I will admit that... I don't really know that much about Elder Scrolls lore, but I'll just say the general thing I want...
I want to play an Imperial (or perhaps breton since they're the equivalent to half-elves, though I imagine they're cyrodilian) archaeologist type (although probably not actually using the Archaeologist class). Perhaps a minor imperial noble's child who found their passion in life to be discovering and recording culture...
Assuming this took place somewhat directly during or after the events of Skyrim, they may have ended up in some major trouble down the line because whilst they didn't actively worship Talos. they took great pains to record and save the manuscripts of the worship of Tiber Septim. Even now he attempts specifically to find information, objects, etc. regarding this ancient figure, and possibly even attempt to prove whether or not he truly became divine.
The Kobold Klan wrote:
To just kinda cut into this for a second (also just noting real quick that I'd be interested to see where this goes) I'd think that being an Elder Scrolls/Skyrim Lycanthrope that you'd be better off using classes to represent it...Since Champions of the Spheres was mentioned, I'd think that skyrim's almost totally advantageous lycanthropes would be either 1: Those with the Transformation Feat. 2: Shifters.
Touche, though I still can't help but think divine grace would be fitting to let a rager take 10 wisdom and intimidate everything. Though Aura would also be fitting.
I'm just biased because I like Charisma based characters.
I get why you say it's relatively useless, but... Charisma as your Barbarian's dump stat? I always thought of it as the mental stat of choice...Intelligence isn't needed for BarBar because books are for nerds. Wisdom.. You're a crazy motherlover that charges in with an axe and no shirt.
Also you can't use any int or wis skills whilst raging.
Charisma you use with intimidating prowess and dazzling display to scare the bejeezus out of everybody that even dares to challenge you, demoralize entire armies, and generally bully people into doing what you want. Also Demoralize to draw aggro
I've noted in the past my mixed feelings about Sorcerers (or at least I think I have)
Sadly I don't have access to my computer at the moment, so I cannot properly put the class together, but I thought I would throw some ideas out there.
Sorcerer as a class akin to Kineticist or 3.5 Warlock.
Admittedly, aside from just figuring out core features, the most difficult thing in my mind is making talents and incantations for every bloodline.
This had been going through my head for quite a while, so I thought to ask if this conversion would be possible. Below is a list of what specifically I wanted to see.
1: Thematically appropriate patrons like Fiend, Undying, Great Old One, And most importantly Hexblade (Emphasis on HB because it's my personal favorite of all of them)
My thoughts would be make them a 6 spell level 3/4 bab class of some sort with abilities to use some unique cantrips and not a lot of spell slots.
As the title says, I was rather curious lately about how Vital Strike and the various Special Attack Actions work together. My first assumption would be that due to how Spheres of Might is designed (Lower DPR rounds and longer fights) that Vital Strike wouldn't be able to stack with special attack actions, but I'm unsure as to whether that is true. Hence I came here to ask.
I'd note one minor problem with the "Up the damage dice" idea, namely that.. I remember most people saying that in general damage dice don't matter that much. 1d10 to 2d6 goes from a 5.5 average to a 7 average (so 1.5) and 1d8 to 1d10 is a 1 damage difference. Although the increased dice DOES make them more useful for Vital Strike builds.
I see y'all are taking the Dungeons of Dredmor approach. I'll join in. Although I may not be as specific.
Handheld Weaponry Dispenser: allows you to spend gold for various throwing weapons ranging from daggers to javelins to Chakrams to Throwing Axes and others, they are guaranteed to be nonmagical but come at a great discount.
Sounds like you basically want Kirthfinder's equipment system, where rather than "Simple" "Martial" and "Exotic" weapons, each weapon type has "Simple" "Martial" and "Exotic" proficiency. (For example if you wanted to learn how to use the stats of a "Falcata" you'd take exotic Broadsword proficiency. Also broadswords are only allowed to be wielded in one hand now so there's no more of this falcatas breaking the game stuff anymore.)And as to Crossbows in particular I kinda like how they handled crossbows (Although sadly they changed the action economy so I can't just totally steal it for non KF games)
but here's what it says (TLDR they have a mechanical strength bonus
For context, basically in a setting I had been designing that I imagined I'd turn into a campaign setting, there is a class of weapon with the working title of "Manalock", which essentially amount to highly accurate but short range laser pistols.
The issue is that I feel like these things would be a lot more 'expensive' than I wanted them to be, but I also feel like I NEED them to be so hard to get for balance reasons. Mostly because it compares somewhat to Guns.
Manaelock: 1 handed | 1d8 | x2 | Damage Type B | Range Increment 30-40 ft. | Reload Move Action for a 5 shot 'clip'| Touch and Special
Extra Note: Mentioning Spheres of Power: Why this isn't just a wand (since that seems to be the "Cast a talent to shoot something" magic item)? Simply put, it isn't a wand because I want it to be able to used for Attack Actions for SoM.
Touche, I thought of it less as "More advantage against level 20 dragons than goblins" and more as going from a Zero to a Hero. To use a video game example real quick, you start Final Fantasies dealing like 15 damage, but by the end of the game you deal 9999 with each hit, and go from taking on squirrels and relatively insignificant creatures to killing God with the power of friendship.
Although I guess that feeling like you NEEDED those upgrades would be more towards keeping player power down, so maybe I just literally don't know how to do basic games math.
I guess that makes sense, I just thought it seemed a bit strange at first that it balanced out like that. Although I guess maybe that's just math. Although I never even really thought of the math in PF and how it balances out either so maybe I'm just weird. I'd just think that it would be more noticeable like you're significantly more powerful over time.
Also... I'm admittedly a bit confused about the idea that they gain different proficiency levels with different armors. I'd think that if you were legendary with heavy armor you'd be legendary with medium and light as well.
Edit: also.. Do you add your proficiency bonus to AC? +20 AC by 20th level sounds like a LOT for just proficient (since it's Character Level), and also would seem to make proficiency bonuses kinda redundant since...
A proficient weapon will get +20 attack
Admittedly I do need to ask... What's so special about seltyiel? I haven't really heard much of his story other than edgy elf boi.
My concern was more "Paladins are THE heavy armor class, that's the class we think of when we think of heavy armor" than them being any good at heavy armor.
Admittedly I was tempted to say this, They do have powers to whack things over the head, but their primary role is that more defensive style with retributive strike, so I'd assume that's why they made their big abilities be Heavy Armor only.
The thing that really bothers me is thinking that they'll be even more pressured to use a shield than normal. Strangely I'm usually the guy who's all for using shields and would be happy to get more excuses to use them, but I don't want to see a class that's shoehorned into only being in one role.
Also I'd like to say on record that.. Well I don't think it was totally turning into a gish conversation before as much as it was about the idea of combining lots of classes together, but gishes just tend to be the most common things you get from mixing classes whether you're a Fighter Wizard trying to play Magus, a Champion taking a bloodline for the sake of its unique powers, a rogue going arcane trickster with either (which I still want to see the ability to get ranged legerdemain on a rogue because actually reading what arcane trickster can do I'm surprised it isn't used more, hocus-pocusing someone's wallet from 30 feet away sounds fun).
I just like the general idea that those hoping to combine classes can do so, and even find a few relatively rare and unique talents to help set them apart from the crowd once they've dedicated enough. I think that would give players this sort of feeling of "Aw Sweet!"...
The "meta class" / "Multi class with multiple class prerequisites" thing was something I had thought of when mentioning magus before, or like Hybrid or Prestige Classes as feats, Like here's a few examples...
Skald: Bard and Barbarian feats (maybe specific feats even) and you can grab a class feat for Raging Song.
Granted, there's the general problem that there are probably WAY too many class combinations (132 to be exact, since its' a permutation that would be 12 base classes times 11 base classes (so we don't have something like Alchemist/Alchemist or Barbarian/Barbarian) Which would mean that even 5 meta class feats per base class would be 660 feats just for metaclasses, 3 meta class feats per class would be 396, but either way the point is more that that would be a LOT of feats, like more than the core rulebook even has as a whole I'd assume. but it would also have the advantage that they don't actually need to make that many new classes, since like the Hybrid Classes and Prestige Classes could just be these meta-class feats that people can just bolt together. and I'd assume 5 feats is a bit easier to make than a whole new prestige class... right?
Thanks for the clarification, and on Smiting I less think of "Is it a first level ability?" and more.. The worry that made me ask "How defensive are they?" is thinking of the worst case scenario being that they basically have one way to play "Right" and other ways just becomes "wrong", because "if you wanted to use a big sword and smite down heretics why aren't you just playing a fighter and take a cleric multi class feat or something because everything champions do is connected to retribution".
Also on Smite Evil as a Spell. I think that could work, let them grab it as a power to spend points on when they don't feel like doing whatever else champion does (Admittedly I don't have the playtest on hand to really know what things do).
I also would like to note that I'm actually... Though again I haven't really gotten to read the playtest books I'm surprisingly happy at how things are coming along so far. It kinda reminds me of the other 'pathfinder 2' attempt from fans called Kirthfinder, and it kinda did a lot of the same stuff (namely EVERY class gets a talent list, and they can spend some of their talents to gain synergy with other classes) but this for some reason just feels a lot more streamlined than that.
Yeah, I don't necessarily NEED spellstrike. I just kinda assumed that it was the most standard "Gish Class" power out there.
Also not to make another comparison to 5e but I hope we get some archetypes that would admittedly be comparable to 5e archetypes.
Bards getting things like the Colleges as archetypes. You want DPS? College of Swords. You want to Tank? College of Valor. Want to make Rogues Useless? College of Whispers. Want to be better at casting? College of Lore (Or Compulsion to be specifically good at charming and compelling people to do what you want with magic).
Rogues getting Assassin and Scout as archetype abilities that they can just pick, although things like multi-class feats can cover Arcane Trickster better than an archetype may, same for Fighters and Eldritch Knight...
Also unrelated to this 5e talk I just realized, HOW defensively oriented are champions/paladins supposed to be? I'd think they would carry equal proficiency with defense and murder seeing how their most common class feature is the ability to SMITE(!) people.
Not to be really stupid but I just want to make a quick note of the phrase "Spells in a juice-box", because for some reason that made me chuckle.
Though sorry if I'm just stuck on something stupid but I'm still so surprised that I finally have some semi-logical explanation for why it rubbed me the wrong way for so long. Although it's funny that it also gave me a new appreciation for it and maybe I'll be more open to vancian casting if I get a chance to play in Golarion.
Now back to 2e and saying that.. Admittedly I'm not quite sure of what else to say on it for now since I don't know where any of the PDFs aside from the playlets are and I don't know how things have changed, but basically all of my wants for the game are about the same as they originally were.
1: Let gishes be good please
And a question, what are Paladins looking like right now?
Touche (I admit I haven't properly kept up with PF2 very much just because I haven't had the time to really tear into it). It's more that just whilst writing that post about vancian casting it hit me so suddenly that.. Well I had said my relative distaste for vancian casting a lot in the past, but I never really understood why I had a distaste since it has been relatively balanced, and so many editions have said they were improving it. Yet suddenly it just hit me that I finally had an explanation for WHY I felt something seemed so off about it to me, and I thought to say it.
I definitely understand wizards' prepared spells now moreso, though I think that making some kind of more obvious connection to that theme of "Vancian magic as rituals" could help to make the wizard feel more.. fitting. (Granted it's dumb to question magic systems like this because it's whatever the setting says they are)
With Alchemists, I can understand the hate somewhat but I just feel like they're the class that makes the most sense under this system of highly specific 'spells'.
and admittedly I kinda thought of the Sorcerer Revamp as the "Warlock/kineticist type Caster". gaining a small number of thematic abilities
I had recently been thinking about Vancian casting because of PF2 coming out and I realized just WHY I had such a distaste for it, because some classes it makes sense, and some classes it makes absolutely none. Hence I got the irresistible urge to throw some vague ideas up to brainstorm.
Alchemist: Basically the same as before, vancian works perfect for them.
Thanks, though I'm not super sure of where to really start...
Well I guess I can start with a minor complaint from what little I know of pf2. I noticed some people saying that proficiency bonuses are more nuanced than 5e because of the multiple tiers (When someone made comparisons to 5e, that person may have been me, I don't remember for sure), but from what I understand each extra level of proficiency just adds a +1.
Also I'd like to respond to Albatoonoe's notes on Vancian casting, noting that.. when you put it like that (saying it is the "Evolution of Spells as Rituals") It definitely seems to make it a bit more palatable (And throwing away my salt for a moment that sounds honestly interesting), However I think this particular idea depends more on your prerogative as a GM and/or player. Like using how I nigh constantly compare it to Spheres of Power.
Also as I was writing this and thinking about that "spells as rituals" bit. I realized that all of my disdain for vancian magic as a part of the STORY is directly connected to the class that uses it.
Alchemist/Investigator: I LOVE vancian casting on alchemists and it's the one class I'd 100% use vancian over spheres for, because the idea of its magic as specific chemical formulations make the trappings of vancian casting 'click' in my head a lot more.
Wizard: Make a lot more sense when thinking of Vancian Casting as rituals, but I still can't help but think that wizarding magic wouldn't be quite THIS exact.
Magus: Since it uses the same study as Wizards it makes sense, but at the same time I feel like the idea that they practice a few very specific techniques that they get a lot of use out of (See Spheres of Power and how they can choose a few all day touch attack talents for spell combat) makes sense because of their 'Full Contact Magic' style. (Though admittedly this one is less Story and more Mechanics thinking that a small number of at will abilities to use with spell combat is nice)
Clerics: Kinda weird that they have such specific spells when they're calling upon the fickle will of the gods if you ask me, but it makes JUST enough sense (since they have the idea of ritualistic divinity down) that I'm going to leave them out of the next section.
Warning: 4 line Rant Incoming: TL:DR: Sorcerers seem like they'd have a way softer magic system than wizards due to their origins:
Sorcerers (and oracles): Sorcerers seem like the Antithesis of Vancian Casting to me, and I know that I'm probably exaggerating but... You're learning the ropes of a strange and temperamental form of magic that you acquired via some distant blood relation (or other ancestral connection) to a magical creature. Yet you use the same Hard, Complex, Ritualistic magic system that the Wizards and Alchemists use. And Oracles are in the same boat because they have some vague connection to the gods that they don't quite understand, but learn the same hard magic as wizards. This just makes no sense to me, at all. (And since the Inherent "I don't quite understand where I got it from but I'm made of magic" classes are my personal favorite of the full casters this just makes the problem all the more obvious)
Edit: the rant was only 8.5 lines in the editor, not in the post itself.
Okay I see I missed a hell of a lot in the time since I was here last..
And... I hope it's not rude but can someone explain just what happened since I was here?
1: I assumed he more meant it as a way to increase use of lower armor within a given category, though it does have its issues, like... It would make some sense that Masterwork Hide is less expensive than a Masterwork Breastplate overall. Though it has flaws obviously.
2:My point on rebalancing armors was less about thinking some armors are too bad or too good, but more the fact that I feel like if I want to wear scale mail then I should be able to without worrying that I'm somehow behind curve. Also the fact that a few armors are better even if they have the same AC number.
3: Touche on the Celestial Armor bit, I more meant calling it obvious that basically any dex build is going to find it to be generally better, since it's the one medium armor suit you don't need to actually proficient with medium armor to use, and the same person that was going for Leather or something of the sort in order to make more use of their dexterity is going to get a higher modifier from using this armor than anything else, meaning most archers and rogues will go for it. (Although looking at the SRD it doesn't mention the ability to wear it without having medium armor proficiency, was that errata'd out? or is that a different armor I'm thinking of.)
Basically it's less thinking that armor needs a complete and total retooling as much as I think that there shouldn't really be "Early Game" "Mid Game" and "Late Game" Armors among the mundane armors in terms of one being literally better. Perhaps I just have the ghost of a long dead power gamer trapped in the back of my mind or something but I can't help but be annoyed at the prospect that comparing the armors to each other in the same category that there's one that's just better than the others, meaning that you're just better off in survivability for choosing one over the other.
Yeah. Although I do still have the alt system in my back pocket. Though speaking of that alt system I ought to throw it into a few new eyes.
Would rolling various armor types into a single group work to have people use more different armor types? and how would these numbers look for that? (credit for these numbers goes to Kirth Gerson)
Edit: I think it would certainly fix the "Chainmail VS Breastplate VS Mountain Pattern" problem at least, but what about the other issues like people always going for the best AC no matter what?
Admittedly I was just kinda randomly throwing ideas around rather than making a lot of them super serious, and...
With the Full Action to stand up thing, it was basically trying to balance against the 5 DR and the idea that basically you get someone in full plate on the ground they're at a Grandiose disadvantage. and also the idea that once we restat armors all of them will be fairly useful anyway, but have their own unique abilities.
Also I totally forgot the armored coat was a thing, but assumed I was just kinda rolling armors together some anyway.
Like just to brainstorm some ideas...
I'm not going to say they have both of these, but just general ideas.
Chainmail Hauberk: Quick change. It is relatively simple to put on a chainmail hauberk, halve the time taken to don chainmail armor (2 minutes alone, 1 minute with help, 30 seconds (5 rounds) to don hastily.
Plate Armor: All or Nothing. gain DR 5 (note, possibly even more)/— against all attacks, but being Prone is considered being helpless for the sake of Coup De Grace attacks, and it takes a full round action to get up. (Similar to how for real full plate the best way to kill them is to get them on the ground and stab through the eyeholes)
What's your goal here? Is your frustration with the fact that PCs pick the same armor all the time in-universe, or is it with the fact that most armors are effectively "traps" and there are limited choices if you don't want to be sub-optimal?
Well it's a bit of both, I AM generally the type to try to put character first but my early D&D/Pathfinder experiences (which basically amounted to reading books and making hypothetical builds) has given me a tiny power gamer in the back of my head, tearing apart the little things that seem cool but suboptimal.
From a more Character Driven standpoint it seems annoying that literally every heavy armor character is wearing full plate by some level, literally every medium armor one is wearing breastplates, and.. Light Armor is basically the only one that has some variety with the whole "Higher than 5 dex mod means no chainmail shirt" thing but a lot still wear chain. (And the fact that a lot of flavorful combinations like Barbarians and Hide generally don't make much sense to go for)
From a Mechanical Standpoint I can't help but think both from a mechanical and 'historical' standpoint that.. For example, Gambeson (padded armor) generally would protect about the same as leather armor. Studded leather is just better than leather, but why do studs make it better? (Probably because it's actually based on Brigandine which is metal with a leather facing but that's a story for another day), Hide just seems to have no point since -1 AC for +10 movement speed seems fair for some (Barbarian for example) in exchange for being similarly priced...
Actually looking back I only just realized (Like no joke I literally just remembered this from you mentioning it) that I already have/had a solution in place for how to rebalance armors that basically does both of these solutions at once. Kirthfinder (which basically kinda does both, putting armor into categories rather than starting out chainmail from breastplates when they have the same AC, letting you refluff armors however you want whilst giving you a simple 3 level baseline per armor for mechanics). It's a Start, at least.
Interesting idea, perhaps give them each just a little general bonus on top of these new number bonuses to differentiate different armors.
Not to end up just ranting somewhat but I'm rather frustrated by armor in pathfinder, namely in the fact that there are basically a number of armors that are straight up better than other armor types. (also I'm just listing the core armors because I can't scrounge up the FULL list right now)
Is there any sort of way one could rebalance armors to give all of them a reason to be used?
I understand that it's not useless, and that's not really what I'm saying. I'm more saying that some builds are much more affected by the concentration cost than others. Like here's an example or two.Self Buff Gish: a standard action concentration means generally you HAVE to spend a spell point for your enhancements, alterations, aegises, fate words, time hastes, light abilities (Any that can buff you?, etc. to work and let you do other things in the same round (unless you have Familiars, Companions, etc. to help). Easy Focus helps alleviate this somewhat but still has its issues.
More I'm just.. nervous, I guess.
I knew it was bludgeoning. The idea I had was basically grab the Default, the Crafted Blast talent (which just makes the default better) and if it was in the same blast group as Force you could get that 'just in case DR' moment.
Either it was eratta'd or I'm confusing it for Shape Focus.
Also, yeah, Concentration is a Standard Action and to my knowledge always has been.
Good to know.
GM Rednal wrote:
Paying actions is the price for not paying some of your daily resources. XD For what it's worth, Easy Focus works well with full casters who can stand in place to concentrate on one thing while hurling other spells with their standard action - and at higher levels, you actually won't run out of spell points very often.
Yeah, I mean I definitely get it, just for someone like an unmounted gish it seems like some spells just become useless (Basically anything with concentration at all) (And I'm just the type that REALLY likes gishes)
Or mounted spell casters, which I think are a very under appreciated archtype, though they do take jping through some hoops.
Through some hoops? I'd think it would be just take Conjuration. (Although I'd note that I feel like a wizard on a horse looks kinda silly)
Bear with me for a moment (Yes I know that pun was bearly bearable.. ok I'll stop) but the Bear Sphere, despite the bad puns and it obviously being an April Fools joke (I also doubt it's very balanced, but what do you expect from an April Fools joke), but I'd just like to note a few things about it.
1: I feel like the idea of "Channeling an animal Spirit" Could have easily been its own sphere along the lines of nature or weather, we have Fire , Water, Earth, Air, Plants, and Metal for druids, but not a whole lot for Animal druids other than Alteration (and nature's Animal Friend talent technically). And maybe a druid doesn't want to transform into animals and merely wants to call upon spirits for power (Yes technically the Spirit Mender would be in this category but it gives up basically any ability to fight and bring the wrath of nature alongside its kindness)
2: The Child of Hope is basically the first time I've ever seriously wanted to play a Druid, because I want to channel my inner Disney Princess/ Dr. Doolittle. I want to walk with the animals. Talk with the animals, grunt and squeak and squawk with the animals!
Sadly it just doesn't work for a Spherecaster, and that's okay. Most of the time even if you run out of spell points you still have magic you can use, so lower the final number of a metamagic spell isn't necessary.
I guess I just get weird that1: Even though I love spheres, I'm not really a fan of the idea that concentration takes a standard action (Although for all I know it was ALWAYS a standard action even in Vancian and I just never looked) unless you take a boon just to specialize in concentration, and even then a move action is fairly significant, especially for the gish types (which I very often tend to be), bringing on minor paranoia.
2: Like I said before, Spheres does a fairly good job of making it that you rarely spend more than 1 spell point at a time, and even among talents that do want extra spell points it's usually just 1 at a time (like Powerful Force Blasts or Dual Enhancements that last a minute per CL)
Also not really relevant to the specific topic of magical lineage but I kinda want to know what Blast Type the default destruction blast would be counted under. I'd assume it was a Force group blast (since it's basically raw magic) but also realize that some GMs might object to the strategy of taking energy focus (Default blast), grabbing Crafted Blast, and then getting Force Blast to basically keep the benefits of crafted blast without worrying about its DR drawbacks.
I recently learned once again about a trait. Magical Lineage.
Benefit: Pick one spell when you choose this trait. When you apply metamagic feats to this spell that add at least 1 level to the spell, treat its actual level as 1 lower for determining the spell's final adjusted level.
I was curious since.. Obviously Spheres doesn't have explicit spells and levels, but I wondered if there was Anything this could do for sphere casters (Especially considering that Metamagic is one of the few places that you can end up paying multiple spell points for a sphere effect other than powerful combination spells)
I'll throw my hat into the ring for a moment, though I think others got most of the gist down.
Path of War bolts new stuff onto you, and changes combat by basically literally giving you spells.
Spheres of Might changes how you fight as a whole by letting you build a concept from scratch, and encourages cinematic combat by generally changing the paradigm of what you're doing rather than adding new things (though a SoM character and a non SoM character can be in the same campaign and survive)
As you can probably tell from how long the section was, I personally greatly prefer spheres because of this. it's so customizable and (to me at least) clicked a lot easier on even a cursory reading than my time with path of war (I mean I got all the mechanics, but I still often think regularly "Wouldn't it be cool if I made a ____ with a spheres build?" in a way that just doesn't happen with path of war)
Also if I can make a tangent real quick, my favorite part of the original book of 9 swords was the lore and story more than the weeaboo fight magic itself, and I'm really sad that path of war didn't even try to make that same kind of lore for the system.
Spheres of Might Wiki wrote:
The Spheres of Might system makes use of a fairly minimal number of new mechanics, instead opting to use the core mechanics in new and interesting ways, so as to better allow a Spheres of Might user to share the table with others who aren’t using the system. The entire Spheres of Might system can be used with the custom classes and archetypes presented in this section of the site, or by any martial character through the investment of a few feats. With this much of a variable amount of investment, players can dip lightly or delve deeply into the system, depending on their concept and how familiar they are with the new options presented herein.
Basically it's not like you'll be totally gimped for not picking it, I just personally prefer and recommend spheres martials because it widens the options that combat classes have for how to build and make things simpler or easier to build in some areas (for example Dual Wielders just need to grab a sphere to use two weapons in an attack action). But this is not some path of war type overhaul where the new martials are more powerful in every way basically.
Speaking as a frequent GM, I wouldn't worry too much on that front. A skilled GM has nothing to gain from arbitrarily murdering their players' characters. Even if the narrative dictated that you come across a party-level encounter on your own, most GMs will usually adjust to provide some kind of out--maybe you see the encounter coming and can back off and gather reinforcements, or maybe there's a noncombat resolution or some other creative angle you can take. That said, there are limits; I wouldn't recommend challenging the Baron to a duel, for example. And of course, GMing styles range wildly, but I think from what I've seen that Kirth's philosophy is closer to what I've written here than not.
I guess I assumed it was more just that GMs don't pull punches all that much than 'arbitrarily killing a character'. Like you ran into an area alone that the GM's plot or the module says has a party level encounter, then there's still a party level encounter there (or at least something that he could find that tells him there's something big there) Although again maybe that's just the new player syndrome.
Touché. I haven't really read the tech guide I confess (And I was trying to avoid the more literal "Throwing actual modern tech at players" because I'm more trying to think of something that players could technically stroll up to a table with and start playing, (at least depending on the rules of the given game) And that also seems a bit too easy for my taste, because of course the tech guide's literal Sniper Rifles, Miniguns, Rocket Launchers, and Flamethrowers would be the primary way to make the sniper, heavy, soldier, and pyro respectively, but making it possible in a more normal game would be more difficult.
Second thank you all for reminding me of Rocket Arrows... Though alchemist is an Intelligence based class whilst you look at the dumbest, least charismatic, and least wise character in the game.
However I can say I'm reassured somewhat on some
I don't know why I'm on a tf2 kick let's try some more.
Sniper: 2 major builds.
Demoman: Again a few major builds.