grynning's page

This post is directly addressing Mr. Bulmahn in the second person, because it's easier for me to write that way. It is not meant to be disrespectful.

So, first, congratulations on an excellent book - I really like it overall, especially the race and class changes, as well as some of the mechanical tweaks. I know there's been a lot of disagreement over skills, but as someone who honest-to-god loves playing fighters, I have a different issue with Alpha 1.1.

Combat Feats. On almost every thread I've posted on so far, I end up talking about them. I didn't realize I was doing it at first, but now that I have, I feel a need to fully construct my opinion on this matter.

It is generally accepted that melee-oriented characters, particularly Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins have very few options beyond "I attack" when it comes to D&D combat. While flowery (gory?) description of your agile twists and powerful lunges can up the fun to a degree, combat for these classes is heavily lacking mechanical variety. Many times, authors have attempted to correct this, by adding new feats, publishing new mechanics (Maneuvers from WoTC's Tome of Battle, for example) or trying to create new melee classes with magical enhancements (Duskblade, Gish Prc's, etc.) or bard type abilities (Knight and Marshall). But the issue remains: The Fighter, one of the Big Four, probably the first class to be invented for role-playing games, is, well, lame.

I understand that Combat Feats were an attempt to fix this. Fighters would now have a wider selection of feats to choose from, and would have to make tactical decisions as to which was best for the situation, just like spell casters. This is not a bad idea.

My issue is twofold. One, that some of the utility, bread-and-butter type feats from 3.5 (Dodge, Mobility, Manyshot, Throw Anything, etc) have been placed into this category, reducing the Fighter's effectiveness round-by-round (which is already low compared to spell casters). Yes, it nerfs them. These feats are all nice to have, and work well in *combination* with other feats, but are simply not worth turning on once you get better feats. Essentially, it limits options even further, since you can't use feat combinations to achieve better effects . Your combat just becomes "Use a defensive feat, and attack" or "Use an offensive feat, and attack."

Two, none of the combat feats available are that enticing. If I can only use one feat per round, and I have to be level 11 to get a particular feat, that feat needs to do something on par with shape-shifting into a giant or taking out multiple enemies with a single action (both things that a 11th level caster can do).
Some examples:

Deft Shield and the other feats in the chain. Being able to attack with a shield and not lose my AC bonus from it was something I could already do in 3.5, and the 3.5 version was actually BETTER (since it didn't require TWF as a prerequisite, which wastes valuable ability points on Dex, and didn't require the hit to connect). Shield Master is alright, but again, lackluster for level 11.

The new version of Manyshot requires a full-attack. Adding one extra attack to a full attack (with no extra precision damage for the rogues/scouts/etc) is very weak for a feat that high up in the requirements ladder. Not being able to use it in conjunction with Shot-on-the-Run as you could before is grating.

Weapon Swap is...erm, ok, yeah, it's nice to only have to carry one weapon, but I'm a TWO-weapon fighter. It's pretty pointless, and yet it's a requirement for the best two-weapon feat. (I understand it lets you use your main hand weapon for all attacks. There is very, very, little mechanical benefit for doing so, and most TWF'ers will have identical or near identical weapons in each hand anyways).

I won't dissect each other feat individually, but overall, the Combat Feats are disappointing. The only one that I like the change to is Cleave.

My suggestion is to either eliminate the mechanic entirely, which would put Fighters back at their 3.5 level of power...meh...

OR, keep it, but remove all of the original 3.5 feats from the list (i.e. they can be used in the same round as other feats) and add a new set of truly unique combat feats that are as fun and useful as spells. Tactical Feats and Maneuvers from WotC supplements are a good inspiration. The 2nd Edition of the Conan RPG by Mongoose has new feats and "extra" combat actions (basically feats you get for free if you meet the pre-reqs)that include things like removing limbs, doing damage with parries, instantly decapitating someone with a well-executed attack of opportunity, and so on. Those are great fun, and I would suggest looking over that book.

Thanks for reading this, to whoever does so (hopefully J.B. is among them). I hope that this will have at least some influence on the game's final design. My only desire is for the Fighter, the multi-scarred, limping and battered veteran of 10 years of punishment, will find his feet and reclaim his (or her) former glory. I want people to remember that steel, strength, and rigorous martial training were the real-life tools of medieval combat, and respect those who embrace that.

*Snip*

Perfect as is, as a Combat Feat.

I said it earlier in this thread, but I have to re-iterate that it being a "Combat Feat" negates the majority of its usefulness. +1 to AC is good, yes. But if you have a choice between that and all of the neat attacks and other stuff that's included in combat feats every round, it will either never be turned on, or it will always stay on, and make for really really dull combats for its user. The whole point of combat feats is to provide more options in combat, but with so many of the very basic 3.5 feats included in it (Dodge being the Ur-example), it has the opposite effect. Things like Dodge, Precise Shot, etc. should be passive, you should not have to sacrifice your "maneuver" for the round to use them.

Edit: /rant
Speaking of maneuvers from ToB, I've never been a huge fan, but I recognize that they brought a lot more variety and choice to melee than the plain old feat system. Combat Feats are the worst of both worlds, though - think about it. Playing a fighter under this system is like playing a 3.5 sorceror who can only learn 20 spells over the entire course of their levels, all of which either do damage or up AC and have a duration of one round. Nobody would play that class.

Power Attack really was a bit OP in 3.5 - particularly when combined with Shock Trooper from CW and a few other feats. My main problem with it was that it was simply THE BEST way for melee'ers to deal enough damage, so every Fighter, Barbarian and Paladin in the game was pretty much forced to use it (with a two-handed weapon, of course) to stay useful. To paraphrase how one poster on the GITP forums put it: "Are we really to believe that the ultimate martial technique is a first level feat that boils down to 'Hit your target really, really hard'?"

Combat Expertise was fine, but as I said in the other thread on this same topic, it always bothered me that it wasn't defined explicitly as being the same as fighting defensively (since there are several feats/items/etc that trigger from doing so). I'm all in favor of CE being a static bonus to AC/Saves/whatever that you receive when fighting defensively or using total defense.

To address people that seem to think people are complaining the new PA is too powerful - that is not the issue.
The problem is that it makes it nigh impossible for creatures with very high strength to hit anything if they turn on Power Attack, meaning it becomes useless for high strength monsters who usually have it as part of their stat block in 3.5, and causes another compatibility issue.
I believe J.B.'s heart is in the right place in this one though - PA was one of the most abusable and annoying feats in 3.5, and it made all other melee fighting styles sub-optimal by comparison. The guy who originally designed the feat has said he should have made it a static bonus.
I also think the double-duty from Str. bonus should be removed. Two-handed weapons already receive extra damage from strength, and one-handed weapons really need a comeback - almost no one uses the humble longsword or battleaxe anymore, because the two-handed weapons are that much better.

My solution is similar to those listed above, but I think it should remain static so that you don't have as much hemming and hawing over how much to dump into it. Just leave it based on Str. bonus (and Deadly Aim based on dex), but cap it at your BAB (so no monster could lose more than their BAB, but characters would still gain max. benefit from high Strength as they level).

As far as Combat Expertise goes, yeah, this one needs help. I would like to keep a unified mechanic with PA/DA, but it just doesn't work in practice. Maybe Combat Expertise could be re-worked entirely, and just provide additional benefit for fighting defensively? I never liked the split between fighting defensively and using Expertise anyways, it was a fuzzy point in the rules. Leave the Int requirement, but just have it add +2 to AC and Reflex saves and when fighting defensively or using total defense.
Edit: Or, if we wanted Combat Expertise to scale better with level, have it add +1 to AC and Reflex saves per 3 or 4 points of BAB when fighting defensively or using total defense. Per 3 points makes it work out evenly for 3/4 BAB to +5, per 4 makes it work out to +5 for full BAB chars but reduces it's effectiveness for the other 2 scales.

I find the above feat "paths" far superior to the combat feats as they are. If combat feats are going to have the one per round limit, then the category should be reserved for the more powerful/complex actions.

When I get home from work, I think I'll cook up something similar for the ranged attack feats, and possibly add them here, as I think bow/thrown weapon users suffer greatly from reduced options in pathfinder.

Anyways, Kudos to Saracenus.

I completely agree that Dodge should *not* be a "Combat Feat" Dodge becomes next to worthless when turning it on negates your use of your other melee feats for the round. I also find the whole idea of "only one combat feat per round" odious - the problem of melee fighters having few options is not solved by making them choose between the abilities they already had.
Please, sir, remove the restriction on combat feats. I guarantee that if I DM the game, I will not apply it to my players, and it bothers me even now trying to play it. Wait, I can only Dodge OR hit something with my shield this round? Well, crap, guess I'll just go back to "hit it with my sword" and keep my AC up...sigh...
I can't use Throw Anything and Shot on the Run in the same round? Huh, guess I'll stand still and throw my sword so I have a chance to hit...sigh, that would have been really cool...
See how this is going?

(Originally posted this in the wrong area, whoops. Fixed it!)

I have been looking over the two-weapon fighting feats, and would like to suggest a couple of things. TWF is an incredible feat-sink in 3.5, with little benefit for anyone whose not a rogue, and Pathfinder doesn't seem to do anything to address that. I think the following changes/additions would make Two-Weapon fighters and sword-and-board users a bit more appealing:

1. Add a feat that allows a hit with both weapons as an attack action in conjunction with Spring Attack and/or similar feats (like the Tempest class feature from CA, but just available as a feat).

2. Two-Weapon Rend is a nice feat, but I think the requirements are a bit steep. I would remove the requirement of the new "Weapon Swap" feat at least - that feat is neat stylistically and handy if you are stuck with only one weapon but otherwise not part of a good two weapon build (which will usually involve using either a double weapon or two of the same or similar light weapons). Maybe reduce the damage die as a trade-off? Also, the text needs clarification as to how many times it functions per round.

3. Remove the TWF and Dex. requirements from the Shield related feats. This gives "tank" characters who rely on heavy armor much better options as they don't have to waste Ability points on Dex, which they really don't need to have higher than 13 otherwise.

Comments/feedback/complaints?

I tend to agree with a slight nerf for sneak attack damage, as well as an attack bonus. The earlier proposition of reducing it to a total of +5d6 with extra attack bonus is pretty good, but I prefer the house rule we've been using, which just limits sneak attack to one attack per round. Doesn't change the action it takes, mind you, it's still just an attack so you can take your extra attacks from BAB/TWF/Whatever, you just don't get the extra dice on all of them. You get to choose which attack it applies to after you've been told hit or miss, so it's not wasted like a smite and you can still do it every round. This puts a sneak attack focused rogue about on par with the rest of the party hitters, in my experience.

The problem with bringing up real-life physics is that a creature the size of an ancient dragon wouldn't even be able to stand, let alone fly. There's a reason that over-sized terrestrial animals died off - the amount of mass possessed by a creature of gargantuan or colossal size would actually make it much weaker and slower than things that are small, and the idea of creating enough lift with BAT WINGS to make something that size fly is completely preposterous. Here's a couple of helpful links:

Easy to understand: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SquareCubeLaw

With math:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law

So, it comes down to magic, which means it can go either way, since D&D magic is pretty damn arbitrary.

I still agree that smaller creatures should maintain their edge in maneuverability. Defending the change by saying "Dragons r teh awesome and they should kick @$$ in the air too!" doesn't really make a lot of sense - Dragons are already disproportionately powerful for their CR and out-maneuvering or out-running them is one of your best options.

My poor little English-major brain short-circuited about half a page into this thread, so I won't attempt to question the rather dense economics being bandied about here.

I just have one question - how is this discussion intended to be productive? I agree with the earlier posters that have stated that the economy of D&D is not supposed to be this detailed, or even remotely realistic. Honestly, it's not an aspect of the game that I even worry about - you have x amount of currency y, to buy z amount of stuff. Kill monsters, get more stuff, and more of currency y. Most people play this to whack things with swords, woo princesses, travel through other dimensions, etc...not to balance their imaginary checkbook.

My point being, if you really enjoy economics (as it seems many of you do,) incorporate the changes you want into your own games. It really doesn't have a place in the basic rules. Honestly, I don't think the game even really needs an "economy" at all - just let characters have the gear they need, give them cool treasures to spice things up, and generally assume they have enough money to survive, unless the plot demands otherwise. Remember, we're telling a story, not simulating a second life. When was the last time you watched a movie and truly worried about how the Hero payed for his awesome mirror shades and his leather duster?

I've been giving all classes +2 skill point/level for quite some time now.

We do the same thing, actually. It just seems rather silly when high level characters have abysmally low skill bonuses. High Int is still invaluable in a skill heavy game...as it should be, IMHO.

I think the pathfinder system partially addresses that - however I think that there should be some kind of scaling bonus to untrained skills as well.

I am fine with Weapon training, except for the capstone "Weapon Mastery." I know that Pathfinder has to be designed based purely on OGL for obvious reasons, but it was my understanding that it is meant to be compatible with existing 3.5 materials, Paizo and otherwise. If you account for feats in certain non-OGL books (and I believe most fighter players know the feats I'm talking about), the Weapon Mastery ability at 20th level is somewhat redundant, especially since there are soooo many feat selections available to your characters. I'd like to see something a bit more creative that cannot be replicated through feats for the capstone.

Also, this may belong in another thread, but I believe the 19th level DR ability should begin at lower levels and scale up (like the barbarian's does in 3.0/3.5). DR is far more useful at lower levels than it is at level 19. Also, some kind of bonus to saves would be helpful - maybe an ability that lets you use your shield as partial cover for reflex saves or something while still allowing you to move around and fight.

Overall though, thank you for trying to help our poor fighters! We needed some real class features.