In 5e I find that I make all of my meaningful character design choices at level 1. In Pathfinder I find that I make a meaningful choice at most levels.
That's odd. In Pathfinder, I find I make my meaningful choices once per level. In 5e, I make my most meaningful choices every game session.
But, then, that's the fundamental difference between the "rules as limits" design of most Pathfinder tables I've played at and the "rules as methods" that seems to describe the 5e (and 1e and 2e games 20+ years ago, for that matter) tables I've played at recently...
This thread is a perfect example of the reason the Stormwind fallacy exists. What happened to "mechanics and roleplaying are two unconnected things"? Yet here we are, privileging the mechanical rolls over the story aspects of the game.
There are different expectations in different groups. Some groups want to play battle chess, where every dice roll is sacred and the Rules must never be breached. That's ok. Some groups want to make an adventure story together, with the rules being quite flexible when story requires it. That's ok.
What is important is that the GM and players agree on what they want. That seems to be the OP's issue. If the numbers matter that much to you, then you need to let the GM know, and give him some help constructing adventures that will suit your desires. The players have a responsibility in this as well.
It's funny, actually. I have occasionally expressed my opinion on these boards that the more mechanics involved in a game, the hard it is to focus on the "story" of your character (or put another way, the more discrete and comprehensive the rules, the more characters are restricted in their abilities and play). I am often met with disagreement on this opinion. And yet, on this thread, the consensus seems to be that the mechanical, numerical, delineation of the character and his abilities is by far the most important thing. There's irony in there somewhere...
I run a bladebound "debuff" STR magus in PFS. I get free Rime on frostbite because of magical lineage. I also have Enforcer and exotic weapon proficiency katana. Each time I cast frostbite, I get a number of touches equal to my level (two on the first round, one each round after... which is when I two hand). When I hit, the opponent takes my regular damage plus 1d6+my level in non-lethal damage. The Rime then entangles for one round and fatigues until the non-lethal is healed. Then I use my free enforcer roll and add more penalties. When it all goes off correctly, I drop a -5 to attack, AC, and all skill rolls during the first round, with about a -3 for each round thereafter.
Basically, I step in and render the martial bad guys ineffective and sitting ducks for my martials. Then I haste everyone, glitterdust the invisible enemies, etc.
This is one of my favorite characters ever. You have solid offense (I can burn a swift to give my sword a +1 and keen, spellcombat frigid touch, then crit on a 15-20, doing my sword damage doubled plus 4d6 cold damage doubled to 8d6), and you have lots of ways to help your party. It is a joy to play. If every class in pathfinder was designed as well as the magus, I'd never have another complaint...
By Rynjin's own post Path of War provides martials with "nice things" and allows most people who want martials with nice things would be satisfied with similar options to the Path of War classes. Given this already exists in Pathfinder the only conclusion I can draw is people want the CRB to be errata'd or they want a new edition that removes the traditional martial classes and ONLY provides the PoW style classes. If this occurred the current fans who actively enjoy the traditional martials would not be catered to. This is a win/lose situation.
However the game can be played as is with poeple who want PoW style classes getting PoW style classes (by buying PoW) and those who want more traditional martial characters getting more traditional martials (by using those in the CRB). It is a win/win for everyone except the people playing PFS (and unfortunately you can't please everyone. See: Unchained Summoner as an example). And yet people act like all martials in the Pathfinder game are absolutely horrendous and that none of their desires are being catered to. They are. All they have to do is by the supplement that caters to their desires.
I agree that you can't please everyone. So please join with me in encouraging Paizo to make PoW-style martials the default in PFS and in the rules. You'll still be able to play your traditional CRB martials in your home game. So we agree that Paizo needs to make that style the preferred style?
Or perhaps, since the status quo favors the folks who like the "traditional" martials, statements about people should just buy 3pp or not play PFS are just thinly veiled attempts to tell others to shut up?
Or just efforts made to honestly tell people about options that exist in third party products. Not everyone knows about them or has experimented with them.
So Rynjin has never heard of 3pp? Or Jiggy?
See, that statement would be plausible if we were talking about an advice thread with newbs and such. But so far the vast majority of folks in this discussion (at this point) are quite experienced. Rynjin actually raised the 3pp product himself. And this is a sign that he doesn't know about it?
Sorry, but that wasn't the intent expressed in the post I was responding to. Not without Olympic quality mental gymnastics...
By Rynjin's own post Path of War provides martials with "nice things" and allows most people who want martials with nice things would be satisfied with similar options to the Path of War classes. Given this already exists in Pathfinder the only conclusion I can draw is people want the CRB to be errata'd or they want a new edition that removes the traditional martial classes and ONLY provides the PoW style classes. If this occurred the current fans who actively enjoy the traditional martials would not be catered to. This is a win/lose situation.
However the game can be played as is with poeple who want PoW style classes getting PoW style classes (by buying PoW) and those who want more traditional martial characters getting more traditional martials (by using those in the CRB). It is a win/win for everyone except the people playing PFS (and unfortunately you can't please everyone. See: Unchained Summoner as an example). And yet people act like all martials in the Pathfinder game are absolutely horrendous and that none of their desires are being catered to. They are. All they have to do is by the supplement that caters to their desires.
I agree that you can't please everyone. So please join with me in encouraging Paizo to make PoW-style martials the default in PFS and in the rules. You'll still be able to play your traditional CRB martials in your home game. So we agree that Paizo needs to make that style the preferred style?
Or perhaps, since the status quo favors the folks who like the "traditional" martials, statements about people should just buy 3pp or not play PFS are just thinly veiled attempts to tell others to shut up?
wizards don't keep going if they are out of spells.
That's your problem right there. If your playstyle is so that wizards can unload their most powerful spells each fight, then of *course* they're going to dominate.
If you're letting the helicopter rearm and the wizard re-prepare after every single bunker, no wonder you're seeing issues.
I play PFS rules. Every PFS module we play has between 2-5 encounters. Some are non-combat. Sometimes they are all combat. After 3-4 levels, wizards, sorcerers, and the like never run out of spells. Ever.
I am playing the game by the rules Paizo endorses and in adventures the Paizo created. And you are telling me that this is a problem with "playstyles"?
See, what you have done is called the either-or fallacy. The choices aren't between one encounter per day and ten encounters per day. In the range of encounters that exist in Paizo's own materials, the wizard does not degrade in power enought to have the fighters endurance equal out. It's that simple.
What I don't like is when a viable option for play gets errata'd to the point where it's no longer worth taking under any circumstance.
Take for example Arcane Deed. The ruling that a Magus no longer counts as having panache means Arcane Deed has no options to choose from:
Kip Up: Doesn't work
Menacing Swordplay: Doesn't work
Precise Strike: Doesn't work
Swashbuckler Initiative: Doesn't work
Swashbuckler's Grace: Doesn't work
Superior Feint: Doesn't work
Targeted Strike: Works.. But what Magus in their right mind would spend an arcane pool point to use this?
Bleeding Wound: Works.. But again why? Also... why waste a level 12+ arcana on this?
Evasive: Doesn't work
Subtle Blade: Doesn't work and it's a damn shame it doesn't...
Dizzying Defense: Works.. But who in their right mind would take this for a 15+ arcana?
Perfect Thrust: Doesn't work
Swashbucklers Edge: Doesn't work
Cheat Death: Works.. But takes all your pool points to work. And to add insult to injury, you can't even take it as your 18th level arcana because it requires 19th level! You have to blow a feat on extra arcana to get this..
Deadly Stab: Works.. But if you're a 19th level Magus and have to rely on save or die effects to put foes in the ground and not your mind blowing crits... then you have failed at life. Also 19+ required.
Stunning Stab: Works... See Deadly Stab only you somehow failed even more.
All of these deeds could previously be utilized by a Magus. Now the ones that remain are beyond pitiful and to add insult to injury, require a previous arcana just to select. It bothers me when options are given then taken away. It is the reason I always try to ignore errata unless it is actually helpful to the game.
This is the key problem I have seen over the last year or two. Using errata to "balance" the game, rather than using it to clarify/explain mistakes in the text. The added element of PFS has turned Paizo into an MMO publisher... constantly trying to modify the rules for the needs of organized play. When your character is a collection of pixels, that's not necessarily a big deal. But when it is your alter ego in a tabletop game, such changes are painful and destructive. This is especially true in a rules heavy game where character building is such an important part of the play.
Does everyone agree that summoners are too strong? Yes.
I really must meet the scholar Everyone some day. The man has said so much... most of it wrong. ;)
More seriously: I know there's a loud segment of the forums that carries this opinion. The Summoner is certainly a class which can be heavily optimized and abused at the table. However, it hasn't been my experience that this happens a great deal. Not in my area, anyway. Over the last 2 years I have had 5 summoners at my table (one of them played by me) and none of them have dominated the play experience... or even been the most powerful character at the table. From my own impressions playing a (SLA focused) summoner, the strength in the class comes mostly from its flexibility rather than its ability to do damage. Granted, I've seen Eidolon focused summoners who can do more damage, but they don't come off as particularly stronger than any other front-liner class.
Is the Summoner class inherently strong? Absolutely.
Could the Summoner class be theoretically optimized to the point of dominating a table's play experience? Absolutely.
Is the Summoner class used to dominate play experience at the table? In my area, and in my experience, no.
Jessex wrote:
Since I really doubt very many PFS players won't actually acquire the book...
That's a pretty big assertation. Even if a player can afford to buy the book (which isn't always the case), I've seen more than one case of a book getting passed up because PFS only minimally supports it. Mythic Adventures immediately comes to mind, along with a slew of the non-mainline splat books. Even if the majority of players had both the interest to buy the book and means to do so, making it a 'must purchase' to play an already existing character is a poor PR move. Give me the option to buy something and I'll salivate over it. Tell me that I must buy it if I want to keep playing my character, and I become a great deal more grudging about the
...
He speaks the truth! The summoner in our last module had its eidolon go down early and had to rely on nickle-and-diming with a summon or two that averaged 5pts of damage a round. Not to say that a summoner can't be powerful, but it's all situational.
Oh, and to address the "5 attacks a round (averaging 25 points of damage)" complaint... wait until that eidolon encounters... DR/10. That'd be a big fat goose-egg in the damage department at that point.
Well, there must be some nervousness about 5e cannibalizing sales. The new "core" PFS announcement and rationale echoes some of the language I've heard from friends who are switching from PF to 5e. Unfortunately, the Paizo understanding of "simpler" doesn't necessarily mesh with the players' reasons. At some point, a lot of the people who abandoned WotC as D&D moved away from its original flavor (especially the 3.5 - 4 issues) have become receptive to 5e's mechanics and flavor. They weren't necessarily fans of PF as they were not fans of WotC and 4e. So I'm not sure that "core" PFS is going to do much except appeal to those who were already not going anywhere.
Of course, no one has to play just one game. I'm presently in a long running PF game and running my own 5e game. I won't stop either in the foreseeable future. But I will be buying the next 5e adventure and materials, and it's likely that I won't be spending any more money on PF (as the ACG and the OA playtest convinced me that Paizo has lost its way... and entered the Land of the Bloat).
If you want to try and actually evaluate the effect of +1 to hit, you'll need to integrate an equation for damage on a successful hit with respect to the chance of hitting across the domain of potential ACs. That will still not be accurate, but it will be way more predictive than DPR...
Actually, that is DPR. What did you think DPR meant?
Nope, it is not DPR. It's the integral of the relationship between accuracy and damage. The number would not necessarily relate to an actual damage amount. Instead it would be a metric comparing the relative outcomes of damage within the parameters. The whole reason not to use DPR in the first place is that an average in one set of conditions doesn't give the whole picture. You would compare values to gauge effectiveness, not work the equation to say "I'm going to hit for this much."
It's definitely not the DPR calculation given earlier in the thread (which is my point).
DPR is perhaps the WORST indicator of character combat potential possible. It is a completely worthless statistic. Not just slightly useful, not flawed, but totally useless in every way. Not a single character decision should EVER be made by reference to DPR. In fact, it's DPR Olympics that I think has caused some of the questionable choices by the design staff. But that's another discussion.
DPR is wholly mathematically incapable of telling you anything useful about a character build. You'd be just as well off counting the number of vowels in your character's name and multiplying it by 4. That's how irrelevant it is.
Why? Because it fails as any sort of mathematical predictor. Look at the formula posted earlier in the thread, the one that is generally accepted as a valid DPR calculation. What do you notice? It's a linear equation. A linear equation cannot mathematically describe the combination of damage and accuracy with respect to lethality! Ever.
Accuracy is not a linear function in PF (neither is damage, because of monster hit point variations, but ignore that for the moment). The fact that it varies between static endpoints (5% and 95%) based on AC and will not have a consistent impact on damage outcomes means that you cannot simulate its effect with a linear equation.
Any attempt to consistently evaluate a particular combination of To Hit, Damage, AC, and HP would need to calculate the area under the curve (using calculus) formed by the domain of AC values and the relationship between accuracy and damage, extended into a three-dimensional volume if intending to take into account monster HP. A linear equation cannot even come close to simulating the effect of changes in this relationship. A linear DPR formula is less than useless, because it creates a false sense of providing information when it doesn't.
I don't know where the focus on DPR came from... personally, I blame MMOs and DPS. There might be a valid relationship there, because the amount of damage is generally constant, as is the likelihood of striking the target, rendering a linear DPS equation relatively predictive. But PF isn't an MMO.
So can we at least stop pretending that DPR has any value whatsoever? If you want to try and actually evaluate the effect of +1 to hit, you'll need to integrate an equation for damage on a successful hit with respect to the chance of hitting across the domain of potential ACs. That will still not be accurate, but it will be way more predictive than DPR...
I've got to say that this thread is a perfect example of why several people I know are moving away from Pathfinder towards other game systems. Some of the responses here are... troubling... to say the least. When a player creates a "horrible build" the answer is to kill the character? When players don't use the "tactics" (an amusing idea considering there are no such things in PF in the first place) you desire, kill the characters over and over? Yeah, you guys are great ambassadors for this game.
Oh, I get it. You have your gaming groups that play the way you are comfortable, so who cares whether the gaming community grows? Who cares if someone online takes your back-patting bravado seriously (because your lethality and intolerance of other play-styles are the ultimate measure of your worth as a gamer and human being, right?) and drives a few more players out of PF? So long as everyone recognizes you are HARD CORE, that's all that matters, eh?
But no matter. Why should players be able to play in a way they are comfortable with, especially if it's not the way you play? Drive out those heretics who value concept over optimization! Slaughter the unbelievers who would dare choose a trap option! Let's get all of the noobs out of this game, so that only the holy few remain! Only they are allowed to have fun rolling dice!
But, hey, it's not your problem to grow the game. No single raindrop ever believes it's responsible for the flood...
Option Two: Make the character any non-caster, non-archer, Dex-based martial (see option one).
Option Three: Come up with a really cool concept for a character. Pick feats that seem cool and fit your theme. They will inevitably be trap options and your character will be underpowered.
Option Four: Make him a monk.
Considering I have just guaranteed that this thread will hit a thousand posts, you're welcome!
There's a kind of irony here. When Paizo said that they would not be doing a point-based psionics, there was much grumbling. I think now everyone can see why. Pretty much, the kineticist IS the point-based psionic of this playtest, and it appears to be, at least by the amount of feedback, the most popular. I don't think this is coincidence.
The only real problem is that the "points" (i.e. burn) actually decrease a character's effectiveness. Other than the barbarian's rage, I can't think of a common mechanic that leaves the PC more vulnerable while using it.
So we have the basic "points" concept... but with the worst of both worlds...
If they are truly harkening back all the way to the first one or two versions of the game, then WotC and their supporters had better be prepare to fully explain this aspect every time this discussion comes up for the next several months, if not the next year or so. Considering that most people's first memories come from Baldur's Gate or 3rd edition, it is a major, major change to the baseline that many expect.
It's very dangerous to assume that your experiences are "most people's" experiences. Especially when (as far as I know) no one has ever done a comprehensive survey of all role-players. I will say that, considering the lengthy playtesting of 5e, there has been a lot of positive feedback based on the style of the game (and how it "feels" like earlier editions). You may not enjoy that feel. I might. Neither of us can use our preferences to establish what the "majority" of gamers actually think or want. WotC has some information that leads them to believe that their target audience is large enough to sustain this edition and that the flavor is what those people want. We'll see if they are correct. So far, so good...
From the sounds of it, they are going to be very different most if the tactics used in every previous version of D&D.
Not so sure of that. Most of my experience in 1e and 2e does not support the asserted "buff"-heavy or crowd-control magic user style. It wasn't until 3e that buffing or crowd control got their own classes; before that Bless, Haste, or Protection from Evil were pretty much the only party buffs I remember showing up regularly. If you look at 1e especially, casters were blasters, by and large.
So if you want to say tha 5e is going to be a dramatic change in tactics from 3e/Pathfinder, I'd say you were exactly right. But from earlier editions? So far, it's playing a lot more like the first couple of editions than anything since (at least at my table).
Sound to much like the 4e skill system. I hated the 4e skill system. Skills are one of the ways to make your character different from everyother character in the game, 4e threw that way.
We'll have to see how this newish skill system works by making a few characters when I get the PH.
No offense intended, but I think that this is exactly the mentality 5e is designed to shift the game away from. In 1e every fighter had exactly the same mechanics. All of them. What made your fighter different from the others was the way you played it. 1e focused on role-playing as the method of differentiating characters, not mechanics.
By the time 3.5/PF rolled around, the mechanics had been tasked with differentiating characters, which I think, paradoxically, made it harder to actual role-play the character you wanted. You can't have a character that does X unless you take ten levels of a skill or the four feat chain to make it possible. Then you have a game about building your character rather than playing your character.
5e harkens back to the older editions where mechanics wasn't used to get in the way of role-playing. I don't want a "robust" skill system... because all that does is tell me what my character can't do...
Player's Handbook (which is the same as the Basic Game), page 203: "Normal activity, such as moving and attacking, doesn't interfere with concentration. The following factors can break concentration:
Casting another spell that requires concentration. [].
Taking damage. [].
Being incapacitated or killed. []."
Concentration allows you to cast other spells that are immediate, such as attack spells.
Last time I was playing, I was a fighter, our wizard cast fly on me, and while I was flying and attacking (move part of movement/attack/move the rest of the movement), and the wizard was blasting things, the cleric was casting damage spells, and healing. Was a fun battle, until the draco lich showed up.. :) .... :(
I like to play a game to get the feel of a game, reading a thing really doesn't give a feel of the game. Buff magic is one of the things that I hated about 3.x.
Buff spells can be scaled as well. Fly for example: if cast as a 5th level spell, two characters can be affected. Having two characters bouncing around the battle field would be high fun.
Until someone hits the wizard and your ability to fly goes away.
That's a feature, not a bug.
If you start with the assumption that 3.5/PF levels of magic are standard, then there's no reason for 5e. In fact, 5e is impossible under those conditions (especially with folks opposed to what they call "wuxia" fighter powers). No non-superhero fighter can approach PF-levels of magical power. There can never be any balance; martials will always be an inferior choice.
So 5e dialed back the power level significantly. Now wizards have to make choices. They have to act strategically. They can't fulfill the roles of both caster and martial at the same time. They are both dangerous and vulnerable. The horrors!!!! Who would want that in their game?
It's less I really like where PF is power wise and more I really don't like WotC's solution any better. It just feels like they are trying to accomplish too many opposing goals; it would have worked a lot better if they had chosen one of the other earlier editions as a clear baseline and gone for there rather than this quite frankly disappointing mashup of a magic system. The application of when levels do and don't matter just seems uneven to me, the concentration mechanic/limiter is overused, and they may as well scrap the vancian system entirely and go with a pure point system if they are going to go with variable casting levels. I just feel they painted too broad of a stroke (or possibly not broad enough); pinpointing specific concerns and making smaller, easier to adjust fixes would have gotten them the same thing while better limiting the creation of brand new headaches. I am not sold on either the cantrips or the ritual spells, so they do nothing to counter any negative changes elsewhere. Cantrips, while nice, don't work all that well as replacements to normal spell slots. Neither, for that matter, does the concept of ritual spells; they didn't work out all that well before, and while this implementation is better, I still see it not really working all the well throughout the higher levels.
Out of curiosity, have you played it yet?
I have. First off, the new offensive cantrips provide far more utility than any low-level magic user had in 1e or 2e. A 1e magic user had one spell. After that, he rolled ranged attacks with little chance to hit for the rest of the adventure. The last 5e game I played (Saturday) had both clerics and wizards doing quite a bit to help offensively, with much of their utility preserved until needed. It's a good balance.
At higher-level (which I haven't done more than one-offs with pre-leveled characters), magic-using characters are not the gods they are in PF (due to fewer spells and lower powered spells), but this is also a good thing. Wizards and the like are much more fragile, the trade-off for having more narrative power than the martials. In PF, a magic user can buff himself to the point where he's hard to hit and roflstomps anyone who tries. That's not the 5e magic characters... and thankfully so. In 5e, a wizard needs to pick and choose his battles. It's almost like ... strategy...
So, in order to use this in PFS, I need to buy both the ACG and now another splat book? It's one thing to make an error when it comes to the way powers intertwine (perfectly understandable), but it annoys me when fixing these mistakes cost me more money...
DDN looks like a streamlined, intuitive, easy to learn system that, if properly supported (and it looks like the first two mega modules involving Tiamat would qualify), would be a lot of fun to play.
A few problems DDN has when compared to Pathfinder are:
1. PF has everything on PDF, which lends itself to easily printed art, maps and text excerpts I can bind, mark up and so on w/o damaging the original books; DDN does not.
2. Paizo's flip maps are simply awesome. I can't even imagine Wizards having the snap to produce something like The Emerald Spire with full maps of all sections.
3. Golarian >> Forgotten Realms. Not even close. Though the Realms are still cool, they are also pretty tired by now; Wizards needed a better game world. In short, Golarian is basically all of the old D&D game worlds and much more, all Pathfinderized.
4. Paizo has excellent customer service whenever a problem comes up (which is very rare). Relate to it, Wizards. The D&D branded franchise has seriously jerked me around many times throughout the years: AD&D 2nd, the short hop from 3.0 to 3.5, the whole 4E debacle, the recalled earlier edition PDFs after I paid for them online, a generally snobby & inattentive attitude, and so on. Screw that. In contrast, Paizo has been awesome since inception.
5. Paizo has a bazillion products, virtually all of them bad ass (and again, with maps, PDFs and customer service support). In view of points 1-4 above, tell me again why I want to trust Wizards to handle my gaming needs?
The bottom line: I don't think Wizards can lure me back at this point. Given the way Paizo has handled PF they deserve my business.
It's funny how variable different RPG tables can be! Almost everything you mentioned as a concern is a selling point to me.
I love the streamlined rules, especially the fact that focus has been removed a little from the "build" and is more on the "play." I never used minis when playing D&D growing up, so I am glad to get back to "theatre of the mind" where minis are an option, not requirement. So WotC support level for maps and minis are non-factors to me. Ditto that for other products, especially splat books (which have only seemed to make the mechanical issues in PF more pronounced with each one). And if the Crane Wing nerf counts as "customer support"...
Seriously, though, what I look for in an RPG is a solid rules framework to let me do my thing. Adventure content is nice... but not vital. Golarion is just as generic as FR... and I'm going to run my own hybrid worlds anyway. So sell me the system, and other options are nice... but not mandatory...
Removed an unhelpful post. This was pretty unnecessary.
3500 posts of back and forth watching people bash each other for preference is necessary? This isn't a healthy discussion.
Posting in thread where people are passionately discussing a game they love in an attempt to make it better and minimizing their thoughts and concerns with terms like "preference" is necessary? This isn't a healthy contribution to this discussion.
Back on topic, Ashiel's got a strong point. Relative to other classes, the fighter is at his peak at first level. HP and defenses of CR appropriate monsters scale faster than a fighter's ability to hit and do damage. So, without other narrative power, the fighter does get weaker as he grows, relative to the challenges he faces.
Sure it's low SR, but it shouldn't be higher. I don't think you should be able to buy "avoid spells".
While we're at it, armor enhancements and effects that cause concealment need to go away as well. I don't think you should be able to buy "avoid attacks."
Wait, that would put martials on a equal footing to mages! What was I thinking? We need to give mages lots of ways to avoid being hit and ignore anything that might let a martial avoid spells. Otherwise, what would this game come to....
The problem isn't the rogue hitting on a sneak attack... It's that he does almost no damage unless sneak attacking. Rogue needs some kind of method of affecting the battlefield when not sneaking. I would suggest some kind of status effect... which would make something like POISONS a good option, except Pathfinder has nerfed poisons to the point where they are cost/benefit useless. Once again robbing the rogue (ninja) of utility. Because poisons are sooooo overpowered, otherwise... /sarcasm
His point was that the rogue was not chosen at the job that was designed for him.
I think that's what everyone is missing here. There is NO job designed for the rogue. It's the same reason the fighter has issues as well. There is a conflict between mechanics and flavor that is irreconcilable in the PF rogue.
Just about every other class in PF has a synergy between its flavor and mechanics that is lacking in the rogue. The mechanics of most classes are designed to implement the flavor in game. A barbarian's flavor (uncivilized brute that perseveres through hardships by force of strength and will) is supported by the mechanics (rage raising str and lowering AC, high hps, etc.). But a "rogue" has no flavor.
Look at the original thief class. What do you think of when you read "thief" (though I would argue that it would be better termed sneak-thief, but I understand why TSR didn't go with a compound word)? Someone who hides in the shadows and accomplishes his goals through stealth and trickery, and who will aviod a straight-up fight and fight dirty). And the D&D mechanics fit that flavor.
But what is a "rogue"? It's certainly not limited to a sneak-thief. Despite what the "flavor" text in the CRB says, the rogue flavor does not fit its mechanics at all (with sneak attack being a poor representation of even a sneak-thief's abilities). When I read Marthkus' defense of the rogue, it is built around the idea that his rogue "plays like" a rogue... which is a mechanical issue. But how can a class play like a rogue, when a rogue isn't anything itself? (The same issue arises with fighters. There are many ways someone can "fight," including with magic, but the fighter has no real solid flavor to ground its mechanics).
Combine this with the fact that, as the game has evolved, the sneak-thief's utility has declined, and you get the present problem. Many of the sneak-thief's skills are now open to everyone, and trap-finding is a joke in PF. Either a trap simply burns charges on your CLW wand before the next room, or it kills you outright (which is a good way to infuriate your players... so rocks fell and I died, huh?). In one scenario I played in PFS, the BBEG was on another level from the party as we entered, so we started to run up the stairs. The rogue was first, and the stairs were trapped to collapse and cause damage. Well, the rogue just ran up, as the damage was negligible in comparison to the BBEG's output, and you burn too much time removing the traps. When even a rogue is saying "I'll run right through the trap; it's too much trouble to disable it," you know you have a problem...
The only way to "fix" the rogue is to narrow him to a concept and flavor that is realizable within the mechanics (why is Ninja so much more successful that the generic rogue? It knows what it wants to do and then does it). Which would require a complete rewrite, which is why I'm not holding my breath...
First, post-Gygaxian TSR and WotC wrecked the game system. Part of D&D's charm was it's numerical simplicity (and THAC0 was no big deal). Very little of what you did was bound by mechanics, so players were encouraged to think and play, rather than strategize mechanics. This meant that it was highly DM dependent. A bad GM would suck every last iota of fun out of the game. 3ed on has a much more stable baseline, making it easier to be a decent GM. But it also makes it harder to be a great one. One the various bloat-books came out, the system became so convoluted that it was unfixable. At that point, a 3ed re-write was inevitable. Sadly, WotC didn't learn their lesson...
Second, 1st and 2nd ed both had severe imbalances that eventually became part of the flavor of the game. High-magic Monty-Haul campaigns were the norm in my early gaming groups, and with spells given more flavor than mechanics, the system was ripe for abuse (1ed: Magic Jar into a devil for its resistances and SLAs... and it was permanent under certain conditions. Permanize AMF on your high-strength fighters and wreck magical encounters, etc.). Every spell had the potential to be combined into the Sno-cone wish machine. This either became the group's style, or you made a pact not to game the game too much.
Of course, I think the pendulum has swung too far the other way. Now everything is mechanical, reducing the agency and creativity possible in the d20 system. In 2ed, your character could do what you evisioned him doing, except for certain narrowly defined conditions (like combat). Now you spend 2 hours building a character with "options", all of which are mechanically granted, and now you have even few options during game-play. But it's a societal shift. 2ed probably wouldn't even sell to modern gamers...
THAT is the gm role in the game, to play the NPc, to play the world. There should not eb a rule to tell him what to do
IN ssalarn´s example the wizard is using his class features to achieve a goal, and that is good, it could have some consequences up to the DM. IN the fighter case is totally different. He is not using x ability that HE posses but is the world happily agreeing with him.
No. The Fighter has earned a reputation through deeds. He now has a set mechanical framework to parlay those deeds into social clout by saying "Yeah, I'm that Ssalarn, the one who slew Czhagorrath the Black. Now I believe you were about to let my friends and I into the party?"
*successfully rolls Intimidate check with +6 bonus from Fearsome Reputation*
"Holy crap, you're that guy! Let me get that for you!"
The Fighter is still making rolls to execute his actions, but instead of those rolls being enhanced by his ability to make the forces of creation his b~$&~ or godly intervention, they're enhanced by his own bad-assery.
The Fighter just accomplished the same thing a Wizard casting charm person or a similar spell would have, but he did it a way that's non-magical and makes sense for the character.
Well, I already said that I am good with feat that let the fighter exploit his (Already obtained by actually gaming) fame for a +x to diplomacy or intimidate. The feat would mean he is good manipulating people by his own.
Here's the problem with that. Making something a feat doesn't ever add to a fighter's narrative power, unless you restrict the feat to fighters only (and by BAB). Any non-fighter-exclusive feat simply adds to the power of casters. A feat can be taken by anyone, and, while fighters have many more feats than other classes (though through bonus combat feats), many casters don't have much to spend their feats on. So you'll get a fighter that loses combat power for narrative power, but you'll get optimized caster builds that incorporate the feat to widen the narrative gap further.
So you could restrict the feat to fighters... but why? If the ability is restricted to only fighters, why not make it a class feature. Making it a feat simply forces the fighter to get weaker in some other area in order to increase his already weak narrative power (do his saves need to get even worse?). If this is a power that not every fighter should have, you make it an archetype. But making it a feat doesn't help the fighter very much at all...
I'd personally drop Charisma to 12 and grab Dex 13, that'll help some. I'd then drop Wis to 8, raise it to 14 and drop Elven Reflexes for Indomitable Faith. That'll drop your particular skills a little, but open up others as better ideas, vastly improve your Reflex save, and help with AC.
Hmmm. Interesting idea. Would I later spend my ability points at 4th and 7th on Charisma (for future spellcasting)? I know that isn't a focus of my character, but it's nice to have. Or is it the cost of a melee rager...?
Having been recently convinced that the new Bloodrager class from the upcoming ACG, I wanted to get a head-start on a dragon-themed bloodrager. So far, I've had mixed results with my own builds and am looking for some advice. I'm looking for a melee build (centered around natural weapons) that is PFS-legal. So far, without any serious attempt at optimization, I've got a build that has natural weapons for 12 rnds/day and a greatsword for the rest of the time, but I'm dissatisfied with the armor class and feel of the character at this moment.
Special Abilities: Low-Light Vision, Elven Immunities - Sleep, Elven Immunities, Bloodrage (12 rounds/day) (Su), Claws (Ex), Arcane Training, Elf Blood, Fast Movement +10 (Ex)
Greatsword (+5, 2d6+6 damage, crit 19-20/×2)
Other Gear: Greatsword, Kikko armor.
I guess that a low AC might be a trade-off for this character, but I'd like to maximize the "dragon-ness" of this guy (tough, natural melee, intimidating, etc.). Any advice is very welcome... I'm looking for a dragon-heritage kind of thing, so I'm wary of tiefling/aasimar race (just because it doesn't make sense to me).
That's a s#+! judge. Should have asked "Have you been in a sexual relationship with X in the last Y days/weeks/whatever?"
Actually, in a deposition, the opposing counsel asks the questions (though you could argue the opposing counsel was being naive). And the something very similar to the.preceding example did actually happen (and caused a sitting president to be disbarred for perjury... though he actually surrendered his license on the last day to contend the disbarment in order to avoid the additional sanctions).
My point being that there is no phrasing that will prevent a rules-lawyer from arguing. Because they are in it to reach a predetermined conclusion, not a logical conclusion.
I'm about to give up on a 5th Ninja TWF for a 3rd Magus Blackblade/Debuffer. The ninja was ok... but I could see him start to get in over his head. When lower level and most fights gave me flanking (because they were toe-to-toe and we had an armored hulk up front to tank) I could pump out the damage. Now that the published modules are getting more varied, I hardly ever get multiple sneaks (especially since only the first swing counts coming out of vanish)... assuming it's not dark or they don't have concealment (I don't have Shadow Strike yet). So I can see the writing on the wall.
Most of the martials that I see (and our group tends to be martial-heavy) are barbarians, paladins, etc. Fighters and rogues are discarded pretty quickly. I've got a 5th Zen Archer that I've stopped playing just because he is so boring. Sure, I get to roll a lot of dice, but my entire gaming session could be replaced with a recording of me saying "flurry-of-arrows."
I like the concept of a martial (I'm looking forward to seeing if Paizo fixed the glaring weaknesses of the Dex-based fighter in the ACG with the Swashbuckler), but casters always have more narrative power...
OK, I've waded through the rest of this thread... and it saddens me. First of all, most of the arguing here is off-topic completely.
Rules Lawyers:
The fact is that it is a waste of time to argue specifics with rules lawyers, because they are, by definition, arguing in bad faith. It's a societal issue, not a gaming one (which is why Shakespeare envisioned a perfect world as having no lawyers in Henry VI Part II). When people rules-lawyer, they are not arguing a point... they are arguing to win. So they will twist anything to support their point, no matter how ridiculous their assertion is.
Judge: Your client answered the question "Are you in a sexual relationship with X?" by stating "There is no sexual relationship between us right now." Then I find out that your client had sex with her 3 days before the deposition and 2 days afterward! Why shouldn't I hold your client to have perjured himself?
Lawyer: You honor, it depends on what the definition of "is" is. To my client, "is" means at the present moment, because "is" is the present tense of the verb "to be." My client was obviously not having sex with X during the deposition; so in his mind, he "is" not in a sexual relationship in that very moment. So my client didn't commit perjury...
So stop arguing specifics with these people, as you will never get them to admit they are wrong (be it planar binding or spell lists or invisibility), because they aren't looking for the most logical interpretation. They are looking for the interpretation than makes them "win" the argument. And in this case, that interpretation will be the one that justifies their opinion that Pathfinder spellcasters are not over-powered... every time.
You don't need to argue a specific case to prove the answer to the original question is yes. All you need to do is look at the documented effects of fighter abilities versus spells. What do fighters' abilities do? They give a numerical and mechanical bonus. Period. Martial class abilities almost always do nothing but that (with very few exceptions). What do spells do? They change the actual physical reality of the game-world. Create pit creates an actual absence of matter at a location in the game world... it changes the circumstance of the story. Fly changes the movement of the characters from two dimensional to three dimensional; it adds an entire dimension to the operation of the game world during an encounter. Summoning spells actually add another being to the narrative (if only for a limited time).
The fact is that spellcasters have narrative power in addition to mechanical power, while martials have mostly mechanical power. This is why some forum-goers deride the "blaster" wizard... because it emphasizes mechanical advantage at the cost of narrative advantage. The only way to reconcile this is for:
A. the GM to ignore/houserule/deny the narrative power of spells
B. the players to implicitly agree to not use the full narrative power of their magic.
C. the GM to devise encounters that restrict or adapt away the narrative power of spells.
Which means that, without option B (which can be difficult to establish in constantly varying groups like with PFS), the GM must plan the adventures and rules around the spellcasters, not the martials. So yes, when you have a situation where one group of your players are always more important to your adventure designs than others, simply because of their class, then they are a big problem.
Recognizing this is not "bashing Pathfinder" or its developers. I'm sure the developers probably don't have as large a disparity as some of us see (because I would bet that their groups are so well established that "option B" is an unvoiced expectation at their tables, and their system mastery makes "option C" much easier). But that doesn't mean that the narrative issues with spellcasters don't exist.
Wow, thanks for the advice. I'm mostly interested in the melee with a little bit of flexibility (and in PFS level-ranges), so it looks like bloodrager it is. You guys have been very helpful in me making up my mind! Off to roll a toon...
Another thread pointed out to me the bloodrager from the upcoming ACG as an alternative to the dragon disciple. So was wondering if anyone has done a close look at the bloodrager from the playtest and compared it to the DD. Some questions I'd like some help with:
If I want a primarily beast/melee-focused character, am I better off with a martial character going into DD, or just going bloodrager from the beginning?
I know there is some question about whether bloodrager bloodlines (or is it rage/bloodrage) count the same as barbarian/sorcerer bloodlines, but I'm curious as to which will gain me abilities like flight earlier.
Just wondering if anyone has some advice as to which 20-point buy, PFS-legal, character concept will give me the best dragon-themed melee-centered (especially natural attacks) character.
Why? Isn't this the purpose of every D&D RPG (and derivative) ever written? What on earth do you think the term "Monty Haul" referred to?
Seriously, if you are going to pack your dungeons with valuable magic items, why wouldn't your players salvage them? Either get the job done with mundane items (glowing moss, regular torches, etc.), obscure or unique magic, (torches that have been enchanted to only burn when someone is 30' from them, etc.), or let your players provide their own lighting (my preferred option).
Seriously, it seems obvious that the players are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. Trust me, if I found a golden door in a ruin somewhere, I'd be hauling that sucker out first thing!!! So you need to find a non-expensive way to reach your goals...
IMHO, yes, especially in PFS. In fact, I will go so far as to say that by the time you reach 5th-7th level, you cannot survive most modules without at least one competent caster. At which point the game devolves into one of three options:
A. Caster has exactly the right spell to trivialize the encounter.
B. Caster has a spell to make the encounter survivable, so that the rest of the party can kill the mobs without a severe chance of death.
C. TPK.
The only way non-casters can even begin to survive is to become like casters themselves. They must burn WPL on magic items that give them a chance not to be invalidated immediately (potions of fly, ways to combat magical darkness, ways to combat suggestion, etc.). The only non-casters that can hope to live to retirement are the ones who become casters (or their equals) via magic items or class abilities.
Good bye dragon disciple. You can now play it from level 1
I must have missed something. Explain, please...?
Well, thematically speaking, Bloodrager sorta does that. Which is what I assume he's talking about.
Yeah I guess he means draconic bloodline blood rager. My hope is to be able to do both, and allow the dragon disciples bloodline ability to extend blood rage, that would be fun. Dont know if we ever got an answer to that question in the playtest.
Ahh, thanks folks! I've got a Dragon Disciple on my bucket list, and the statement piqued my interest. Now I'll have to page through bloodrager and see...
I spoke with the GM and he said the 'Nightmare' had to be 'cured' through a 'higher source'. It sounds like divine intervention to me. While this sounds enticing to me as a player I don't know how long my character will be out of commission. That irks me a little, but he also said I could use a 'temporary character' which allows me to keep playing in the group. While I enjoy playing my Wizard I enjoy the company of the people I game with more. So a solution has been found, albeit intervention of the divine variety is necessary to use my Wizard, at least I get to play. Thanks again for all the advice/suggestions to my dilemma and hopefully this thread might help other players who might suffer something similar in their game.
Ironically enough, despite suggesting you give your GM the benefit of the doubt above, what you just posted actually has changed my mind. Now I think this was a d**k move, and you should probably start shopping around for a new gaming group, or a new GM for the members of your old group that you can co-op. When a GM has no compunction about totally denying you the use of a character based on an arbitrary event you couldn't prevent, this GM doesn't care a bit about your fun. Mark my words, this will end in tears (figuratively speaking). You and/or others will get trampled again, perhaps more egregiously. Sadly, you may quickly find that the joy of playing with that group will pale beside the anger/resentment this GM will eventually create. Seriously, save yourself the pain and find an exit soon...
Actually, I have an answer to the question of why bloat matters. It increases the cost of learning the system, and thereby repels potential new players. Teaching someone to play PFS is fine if you have someone so novice that they are willing to play a pregen and just do what they are told. But as soon as they step beyond that in a desire to realize their own concepts, bloat makes their task exponentially more difficult. What the multitude of bad (or meaningless) choices do is confuse and frustrate folks without as much system mastery. And they'll quit (I've seen it happen).
Now, you (the internet reader) may not have any concern over this. You have the luxury (now) of saying, "Forget them, if they don't have the dedication to learn all the ins and outs of the system, they shouldn't be playing." But there is no such thing as a static system. Systems are either growing, or they are shrinking (and this is true in just about every area of life). So, without ease of entry, without expanding its player-base, PF will eventually shrivel away, and we'll all lose all of our options.
Meaningless choices are not choices, they are costs. And you should think long and hard before you advocate more costs become part of playing this game...
Actually, this sounds to me like a GM who is trying to be clever and add some drama to the encounter (so give him/her a chance to respond before you bail on the campaign). If they have a hard time understanding your issue, refer them to my statement below:
The hardest thing to do in GMing is creating a story when you only have partial agency. That's the GM's curse: you have a story to tell, one that you think would be fun and interesting, but you can only do so much without removing a player's ability to act/make choices. The temptation is sooooo great to just hand-wave the rules so that you can make the events in your game work out for the "best" (with best being defined as an interesting plot that moves in the direction you have planned). The problem is, when you do so, you have effectively removed the fun from the game for your players.
The reason people play games is for choice and consequence. If there is no choice, there is no game. If there is no choice there are no consequences, just arbitrary effects. This is why you MUST resist the temptation to create drama by hand-waving rules or taking away player agency. You have the power to do anything, but a good GM NEVER uses that power to remove player choice (during the game... during character construction is another matter).
This is frustrating, I know. But it is also the fundamental challenge that makes a good GM. A good GM encourages players to choose, or presents opportunities for players to make mistakes, but they NEVER force the player to do something with his/her character. Now setting up a situation where you can accomplish what you want within the rules is difficult and requires great system mastery. To do so while allowing players to choose a way out is even doubly so. But you have to, in order to be a good and fair GM. You must create a circumstance where the players have the absolute choice not to do the wrong thing, but with incentives to do the wrong thing. No player can be angry with you when they make a poor choice (in fact, they often will admit to deserving exactly what they got, if not being thankful for not getting worse!). And if they choose something that does not take the narrative path you intended, they are to be commended rather than forced. That's why every good GM has a plan B (and C, and D). Yeah, it's really hard work, but that's why you get the big bucks (LOL!).
Seriously, though, if your plot centers around the party losing a valuable item, give them multiple chances to do so within the rules. If they do, great! If not, then they have HAD an adventure, which is the point of the game, isn't it? Then on to plan B...
Along the same line, the rogue is not the full-attack-at-all cost mundane. The slayer is. Sneak attack is nice to have as a slayer, but you will still priorities full attacks over sneak attacks. You are basically playing another "full-attack!" variant. I already fill that need with Fighter. When I want to play the stealth fighter, I'll play a slayer. But that is a poor reason to play a rogue.
Actually, I've found with two-weapon rogues/ninjas that I'm still a "full-attack" character. Sure, I know the board opinions is that TWF is inferior to THF, but this is one of those "flavor" things I wanted for the characters in question (as other posters on this thread have mentioned). So really, a slayer will be MUCH more viable in the combat role my characters occupy (maybe not in the other roles... but maybe it will, having not seen the final class yet). As it is now, I tend to burn full rounds getting into position (either with a single weapon attack with just Str bonus or, if vanished as ninja, no damage output), followed by a burst of full TWF and sneak from flanking. Sure, there are more tactics involved, but unlike other non-sneak-dependent classes out there, who can use the same tactics, I'm required to in order to contribute. Throw in a DR monster and I'm spending full rounds as set up just so I can get anything through. Unless the flavor is just impossible to reconcile, I don't see how slayer won't be better across the board...
I don't think it do much being rude. Do much as going to a forum and expecting a echo chamber everytime one post something. For example if I posted is 2+2=5 then get proven wrong. Instead of admitting I made a mistake my response is "what it to you that I think that 2+2=5". As well posters forget that freedom of speech 100% without negative consequences works only on the safety of ones home. Outside or ins forum one is subject to the rules of the forum at least. As well I'm also seeing a lack of trying to acknowledge that posters viewpoints are different. Too much " I'm right your wrong" and vice versa.
Wait, 2+2 = 5 in vector math. Stop thinking one dimensionally in your math.
Incorrect. In Euclidean geometries, a vector 2 + vector 2 could range in magnitude from 0 to 4. It can never be larger than the two numbers added together. /math pedantry
I actually think part of the problem is that the sense of wonder isn't perceived as "kewl" nowadays. Jadedness and affected blasé are far more de rigeur.
The sense of wonder is a hard thing to create in any game system. Even more so with gamers who have played for a while.
Also the term "Raising the bar" really applies to games. Once you have had that bar raised it's harder to enjoy games under that bar.
-MD
Let's also point out that a "sense of wonder" requires ignorance. Imagine you have a friend who wants to start playing PF. He approaches you and others about creating his character, and the person sitting next to you says, "Hey, don't worry about your options, skills, feats and stuff. Just pick something that sounds good quickly and get right into the game."
Now, I'm sure some folks play that way and enjoy it tremendously. I would also be willing to bet that a large chunk of forum-goers here would have their heads explode at that statement. PF has become a build-centric game. Part of what made 1st & 2nd edition combat engaging was the simplicity. The variation came from monster stats and abilities, not from board-movement and feat synergies. You rolled vs THAC0 or cast a spell that required a save. That's pretty much it.
Now, increased complexity leads to increased choices. Many folks would be quick to celebrate the increase in choice. But with it comes the necessity of knowledge. No longer can you go into the game blind. You have to study your options, carefully build your character, and all of the possibilities for wonder go right out the window. It's one of those trade-offs that have a short-term positive, yet a long-term crippling negative...
If the concern is that you know a particular DM would wish to run a "by-the-numbers" monster, than your observation and a brief comment to him as an aside is warranted.
Otherwise, I'm not sure why this is an issue. Why do players need to review or even concern themselves (in the discussed sense) with monsters' capabilities? A DM may present a modified monster at any time, at his will or whim, and it's meta-gaming to say, "Hey, that monster can't do that!"
"Uh ... yes, he can ... because there he is, doing it."
So, what's the difference between this and "Rocks fall; you die"? It's a difference only in scale, not in kind. It fails Wheaton's Law pretty seriously. Sure, the GM is the ultimate arbiter... But a GM that appeals to this power too often isn't trustworthy enough to have it.
For a GM to handwave a rule that could easily lead to a character death is the functional equivalent of the GM declaring "You're dead because I say so." Pretty soon that GM is going to be sitting at a table by himself. And rightly so...
Defending against the natural 20 is a large part of the point of crane wing. It's the martial's Misfortune/Ill Omen; get your AC/saves high enough that they can only be surpassed on a natural 20 and then block the natural 20. Congratulations, you have solved the ever-present problem of styles that rely on crippling an enemy rather than killing quickly (the ability to completely override your game plan through dumb luck because you've got the time to do it).
But only casters are allowed to cover their weaknesses, y'know.
True 'dat. I'm just irritated that, in this case, the game rule change seemed to be made based on financial concerns rather than mechanical ones. Let's face it, Paizo makes a ton o' green off of APs and Modules, with a big chunk of it coming from PFS players. I don't begrudge them a cent of it. But when the issue becomes a conflict between modules run as-is and a style feat, follow the money (rather than fix the mechanics)...
The playstyle is a product of the mechanics IMHO. I really don't think we're going to get Pathfinder there without a serious look at skills and feats...
@Eirikrautha - When I saw Awesome Display in play it was very powerful at low levels but eventually tapered off. If it is problematic it is just because it extends the useful life of the already extremely strong Color Spray spell. At least the monsters got a saving throw though. Sometimes they'd make it and give the Color Spraying PC a beatdown. I think it is the "sure thing" part of the old Crane Wing that bothered folks the most.
My PC in the same game has levels of Dirge Bard. Most enemies subject to Color Spray can be affected by Fear as well, but the save is harder to make, and the area is already 30 feet before metamagic. I've used Fear pretty sparingly since it seems more fun to actually fight stuff than just shoot it as it runs away, but I'd think most balance problems which apply to Awesome Display at levels 7+ would apply to the Dirge Bard's Fear at least as much if not more. I greatly prefer Blistering Invective and consider Fear kind of a last resort WMD or a joke to play on hopeless mooks once in a while.
I don't see how a 23 DC at first level is not a sure thing. Sure, you got a nat-twenty... So change crane wing to hit on a nat-twenty. But the complete nerf, followed by the repetition of the defenses for crane wing in that thread is just sheer comedy...
What is absolutely hilarious is that we also have this thread going on wherein a heaven's oracle build is discussed that is equally devastating to a particular type of PFS/AP mob. All of the same arguments used to defend Crane Wing are being used to justify this caster build... by some of the folks who have called for the crane wing nerf!
So when a caster wrecks an encounter, it's a crappy encounter. When crane wing could wreck an encounter... the problem is crane wing... The reason for the caster/martial disparity is on full display.
My impression is that your problem isn't actually with the Shield Master benefits per se. Though if I've understood you correctly, I can also clearly see your reasons for viewing the feat as the culprit making sense from your perspective. (I'll dive into the details of that feat in my next post).
Instead, I'm suspecting the true issue here is a combination of the following:
Stuff about PC balance issues:
1. PF's many and varied PC build options allow for tremendous power differences between same level PCs, as does potentially your players' available time for, interest in and talent for things like character optimization or tactics/solutions to get the most out of the of their PC's mechanics in play. And while you can of course reduce PC power differences to a certain extent after the fact, for example by adapting adventure rewards and/or introducing minor changes to a few options if they turn out to be poorly balanced for your game, it's often not enough to address more serious and/or persistent balance issues. (And proactively changing things to ensure every PC option and possible build combination matches with your game's expected power level is most likely not a viable solution.)
2. The player of the new shield-bashing Viking puts more effort into (or has more talent for or experience of) optimizing his PC's mechanical combat effectiveness than the other players do.
3. None of the people you play with have run into serious PC balance issues in past PF games. Most of them likely also assume such issues are typically caused by one PC having one or a few combat statistics significantly higher or lower than those of the other PCs, maybe especially if the statistic directly affects hp damage output (average damage per hit, number of attacks in a full attack, crit range etc) or durability against attacks/effects dealing hp damage (AC, hp, DR, energy resistance, self-healing etc).
4. Likely neither you or any of your players had reasons to believe there was any need for you to discuss your thoughts, preferences and expectations regarding PC power and PC balance before your first session. And consequently you didn't define and agree on a suitable approximate power balance point for the PCs before the players started making them. And if the Viking player is new in this group, he also didn't see a reason to ask about the power level of the other PCs before building his.
If the above seems to fit reasonably well with reality and your own impressions, I believe it's highly likely that nerfing Shield Master won't solve the real problem, which will instead come up again and again in other build options the Viking player chooses. Because there are several potentially significantly more powerful options and combos available to that archetype to be found in the sources allowed per default in your game.
I therefore suggest you first try to better define the PC power levels you yourself actually prefer and expect at the relevant level ranges. And try do your best to question and adjust your preferences and expectations if it turns out they differ depending on which general kind of PC you're thinking of (such as main class, caster, martial or "gish" category, combat focus/role etc). Then talk to your players to reach a "gentlemen's agreement" as per point #4 in the spoiler above.
Hopefully, that will make the players actively try to balance their PCs' to your game, instead of the Viking player just looking for the most powerful options or the player of the weakest PC not paying enough attention to the mechanical viability of the options they chose. Once your players start to get the hang of whether an option or combo will fit with the agreed upon power level for your game, there's also little need for you to limit which PC options are allowed per default, which definitely increases the possible mechanical variety and balance of the PCs.
If we want to say Pathfinder goblins are iconic, yet to make them a playable core race we literally have to get rid of EVERYTHING that makes them iconic, then whats the point?
At this point you've got two separate races in everything but name. Either they are the goblins we have now, or they aren't. And if they aren't the iconic goblins we have now (who are intentionally made to be as unfit for PCs as humanly possible), why are we pretending they are?
Yep. Another aspect of the problem I mentioned earlier. The main things that make goblins popular as PCs is the same things that make them unsuitable as a core race.
And again, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the popularity of goblins falling if the race is described as not consisting of 99.999% crazy baby-eating homicidal pyromaniacs. I mean, if that stops being the case, I believe a lot of people who currently finds the goblin a really attractive option would simply lose interest. I mean, a big reason for playing a goblin is because of how extremely unlikely it is as an adventuring hero, and because of how many and radically different RP challenges a goblin PC presents because of the race's "default" behavior.
*quickly turns away and stirs kettle frenetically*
Sneaky Gobbo wrote:
*quietly dabbing eyes with a handkerchief*
Bigwort always cry this part. So beautiful.
Oh not again, Bigwort! Always the slobbering romantic.. You ever gonna fix those holes in that bucket o' yours?
*sobs*
Just... Just look what happens; the onions always turn out bad when you sing like that and Bigwort starts leaking! And... And the juice just always gets in my eyes!
*wipes eyes with shaking hands and loudly blows nose into kitchen apron*
And don't you dare complain 'bout your burned baby stew bein' too salty now!
....
On topic, I've never had any issues with goblin PCs, or with any of the far more exotic creatures rather frequently seen at my table. And I kinda like gobbos, as villains as well as unlikely PC heroes. So personally I certainly don't mind putting them in the CRB.
But I don't think it jams well with the Golarion setting as a whole, and even less with how goblins have been portrayed in Paizo APs (We Be Goblins included). Which unfortunately makes the decision to make them core seem hasty, short-sighted and ultimately also self-defeating to me.
IME, a major part of the reason why goblins in general and goblin PCs in particular are popular, is precisely because 99.999% of the ones PCs encounter or hear about in the setting are crazy little ugly baby-eating and trash-collecting homicidal pyromaniacs singing happy tunes about bloody murder in raspy smurf voices. Or in other words, they're popular precisely because they're practically never encountered or heard of as anything even remotely resembling heroes in the setting, and precisely because they're not primarily presented or supported as a PC race in player rules and setting material.
So the more recognized non-stereotypical goblins become in the setting, and the more support such goblins receive in player fluff material, the less unique and interesting goblins become as a PC race.
This wouldn't be an issue if goblins had as rich and diverse history and as many famous and varied heroes and villains as say elves in the setting (and in famous similar standard fantasy fiction). They could've been the eternal underdogs who constantly struggles against prejudice because of their small stature, funny "monster-cute" looks and odd quirks. But since such a background hasn't been properly established, while their villainous background certainly has, I suspect they'll quickly lose much of their attraction and soon fade into the background as just another drow. All while another similarly "edgy" and colorful monster race assumes the goblins' former role in the hearts and minds of players.
Let's hope I'm wrong, 'cause I wouldn't mind seeing gobbos grow beyond the stereotype while their attraction and popularity is kept intact.
Nice work! Makes me wanna bash myself for somehow consistently failing my Perception checks to notice this guide before now.
Although the fighter class rarely sees much use beyond the occasional 1-4 levels dip in my games, quite a lot of the higher rated stuff in your guide can also be of interest to other martials. (Which in my games primarily means Path of War initiators, and notably the Myrmidon fighter archetype which thankfully doesn't replace AWT or AAT.)
And because I'm a snarky nerdy nit-picky guy who cannot bear people being wrong on the internet, I'm really happy to finally have a place to which I can refer posters who still believe fighters are crap at fighting in comparison to other Paizo martials. Instead of having to post my own hopelessly inadequate descriptions of the fighter's many relatively recently published options and possibilities for the hundredth time... ;)
Judging from the ratings, I'm guessing this guide was primarily put together in order to help players make fighters able to, at the very least, carry their weight in typical lower op games (ie Paizo APs run as written), and to better keep up with the generally stronger Paizo martials (like the barb, bloodrager or pally). Meaning considerations mainly applicable to fighters in more demanding games are of less importance. Is this correct?
If it is, I think it still might be worth mentioning a few of the strongest and typically less obvious martial options and mechanical details mostly of interest to fighters in higher op games. Especially such options/details which fighters get at a discount and/or can get a lot of use out of, in comparison to most other martials.
A few examples:
Intimidate/demoralization: Soulless Gaze (plus another damnation feat, like Fiendskin) Combined with action-efficient demoralization (Cornugon Smash/Enforcer/Performance Combat Dazzling Display), this is easily one of the strongest feats for martials in the game, affording you to view Signature Skill (Intimidate) like a joke instead of an insult. A fighter has no problems paying for the feats to turn this into a game-changer, to the point of potentially making damage focused martials seem like complete losers. It does also come with potentially important mechanical drawbacks, but its unusually awesome fluff is its main weakness, as the very specific character story/background related requirements and consequences may severely limit access. (Fun fact: a Gladiator fighter/barb (or bloodrager) can build a quite broken higher level combo on Soulless Gaze and performance combat, able to reliably make all non-immune enemies within 30 panicked and one cowering in one combat turn. In every turn, in every fight, all day long, every day...) Worth mentioning that this feat can make the game boring unless accompanied by some minor house rulings on how demoralization works, since per RAW it's easy to get your Intimidate bonus high enough to scare the proverbial pants off of any non-immune creature ever published.
Style Feats: Ascetic Style This allows for combining reach with options otherwise limited to unarmed strikes, opening up for some fun and effective control shenanigans and damage boosts. Not to mention some conceptually hilarious stuff together with the Versatile Design weapon mod. At its most basic level, it gives you at least two additional slots for magic weapon special abilities with the chosen weapon, significantly reducing weapon enhancements costs in higher levels. And it makes your weapon attacks a valid target of some great buff spells as well, such as strong jaw. Often best combined with a monk dip though.
Combat Maneuvers: Dirty Trick Master + Fox Trickery/Kitsune Vengeance Note that Dirty Trick Master allows you to impose the dazed or nauseated conditions, which prevents the affected enemy from taking standard actions and in turn from removing the condition. So if you can reliably make two dirty tricks against the same enemy during your turn, you'll be able to effectively remove the enemy from combat. And with Fox Trickery or Kitsune Vengeance added to an AoO combo, a fighter can potentially do this against several enemies on his turn, and even outside of his turn. The many feats and high CMB required to make this really shine also means it's exceptionally well suited for fighters. Don't forget your Dueling (PSFG) weapon! As with Soulless Gaze, this can make the game boring without some minor house rules to prevent the hardcore lock down. (It's actually the only combat feat which I've nerfed slightly in my games, allowing the target to remove the worse condition as a full round action, if said condition would otherwise prevent the target from removing it as a standard action.)
Speaking of:
Magic Weapon: Dueling (PSFG) (NOT the 14k ability for Finesse weapons also called dueling for some stupid reason) +1 magic weapon ability which adds twice the weapon's enhancement bonus as a luck bonus to combat maneuvers performed/defended against with the weapon, on top of the weapon's enhancement bonus. AFAIK, nothing in the game besides several levels in the Lore Warden will provide as big a numerical boost to CMB.
Magic Weapon: Leveraging Note that this stacks with the above dueling for trip and reposition, granting a total bonus ranging from +4 to up to +42 (with furious and rage). Beating the tarrasque's CMD is easy, too bad that's not enough to trip it, and that it's typically a LOT harder or impossible to work around the many flat immunities to trip CR 10+ monsters often have...
Magic Shield: Maelstrom Shield Free action trip whenever you make a shield bash attack, at discount price. RAW, your shield bash doesn't even have to hit for the free action trip, and as per Paizo's FAQ you gain it even on attacks made outside your own turn. Allows for some fantastic AoO combos for incredible control or damage, although trip comes with a big slew of issues later in the game.
Magic Shield: Tempest Shield As the Maelstrom, but free bull rush. Unlike the often useless Shield Slam bull rush, this gives you an actual proper CMB check, allowing for significantly more reliable AoO combos than trip based ones in higher levels.
Re: Exotic Weapon Profiency and Weapon Focus Note that you can get both for a mere 2k or less by taking a COWPIS (cracked opalescent white pyramid ioun stone) in a wayfinder. Just mind what you're drinking before you do, you may have to live with the smell for a long time... :P
Sorry for the wall of text. Hope you find something useful in there.
I think Leandro gave very good suggestions, I would only like to add a potentially important detail: the Swallow Whole rules. Many large and big-mouthed opponents which you'd typically try to "tummy-ball" have this ability, and it's ruined if their tummy takes enough damage to allow a creature to cut itself out. Which seems like a reasonable effect of having a fireball go off in the innards...
Meaning I think the fireball damage should also be counted against the creature's stomach HP if it has the Swallow Whole ability, and that the ability should no longer function if the stomach takes enough damage (as detailed in the rules).
The problem is that EWP must be taken at early levels to be worth it (There isn't much point in taking EWP: Falcata at 13th level when you already ahve a bunch of weapon-based feats)), but at early level, we have much more useful feats to take.
The thing about Falcata is that it scales the best with other increases to damage. By itself without any modifiers, the falcata actually does marginally less damage than a bastard sword. But start adding bonuses from all other sources, such as strength, feats and magic weapon; and it quickly becomes the most powerful weapon.
Yeaaah... Kinda... But not really...
There is a problem with how the math of DPR calculations work... It's as if the target had infinite (or at least, incredibly vast) health and every single attack hit, but only dealt a percentage of its damage (between 5 and 95%). This makes critical multipliers and stuff like Weapon Focus look better than they actually are, IMHO.
Sure, that x3 multiplier is nice... But I'd much rather have Cornugon Smash or Lunge. Maybe Combat Reflexes or Hurtful... Not to mention feats that are obligatory for certain builds to work (TWF, IUS, etc).
This.
Though I believe math is often the most useful tool for proving and/or gaining useful insight into an option's real game value in many respects, the actual values of qualities such as reliability are much harder to express in numbers. That doesn't make the very high value of reliability or the problems with unreliable builds such as crit fishermen any less real.
OT Along Critical Tangent:
Personally, I'm highly sceptical to how crits work in general, as they're often the main cause of early level rocket tag issues, and the unpredictable swingy-ness of crit builds can make late level games less fun as well, for players as well as DMs. And for optimization purposes, with the possible exception of builds that rely on crits for fueling other abilities (certain magus and stalker builds), I have yet to see a crit fisher as effective and tactically useful as the far less swingy DPR build alternatives for more high-op games with seriously challenging combat, and so far I've been unable to find a convincing argument for spending any resources on boosting crits in such games.
And especially for builds in games with more demanding combat, I think the math would have to prove a crit reliability per round above say 75% against the most dangerous BBEGs you can expect to face (which is when a crit typically has the most value). Without such a high level of reliability, I believe it's much more likely crit related investments will turn out to be sub-par, and the great theoretical DPR numbers will be highly misleading. (But if your primary aim is to be your table's "3MO" (Master of Maximum Minion Overkill)... No?)
So far, all options/combos that have allowed for such a high crit reliability before very high levels have also proven to be ridiculously OP in comparison to any comparable (non-caster) options. And they have therefore also been Pummelled (see what I did there?) with the nerf bat.
@OP: What exactly do you mean by "worth a feat"? Do you mean "worth a feat slot" or "worth the minimum cost for proficiency"?
If it's the former, I'd say "not for 99.99% of builds in games with access to any of the (much) cheaper alternatives that grant the same benefit", but if it's the latter I'd instead say "quite often, most notably because 1.5k isn't much of a cost after the earliest levels".
I think especially the weapons that enable fun, different and maybe even unique tactics/tricks are the most interesting, at least for builds/players able to really take advantage of the related shenanigans. I think a lot of players seem to seriously underestimate the power of weapons such as the whip, certain double weapons with reach, reach weapons which can be used to threaten both 5' and 10' during the same round, and of course the throwing shield.
Shameless Throwing Shield Advertising:
Here you can find out why throwing shields are awesome. I think the "Black Hole Control Combo" and the related example build "Newton" are pretty good examples of the extremely powerful tactics unique weapon qualities can enable.
(Teaser: The black hole control combo allows for attacking several enemies more than 300' away and bringing them flat on their bellies next to you to receive additional butt-kicking, stomping and tossing around, all in the same turn! And if you add the "Soulless Seraph Smash Combo", your relentless pounding and general BFC and debuffing badass-ness will leave any survivors panicked or cowering, lying prone and robbed of their movement speed and teleportation magic.)
I dig this idea and I think the first two levels of that new fighter archetype sounds really interesting. I do have a few questions/comments/recommendations (just keep in mind that I don't play PFS and therefore know very little about the specific limitations):
Alex Mack wrote:
STR 18 DEX 14 CON 12 INT 12 WIS 14 CHA 7
Since you don't get Toughness without having to pay a feat/bonus feat slot better used for other options, I'd recommend increasing Con to 14 and decreasing Int to 9. Even with the decent AC this build has, I believe the additional HP/level, Fort and rage round the +2 Con grants is worth more for a frontliner than two additional skill points/level and a few higher Int-based skill bonuses. The human skill bonus and having the majority of levels in slayer should grant enough skill points for out of combat usefulness even with a lower Int, especially as this build does not rely on maximizing any skills and the Cha-based ones aren't worth investing in anyways.
That said, I believe I've heard that the DM must run modules/adventures as written in PFS, and that a PC cannot be of a level below the recommended by Paizo. If this is true, I think it's highly unlikely a decently built and played PC will go down even if it's a Con 12 frontliner (unless perhaps if the other party members happen to be really bad at what they do), which in turn probably means the additional skill points are more valuable.
Alex Mack wrote:
Slayer 7
Swashbuckler 1 Lunge
It appears to me that while the damage bonuses on successful combat maneuvers are nice, they'll soon become a pretty unreliable source of DPR and they don't grant this build any additional control/debuff power. Instead, the power of your "pounce" is primarily dependent on the size of the related CMB bonuses plus the number and strength of the AoOs you can reliably trigger by moving and making a standard attack shield bash. Therefore, I think you should at least consider changing the 10th and 11th level options (or 10th and 12th) as follows:
Slayer 7 MoMS Monk 1 IUS, Wolf Style
Swashbuckler 1 Lunge MoMS Monk 2 Wolf Trip/Vicious Stomp
Combine the above changes with replacing the "+X Spiked Shield of Bashing" with arguably one of the greater advantages of shield fighting, the dirt cheap Maelstrom Shield. This has an absolutely fantastic ability:
Maelstrom Shield wrote:
When used to make a shield bash attack, the shield's wielder can make a trip attack as a free action against the same target without provoking an attack of opportunity from the creature being tripped.
Bobo's Pounce In Detail:
The following details the events typically included in Bobo Bisonstep's new "pounce" combat turn if the above changes are made:
1 Move - Bobo moves up to enemy.
2 Standard - Bobo makes a shield bash attack roll.
3 Automatic - If Bobo's initial shield bash hits it deals damage as normal.
4 Free - If the shield bash hits, Bobo makes a bull rush CMB check (Shield Slam).
5 Automatic - If Bobo makes a bull rush CMB check, he deals Breaker Rush damage (regardless of whether the CMB check succeeds or not).
6 Free - Bobo makes a trip CMB check (Maelstrom Shield).
7 Automatic - If Bobo's bull rush CMB check succeeds, the enemy is moved as normal.
8 Free - If Bobo knocks the enemy prone, it falls prone in a free adjacent space of Bobo's choice (Wolf Trip).
9 AoO - If the enemy falls prone adjacent to Bobo, he makes an unarmed strike AoO (Vicious Stomp).
10 Automatic - If Bobo's AoO hits, it deals damage as normal. If the target takes at least 10 points of damage, it also reduces the target's movement speed with a number of feet equal to the points of damage dealt -5 for 1 round (Wolf Style).
11 Swift - If his bull rush CMB check succeeds, Bobo makes an AoO using his armor spikes (Spiked Destroyer).
12 Automatic - If Bobo's AoO hits, it deals damage as normal. If the target takes at least 10 points of damage, it also reduces the target's movement speed with a number of feet equal to the points of damage dealt -5 for 1 round (Wolf Style).
13 Free - If his bull rush CMB check succeeds, Bobo makes an overrun CMB check (Breaker Momentum).
14 Automatic - If Bobo makes an overrun CMB check, he deals Breaker Rush damage (regardless of whether the CMB check succeeds or not).
15 Automatic - If Bobo's overrun CMB check succeeds by +5 or more and the target isn't already prone, the target is knocked prone. The applicable events and actions starting with point #8 are repeated.
16 AoO - If Bobo's overrun CMB check succeeds by +5 or more, he makes a shield bash as an AoO (Greater Overrun).
17 Automatic - If Bobo's AoO hits, it deals damage as normal. If the target takes at least 10 points of damage, it also reduces the target's movement speed with a number of feet equal to the points of damage dealt -5 for 1 round (Wolf Style). The applicable events and actions starting with point #4 are repeated.
18 Free - If the target's movement speed is reduced to 0 or less and the target isn't already prone, Bobo makes a trip attempt. The applicable events and actions starting with point #8 are repeated.
Now that's what I call a fantastic action economy! I've probably missed a few details and made a few errors, but it should include most of the events, listed in one of the (many) orders possible according to the mostly silent RAW.
claudekennilol wrote:
Alex Mack wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
I don't see Merciless Rush stacking with the lvl 1 siege breaker ability. You can't add your str bonus more than once.
Hmm that thought hadn't occured to me as I always saw the two as seperate abilities especially as they have seperate triggers.
The siege breaker ability triggers "when you perform a Bull Rush" and Maerciless Rush triggers "when you bull rush a creature and exceed the CMD by 5 or more".
Yeah, but the result is "when you successfully hit them with a bull rush you add your strength." You can't on top of that add your strength again just because "you even more successfully hit them". You're right that they do have different triggers, but the result is adding your strength mod to the same single attack.
The emphasized part above is incorrect. Breaker Rush damage is not triggered by a successful bull rush or overrun CMB check, but by a bull rush or overrun CMB check being made (see source or spoiler in OP). Breaker Rush damage is dealt in it's own damage instance, separate from any effects triggered by the CMB result, and it should therefore stack just fine with Merciless Rush and any other +Str damage bonuses triggered by a CMB check result.
(Sidenote: the "+X Spiked Shield of Bashing" isn't working. The bashing shield ability makes a shield spike completely redundant as the "virtual damage die size" increases don't stack.)
There's also the Lute of the Battle Ready. Start shredding on your axe, then transform it into an actual axe and go to town. You can make it 20% more metal by casting continual flame on it and using weaponwand to embed a wand of fireballs.
My girlfriend's PC in Kingmaker not only bought a mithral waffle iron (they stick less) but used it in RP as part of her diplomatic efforts. It turned out that pixies and other fey really like waffles. I'd imagine you could get one which makes pizzelles instead if you were so inclined.
Awesome. Did she serve them with pesh-jam to really get the party going? :p
Upho, each class has its own particular niche. There is a great deal of fluff before the mechanics of each one.
First off, I'm sorry for the late reply. RL distractions means I've completely missed checking up on this thread.
Anyhow, I think especially Jiggy and Ssalarn posted very eloquent replies which questions your views on this matter in the same way that I do, and also describe pretty much exactly how I see it.
Mykull wrote:
When I said “in order to win” I was referencing the OP's question. Clearly, one cannot win a game that doesn't have set criteria in order to accomplish that. However, there are often players who place themselves in an adversarial role against the DM. These individuals feel that by defeating the monsters they are beating the DM, hence, “winning the game.” Again, I thought that this was understood. I apologize that you “don't get this either.” I made an assumption I shouldn't have.
Well, of course I suspected this was what you meant. The reason I asked anyway was to make sure we were talking about the same thing and to highlight the irrelevance and futility of it. Now that you clarified what you meant, and since it appears you believe min-maxing and char-op is something only done by "power gamer" type of players who want to "win", you are actually saying that a player that optimizes his/her character is not only stupid (not understanding they cannot ever "win"), but also don't even know what an rpg is.
That is one of your assumptions I would've found insulting if your post hadn't been so obviously emotionally charged. More importantly, you are obviously ignorant of what min-maxing and practical char-op actually is and especially what the most common purposes of it are, at least in groups with reasonably mature people that aren't out to ruin anyone else's fun.
Mykull wrote:
What bothers me are players who are clearly power-gaming in order to “win” but don't admit it. These are the people who pore over all the material they can to come up with the most optimized build and then hem and haw about their back story because they haven't really thought about it. But people who are honest with themselves and with me about their play style really are okay. True, it may not be mine, but I still welcome them at my table in the same way that even though I prefer cats, I still enjoy the company of dog-lovers.
Again, I can understand being bothered by a lack of honesty. What I don't understand is why you assume that "power-gaming in order to “win”" is somehow an inherent trait or the only purpose of using options from several sources, or of character optimization in general for that matter.
Mykull wrote:
Honest, not horrible. For all your love of acting, you admit that you wouldn't be playing this rpg if not for the mechanics aspect of it (ROLL-playing).
Ooops! My sentence should've said "I wouldn't even be into PF in the first place if not for the ROLE-playing". My bad. Anyhow, my point was that despite being a player that grew up with, and have basically only played in, "story and character first"-games, not to mention a lot of free-form and semi-impro-acting games, I spend quite a lot of time on optimizing the mechanics of my characters in games like PF. I even find it an absolute necessity to do so in many cases. Which according to you, if I'm understanding you correctly, is an impossibility.
In other words, I optimize a lot, but never to "win".
Mykull wrote:
Your group plays the same way (“bring it in line with other[s]”), so you min/max first and come up with back story second.
You misunderstand. First, the "bring in line with others" is about me having to do my part in minimizing the mechanical balance problems of the 3.5/PF rules system. That means for example that if I want to play a martial character in a new game and my friends have already created a full casters, I better be prepared and able to optimize my character's mechanical effectiveness and versatility beyond what is normally expected of a martial character, whereas the opposite (reining in effectiveness and versatility) is true for my friends and their full caster characters. Both are examples of practical character optimization.
Second, it seems you assume the end result must somehow be different depending on whether I "min/max first and come up with back story second" or vice versa. But that's simply not the case. There is no common source of inspiration for my characters, and neither can I ever recall a source of inspiration actually conspiring to diminish the quality of my PC's backstory or that of my characterization/ROLE-play.
For example, some characters have come alive only because I've stumbled upon mechanical combos, and others have instead required that I write a lot of home brew mechanics in order to be able to represent the character's abilities in the system. Likewise, as a DM I'll do everything I can in order to help my players' realize their character ideas, both in terms of pure story fluff and in terms of pure game mechanics crunch. Which may for example include writing up and play testing new feats, races, archetypes, PrCs, etc. Here's a pretty recent example - a bloodrager archetype made primarily so one of my players could realize his character idea in a way fitting with the mechanical demands of that game.
Mykull wrote:
For these “most memorable characters” did you already have a concept in mind and then had to scrutinize multiple sources to find the pieces that would make this idea a reality? Or were you min/maxing, found the bits that powered up your character, played it a few times, and then it became memorable?
First, I find it wrong to assume character optimization is always about making the most mechanically effective character possible according to the rules and options available. If that were true, a PC would have to be a wizard to be called optimized. Char-op is not even always about making a certain character concept or class as mechanically effective as possible, though I can see why it's easy to get that impression from looking at class guides and example builds, since the creators cannot make any assumptions about the requirements or preferences of specific games or players. In reality, I think char-op is just as often about realizing a concept and simply making it viable. And sometimes, as in the case of my last character (a summoner), it may even be about nerfing mechanical power without losing flavor in the process or making the character too mechanically weak.
To answer your questions, I can't remember ever having played without having a clear idea of my character, regardless of any mechanics. This does not in any way exclude that the character concept was born out of a purely mechanical combo, as was the case of some of my "most memorable" PCs. I think a major reason those were memorable is precisely because the mechanics they were created from both allowed for and inspired a distinct and different character concept.
Mykull wrote:
Actually, I've seen through it, and weathered the storm. I've cultivated a group of gamers that enjoy my DM style and regularly come back for more. I've been playing with one group for over thirty years, and entirely different group for twenty years, a third group of experience gamers that I've been running for a year and a half, and a fourth group that is brand new to rpg's that has been playing for about two years.
Regardless of the popularity and quality of your games (which may very well be high), I don't think you have seen through the Stormwind at all.
And think of it this way: your games may actually become even better if you do. I'd even go as far as saying it's unavoidable.
Are martial characters barred from focusing on something other than damage if they want to remain at least somewhat useful in combat beyond 10th level? Can for example a 20th level fighter or barbarian gain control/buff/debuff/tanking/defender abilities powerful enough to make their ability to lower enemy hp largely irrelevant? Or at least powerful enough allow them to be as effective as their DPR-optimized counterparts, despite a much lower damage output capacity?
If you know of any such Paizo and/or DSP options/combos/builds or have one of your own, please post a link or summary here and describe what it does!
In my experience, the answer is "yes" to the first question and "no" to the other two, particularly in games limited to Paizo sources, and even more so in games limited to only the "core" CRB options. In games including Path of War (or adapted ToB) options, I think such non-DPR focused martials generally do a lot better, but it seems to me that is also mostly because of the high actual baseline DPR being built into the martial maneuver system, not mostly because the non-damage related options are powerful enough to make the build's damage output capacity largely irrelevant.
I think I might have proven myself wrong with my most recent build experiment, although as far as I know, I've just stumbled upon a few odd combos allowing for an extremely rare exception. As its effectiveness is also dependent on tons of very specific options from wildly different sources, it also an annoyingly complex build which has very little room for variations.
But I'm certain there are loads of nifty combos and much more efficient builds than mine that proves martials really can be effective in higher level combat without having to deal much damage at all. Please enlighten me!
As a rough definition of "effective", think of what a reasonably optimized DPR-focused martial of equal level is capable of, for example how powerful and/or how many enemies it's typically able to remove from combat on an average round. If you know of an option or a combo of options that could help a non-damage focused martial match that level of usefulness in higher levels, or maybe a complete build that can, it fits here!
Pretty much anything that sits too long at the top of the list for Martial based DPR builds, will get nerf stomped into oblivion, and anyone who used the build will be mercilessly persecuted.
True dat. Though in contrast to most of the martial stuff hit by the nerf-bat in the past, I think at least three of the recent targets mentioned in this thread actually needed to be reined in:
1. Especially PS being easily turned into a crazy Dead Shot crit-nuke from hell was, like I said before, incredibly stupid (regardless of whether it was used with UAS or FCT:ed natural attacks). It should've worked like Clustered Shots from the start. I wonder just what the devs were on when they first wrote and approved of that...
2. Was anyone here actually upset when the party-wide and stockpiling abuses of Contingent Scroll was prevented? Regardless, it's not on the list of any martials. Nerfing Contingent Action to prevent the extremely high-level and build-specific trick used by Avaron's hilarious monk would be rather pointless, like he said.
3. Courageous wasn't broken IMO, but it was damn OP as a +1 ability. Meaning outside of some builds needing to prioritize other stuff, it was pretty much a no-brainer choice.
That said, I think the actual solutions shows the devs went on yet another of their signature anti-martial stampedes, trampling their targets into uselessness and their wildly swung nerf-bats causing collateral damage to innocent bystanders. In this case, they turned the no-brainer Courageous into the opposite - a no-brainer non-choice - and caused collateral damage by preventing PS from being used with FCT:ed natural attacks, which was completely uncalled for considering the high costs involved. For the same reason, I think the FCT nerf went too far, if a nerf even was needed to begin with.
SiuoL wrote:
Wow! Pazio is following Wizard's footstep, trying to ruin Pathfinder from the core. Wow... I'm speechless.
If you're referring to the old martial-caster disparity, Paizo has in many ways stayed more true to that 3e dogma than WotC did. (Case in point: ToB was a Wizard product while Paizo has refrained from doing anything similar and stated they pretty much never will. Thankfully, DSP and PoW saved PF from being completely devoid of versatile effective martial classes.)
Due to a discussion over at GitPG about Paizo options for a (non-synthesist) natural attack DPR build, I got curious enough about the potential in the combined suggestions to put together a build.
Though I think the result actually came out free from any major flaws stopping it from being able to do its thing in a real game, it's still a rather silly one-trick pony that prioritizes DPR far beyond what is reasonable instead of improving other areas. But it also turned out to be pretty damn good at its DPR trick, better than what I would've thought possible after Pummeling Style got a well-deserved beating by the nerf-bat, and it can for example easily one-shot the tarrasque at 20th (probably earlier).
Which got me wondering - what are the alternative combinations to achieve the same type of overkill silliness? And what do those alternative martial class builds with equal or better DPR numbers look like?
In short, I'm primarily looking for builds that, say:
uses only Paizo options
does not include Leadership
have at least 16 of 20 levels in martial classes (= classes with max 4th level casting)
in one turn can deal an average of at least 600 points of damage to an AC 40, DR 15/- enemy starting more than 80 ft away
can do the above reliably and repeatedly during several turns per day
I haven't been able to find any such builds here (which either means my search-fu simply isn't up to the task, or hopefully that people here use their brains for more productive things than over-optimizing DPR). So I'm asking you for help:
Do you know of or remember any builds (posted here on the Paizo boards, someplace else, or that are still only in your head) that you think might fit the above criteria?
If so, I would be very grateful if you could post a link or a build outline!
Weapon wielders are of special interest, but any build that fits is welcome.
Comments on the subject are of course also welcome!
A diviner targeting fort saves with disintegrate or flesh to stone would give casters a nasty surprise.
Fixed that for you. Going first is essential.
Why is it all the theorycrafted wizards are diviner's when rolling initiative and teleportation sub-school when grappled.
It's one or the other, you can't be both.
Of course they can, because they're all actually Schrödinger wizards, duh! Sure would be nice to see a less quantum kind of pointy-hatter for once...
Re: a mage killer, I'm afraid I also think the "another full caster"-crowd is correct, at least if you're limited to Paizo material and expect to be any good at it after say level 12.
If Path of War stuff is allowed, I'd recommend something like a stalker 5 / mage hunter 10. At least as good as the full casters at mage-killing, but without being OP or necessarily turning combat into one die roll (initiative) affairs.
The wrathblood archetype was made with the following mechanical objectives:
Full BAB melee focus
Tier 3 versatility/power (comparable to for example inquisitor or magus)
Easy to play (especially in combat)
Versatile and effective utility/non-combat abilities
Enables several effective mechanically different character builds
Retain relative effectiveness/usefulness in higher level games
In terms of fluff/flavor, the wrathblood is intended to fill a "monster-PC" niche and to provide a PC option focusing on natural attacks, without suffering from the problem of "early-level OP - late-level UP" associated with other natural attack class/archetype options.
In short, the wrathblood archetype replaces 17 of the 35 bloodrage features, most notably:
Uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge and spell casting are replaced by the ability to gain eidolon evolutions while bloodraging, starting with 2 evolution points at 2nd level and increasing to a maximum of 8 points at 20th level.
Blood casting and eschew materials are replaced by the ability to trade rounds of bloodrage to gain the effects of the beast shape spell for 1 hour/day at 4th level, similar to the druid's wild shape ability but not useable in combat and limited to a maximum of 5 uses/day of beast shape IV at 20th level.
Bloodline bonus feats are replaced by bonus style feats and the ability to use two styles simultaneously at 10th level (prerequisites and fuse ability near identical to the master of many styles monk archetype).
Bloodline bonus spells are replaced by the ability to trade rounds of bloodrage to gain the effects of each evolution surge spell 1/day during a bloodrage (starting with the lesser spell at 7th level and ending with the greater spell at 16th level) or the displacement or stoneskin spell for one round while bloodraging (at 13th level).
I would especially appreciate your help, input and views with regards to five questions:
Q1:
Is the wrathblood on about the right power level for tier 3? (Note that the archetype is intended to be more capable than the bloodrager and other full BAB classes designed by Paizo.)
Q2:
Does the wrathblood meet the other mechanical objectives?
Q3:
Does the wrathblood live up to its intended flavor and is that flavor sufficiently unique, interesting and fun in your view?
Q4:
Do the wrathblood abilities have the potential to cause any new obviously OP/broken combinations (by themselves or combined with a certain bloodline/feat/race or other PC option)?
Q5:
A (DM) - Do you think any of your players would be interested in playing a wrathblood character and would you like to make the archetype available to them?
B (Player) - Would you be interested in playing a wrathblood character if the archetype was available?
Naturally, I would also be grateful for any improvement ideas/suggestions/tips and critique/praise/comments you may have!
I've made several portable steam powered items intended for any setting with a technological level comparable to that of Golarion (emerging guns, clockwork constructs exist).
In short, the rules system for these items are based on a Pool of "pressure points" (PrP), generated by a portable steam boiler, a certain Pool value (or threshold) required for the continuous benefits provided by steam engines (powered armor, weapons etc), and a certain number of the Pool's PrP spent when activating special functions of the engines. The system and the items were designed with an aim to be player-friendly in combat, provide non-caster characters with additional versatility, and to include a large number of meaningful and varied options and combinations.
Currently, the maximum Pool value and the number of PrP the Pool regains per round is set and only dependent on the type of boiler used and its accessories. Though this has been briefly tested in play and seem to work fine, I would prefer a system which also allowed the user to take actions in order to temporarily affect the max Pool and regain values. I experimented a bit with various actions (swift, move, standard etc.) to disable engines for additional PrP regain and "pressure Pool overloading", but found it to be too complicated for practical use, at least with the current design of the steam engines. I've been trying to come up with other mechanics for partially action-dependent PrP regain and max Pool, which:
1. Rewards clever combat tactics
2. Demands a minimum of book-keeping in combat
3. Is at least somewhat believable as non-magic
So far, I haven't been successful and would greatly appreciate any suggestions, advice, tips or other relevant input you may have.
Here's an excerpt from the document I'm working on, describing the current system and a a few of the more complex items. Apologies for the wall of text... (You're of course welcome to also comment the content from other perspectives if something seems totally out of place, but this thread is primarily intended to focus on the above.)
After having read (too) many posts in the threads about this errata, there's one thing I think almost every poster forgets to mention when stating their opinion: perspective.
Of course a person who believes PF has no major caster/mundane class disparity problems is much more likely to approve of the errata than a person who does. Or a person who only rarely play in levels beyond 10 in comparison to one who often does. Or someone who believes non-magic abilities, in general, simply should be less effective than magic ones (for reasons of "verisimilitude" or whatever), in comparison to someone who wishes for increased class balance. Or someone who often sees highly optimized melee PCs but has never seen an equally highly optimized caster in play, compared to someone who has. Or someone who mostly plays PFS in comparison to someone who mostly plays home games.
For example:
Cheapy wrote:
I can't speak to the masses out there, but as far as professional game designers for Pathfinder go, I've seen only very few who find the old version to be anything even approaching balanced. And I've talked about the feat with a lot of professional game designers.
Yes, of course most professional PF designers will say this, because they tend to have a similar perspective (being PF designers). That means they're highly likely to take certain parameters for granted, for example that potentially game breaking caster combos aren't as problematic as potentially game breaking mundane combos and that the imbalances between different types of player options are simply a part of the game. In short, what I believe most developers actually say is that Crane Wing is unbalanced in comparison to other melee related player options in PF, especially at early levels. If we were to ask specifically for their opinion on how balanced mundane PC's with Crane Wing are to, say, conjuration wizards at level 10, I guess the answer would be quite different.
Also, I'd bet that the developers that actually have a different perspective to begin with (such as most people working with DSP) would call this nerf both unnecessary and way too extreme.
Personally, I'd probably vote for option #5 (6?):
5. Crane Wing was OK, but perhaps not at level 2. They should've changed MoMS or the prerequisites to prevent early level access instead.
And my perspective is that martial classes (especially the monk) need more options on the power level of Crane Wing in order to help with party balance problems. And especially that martial classes need strong options not directly related to DPR, but rather options for making martial combat roles other than striker viable and effective throughout all levels. How about some true tank/defender mechanics to make their typically high durability mean something for their party, for example?
Alchemist? Buff and bash
Eldritch Knight? Buff and bash
Warpriest? Buff and bash
Bard? Buff and bash
Druid? Possible Buff and bash
Ranger? Sometimes Buff and bash
Paladin? Sometimes Buff, always selfheal and bash
Inquisitor? Buff and bash
Magus? Buff use spell damage and bash
Summoner? The ultimate expression of Buff'n'bash
Fixed that for you... ;-)
Abraham spalding wrote:
Just think it would be nice to for once have a 'partial' caster that isn't simply another form of buff and bash.
I was thinking perhaps we would actually get something new.
While the theme of the ACG is hybrids of existing classes - supposedly meaning we should never had been hoping for any new inventive combat roles/specializations in the first place - I also actually believed the BR would turn out to be something truly new. In contrast to all of the other classes in the play test, I think the BR had all the potential to break away from the old concepts like buff'n'bash and explore something that hadn't already been done to death (literally) by existing classes. I mean the "barcerer" class combo and bloodrage are conceptually both different and awesome ideas, and the fluff is great, making the BR feel like a class of its own that creates something new and unique by meshing old well-known components. Personally, I also really hoped for a full BAB class in tier 3, filling that rather huge balance void created by the current classes.
But sadly, I have to agree the great qualities of the concept and fluff aren't reflected in the mechanics, which so far also refuse to secure a place for the BR in tier 3. Instead, we get yet another fighter - a class mechanically defined by its melee striker combat role, a focus often not applicable to the situation and its power lacking the flexibility to not be easily circumvented by opponents in higher levels. Just as every other full BAB class in PF so far, unfortunately.
On the bright side, seems there are a few possible tier 3 builds of the current BR which offers both more flexibility and more interesting tactics. Some of the bloodlines allow for quite hilarious niche builds with combat tactics and tricks that simply wouldn't be viable for any other melee class, at least not in higher levels.
In short: Magus list =/= paladin or ranger spell list. The latter two were designed to survive a significant loss of caster level.
This.
Anyhow, I would really like to see the BR have more casting, especially combined with a better action economy for casting in melee, more like a true barb gish but leaning rather heavily towards the melee side. So I say:
Improve the BR's maximum spell level, slots/day and casting mechanic, and keep the full BAB.
And no, this would not be OP, as it wouldn't even get the BR beyond tier 3, much less giving it powers anyway near comparable to the tier 1 classes. But it would hopefully make the BR the most powerful full BAB class (the only one from Paizo in tier 3).
Naturally, this shouldn't be translated into making the BR a 6th level caster. Rather, I suggest the BR continues to cast like any 4th level caster (-3CL), choosing form a limited spell list (primarily composed of self buffs plus a few debuffs and utility spells), but also gains one single bonus spell slot/day per spell level as if a 6th level caster (one 1st level slot @ level 1, one 2nd level slot @ level 4 a s o). These bonus spell slots would be reserved for spells from a very short list of (primarily) direct damage spells, known for free with each bloodline. The BR would only be able to cast these bloodline spells while raging, but they are cast at full CL and receive a bonus to DC equal to the BR's con mod.
In addition, the bloodline spells would be combined with some kind of scaling combat casting mechanic that feels "raging" and different than the magus' spell combat and spellstrike. Preferably, this mechanic also improves the BR's melee flexibility regardless of casting. Perhaps:
@ 1st level: a full round action to cast and charge
@ 10th level cast and charge with half the number of attacks the BR makes in a full attack, or pounce without casting
@ 20th level cast and pounce
(This is just a simple outline not including versions at levels in between.)
Or something that differs depending on bloodline (though some version of pounce should be a minimum, regardless of combat casting mechanic).
I also think the bloodlines' powers should, at least to some extent, focus on increasing combat flexibility (mobility, adaptable resistances, action economy etc). Finally, I also suggest the BR gains 4 skill points/level and a few more bloodline-dependent class skills to increase the class' flexibility out of combat.
Anyhow, I think this suggestion might solve several issues at once, for example, it:
Gives the BR stronger casting while keeping to the 4th level caster structure (on paper, at least) and without stepping on the magus' toes
Connects casting in combat and damage spells with bloodrage
Enables effective casting of damage spells in combat without causing additional MAD or action economy issues
Gives the bloodlines more tools to differentiate and balance power
Gives PF a much needed full BAB melee class more balanced to the the primary caster classes
Speaking of being late to the discussion... This is what I get for deciding to not check BR threads before I finished play testing: 20 pages of arguments, counterarguments and suggestions to read up on... :(
Anyways, first a disclaimer, since I'm afraid this might come out sounding arrogant and provocative to some people, and I'd rather be taken seriously than be flamed to the proverbial non-regen status as the troll du jour:
DISCLAMER: Everything I post here is according to my opinion unless specifically stated otherwise. If you think anything sounds demeaning to your views, opinions or feelings, it is most likely a most unintentional side effect of a me lacking the eloquence required to express myself in a less abrasive manner, combined with my desire to get my point across. And for these shortcomings, I sincerely apologize and promise that I'll do my best to improve.
Abraham spalding wrote:
when your whole argument is a logic fallacy based on a plead to tradition you do not get to simply declare other arguments invalid due to your fallacy.
Unfortunately, this single sentence about sums up most of the thread IMO. With a few rare exceptions, it seems the suggestions proposed and the discussion surrounding them are based on a collection of pleads to tradition, or old beliefs and parameters taken for granted as valid and unquestionable truths, even though they may not be relevant to this case or ceased to be or never even were verified or objectively valid truths. So I'm gonna have to go all Nietzsche ranting about the three myths I find the most prevalent and disruptive to the discussion on this thread:
Nietzsche Rant:
1 The Myth of the UCPU - Universal Class Power Unit
This is the strange preconception that certain groups of mechanics that happen to exist in all current classes are therefore somehow comparable units measurable across classes, despite the mechanics typically being dependent on tons of other, not so easily comparable things. An example of this myth is the belief that a balanced class cannot have 1/2 BAB (à la wizard) and 6th level casting (à la bard) without being UP, or full BAB and 6th level casting without being OP. Or the belief that a class' weapon and armor proficiencies, number of skill points/level, bonus feats, HD size or whatever are translatable into some kind of valid cross-class unit of power - the UCPU (Universal Class Power Unit).
The UCPU as an even remotely accurate measure doesn't exist, and using it to, for example, make suggestions for a new class is at best a waste of time or at worst grossly misleading and counter productive. BAB and casting represent two very separate groups of mechanics that aren't equal or even meaningfully comparable by themselves in a vacuum in terms of power and have never been, in PF or any edition of D&D. For example, according to all existing classes, the average level of any class with access to 9th level spells is inherently significantly more powerful than the average level of any full BAB class, but this does not mean a new class with access to 9th level spells is inherently more powerful than any full BAB class (though it would unfortunately most likely be so). Likewise, one class' power may be largely a product of its HD size, while another class' power has very little to do with its HD.
There simply are no easy shortcuts, simplifications or UCPUs to help compare classes or balance a new class. A class is an inherently complex whole which cannot be accurately evaluated by comparing its separate parts to other classes' separate parts. At least not if those doing the comparisons doesn't have a very high level of system mastery and understand and agree on all the differences hidden in the seemingly identical game terms.
The most common expressions of the UCPU myth in the BR discussion seem to be along the lines of:
"The BR should have 6th level casting, it can easily keep up melee with less BAB anyway."
"The BR doesn't rely on its casting since it only gets 4th level spells like the ranger or paladin."
"The BR should get more skill points, the barb has both rage powers and full BAB and still gets 4."
2 The Myth of the Absolute Class Structures
Related to UCPUs is the belief that a new class must adhere to the structure of an existing class, despite several of those existing classes having unique structures. As an example, there's little to gain from, and no rule against, a new 6th level spontaneous caster class not having the same number or progression of spell slots/level/day or spells known/level as the summoner and the inquisitor.
A good example of this is the suggestion that the BR should get level -3 CL based on the argument that the two existing 4th level casters get that.
3 The Myth of the Need for Balance Based on Class Type
Also related to UCPUs, this is the myth that a new class must never be more powerful than existing classes of its type to prevent power creep. Which is absolutely relevant when discussing full casters, but quite irrelevant when discussing full BAB classes such as the BR. I'd even say it's actually inversely relevant for a new full BAB melee class - as long as it doesn't outclass the wizard or cleric, the more powerful it is compared to existing full BAB melee classes, the better. I'm going to argue why in a little FAQ:
Q: But if the BR gets more powerful than the barb/paladin/whatever, won't that result in nobody wanting to play those classes anymore?
A: I still think the fighter is one of the most popular PF classes, statistically speaking. And it's also one of the least powerful. People will generally play whatever class they find cool, at least unless/until they run into party balance issues which makes that choice less viable. Which is precisely where a more powerful full BAB melee class comes in handy, capable of remaining relevant in higher levels despite hanging out with tier 2-3 classes, something PF currently sorely lacks (with the possible exception of certain pouncing/spell-sundering/invulnerable barb builds).
Q: But how can a melee focused class be that powerful, wouldn't that be unrealistic?
A: Well, the BR is a product of explicitly supernatural and magic powers, so I guess it wouldn't be any less realistic if it could slay epic monsters by flailing its limbs in their faces than if it could, say, alter the flow of time like its arcane parent class can.
/Nietzsche rant
I'll get to my detailed suggestions for the BR in a later post.
There's also issues like the Warpriest where it having like 4-5 per-day pools to track (spells, sacred armor, sacred weapon, blessings, channel energy) makes things a little less fun regardless of whether or not it works. Theorycrafting would account for whether or not it works but you don't realize how much of a pain in the ass it is until someone is trying to find room on their character sheet for all these pools in addition to any non class feature pools they have and having trouble remembering what they can do. I have players with short enough attention spans where this becomes a huge problem.
Huh? I've seen plenty of theoretical analyses of classes taking fiddly bookkeeping into account. Not in order to judge the class' power level of course, since that would be irrelevant, but certainly when judging its playability and "fun potential" for various types of players. I do this kind of analysis myself when looking at a class I've never played and so far I don't think I've ever been proven wrong when I see the class played in practice.
mplindustries wrote:
Those are exactly the sorts of classes that need theorycrafting to show why they're weak.
*snip*
Mystic Theurge is another good example. That's just thinking, "Oh no! They have both kinds of spellcasting! That's better than one kind!" If anyone had really thought about it, they'd immediately see why it's problematic (action economy, quadratic rise in magical power, etc.
This. The MT was actually proven to be much less powerful than many people thought just by using theorycraft. Quoting from the Giant in the Playground forums:
Quote:
NO! It did not show everyone otherwise because I and many others got it right from theorycraft. I had a prolonged internet argument with a guy who thought theurge was good based on having "so many spells", I kept pointing out that a single classed cleric was better by ANY reasonable standard. I finally had to point out that the single classed character could simply PREPARE level 2 spells in his level 6 slots if the other guy really thought more level 2 slots were all that.
He still didn't really concede, claiming that "no one would do that" so the theurge would still have more of the VITAL low level buffs.
I agreed that no one would do that, because nerfing yourself down to MT power was a stupid self nerf, and pointed to the existence of MASS versions of those buffs which is what you'd actually do. At which point he more or less conceded.
Note that my argument was theory craft, so was his, but one of us had actually looked at the classes and done the math based on what was available when 3.5 came out and got the later consensus analysis without serious difficulty.
I'll wager that pretty much ANYTHING you claim is only learned by practical experience about 3.x was spotted by SOMEONE prior to such experience based on theorycraft. This includes things that are wrong, but it's perfectly possible to come to correct conclusions from theorycraft and YOUR CHOSEN EXAMPLE of something missed by theorycraft is in fact something I personally spotted based on theorycraft.
So no.
I also think this poster is spot on in the last paragraph and I agree totally:
"I'll wager that pretty much ANYTHING you claim is only learned by practical experience about 3.x was spotted by SOMEONE prior to such experience based on theorycraft."
I think a few areas of the grappling RAW are annoyingly vague or produce weird results, so this is an attempt to clarify and correct these areas. I would very much appreciate your help and input on making this "house errata", ensuring it’s as close to both RAW and what we believe to be RAI as possible (or correct me if I’ve missed something in the current rules).
In addition, I believe the numbers in the grappling rules have rather counter-intuitive effects, so I also have a more typical house rule suggestion that could need some polishing from you.
First, the vague or weird parts of the current RAW and my “errata” so far:
1. Grapple + Reach:
1. Initiating grapple with reach:
Grapple wrote:
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space...
This means that if, for example, an enlarged PC successfully grapples a non-adjacent BBEG, the PC can also immediately drop the BBEG into whatever burning pit/acid pool/horrible black void the PC might be adjacent to, and the BBEG isn't even allowed a save. The lack of a small and simple addition makes this inconsistent with the grapple “Move” action and allows for some ridiculously devastating combos. Makes me believe this obvious error is just an editing mistake, not a rules design flaw and certainly not intentional.
Errata: Copy and paste the following line to the section above:
Grapple “Move” action wrote:
If you attempt to place your foe in a hazardous location, such as in a wall of fire or over a pit, the target receives a free attempt to break your grapple with a +4 bonus.
2. The 2H Myopia:
2. The "two hands" and "a" in the grapple and grappled condition texts (my emphasis):
“If You Are Grappled” wrote:
...you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon...
If following these insufficient rules to the letter, you’ll often get very large, (mostly) unjustified and sometimes plain silly differences between how affected even similar creatures’ offense are by being grappled, for example:
A. A creature with six hands cannot attack with any of the three falchions it wields as those attacks require two hands.
B. If the same creature instead wields six battleaxes, it may attack with one of these - ”a light or one-handed weapon”.
C. If the creature instead has six claw attacks, it can make all six in a full attack since claw attacks don’t require hands at all, and neither are claws ”a light or one-handed weapon”.
D. If the creature instead has three slam attacks it can make all of them, except those using arms ending in hands (as in the case of an eidolon’s arms, for example).
Did the devs suddenly forget they’ve designed plenty of creatures other than humanoids with one pair of hands? Maybe those creatures weren’t supposed to be involved in grappling…
The FAQ does give us a few hints on the RAI, but also confuses things by being even more focused on creatures with two hands (my emphasis):
FAQ wrote:
The RAW do allow the grappled to make a full attack action, assuming they can do so with only one hand.
The RAW states that the action cannot require two hands, which I believe is far from the same as saying only attacks that can be taken ”with only one hand” are possible. Is a grappled creature’s full attack limited to attacks using only a single hand? Or is it limited to attacks that don’t require two hands?
FAQ wrote:
You are no longer draped all over the target. It is more like you got a hold on them, typically an arm (hence the restriction) .
So the intent of the “no-2H-actions”-rule, AFAICT, is to reflect that an opponent has got hold of one of the grappled creature’s limbs – ”typically an arm” – which thus cannot be used to take actions. Is it RAI that grappled creatures without the hands or weapon/attack types mentioned in the RAW should also have their actions limited by having one less important limb at their disposal? If so, how do you find out which limb has been taken hold of?
Errata:
House Errata Grapple wrote:
...attempting to grapple a foe take a –4 penalty on the combat maneuver roll. If successful, [choose one of the foe’s limbs (arm, leg, head, tail, tentacle, wing etc.). Until the grapple ends, the foe cannot take actions requiring the use of the chosen limb. For example, choosing an arm prevents the foe from taking actions using a handheld item (such as a weapon attack) with that arm, choosing the head prevents the foe from making bite and gore attacks etc. Constant abilities or properties bound to the limb, such as speech, sight or worn items, are unaffected. In addition,] both you and the target...
Errata:
House Errata Grapple “If You Are Grappled” wrote:
...you can take any action that doesn’t require [the use of the limb the foe has chosen when initiating the grapple. Typically, this means] you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform, such...
3. Grappled vs. Pinned:
1. Easier to escape Pinned than Grappled:
Pinned wrote:
Pinned is a more severe version of grappled, and their effects do not stack....
Grapple “Pin” action wrote:
…you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC.
Let’s say a lvl 8 barb PC is being grappled by a villain with approximately similar stats. The barb has a CMB of 16 (8 bab, 8 str) and the villain a CMD of 27 (8 bab, 7 str, 4 dex, -2 dex grappled), meaning each escape attempt made by the barb has a 50% chance of succeeding. If the villain pins the barb, the barb’s CMB remains unaffected while the villain’s CMD loses the Dex bonus, and suddenly the barb has a 60% chance of succeeding on an escape attempt. This seems to run counter to the description and RAI of pinned being a more serious and physically restraining condition than grappled.
Errata:
House Errata Grapple “Pin” action wrote:
…you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC, [but your CMD receives no penalty versus the pinned enemy’s combat maneuver checks to escape].
What do you think? Are there any less complex or otherwise better ways to handle these issues, without deviating further from RAW and RAI?
And second, the house rule suggestion:
Changed CMB/CMD bonuses:
1. Easier to initiate grapple than to prevent escape from grapple:
The grappled condition gives dex penalties while Greater Grapple, Grab and the inherent +5 bonus to maintain only give bonuses to CMB on grapple checks, not to CMD. This means most creatures, especially those focusing on grapple, usually have a very good chance of succeeding on their initial grapple attempt, but have a relatively poor chance of preventing the grappled enemy from escaping on the enemy’s turn. This is very counter-intuitive, IMO, since it means it’s easy to establish a hold, but difficult to keep it. In addition, the inherent +5 bonus to CMB checks to maintain a grapple suggests the RAI is that it should indeed be easier to keep the hold than to establish it.
House Rule:
House Ruled Grappled condition said wrote:
Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity, , [but the CMD of the creature initiating the grapple instead gains a +1 bonus versus the grappled enemy’s combat maneuver checks made to escape or reverse the grapple].
