ckafrica's page

I like the Gaming Den, although I don't dare post there.

The key word is "usually" - I have seen innocent questions being answered with "We've debated this endlessly in the past; do some ***** research and look up the earlier threads (but we aren't going to tell you what they are called or give any clues where they might be)"

There are enough there who will lead you in the right direction if you ask though yes I've seen what you describe (though only once off the top of my head and the person in question had built up some bad blood and categorically refused to go back to past threads on the topic) Mostly you have to be thick skinned and not feel defeated or abused when people tell you you're wrong. But I find a bunch yes men largely useless for progress anyways

I'm Still trying to track down the rumored PDF on his economic stuff but this particular PDF is precisely what it is: A look at Characters and their advancement.

this is the most recent pdf.

These are the threads where you can find the original posts before they were compiled by a third party.

Roguerouge you are free to steal whatever you want to the material with the authors blessing (I'm not them but they have expressed numerous times how they are delighted if anyone chooses to use their ideas, in part or in whole)

If you are interested in this work I suggest you checking out the Gaming Den (the above link) where these topics and more are discussed in a thoughtful and serious way. But be warned it is not a place for the thin-skinned, if you think the tone of the pdf is troubling than the tone of that forum will give you a bad feeling. The denizens are not bashful about calling a dumb idea a dumb idea (and often the person issuing said idea), though they will usually explain why the believe this to be true if you ask.

I had written a longer response to some others points but this forum is apparently still eating posts.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Well, for one, it won't just be a reprint of the 3.5 MM. It almost certainly won't have all the 3.5 monsters (time to cut the chaff) and probably will have some classics that were rereleased as Open content by other publishers.

And for two, we'll need to update all the monsters to take into account the PFRPG rules--skills consolidated or changed, new feats, more feats, etc.

Sure, you could use your 3.5 or even your 3.0 MM with PFRPG, but if you like PFRPG you're going to want the monsters to have the same treatment as the PCs. That is, if you're a GM. ;)

I'm somewhat hesitant to adopt Idea #1, but Idea #2 seems like a MUCH better option then what Evokers are currently getting. It scales better and adds oomph without making them overpowered.

how exactly is 5d6+20 at 20th level, even for free and assuming no concentration check, overpowered? Really, I want to know the rational.

J. Cayne wrote:

I find the current result unsatisfying though, since it seems to be trying to strike some middle ground that really isn't gratifying to either party.

Speak for yourself. Using the Alpha and now Beta rules in CotCT, I like many of the changes.

He did speak for himself that is what "I find" means.

Your idea of helping and my idea of helping is very different.

You seem to want fighters to need spellcasters in order to do there job by fluffing. Spellcasters make fighter adequate to join the battle when they could just be ending the battle themselves. (as the current power structure allows them to)

I want spellcasters to help the fighter by controlling the battle field and softening up enemies so the fighter can do his job easier.

If anything is essential for a archetype to function in the way that buffs seem to be for fighters, than they should directly incorporated into that class.

Pax Veritas wrote:

Look, the main idea is that PRPG was developed at a time when the grievous waters were troubled by a fourth edition that negated previous edition use.

Yes, but it will be sold at a time when this is far less pressing and the whole backwards compatibility issue may have taken a back seat compared to all the attention it got in good ol' 2008. You know, in a year 3.5 will feel the way 3.0 felt in 2004: a dead edition that's been left behind for a year already. 3.5ers had money burning in their pockets for a new RPG this year and bought the Beta, they'll have money next year buying the final product, no matter the (minor) protests to the contrary at the moment. Most importantly, like 4E it will sell like hot cakes even to people who don't intend to play but simply want to know what the whole thing was all about. (Remember: no free PDF next year!) It'll be the largest sales boost Paizo will ever see in a long, long time to come. No prob to drop some old Pathfinder consumers on the way to get that. I certainly don't blame them, and people actively looking forward to a new game openly embrace them for that.

We can only hope Paizo is listen to people like you

Most stories don't talk about buffing, because it is a mechanicial concept for a game. That doesn't mean that things like it don't happen. It might be the whispered words of encurragement and love of a lady to her knight before he goes of to war, the destracting intergection by a companian in a persephoni duel in firefly, a priests blessing and council or simply a spell of protection and a prophecy of success. Even a spartan wifes orders to return with your sheild or on it. Relatively little heroic litriture contains examples of distinct spells as are found in D'n'D, including the lord of the rings. Spell craft in traditional story telling has more incommon with the magic of artisia or Mage: The Ascention than the magic of worlds like the forgotten realms. You may not see it, but it is there.

Right and what does the mechanic provide. It requires that other characters give up opportunities be more productive so another class can be useful.

This might be ok in special situations like resistance against a dragon's breath or enhancing a sowrd before a battle against specific foe;

BUT EVERY SINGLE TIME SO HE DOESN"T FEEL SMALL IN THE PANTS??

There are spells that would allow great synergy with a truly powerful fighter. There is no bloody reason that spellcasters should feel they need to fluff the fighter and the fighters potency should be enough that he does not require regular fluffing to finish the scene

ckafrica wrote:

I just don't get where you get this fighter needs to be buffed BS. I've never encountered any source material that constantly requires the fighter to get fluffed by the spellcasters to become the hero.

I don't know about you but I want to have adventures that I read and watch.

And none of them have the fighter regularly screaming at his coleagues "MAKE ME HARD. MAKE ME HARD!!!"

LOL! Well put. I think you aren't reading about it because the monsters in books aren't nearly as nasty as the monsters in the game. It is just that simple.

Edit: I guess I could say that the monsters you read about in books and see in movies exist for only one purpose: to make the fighter hero look good. Can you say that is true about your average D&D monster?

Hellz yes. If they are not there to make the party look cool at the end of things why am I playing?

That's not to say it should be a cake walk, but monster should be designed to allow characters to look cool while they defeat them. And fluffing is not cool

ckafrica wrote:

No your meta-gaming ... and other good stuff...

Yes I am, but it is only to point out a difference in perspective. For what it is worth, I would like to see the fighter buffed as well, just with the utmost care so he does not become something other than a fighter. Decorating him with more trinkets (as the OP suggested) doesn't fit my idea of fantasy. Making him into "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon Ball Z" also doesn't meet my definition of a fantasy fighter. The problem is that the game was built around the sort of cooperation you abhor, so fighters were human rather than superhuman. You won't be satisfied until the fighter is the equivalent of the wizard (eg super human through gear or otherwise) and I won't be satisfied if he is, *and* I think if he were to become this superhuman, then major aspects of the game, from CR to the ability to buff others, would need to be re-examined to keep the game from just spinning out of control.

I guess my point is that I understand your and CoL's frustration, it is an ugly situation, but no easy fix exists. It isn't as simple as making the fighter much better, though. The game balancing factors (eg resources acquired and spent to accomplish goals) also has to change from being cooperative to competitive with corresponding examination of big things (can or should characters expected to be buffed before a fight? If so, who does the buffing? Why would they want to?), what magic items fighters can consume or use to further enhance their super powers (should the game assume fighters have a certain WBL? What sorts of assumptions about expenditures should the new fighter have at each level? Should he be expected to funnel resources into potions or will fights be scaled such that these sorts of things aren't needed and the fighter's powers alone are enough?) and the like.

I hope that the fighter can be made better without breaking the cooperative nature of the game, it becoming a supers game or the game becoming more like Gauntlet, where everyone just tries to "own the monsters", no one buffs anyone and every player races to be first to the treasure and food piles.

You're right. there are no easy fixes. There is a fundamental dichotomy between having high level spell casters and the fighters you describe standing side by side. You can not have a 20th level spell caster (heck 10th) standing next to any full BAB melee type without the caster glancing over and snickering at the meleer's inadequacy. They are not even on the same playing field and they haven't been since 5th. THe only reason they still are is because your mommy told the spellcaster to bring him along so his feelings would get hurt.

It's seriously like bringing your severely retarded cousin to come and play in a regular season football match. The only reason he accomplishes anything is because you convince your whole team, and the opposing team to let him run a play and get a touchdown to make him feel good.

NOW there are three alternatives. Gimp magic so it is comparable to what a top tier meleer can do (or play E6). Provide an outlet in which the meleer and achieve a level of effectiveness that compares to the current spellcaster. or some middle compromise which will ultimately make your fighter template more to your liking.

I'm fine with any of these as long as we do one of them and follow it honestly.

But fluffing has got to go. It is an insult to all involved that it has become deemed a standard necessity to allow the game to even attempt to run properly according to the math and mechanics.

Co-operation is having character tactics have ways to build on each other's actions to heighten their effectiveness. Not having the whole team postpone so one guy can feel involved.

ckafrica wrote:

You must not read or watch the same fantasy material I do...

Well the dragon examples really are not equivalent to D&D foes, are they? The dragons in D&D are pretty nasty, don't have "weak spots" in their armor, are wizards as well as fierce fighters and are especially cunning and intelligent, not falling for foreseeable traps. It is no wonder they fell to "normal" fighters in your examples. You look at these examples and think that the D&D fighter is weaker; I look at the example and say that D&D dragons are much stronger than found in fantasy. Maybe we should make dragons match our expectations rather than making fighters something they aren't in fantasy?

Regarding Drizzt, the much maligned dark elf *very* rarely meets a wizard in his wanderings. When he does, the wizard does nothing like what a D&D wizard would do and nowhere close to what a GamingDen wizard would do. Should the dark elf run into one of those, the novels would come to a very rapid end. He isn't even an example of anything in this case, except what a fighter can do when he never meets a mage worthy of a spellbook.

I just don't get where you get this fighter needs to be buffed BS. I've never encountered any source material that constantly requires the fighter to get fluffed by the spellcasters to become the hero.

I don't know about you but I want to have adventures that I read and watch.

And none of them have the fighter regularly screaming at his coleagues "MAKE ME HARD. MAKE ME HARD!!!"

ckafrica wrote:

Lich Loved wrote:

(Aside: why doesn't the party consist of all fighters with Wizard cohorts in these games I hear about when this issue comes up? Then the fighter-types can tell the wizard's player to not bother to show up at the table.)

Becuase the wizard cohort tells the fighter player not show up and the DM plays the game by himself

Bah, the cohort can be used to buff and manufacture for the fighter, who does all of the real work himself. It is only your inherent bias toward wizards' superiority that makes you view non wizards as useless. Fighters very well *could* hire wizardly help that did just that, couldn't they? And they could get it, wouldn't they? The wizard is only needed for a couple of things, and not even all of the time and then he can go stand in the back while the fighting men do the real work. In fact, without a mage sucking all of the party treasure, the fighters could buy more useful items and purchase spellcasting on an as-needed basis.

It is just a matter of perspective, really.

No your meta-gaming.

Think for a second. I'm a wizard who can reign unholy terror from the skies and I'm going to do what with my action; give some guy who swings a sword a +3 to hit and damage? When I can SoD the guy (and maybe the whole encounter) in a single action? When leaving the bad guy the possible chance of action could kill us all?

Apparently I must be playing WIS 3 to go with my min maxed INT 18 to do something that stupid. Remember this is roleplaying, life or death for the character I am playing. I would need to be smoking some pretty serious crack to make that my action priority; almost as much as when I let the fighter sign on as an equal partner.

And you get me wrong. I hate playing spell casters. I do. I hate rummaging through spell lists. I love playing a melee character. 90% of the characters I've played are them. And it is why I am so adamant they need to change.

...

With that being said, I do believe fighters could use a boost. I just wanted to make sure everyone here knew we were rehashing the same issue that has been talked about for months on dozens if not hundreds of threads. I am more than willing to concede that when the game is played outside its design boundaries (ie the fighter soloing a foe equal to his CR), the fighter does not perform as well as other character classes. I am also aware that when the game is not played cooperatively, where every player basically says: "How can I make you obsolete?", that the fighter fails to measure up.

You must not read or watch the same fantasy material I do...

Willow: fighter single handedly kills abomination dragon.

Beowulf: fighter single handedly fights and kills the dragon.

Salvatore: Drizzt kicking everything's but in the room without a friendly mage in the house

Midkemia (Fiest) The only people who can keep up with a real magic user are mortals imbued with godlike powers. Nobody else is playing the same game.

But back to mechanics...

Quite simply I don't want to play a character that depends on another to be effective. If the Mage doesn't need the fighter to play his part, why should the fighter need the mage to play his.

You might be happy with additives or your friends fluffing you to make you feel potent. I'd rather feel potent all on my own thank you

(Aside: why doesn't the party consist of all fighters with Wizard cohorts in these games I hear about when this issue comes up? Then the fighter-types can tell the wizard's player to not bother to show up at the table.)

Becuase the wizard cohort tells the fighter player not show up and the DM plays the game by himself

ckafrica wrote:

Paizo might want to claim this but it is fundamentally wrong. You will not be able to open up a 3e product and use it as is. You will have to examine the characteristics of all the statted encounters and spells and treasure and verify that it will conform to the new balance points. You might find that some 3e material will be usable with little to no adjustment but you will need to examin each and every statblock to make sure that something hasn't changed so that you will need some kind of adjustment to reflect the new paradigm.

Or if it were easy enough to do more-or-less on-the-fly, that would be OK.

Opinions as to how easy it is to produce a tolerable version of PFRPG material from 3.5 material will vary, I would imagine.

Sure in much the same way that it is possible to take 2e material and fit it into 3e at the beginning. Some people just guessed the some numbers and ran with with, others meticulously examined the MM to figure out where the balance was. But anyone thinking that they could run a monster with -2AC in 3e without some adjustment was smoking crack.

Paizo has already stated that a new MM is obviously in the works to take into account the changes made by pathfinder. That clearly means that changes are need to monsters to keep them on an even keel with the new pathfinder player rules

If I can run a 3.5 adventure, use a 3.5 statblock, or add a 3.5 feat to my character with little effort, then the system is 3.5 compatible.

I am running with Pathfinder Beta the Rise of the Runelords AP, a Paizo product and so arguably the best case for Paizo's interest in compatibility. I can do this with very little extra effort. Therefore the product is still compatible.

Those who claim BC should be abandoned must understand that we should still be able to play Pathfinder issues #1-24 in the Pathfinder RPG or it has actually failed to be a Pathfinder RPG.

Paizo might want to claim this but it is fundamentally wrong. You will not be able to open up a 3e product and use it as is. You will have to examine the characteristics of all the statted encounters and spells and treasure and verify that it will conform to the new balance points. You might find that some 3e material will be usable with little to no adjustment but you will need to examin each and every statblock to make sure that something hasn't changed so that you will need some kind of adjustment to reflect the new paradigm.

Someone mentioned a rerolling 1's and possible at later level 2's, I thought that wasn't a bad idea, and would up the damage without worrying about adding onto the roll.

We want to speed up turns not slow them down. Rerolling a d20 is one thing. reroll 10d6 because I rolled a crap load of 1s and 2s is not good. Just boost the damage make it d4+2 if it makes you feel better but evokers need to know that they will do enough damage in a real fight to matter or they might as well stay home and cry to mommy

Edit: And as far as making evocation as effective as SoDs, doesn't making equivalent level spells.... you know... equivalent... make sense??

One thing that no one has taken into account is the fighter's use of blur or displacement effects or the use of barkskin (or haste). These potions are cheap and effective and pay for themselves out of the treasure horde of these mid to high level foes. They provide miss chances, which, in the world of "AC is binary" means an effective AC boost of 20% or 50%, while haste makes spring attack more effective. These items boost armor class only when it is really needed, so the fighter can sink even more of his WBL into additional defensive potions and damage-dealing gear. Lastly, there is the caster to cast slow, enervation, or ray of enfeeblement. Why would a party not use these obvious advantages when fighting a melee brute?

I guess the answer to be one or more of the following:

* "Fighters are the sux" and are a resource drain, stealing treasure and valuable spells from the casters.

* Buffing fighters or allowing fighters to self-buff is a waste of the wizard's precious resources.

*Working together as a group is a waste of the caster's time.

Amirite?

The fundamental problem is that what exactly that a melee type can provide a party that the spellcaster cannot provide as a single action of its own class. Because as far as I can tell. Summon whatever of an appropriate level by itself replaces a fighter in most combat situation in a single spell! So why exactly should a caster feel obliged to burn a turn helping out a melee type when he can wholesale replace him within the exact same period of time

It surprises me that many people are clinging on the auspices of BC as it seems to me that it is as failed a concept of sub prime mortgages.

3P has invoked a fundamental shift in the balance philosophy of the game that was 3e D&D. spells, classes, races, feats and skills have all underwent a transformation. Is it good or bad, the jury is still out but the shift is clear and obvious.

This intrinsically means that that it will be out of whack of balance philosophy that WoTC aspired to create. (Of course it is obvious their balance philosophy was seriously flawed, or else this new edition wouldn't seem necessary, but i digress) The shift in balance throws all prior WoTC material, and any 3rd party material that sought balance within WoTC rubric, in conflict with the new 3P material.

This explicitly means that players and DMs will have to carefully examine all prior material and analyze it balance within the new 3P framework. This will be a mammoth undertaking for players who accept the delusion that this compatibility exist. It is frankly akin to think a modern spell caster could fairly interact with a d&d spell caster because they were of similar character levels.

Obviously there are intrinsic strengths to the OGL d20 mechanics that are worth preserving. where there not, there would not have been the massive support that the system has received. None of us would be here if it didn't.

But BC is inhibiting Paizo from overcoming major flaws in the WotC design and preventing this organization, that has developed a name for itself as a leading purveyor of this flexible system, from achieving the systematic changes required to transcend the errors of their predecessors.

"Sacred cows" and "that's the way we've always done it" mentality is the pattern of reactionaries. If Paizo wants to be visionaries of the Gaming world, they need to go beyond what has been done and look at what is fundamentally best for the system they truly want to achieve.

Turin the Mad wrote:

That wasn't the objective for this thread (although that may unintentionally be the end result). Melee characters are always relevant imo. I did not believe that I had steered in the direction of whether any character is relevant... that was certainly NOT the intent.

It's not you, it's this Bagpuss guy.

Hey Bagpuss. We heard you the first twenty times. What more do you want?

Sam

we'd like you to recognize the problem that there is still a serious problem with the melee character and their ability to perform their described role.

Until the problem is corrected people will continue to make noise.

Look, I know you want to win. You can't. I'm sorry, but you blew it a while back. The logical thing to do at this point is to accept that we don't agree, we will never game together so it doesn't matter, and draw a veil over the whole thing. Especially as it is quite clear that what you want (a whole new fighter class with powerful class abilities) is not going to happen in PF for backwards-compatibility issues, if nothing else. So this then just becomes pointless flaming, which serves no purpose for you or me.

THere is a purpose, and that is to make a better game. Obviously for the people who are coming here regularly to debate these points it is an important thing to do. We want Paizo to fix the problems that have be clearly identified by many people over the years so that we can go to Conventions, sit down with a ruleset and expect it to function properly.

People who want change are always shirked by those who don't. We won't be out shouted down nor be dismissed by false arguments. This is important to us or we would be elsewhere doing other things. We might fail in achieving our goal, but it will not be you who tells us we have.

If you assume the feats have been properly scaled and balanced. the BAB requirement should be telling you what level this ability is appropriate. If you can suddenly get it sooner it will be potentially unbalancing to the game. That would be like allowing spellcasters to take certain spells one level sooner.

Remember prerequisites should exist to assure that powers enter the game at an appropriate time in relation to their power level

Personally, I like fighters being able to follow whatever path suits them as their character develops. It is different from the ranger, who must make a choice and stick with it. The fighter gets more versatility overall, being able to focus in on multiple fighting styles and techniques.

That, and it keeps them relatively simple, which is something I think is one of the classes' strong points.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Ok well if you're going to do that, then make sure that fighter feats do not build on each other.

You want fighters to be simple an versatile? Get rid of this feat chain nonsense and each feat stand on its own whether they are taken at level 1 or level 20.

If feats build on top of each other, you are removing the fighter's versatility because they stream characters down a set track of a certain feat chain.

KaeYoss wrote:

1. Too Generic: I consider that its strength.

I wonder if the Fighter was made so simple because some people love having a simple character. It's also a great character to start new players off with. Even some veteran players just don't have the patience for more complicated characters. I've gamed with several people who played fighters for the sole purpose of how simple they were. They didn't want to keep track of how many spells they have per day, what spells they can cast, what the spells can do, how they work, what weird special class feature gets triggered in which circumstance, blah blah blah... they just wanna hack and slash some stuff!

Some people love the standard issue Human Fighter and consider it's simplicity a good trade for playing at a disadvantage. I really don't think many players believe the fighter is something it's not. They know it isn't as awesome as other classes but they despise flipping through books between every turn and the only counter they want to keep track of is their HP. I really don't see any reason to ban it from someone's game table. However I do see why people want to improve it and I like what Paizo has done so far with it.

Fighters are not simple. To make a good fighter is a complicated affair of balancing thousands of feats to make yourself useful. It is incredibly easy to make a crappy undepowered fighter. There is not protection in the class to prevent inexperienced players from screwing it up. They are second only to the SOrceror for being incredibly easy to screw up

You got a new player give them a barbarian (well maybe not with 3P but 3.5 for sure). Rage and smash, as simple as that. Rogues are simpler as well. flank and shiv.

[My understanding was that classes published in 3.5 splatbooks are generally more powerful than the 3.5 core classes, and the changes in PF are intended to bring them up to the power level of these classes. So most splatbook stuff should be usable as written. And for core, if you've got a character or monster from an old module who you now feel is underpowered, in many cases you could just add a level or HD rather than rewriting them. Also, in most cases PF adds things rather than taking them away, making conversion fairly quick. As Jason says in the introduction to Beta:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I wanted to make sure that any rules we changed were adaptable to the extensive body of work that exists for the 3.5 rules set. In addition to being compatible, I wanted to ensure that any conversion work would be minimal. In most cases, this meant adding to existing rules, instead of subtracting from them.

From this I understand that "backwards compatible" is intended to mean "easy to adapt" rather than "requiring no adaptation".

Well I think most of the base classes from the splats are worse than most of the CORE, but that has been debated and not really the point of this thread.

Concerning Jason's statement, it seems to me that BC has been broken throughout the 3P process. Think of all the old Domains, how do I use any of the hundred or so domains that have not been converted? That is more than just a minor adaption. Though one could do piecemeal, it does really mean that all old material is all at DM's discretion while before, I would have generally allowed anything WoTC, with a few noted exceptions, I'd now want to carefully want to look over it all before OKing it.

I guess I take issue with the concept because it seems disingenuous. BC is giving the impression that 3P will work like a charm with the old material when really it's gonna take a lot more shoehorning to fit.

Backwards compatibility - you can use old stuff with PRPG.

Yeah that is exactly what I said I thought it was.

I really don't see the need why Bob, the NPC Fighter that needs to die in encounter #4 should be fully converted to all new feats/skills/abilities of PRPG. You can simply run his 3.5 statblock and players probably won't notice the difference. Yeah, they will kill him a bit easier, but then again, the point of the game in a way is for them to win anyway.

well besides the obvious problem that it means new players to the game would have to pick up a WOTC PHB so they can luck up all the old stuff, I guess I'm fine with that.

But then it really doesn't matter what the old fighter used to be like when considering what the new fighter will now does it. Really BC doesn't apply as long as it fits the old CR system.

Like everything ever before. The point is that you can use them. You can take magical item from The Uninspirationally Named Book of Magical Items and use it with the PRPG if you want.

Oh good that means you'll have no problem running characters with save or dies from the spell compendium? Because if BC is in effect you can't complain when I pull stuff out of these sources.

Unsurprising. Paizo needs a PRPG monster book anyway, since D&D MM is eventually going to disappear off the shelves.

Again my point regard people's need to pick up these disappearing books to continue to use old modules... or converting them themselves which defeats the purpose of having published adventure in the first place.

ckafrica wrote:

So, am I missing something about BC?

Yes, you are. It is extremely naive to think that PRPG is simply some fix to 3E D&D. It is a system for itself. It will have its own monster books, splatbooks and campaign setting(s). However, being similar to 3E D&D it will enable you to use your old d20 material. Yes, the XYZ feat from Complete Warrior will probably be less desirable for your players. That doesn't mean that they can't take it if it somehow fits their character concept.

Where exactly did I state that PRPG is a fix to 3e? It's extremely ignorant of you to claim I said something I never said. Please don't do it again.

Sure I might be able to use some things from the old splats after carefully examining each but so many mechanics, spell and feats will have been changed, including the balance point of them (as soon as SoDs where nerfed the who balance threshold shifted) but the reality is I will have to assume most of it doesn't fix like the 3.0 to 3.5 shift, rather than assuming that it does.

As best as I can see BC is either going to require a Comprehensive conversion manual, or I'm gonna have to wait for splats to be translated in 3P. And as such have BC restricting the developers ability to make improvements to the system makes me look as BC as a white elephant personally.

How do you like them apples?
If you take damage from an opponent, you may make a standard action attack which gets and equal bonus to damage as the damage THAT opponent did to you that round (after DR). (Maybe can do it as part of a charge)

Example: a lvl3 barbarian (ST 24 enraged) gets hit for 15 damage by an ogre and by a goblin for 4. In return the Barb hits the ogre with his greatsword and does 2d6+10+15

Well, for one, it won't just be a reprint of the 3.5 MM. It almost certainly won't have all the 3.5 monsters (time to cut the chaff) and probably will have some classics that were rereleased as Open content by other publishers.

And for two, we'll need to update all the monsters to take into account the PFRPG rules--skills consolidated or changed, new feats, more feats, etc.

Sure, you could use your 3.5 or even your 3.0 MM with PFRPG, but if you like PFRPG you're going to want the monsters to have the same treatment as the PCs. That is, if you're a GM. ;)

Okay, I've already stated that I'm not sure BC is important, but at this point I'm not even sure what it IS supposed to accomplish.

As I understand it, BC refers to the desire to allow 3.x and d20 and OGL material be compatible with the new pathfinder rule chasis. This should allow things like old modules and splatbooks to be fully compatible with new system.

Am I wrong on this?

I as because as best as I can see it:
The classes are all different so any NPCs in previously published material won't be compatible and need a rewrite.;
Any old spells, feats, or magic items will likely need the same treatment as they will either be over or underpowered to the new power curve.
Now we are told (if we hadn't figured it out already) that the monsters of 3e will also need a rewrite to truly fit with pathfinder.

This basically says to me that nothing other than flavor text at this point is backwards compatible.

So, am I missing something about BC?

You can go over to the gaming den www.tgdmb.com There is PM over there. You might find some of the discussions interesting. it could make you a bit of a pariah though

Having one feat build on what another one does is okay as long is doesn't seem necessary in order for the first feat to be remain viable. If I have to take improved TWF to make me feel good about have regular TWF at this level, than it's a bad thing.

All feats should feel cool no matter what level you are so you can take a feat at any level and not feel bad about having taken it. If you ever stop caring about a certain feat on your character sheet, than that feat sucks.

ANd just so I can put it out there before I forget the thought, if these are going to scale, they should either scale by BAB or ECL. Fighter level could maybe be used as a pre-requisite but they should scale independently or else you screw any multi-classing.

[quote"Jason Nelson"]
I agree in principle here. I might spread it out slighly more like so:

1st feat - basic application
2nd feat - scaling improvement
3rd feat - icing on the cake

In fact, it might be better to call these feats 1, 2A, and 2B, because you could take one without the other.

In the case of TWF, this would basically be:

1st feat - Ambidexterity (in the 3.0 sense) and TWF - you can use a weapon equally well with either hand, and you can do basic TWF. I might even add TW Defense as a basic feature.

2nd feat - All BAB-scaled increases to attack (ITWF, GTWF, Supreme TWF, Extra-Gnarly-Mega-TWF, whatever) and defense (ITWD, etc.)

3rd feat - TW Rend, TW Pounce, Double Slice, and whatever other TWF doo-dads are out there that I'm too lazy to go look up

Look, the diff between 2 feats and 3 is not huge, but adds comparative value to the fighter vs. other martial classes, in that they are best able to do the big stacks and more of them.

See here is where I completely disagree. Unless I pick it before 6th level, your first feat will aways seem too little too late. The point is any feat should make you feel good about taking it no matter what level you take it. I don't mind one building on another other as long as the first one is always good no matter what.

This "well I'll take this so I can get that" has got to go. There are no spells which are prerequisites for other spells are there? In the real world where most players don't get past 10th level, using up 3 feats to finally do their main shtick well is cruel.

My final point is that fighters are supposed to my multi-faceted jack of all trade warriors, this means that they should be freaking cool at manythings not just sort of cool at many or really good at one and not even worth mentioning in the rest.

I too made a charge monkey once and while if is charge hit it could often take something nearly down, once he couldn't charge he might as have not even been there. I don't want to play a fighter like that again.

Whirlwind Attack [General]
Prerequisites:
Int 13+
Dex 13+,
base attack bonus +4 or higher
15th level.

Benefit: When the character performs the full attack action, he or she can give up all regular attacks and instead make one melee attack at the full base attack bonus against each opponent within 5 feet.

Just to point out that there is no point to require BAB of 4 if your gonna have 15th level pre-requisite.

Whirlwind should be level 4 at most.

It is a basic shtick that any martial type should be able to wade through a bunch of low level mooks who step up. It serious doesn't even matter if you are fighter level appropriate things because hitting 4 fire giants surrounding you with a single attack is about as effective as slapping them. You're just going to make them made.

Well if you want fighters to be special than you can really be giving out their main toys to others. jason has said feats will be the only mechanic that allows fighters to be useful so if you start giving away his only mechanical advantage, then he really has nothing he couldn't get somewhere else and have gravy on the side for free

I say K.I.S.S. and go 2a or 3. one of the reasons I've never been a fan of making spellcasters is I don't like the paperwork

andreww wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I am more than happy to discuss fighter design choices and options, but I want to keep the class simple. This more than likely means that Feats the way to give some balance to the class and I have a host of ideas on how to do this, but it will not be discussed until the Feats chapter.

I think the really starts from a false premise. The fighter is not a simple class to create. It may be relatively simple to play, as it lacks many meaningful options, but actually creating a fighter which can contribute to even an average group requires you to think carefully about feat choices, pre requisites and prestige classes.

If you want a simple beginners class then the Barbarian is probably your best choice.

Asking a beginner to pick multiple feats from dozens (hundreds if you include splat books) of options is a recipie for frustration.

+1

Fighters have never been a simple class - that has traditionally been the Barbarian.

Though the new barbarian is not as simple as it once was either.

I have certainly gnashed my teeth trying to work out a good fighter build that would fit a theme.

Squirrelloid wrote:

How are we expected to discuss the fighter without discussing feats?

You need to understand that a number of feats are probably going to be rewritten when we get to the feats chapter. I know this limits the discussion on the fighter a bit, but this discussion is going to get really off topic if we start mulling over all the feats. This gets even more true when we get to spellcasters.

I am not saying that you cannot discuss feats, but right now I am focused on the structure of the classes and their abilities. I think the fighter needs some improvement in his weapon and armor training, but is otherwise close to where he needs to be (assuming that the feats get an upgrade).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I guess the problem is with feats being the center of what makes the fighter a fighter, and with us not being able look at what the fighter is going to be able to do with the feats you are promising, how can we judge the effectiveness of the balance of the trainings.

For example depending on what is ultimately done with wpn focus/specialization and power attack will affect how we deem the effectiveness of wpn training.

I appreciate that your trying to compartmentalize everything so you can your team is not overwhelmed but characters are more fluid than that.

I'm in disagreement, inexperienced players have the DM to help them, if you hand a new player a stack of books, you're crazy...

Right well what happens when you've got a whole new group without much experience, DM included? I'd like to see the need for game mastery to be diminished so that new players can look at something quickly, think "that sounds cool", and have it actually be cool.

As for feat trees, I hated having to take dodge to get something good up the track. Sure it's better now but why can't I just get the feat I want when the developers decide it's appropriate. Level requirements, and MAYBE an attribute requirement should be sufficient for most. It would produce the same effect.

I think the Fighter class should be exclusively focused on all things fighting. If you want to be good at other things as well, that is what multi-classing is for.

I completely agree that there are archetypes for warriors that would be good at diplomacy and/or notice, or a variety of other abilities.
But a Fighter/Rogue, Fighter/Ranger, or even Fighter/Bard is better suited for building these characters.
There is also the archetype of the pure fighter and the guy who sticks to straight fighting gets a bit of an edge in the pure combat to the guy who has more rounded capabilities.

I'd even prefer Survival be thrown back out.

But Notice and Diplomacy do not belong in the pure martial superiority package.

So what are fighters supposed to do when the fight isn't happening, sharpen his sword using craft?

Soldiers should have notice. Guard duty anyone? Not much use posting guards you have even odds at noticing a herd of elephants marching through.

Diplomacy, ( and arguably Bluff too), should be available too unless we are not expecting our fighters to become generals at higher levels.

Heal, while mechanically fairly useless (though I basing that on the 3.X rules rather than any changes pathfinder might have made)also makes sense as it is little more than the kind of first aid you hope any fighter worth his salt would know.

I'd even argue stealth skills as fighters are not always limited to pitched battles charging in.

Really what harm is giving more options. unless the fighter is blowing tons of attribute points on int, he won't be able to use them all anyways (though I'll add my voice to 4 sp for the fighter at this point as 2 is really sad for everyone but the wizard (and he should get more too)

I realize this might be a lost cause but I don't think an ever expanding series of feats is something that will make fighters better or keep them simple. In fact the more feats you add (especially when they are geared towards the fighter) the more complicated the fighter becomes.

This is because the added feats makes it increasingly difficult of make good decisions regarding feat selection. You can end up with so many choices you have no idea what is good for your character. It might not be a problem for experienced players like most of us are but it definitely adds to the confusion of new players

For example: The last game I played we had 2 new players for whom we HAD to choose feats for them because when we showed them the stack of books to choose from the said we had to be kidding. Heck even from core they had a hard time knowing what was what.

Feat trees are also bad for the game because the theory of them seems to be that they replace other power scaling mechanics. Problem here is if you end up not taking one you are now behind the curve. Again experienced players will likely clue in but new ones will very likely miss it. The result is the character gets accidently nerfed by player error. It is only the illusion of choice when any other choice other than continuing up the feat tree would be foolish.

It also niches most fighters at early levels into one trick ponies. One of my last melee types was a charge machine. He did crazy damage on the charge but once he was in melee, he had to either disengage or do a fraction of the damage in foot to foot melee. Because we were relatively low level I had only enough feats to be really good at one thing, and when i couldn't do it I sucked. When I finally had the feats to expand into other areas, the entry feats just weren't that good for the level I was at. It was going to take several levels before my second trick was going to be level appropriate.

Instead of boatloads of fighter feats, could fighters get a series of fighting styles that scale automatically (based on BAB would be my suggestion). They could be attack style or weapon group specific; others opponent specific. Some could be restricted to higher fighter levels to prevent level dipping for the best ones. The main idea, in my mind, would be each one would allow the fighter to be good a something, no matter what the level, without having to keep on stacking the feats. you could even provide limited access to the other martial classes where appropriate.

With all the pages allotted to the sorceror's and wizard's and cleric's new toys, is it unreasonable to do the same for the much lamented figher?

David Fryer wrote:

To clarify, as I understand it, an optimizer is someone who enjoys the challenge of creating an ubermensch character.

Munchkin is derogatory, whereas an optimizer is just someone who appreciates the math behind a character.

Munchkins will make impossible characters simply because they want to make it, prove it, or ruin it. They don't care about the game, only their character and their power.

An optimizer plays the game, but plays it well. This is a pretty broad group label, though, so it can't be brought down much more than someone who likes the mechanics, but not at the sake of fun and game.

Exactly. People are demonized here for wanting the game to be balanced. I want want to be able to play a fighter or monk and not feel like I've become dead weight by level 10 (if not earlier). I want to be able to play a spellcaster without feeling that I should be pulling punches so that my teammates don't feel like THEY are dead weight.

The best optimizers I know don't play crazy "broken" characters despite the ones they post in CO boards. Because that would be no fun. My experience is they produce the most interestingly themed and well conceived characters I've ever seen, plus they back them up with crazy awesome back stories that merit publishing.

CO boards are meant to illustrate weaknesses in the existing rules so hopefully designers can fix them. How exactly is that a bad thing?

Remember that a good save progression is more than just a +2 at the beginning it is that improved progression as long as you follow that class. And when you multiclass you will get that +2 again if the new class doesn't normally have the good save progression.

Honestly I can see a lot of Dwarven thieves and elven cleric builds if this was instituted.

If you really want to give them bonuses you should find another mechanic. this one has abusable written all over it, sorry.

But my point is.. That the level of 'power' should be subdivided into the roles (Wheeeeeeee) of how the classes fit into a group.

During a well balanced Adventure or story each role should be needed.

If a Wizard can out 'Fight' A fighter in the fighters role then something is broken and it needs to be fixed.

A wizard should always 'outclass' a fighter, but only in its role.

Exactly and the problem is that a wizard can be better at dealing with the sorts of encounters a fighter can.

Judging by "roles" is problematic because nothing that mandates you have one person of each "role" in your group. Because the designers didn't dictate that each party must have and X,Y and Z class, we can't know what a party will be made of. The only way to insure that a party can always be viable is to insure that each class individually is a viable and roughly equal contributor. If I need to reduce the CR of my encounters when I have a party of martial characters (and I almost had such a party once) than that is indicative that their is an inherent weakness in some classes.

When this fighter vs. Spellcaster thing first came up we put together a party of clerics and wizards and ran them through a few levels of an old campaign. It was scary how much better they performed (I don't have any notes of it sorry).

It would be nice is Paizo can look at this problem carefully, pick a balance point and fix this.

The problem with the idea to me is that it gives nothing to the dwarf or elf who has picked a class that has a good progression for the save already and it will allow you to do some multiclassing cheese where as a dawrf 1/1 thief mage I'm getting 4 fort bonus where I would otherwise have none.

It will actually make it better not to play a class that has a high progression for the race in question.

Give something to a race based on the class they take is bad in my books because it means you are penalized for making a choice that can not benefit from it. If you instituted this you would likely see less dwarven fighters and clerics when they are supposed to be the iconic classes for these races

Linking a mental stat to a martial feats maximum bonus is not good because it requires a player to focus on an attribute that has has otherwise tertiary for him (I know int has other values but they are not critical for a fighter). Martial Characters already have enough attributes to focus on, if they need to pump up, one more than they will be spread even thinner.

OK, what if all players got a flat out damage bonus equal to their BAB and we threw PA out entirely? Would that give the Martial characters the damage bumb they need without the need for the complicated math you had to do for PA 3.5?

Firstly, I never accused optimizers of not roleplaying.

Sorry a bit of generalization perhaps going on in different arguments that pop up from different people. My apologies.

And no, blasters haven't been fun because of the big fistful of dice. The fistful of dice is annoying and takes forever to calculate.

I agree with the annoy yet to me its still fun to see all those dice go...

...but even an extremely bright character could simply enjoy the sense of power and sheer visceral joy that comes with reducing something to a pile of ashes. Possible with non-blasting spells, certainly, but usually much less spectacular.

I guess this perhaps one of pet peeves where flavor and mechanics get mixed up. I don't see why you can't say a save or die like finger of death doesn't leave a seared corpse if that's you're thing (cooking with negative energy?)

You need to have feats that allow skills to go above and beyond what they can normally do. But it can't just be wimpy little stuff. It needs to be something that scales and stays relevant. example:

Super Jump
Where leaping and flying meet.

benefits:

Jump rank 4: All jump rolls are at half DC

Jump 9: You can move in any direction at your normal movement until the end of your turn. If you don't land on a solid surface, you will fall as normal.

Jump 14: You can fly at double your normal movement for up to your STR or Dex bonus number of rounds, your CON bonus times a day.

That is just a beginning of the top of my head. A little cheesy and someoone can probably do better, but its something I wouldn't feel bad sinking a feat into.

Crusader of Logic wrote:

Alright. Put yourself in the character's shoes a moment, which is the definition of roleplay (imagine your fictional character as if they were a real person and play them accordingly)....
When I say blasting is stupid, it is a stupid choice for the character to make especially given their high Intelligence and/or Wisdom considering the way their world works. Declaring that blasting is 'fun' is a metagame concept because you enjoy rolling lots of D6s. Funny thing is I can actually argue at this point the blaster wizard is being a dirty munchkin for putting metagame before observable in character traits. I will not, because I refuse to misuse the English in that way.

You know, what, rolling all those dice IS a lot of fun...

I think you are missing the point. Of course it's fun to roll to fist fulls of dice

But IF you are claiming to be a "true roleplayer" who immerses themselves into their roles, than you should be studying the most effective spells rather than ones which out of character are more fun. This is the right thing to do RP wise because you are a wise and/or intelligent entity who would be able to recognize the most power spells to learn and would learn them. To otherwise is to not RP to the characters natural potential.

(this of course explains why sorcerors are high CHA characters, if they were smart or wise they would be wizards or cleric; also they need to BS people to convince them of a sorceror's worth)

Those paragraphs are obviously BS but no more BS than accusing optimizers of not roleplaying.

This is ultimately what is the matter with the current imbalance, some concepts are cool but less than ideal. Some people say to hell with it an play the concept anyways. Good for them. Some say "wait why do they present me with this option only to make it not really that good?" and feel trapped that the mechanics of the game make our favorite concepts mechanically bad choices.

We therefore request that this be investigated and dealt with

ckafrica wrote:

Honestly, if you've never noticed the imbalances we're talking about why would even care if they were addressed?

Because I'd prefer the developers spend their time addressing meaningful issues rather then weird corner cases. People who want to break the game will always break the game. Nothing a game designer can do will stop this.

I really don't see what could be more meaningful than a major class imbalance but hey, I guess we each have our own priorities.

And to bring this back to Topic, this is why the new PA is no good, it reduces a fighters effectiveness rather then helping bring it in line with casters

ckafrica wrote:

I believe that Squirreloid meant was not that a plus one would have no mathemathical effect, but that the bonus effect would seem barely noticeable. I used to be hitting on 10 and now its 9, wow! You need larger number variations for the player to really FEEL the effect of the bonus. +3 so now I hit on a 7, that is a bonus I'm much more likely to notice more immediately and regularly.

The point is when compared to getting other feats like shock trooper, why would you really care about a small bonus on only one weapon-type? I'd certainly like be getting more out of my iconic class ability (as a fighter)

You're assuming the PC is always rolling the exact minimum to hit. The actual perception is "well, I used to hit from 10 to 20. Now I hit from 9 to 20." I would rather hit 11 out of 20 times rather than 10 out of 20. The advantage of Weapon Focus is the stacking with other abilities to eventually provide a huge difference.

No I'm not but regardless the only time the bonus does actually matter is when it allows you to hit when you would not have without it. Frankly I expect more out of my feats than a one in 20 bump. If it added damage and crit range too, I might be more game but as it stands no thanks.

Characters need more than just more numbers, they need more options. that is what I think feats should do.

2) Others: What are some things you would seriously considering house ruling into the Pathfinder Core?

If Paizo doesn't fix martial-caster disparity than Bo9S would have to go in as filler but at that point I might as well stick to 3.5