the Monk, Barbarian, Ranger, and the other Fighters-With-Flavor) Others in this thread have made the assertion, repeatedly, that the Fighters-with-Flavor do a better job at fighting than the vanilla class. How so? This has not been backed up by anything except blustering. Sure, Barbarians, or Rangers, or Paladins, are better at one or two things than Figthers. Not so good at other things. They also aren't so different that they couldn't just be worked into a customization tree for a single, modifiable Fighter class.
I've always like the fighter, i always question why someone would play a paladin over a fighter. i'm a rogue man myself, but i like just a simple fighter if i'm not playing a rogue. Indeed! You can give a character flavor by roleplaying, without having to take a different class to do it. Fighters, being almost a blank slate, are ripe for all kinds of epic storytelling, backstory, roleplaying, and fun. I think, also, that it's far more satisfying to defeat a frost giant as a fighter than as a paladin or something, because afterwards I can say "I did it myself".
ThingsI'm not exactly an expert on this sort of thing (in fact, I like fighters pretty well myself) but, I'd say one of the reasons they are considered underpowered, is that the one thing they are expected to do and do well (FIGHT), can be done better by several other classes. Such as? Rogues can't stand and deliver the way that fighters can. Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins, are heavily flavored variations of Fighers that have useful abilities and powers, but pay for it by having much less in the way of combat feats. Many of thier special abilities are also environment or divine-dependant (not violating a code of honor, not becoming lawful, etc) Plus, there's just the fact that a non-supernatural hero who is not beholden to any gods, philosophy, or abstract requierments, but who gets by on his own wits and mettle and skill, it very attractive to a whole *lot* of players on a conceptual level. I'd rather play a fighter on that alone. Hell, Mike Mearls made an entire set of classes in Iron Heroes by detailing and spreading out this concept into several different classes.
Saw a recent post in this forum (which was then locked) in which a certain gentleman made the assertion that fighters will die in D&D more often than other characters, that they suck, are under-powered, not a good character choice, etc. I dispute this. I've mainly played fighters or Fighter/Multiclass combinations over the years, and I've always had a terrific time playing them, and never really felt like I was useless or sucked. Indeed, oftentimes it seemed like the Fighter is always the last man left standing at the end of a long battle, the one that finally kills the dragon (or whatever) after many of his comrades have died. In general, playing them has always been fun, both for roleplaying and for game crunchyness. My favorite story and character dialogue moments have all been while playing a Fighter or a fighter-like class. My questions to you are: 1) Why do people feel that Fighers suck?
|
