Both Tumble and Jump were often taken when separate, but the designers chose to combine them (and jumping relies far more on strength than coordination), yet Swim and Climb weren't combined? Climb is nearly a worthless skill since flight entirely removes the need for it. The others are really fine, this one's just one that bugs me; Hulk is known for his jumping for a...
Jumping relies upon strength more than coordination? Long jumpers and high jumpers rarely compete in power-lifting. I think acrobatics is a good idea, just look at the floor exercise in gymnastics. While they both use strength, Swim and Climb aren't related closely enough to logically combine them.
While I do understand what you are saying Jason, of which you are entitled to your opinion...I really don't like the idea of unified BAB/Saves/etc.
In my opinion, it takes away flavor from the classes. A Fighter, who has trained at combat should be more skilled at fighting than a wizard. The unified system nullifies that and makes it a level playing field. 4e sets the differences between the classes by the use of powers (most of the Warrior-style ones grant an extra bonus to hit). Unifying the BAB without that wouldn't work as I see it. 4e also sets things up differently by giving a + to hit on every single weapon.
As for saving throws...I don't find it too much an issue. There are certain circumstances (a particular advanced Eye of the Deep comes to mind with its inordinately high Flash DC) but that was more an issue of the way advancements work on monsters than the saving throws of the classes. If this is something you think must be fixed, I'd suggest a different scaling for Monster special attack DCs rather than changing Save numbers.
|
So, I was one of those folks hanging on every word put out for 4E. Nothing said made me worried, and I was intensely excited for the system.
After having played it for the last several months, I've come to my final conclusions: While I find the game to be enjoyable to play and to DM, and I absolutely love the way monsters are designed and the way encounters are put together, I sorely dislike the new power system and the "cut backs" on the player's side.
I came here thinking Pathfinder could be my answer, but I'm immediately seeing that many of the problems that 4E actually fixed are not being addressed in Pathfinder. Here are some of the things which I feel could be addressed:
Unified Attack/AC/Save Progression: The flaw with 3E's BAB and Save progressions is that the difference between classes grows wider as the levels are added on. In the high level 3E games I ran, I ran into many situations where an AC that was meant to challenge the party's Warriors was too difficult for the party's Adventurers (rogues and other 3/4ths BAB classes) to actually hit. Saving Throws were even worse. 4E's unified progression allows the classes to have differences that remain applicable, but most importantly within the same range throughout the game. And AC simply needs to scale, it allows for far fewer magic items and allows magic to feel special rather than necessary (in high level 3E games, if a character doesn't properly distribute their AC enhancing items through armor, shields, rings, necklaces, and other bonuses, they're in trouble).
Condenced Skills: I'm shocked by the skills the Pathfinder designers chose to combine and the ones they didn't. Both Tumble and Jump were often taken when separate, but the designers chose to combine them (and jumping relies far more on strength than coordination), yet Swim and Climb weren't combined? Climb is nearly a worthless skill since flight entirely removes the need for it. The others are really fine, this one's just one that bugs me; Hulk is known for his jumping for a...
i would like to point out that the rules are NOT set in stone, they are changing even now when i talked to jason in UK he said as the rules are updated from OUR playtesting he will be posting updates so play the game and post your feedback, next year when the FINAL comes out THEN you can raise your hand and say this still needs to be fixed. your points have been bought out MANY times but this board system doesnt allow very easy seachs on same topic so we get LOTS AND LOTS of repeats.
The unified saves and such while interesting brake backward capability far to much. So this will not happen.
|
The unified saves and such while interesting brake backward capability far to much. So this will not happen.
While a good point, it doesn't follow from a lot of the stuff we have seen that breaks backwards compatibility. In a Pathfinder RPG campaign a lot of the old classes would have to be restatted if only slightly to fit in with the new assumptions of the system (among them the fact that BAB and Hit Dice should be connected logically).
While some material released under 3.5 follow the same logic as Pathfinder material (for an example, all the base classes in Magic of Incarnum follow the logic of "d6 hit dice means low BAB, d8 hit dice means medium BAB, d10 hit dice means high BAB") it becomes a problem if you ever wish to introduce material from other sources (of course by houseruling since Paizo can not reprint copyrighted material). You might have to fiddle around with them to follow through with system consistency. As an example, the Dragon Shaman class (from PHB2) has d10 Hit Dice but medium BAB. In a Pathfinder RPG game should this class have its Hit Dice dropped to d8 (making it even more significantly weaker than the Cleric) or should its BAB be increased to +1/level (making it significantly stronger than most pure melee classes in the game)?
My point here is that Pathfinder RPG has already changed so many of the core assumptions of 3.5 that backwards compatibility requires a stretch of imagination at the very least.
So, I was one of those folks hanging on every word put out for 4E. Nothing said made me worried, and I was intensely excited for the system.
Nothing to be too ashamed about. We were all young and foolish once ;-P
Unified Attack/AC/Save Progression
What you call a fix, I call one of the biggest downsides to 4e.
For example, it doesn't make sense to me that a wizard should be as well-trained at sticking swords into someone as a fighter. Since 3e doesn't resolve everything with attacks, it's not necessary. Spellcasters often force others to make saving throws instead, and if they do have to make an attack, they have the touch ac advantage.
Condenced Skills: I'm shocked by the skills the Pathfinder designers chose to combine and the ones they didn't. Both Tumble and Jump were often taken when separate, but the designers chose to combine them (and jumping relies far more on strength than coordination), yet Swim and Climb weren't combined? Climb is nearly a worthless skill since flight entirely removes the need for it. The others are really fine, this one's just one that bugs me; Hulk is known for his jumping for a reason.
While I agree with some points (my personal list of consolidations also differs from Pathfinder's), not everything makes sense: If flight makes climb irrelevant, it makes jump irrelevant as well, for example.
Personally, I would introduce both acrobatics and athletics. Acrobatics for the old Dex stuff (Tumble, Escape Artist, Balance), and Athletics for the Str stuff (Climb, Athletics, Swim).
I haven't gotten to look through the entire combat chapter, or read through all of the classes, but what I'm so far not seeing changes that I feel need to be made. I understand the Pathfinder team not wanting to take queues from 4E, but good ideas are good ideas.
Good ideas are bad ideas to someone. Since Pathfinder is for those who don't like the way 4e goes, chances are that they want 3e improved instead of turned into 4e.
As for the chagnes, I welcome them virtually completely:
Replacing several different mechanics for trip, disarm, grapple and so on into one Combat Manoeuvre mechanic was a great step.
Most of the classes get a lot more interesting and customisable: Bards get some nice and much-needed powers, sorcerers actually get something out of their background, and so on.
|
|
Unified Attack/AC/Save ProgressionWhat you call a fix, I call one of the biggest downsides to 4e.
For example, it doesn't make sense to me that a wizard should be as well-trained at sticking swords into someone as a fighter.
Which is exactly unlike how it works in 4e. The Fighter probably is ahead of the Wizard by a +3 bonus simply based on his Strength modifier, another +1 bonus for wielding his favored type of weapon (one-handed or two-handed) and another +3 for having the proficiency bonus which the Wizard lacks. So, with a +7 bonus above the Wizard the Fighter is actually 35% more accurate than the Wizard, which I consider a bit of a stretch from being "as well-trained at sticking swords into someone as a fighter" as you so well put it.
Mind you, this is at 1st-level and at higher levels the Fighter will be many more points ahead simply because he will be boosting his Strength while the Wizard probably won't. Furthermore, the Wizard will only be capable of performing melee basic attacks while the Fighter always has a better trick up his sleeve when ever he needs to attack.
Unified Attack/AC/Save ProgressionWhat you call a fix, I call one of the biggest downsides to 4e.
For example, it doesn't make sense to me that a wizard should be as well-trained at sticking swords into someone as a fighter.
Which is exactly unlike how it works in 4e. The Fighter probably is ahead of the Wizard by a +3 bonus simply based on his Strength modifier, another +1 bonus for wielding his favored type of weapon (one-handed or two-handed) and another +3 for having the proficiency bonus which the Wizard lacks. So, with a +7 bonus above the Wizard the Fighter is actually 35% more accurate than the Wizard, which I consider a bit of a stretch from being "as well-trained at sticking swords into someone as a fighter" as you so well put it.
Mind you, this is at 1st-level and at higher levels the Fighter will be many more points ahead simply because he will be boosting his Strength while the Wizard probably won't. Furthermore, the Wizard will only be capable of performing melee basic attacks while the Fighter always has a better trick up his sleeve when ever he needs to attack.
this isn't true at all. if i was an eladrin wizard. i would get a +3 for my long sword. if i had a strength of 16 i would also get a +3 for that. so i would be at a +6 to the fighters +7
|
|
The unified saves and such while interesting brake backward capability far to much. So this will not happen.While a good point, it doesn't follow from a lot of the stuff we have seen that breaks backwards compatibility. In a Pathfinder RPG campaign a lot of the old classes would have to be restatted if only slightly to fit in with the new assumptions of the system (among them the fact that BAB and Hit Dice should be connected logically).
While some material released under 3.5 follow the same logic as Pathfinder material (for an example, all the base classes in Magic of Incarnum follow the logic of "d6 hit dice means low BAB, d8 hit dice means medium BAB, d10 hit dice means high BAB") it becomes a problem if you ever wish to introduce material from other sources (of course by houseruling since Paizo can not reprint copyrighted material). You might have to fiddle around with them to follow through with system consistency. As an example, the Dragon Shaman class (from PHB2) has d10 Hit Dice but medium BAB. In a Pathfinder RPG game should this class have its Hit Dice dropped to d8 (making it even more significantly weaker than the Cleric) or should its BAB be increased to +1/level (making it significantly stronger than most pure melee classes in the game)?
My point here is that Pathfinder RPG has already changed so many of the core assumptions of 3.5 that backwards compatibility requires a stretch of imagination at the very least.
From my understanding, the biggest reason for the hit die change in the classes was to improve low-level character survival. Sure, they simplified it to match the BAB for the core classes, but that was not the impetus for the change. For classes like the Dragon Shaman, you wouldn't need to change anything. He's hardy, but not as good a fighter as the Fighter or the Paladin--he's got other abilities to compensate for that.
Backwards compatability is only a stretch if you try to update everything. Paizo can't; the OGL doesn't give them that liberty. So they only worry about what they need to. If you're worried about updating a class that isn't OGL to be more on par with PFRPG classes (which really shouldn't be too much of an issue), then you're on your own for that.
Which is exactly unlike how it works in 4e. The Fighter probably is ahead of the Wizard by a +3 bonus simply based on his Strength modifier, another +1 bonus for wielding his favored type of weapon (one-handed or two-handed) and another +3 for having the proficiency bonus which the Wizard lacks. So, with a +7 bonus above the Wizard the Fighter is actually 35% more accurate than the Wizard, which I consider a bit of a stretch from being "as well-trained at sticking swords into someone as a fighter" as you so well put it.
Unified Attack/AC/Save ProgressionWhat you call a fix, I call one of the biggest downsides to 4e.
For example, it doesn't make sense to me that a wizard should be as well-trained at sticking swords into someone as a fighter.
As others have pointed out, proficiency is probably not something that is unattainable by the wizard. And if it's that much of a problem, let's use a simple weapon the wizard can fight with.
And strength doesn't get into it at all, as the wizard could boost his strength, too.
And the real point is: While this mechanic might work in 4e, it doesn't in PRPG since things work a lot differently there.
|
|
Which is exactly unlike how it works in 4e. The Fighter probably is ahead of the Wizard by a +3 bonus simply based on his Strength modifier, another +1 bonus for wielding his favored type of weapon (one-handed or two-handed) and another +3 for having the proficiency bonus which the Wizard lacks. So, with a +7 bonus above the Wizard the Fighter is actually 35% more accurate than the Wizard, which I consider a bit of a stretch from being "as well-trained at sticking swords into someone as a fighter" as you so well put it.
Unified Attack/AC/Save ProgressionWhat you call a fix, I call one of the biggest downsides to 4e.
For example, it doesn't make sense to me that a wizard should be as well-trained at sticking swords into someone as a fighter.
As others have pointed out, proficiency is probably not something that is unattainable by the wizard. And if it's that much of a problem, let's use a simple weapon the wizard can fight with.
And strength doesn't get into it at all, as the wizard could boost his strength, too.
And the real point is: While this mechanic might work in 4e, it doesn't in PRPG since things work a lot differently there.
So, your argument is the following: "A Wizard can be as good at swinging a sword as a Fighter if he completely shafts himself by boosting his Strength and taking Weapon Proficiency feats and doesn't focus on what he's actually supposed to be doing!"
Which is completely true, but I'm certain you'll never see anyone do it in practice. Besides, the Wizard still doesn't have access to the Fighter's better at-will melee attacks and is limited to basic melee attacks, and this is something the Wizard can't fix without some heavy multiclassing.
So, what you're saying boils down to saying that if a Wizard completely ignores his set role and what he's supposed to be doing then eventually he can be as good at swinging a sword as a Fighter?
Thank you for completely missing the point.
Thank you for completely missing the point.
Any time.
|
So, I was one of those folks hanging on every word put out for 4E. Nothing said made me worried, and I was intensely excited for the system.
After having played it for the last several months, I've come to my final conclusions: While I find the game to be enjoyable to play and to DM, and I absolutely love the way monsters are designed and the way encounters are put together, I sorely dislike the new power system and the "cut backs" on the player's side.
I came here thinking Pathfinder could be my answer, but I'm immediately seeing that many of the problems that 4E actually fixed are not being addressed in Pathfinder. Here are some of the things which I feel could be addressed:
Unified Attack/AC/Save Progression: The flaw with 3E's BAB and Save progressions is that the difference between classes grows wider as the levels are added on. In the high level 3E games I ran, I ran into many situations where an AC that was meant to challenge the party's Warriors was too difficult for the party's Adventurers (rogues and other 3/4ths BAB classes) to actually hit. Saving Throws were even worse. 4E's unified progression allows the classes to have differences that remain applicable, but most importantly within the same range throughout the game. And AC simply needs to scale, it allows for far fewer magic items and allows magic to feel special rather than necessary (in high level 3E games, if a character doesn't properly distribute their AC enhancing items through armor, shields, rings, necklaces, and other bonuses, they're in trouble).
Condenced Skills: I'm shocked by the skills the Pathfinder designers chose to combine and the ones they didn't. Both Tumble and Jump were often taken when separate, but the designers chose to combine them (and jumping relies far more on strength than coordination), yet Swim and Climb weren't combined? Climb is nearly a worthless skill since flight entirely removes the need for it. The others are really fine, this one's just one that bugs me; Hulk is known for his jumping for a...
Jason Greybill, while everybody is entitled to their own opinion, others can also disagree. I am going to put my two coppers in here. After having played 4.0 for a month and DMed for a month, I found that I disliked the 4.0 system. Personally I prefer 3.5, and the Pathfinder Beta game has my interest.
Comparing Keep on the Shadowfell to Burnt Offerings, the former provided interesting tactical combat encounters, while the latter provided interesting tactical combat encounters and a compelling story line with interesting villains.Using a unified table like the one on p 29 of the 4.0 PHB, where all the classes have the same advancement for just about everything, probably goes a long way to “balancing” the classes. As fare as I can see, the only thing, aside from hit points (no more hit dice) is their power list. That’s it. From what I can tell even attacks are considered at will powers. I may be wrong about that. All classes have their list of powers. These powers are known by different names: Fighters have their exploits, Clerics their prayers, Wizards their spells and rogues their Exploits as well. As far as I can tell the only substantial difference between the classes is their list of powers.
Personally I prefer a little more separation between my classes, a little more variation. Speaking of variation, Multicasting is no longer possible in 4.0. It doesn’t resemble the flexibility you had in 3.5 in the least bit.
All you get by multicasting, as fare as I can tell, is to swap out the encounter/ daily/ utility power of one class for another by spending feats. That’s it.
I was playing an eldarin cleric of Corellan, and I had taken the arcane initiate feat. I got Magic missile as an encounter power. Yeah. As I was planning my character advancement, I was going for a "mystic theurge", I looked in the book at the other “multicasting “ feats, and they were called power swap feats. That’s it. No access to the wizards spell list or access to the clerics spell list, if you had taken a level in each.
Granted what I am putting forth is opinion.
.
In regards to the skills, everybody and their uncle has an opinion on that. In my 3.5 PHB I counted 45 skills. There could easily be more if you expand the craft profession and perform skills. In the 4.0 PHB I counted 17 skills. In the Pathfinder Beta test book I have counted 34 skills. And like 3.5, there could easily be more if you expand the craft profession and perform skills.
In my opinion the 4.0 changes to the skills were too much. Come on, having Thievery encompass Disable device open lock pickpocket and sleight of hand? IN my opinion that is too much.
Concerning skill list in the Pathfinder Beta test some of the changes I agree with. Collapsing the Jump balance and tumble into acrobatics makes sense. Collapsing Move silently and Hide in Shadows into Stealth makes sense. Of course, I like my use rope skill, and I plan to keep it. Also I like the Concentration skill and the Spell craft skill. I plan to keep these skills separate as well. Again this is all a matter of opinion. The nice thing about having a largely backwards-compatible game is with a minimum of effort; you can make a little change here and there to suite your tastes.
Which is exactly unlike how it works in 4e. The Fighter probably is ahead of the Wizard by a +3 bonus simply based on his Strength modifier, another +1 bonus for wielding his favored type of weapon (one-handed or two-handed) and another +3 for having the proficiency bonus which the Wizard lacks. So, with a +7 bonus above the Wizard the Fighter is actually 35% more accurate than the Wizard, which I consider a bit of a stretch from being "as well-trained at sticking swords into someone as a fighter" as you so well put it.
Unified Attack/AC/Save ProgressionWhat you call a fix, I call one of the biggest downsides to 4e.
For example, it doesn't make sense to me that a wizard should be as well-trained at sticking swords into someone as a fighter.
As others have pointed out, proficiency is probably not something that is unattainable by the wizard. And if it's that much of a problem, let's use a simple weapon the wizard can fight with.
And strength doesn't get into it at all, as the wizard could boost his strength, too.
And the real point is: While this mechanic might work in 4e, it doesn't in PRPG since things work a lot differently there.
So, your argument is the following: "A Wizard can be as good at swinging a sword as a Fighter if he completely shafts himself by boosting his Strength and taking Weapon Proficiency feats and doesn't focus on what he's actually supposed to be doing!"
Which is completely true, but I'm certain you'll never see anyone do it in practice. Besides, the Wizard still doesn't have access to the Fighter's better at-will melee attacks and is limited to basic melee attacks, and this is something the Wizard can't fix without some heavy multiclassing.
So, what you're saying boils down to saying that if a Wizard completely ignores his set role and what he's supposed to be doing then eventually he can be as good at swinging a sword as a Fighter?
Thank you for...
Another PC in the game i play did and is doing exactly that, so your point is invalid.
If you have a first level wizard who is better with a sword than he is with spells, you are usurping the role of the fighter.
I play a cleric in the game, and i am highly annoyed by the lack of being able to do anything different.
Every class is a warlock now.
So, what you're saying boils down to saying that if a Wizard completely ignores his set role and what he's supposed to be doing then eventually he can be as good at swinging a sword as a Fighter?
Thank for demonstrating why 4e fails.
It's retarded to give the wizard the same attack bonus as the fighter. Just plain retarded. Put them in a situation where they're unarmed and the fighter should win not because of strength but skill.
Unified Attack/AC/Save Progression: The flaw with 3E's BAB and Save progressions is that the difference between classes grows wider as the levels are added on.
One thing that 4E is very good for is showing us where the problems lie in 3.5. The original poster pointed out differences in BAB and Save progressions.
4E "fixed" the issue by just making every attack modifier and defense score progress at the same rate, +1/2 levels. Unfortunately, advancement in 4E is consequently just an illusion. When the monsters' defenses progress just as quickly as my attack bonus does, I'm really no better at making attacks. 4E Initiative is the simplest example. A PC doesn't get faster as he levels, as even the slowest monsters advance just as quickly.
Anyways...
Perhaps what we can do for the benefit of Pathfinder is look at the issue and figure out what the problem actually is.
I contend that the problem is not the difference between classes, but the range of values of X in d20+X, and the system's failure to support all values of X.
For example, Joe Fighter might have an attack of d20+45, while Jim Rogue might have d20+27. And eighteen-point difference.
When a DM wishes to throw a monster at these two, what AC is ideal? Anything that Joe will be challenged by (AC 55+), Jim will be looking for 20s. Anything that Jim can reliably hit (AC 35-40), Jim is looking for 2s.
This aspect of the d20 system, I contend, is why 3.5 breaks down at high levels, as high levels is when the values of X become very spread apart. The system fails to support all values of X in d20+X.
So you see... it can be solved beyond the 4E cop-out streamlining all the bonuses and DCs to the point where bonus and DC all advances at the same rate. The trick is to isolate the underlying issue.
-Matt
|
|
Hmmm, for some strange reason the forum decided to swallow up my post completely.
Anyway, in reply to the issue of Fighters and Wizards in 4e: the truth is that a Wizard who spends all his feats on gaining proficiency in a weapon and armor and allocates stats to match those of a Fighter is not really usurping the role of a Fighter for one simple reason: he doesn't have the abilities that the Fighter has built in to his class, among them the better melee combat options. The Wizard isn't usurping the Fighter as such as he is badly emulating him. If the Wizard can't fill the role of a Fighter in the group (that is, being a general deterrent for attacking other members of the party through his Combat Challenge while dealing significant melee damage with his attacks) then the Wizard has simply made himself a poor man's Basic Melee Attack bot. That is hardly on par with the Fighter, no matter how you look at their respective attack bonuses. (EDIT: Also, this would be highly unoptimal for the Wizard who could be spending those feats on actually fulfilling his own role better. Furthermore, I don't think of it as a bug that a Wizard who really wants to have a chance at hitting in close combat can achieve that by purchasing the available feats. Call it actually getting something out of your investment.)
Now, on to the topic at hand: as Mattastrophic so well put it, the problem with 3.5's attack and save progressions' uniformity is that they create too large a range of values for X (X being your bonus to a Save, Attack or your Armor Class or Hit Points) to the point where encounter design becomes a nightmare when you have to take into account the different values of X across the entire group. My favourite example would be the level 20 Fighter encountering a Pit Fiend: the Fighter will be unable with his negligible +6 Will Save bonus to even approach the Pit Fiend without some serious buffs, due to the Pit Fiend's Fear Aura (DC 27).
I haven't given attack bonuses too much thought yet, but I can see a very simple solution to fixing the saves. First of all, let's make all saves progress at the same rate, that being 1/2 character level. You'll notice that I said character level instead of class level, because I think this will also help fix the problem of multiclass characters which usually have nightmarishly high or low saves when compared to single-classed characters.
Now, because we still want to maintain the idea that characters at 1st level should have that +2 bump to given saves, we'll give each class Great Fortitude, Iron Will and/or Lightning Reflexes at first level. The beauty of this is that since each of these feats can only be taken once we'll no longer see Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger/Paladin/Whatevers with their Fortitude Saves through the roof.
Unfortunately, is this will result in only a variation of 10% between a character's "good" and "bad" save. To take this into account I propose that these feats be modified to progress, so that for every fifth level (that is each level divisible by 5) the bonus granted by the feat increases by 1. This would mean that a character's good save value at level 20 would be +16 (a bit higher than in vanilla 3.5, but the truth is that the original value of +12 was hardly ever enough to even come close to the DCs of monster and NPC abilities at level 20) while his bad saves would be +10. The range is still the same (the higher save is higher by a margin of 6 points on a 1-20 scale) but the low save's value is a bigger fraction of the high save (in 3.5 the low save is 50% of the high save, under this proposition it'd be 62.5%).
Now, returning to the Pit Fiend example: under this proposition the single-classed level 20 Fighter would, with no buffs and a negligible Wisdom bonus, have to roll a 17 to beat the DC. That is a 20% chance of success. This still means that high level critters can still challenge the Fighter's low save without the Fighter suffering from a chance of autofail. Similarly, against a DC 27 roll with Fortitude the Fighter would have to roll an 11, thus having a 50% chance of succeeding.
Since none of my examples take into account things such as buffs, magic items and ability scores I am sure that the actual percentage chances would be higher. But if such a system were adopted it'd at the same time fix the problem of multiclass save progression without having to resort to fractions which a lot of people understandably hate and also bring the characters more in line with each other. Of course, such a system would require any monster abilities' save DCs to be adjusted, but such a change may already be on the way due to the fact that characters in PFRPG are already somewhat tougher than their 3.5 equivalents.
EDIT: After having gone through my math again I realize that the above proposition doesn't fix the math of high level saves at all, as the range of save values still stays the same while the numbers just get higher. For this reason I'd keep all of the above intact (save progressions based on character level etc.) but simply reduce the increase given by the save-boosting feats to +2 when first taken, increasing to +3 at level 10 and +4 at level 20. This way the range of bad/good saves would be +10/+14, bridging the original six point gap into a four point gap. This would still require a bit of tweaking on the part of save DCs, but otherwise I'd be very keen on this idea.
|
|
Nice to see that someone's willing to help me with my math when I can't be bothered. :)
As for the backwards compatibility issue: if one were to, say, convert an existing class from 3.5 into PFRPG, the rules could provide a simple guideline for converting saves:
"Since the variant proposed in these rules uses a different system for calculating save progressions, use the following rules for converting classes:
If a class has a high save progression for Fortitude it instead provides the Great Fortitude feat as a bonus feat at 1st level.
If a class has a high save progression for Reflex it instead provides the Lightning Reflexes feat as a bonus feat at 1st level.
If a class has a high save progression for Will it instead provides the Iron Will feat as a bonus feat at 1st level."
Ta da!
EDIT: I also realized that another effect of this proposition is to actually make the above three feats worth taking. :D
|
|
Don't forget about the +1 bonuses at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20.As for the backwards compatibility issue: if one were to, say, convert an existing class from 3.5 into PFRPG, the rules could provide a simple guideline for converting saves:
"Since the variant proposed in these rules uses a different system for calculating save progressions, use the following rules for converting classes:
If a class has a high save progression for Fortitude it instead provides the Great Fortitude feat as a bonus feat at 1st level.
If a class has a high save progression for Reflex it instead provides the Lightning Reflexes feat as a bonus feat at 1st level.
If a class has a high save progression for Will it instead provides the Iron Will feat as a bonus feat at 1st level."Ta da!
That would be irrelevant, as the +1 increases at those levels could be found under the descriptions of those feats.
|
|
I've personally seen a player break the holy monkey sh*t out of a caster making them far better than fighters, at fighting!!!
4E only made that Idea easier for him...
no point statting it for you... it is possible under any system... ;)
I just like role playing... sigh
So you've said in two separate threads now even though no one's even questioned it. Believe it or not, so do I.
I'm happy to leave the discussion here. Let me just say that I'm intrigued by how a Wizard could be made better at fighting than a Fighter under any ruleset, much less 4e (where Fighters are actually quite good at fighting). Colour me a skeptic, but I'd very much like to see the stats behind this.
It doesn't matter how much you suggest a "unified system," as the Pathfinder devs are going to ignore it. Pathfinder players want something that is 3.75.
4e's system is ridiculous, and the players' chances of success decrease as they level up because the 4e devs are retarded and still put in items and abilities that throw players off the random number generator. Furthermore, the entire item creation system is FUBAR because of the way that item pricing works.
Really, the system is a brain-dead nightmare that craps all over the options and versatility that 3e allowed.
|
|
It doesn't matter how much you suggest a "unified system," as the Pathfinder devs are going to ignore it. Pathfinder players want something that is 3.75.
4e's system is ridiculous, and the players' chances of success decrease as they level up because the 4e devs are retarded and still put in items and abilities that throw players off the random number generator. Furthermore, the entire item creation system is FUBAR because of the way that item pricing works.
Really, the system is a brain-dead nightmare that craps all over the options and versatility that 3e allowed.
I don't think the intention is to turn Pathfinder into 4e. At least for me Pathfinder and 4e fulfill different purposes and I can enjoy both without having to call the other "a brain-dead nightmare" as you so eloquently put it.
But returning to the topic at hand, as much as I have enjoyed your extremely well-informed insights into 4e, how do you feel about the suggestions made to make the save progressions more unified so as to reduce the effects of multiclassing and to bridge the gap between good and bad saves?
|
But returning to the topic at hand, as much as I have enjoyed your extremely well-informed insights into 4e, how do you feel about the suggestions made to make the save progressions more unified so as to reduce the effects of multiclassing and to bridge the gap between good and bad saves?
Totally unhelpful in a system that has backwards compatibility as a primary design goal. It may be a perfectly good idea in a vacuum, but will avail nothing here.
I'd suggest just focusing on finding a way to make Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes and Great Fortitude worth taking. Perhaps their benefits should double at 10 HD, much like the skill feats do.
|
4e's system is ridiculous, and the players' chances of success decrease as they level up because the 4e devs are retarded and still put in items and abilities that throw players off the random number generator. Furthermore, the entire item creation system is FUBAR because of the way that item pricing works.
Really, the system is a brain-dead nightmare that craps all over the options and versatility that 3e allowed.
Oh, well. The thread almost made it without a single "3.x/4e is a POS" post.
|
|
Hey...I love the idea of combining Climb and Swim into a single skill called Athletics. At last some skill consolidation that benefits fighters, freeing up some of their precious skill points!
And the Athletics skill would nicely complement the Acrobatics skill - covering those physical feats that rely primarily on Strength rather than Dexterity.
I reckon that fixing Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, and Great Fortitude is fairly simple. For example:
IRON WILL [GENERAL]
You have a stronger will than normal.
Benefit: You receive a +2 competence bonus on all Will saving throws. This bonus increases by an additional +1 for every four levels that you possess.
Oh, well. The thread almost made it without a single "3.x/4e is a POS" post.4e's system is ridiculous, and the players' chances of success decrease as they level up because the 4e devs are retarded and still put in items and abilities that throw players off the random number generator. Furthermore, the entire item creation system is FUBAR because of the way that item pricing works.
Really, the system is a brain-dead nightmare that craps all over the options and versatility that 3e allowed.
It's simple math. The longer a thread goes the higher the chance this will happen. This one almost made it a whole page.
[
I'm happy to leave the discussion here. Let me just say that I'm intrigued by how a Wizard could be made better at fighting than a Fighter under any ruleset, much less 4e (where Fighters are actually quite good at fighting). Colour me a skeptic, but I'd very much like to see the stats behind this.
Easy. You have heard of Gish, correct? this term came from 2nd edition from Githyanki (the original Fighter/mages).
Wizards don't need Str: Polymorpo covers that.
Oh, the Fighter has Good AC? Wraithstrike: Touch attack + Power attack (sure the Wizard has bad back but he still hits now).
And yeah, you can't hit him with displacement (all low level spells to far) much.
Don't get me started on CoDzilla with Divine Power (if Cleric).
Why?
Just because you're a fighter it doesn't mean you should automatically be equally skilled with every form of combat and able to use all the little tricks you've picked up with them. A fighter who's spent their whole career wearing a breastplate and using a spear/shield combination finds a really nice two-handed axe in a treasure. Suddenly they can abandon the fighting style they've used for however many levels and pick up an entirely different one without being at a serious disadvantage. That's retarded.
So, what you're saying is that it would be retarded for a fighter who has trained extensively with a longsword to pick up a spear and be almost as skilled with it as he is with a longsword, correct? Or how it would be absolutely retarded if he could magically change out his abilities by "retraining"?
...4e is the best edition ever!
Fighters should be better at fighting hand-to-hand because at least some of their fighting ability should be applicable when they are unarmed. And that's why 3e has something called "nonproficiency penalties." It allows the fighter to still swing a weapon pretty well even when he's not trained with it. But in 4e, if that fighter picks up a weapon he's not proficient with, the wizard can swing it just as well as he can.
...Yay, 4e! It's so great and beautiful and better than 3e!
Not to mention the weirdness of having to tailor magic weapons to PC's.
With 3.x, you could give out a +4 longsword, and even though the fighter has weapon focus greatsword, they would be able to use it about as well.
Ah and magic weapons bieng sold at 1/5th and getting magic dust to reforge magic...
guh...
...
I reckon that fixing Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, and Great Fortitude is fairly simple. For example:IRON WILL [GENERAL]
You have a stronger will than normal.
Benefit: You receive a +2 competence bonus on all Will saving throws. This bonus increases by an additional +1 for every four levels that you possess.
I love that! Keep those locked and loaded for Feat week, it's going to be a wild-ride!
I second that. Feats that slightly improve as you level up are a great idea!
|
|
It's simple math. The longer a thread goes the higher the chance this will happen. This one almost made it a whole page.Oh, well. The thread almost made it without a single "3.x/4e is a POS" post.4e's system is ridiculous, and the players' chances of success decrease as they level up because the 4e devs are retarded and still put in items and abilities that throw players off the random number generator. Furthermore, the entire item creation system is FUBAR because of the way that item pricing works.
Really, the system is a brain-dead nightmare that craps all over the options and versatility that 3e allowed.
Always seeing the silver lining in the storm, eh, seekerofshadowlight? :)
I kinda like storms.....
A lot of the suggestions in here might be more appropriate for such a time as when Paizo decides to do a PfRPG 2nd Ed (if ever). However, for the sake of backwards compatibility, there are unfortunately just some "problems" that can't be "fixed" this go round. (Though I do think it is better to express any concerns NOW rather than waiting until after the Final book is published — what's the point in testing if we just keep quiet?)
As for the Saving Throw progressions, the assertion that saves can be either really high or really low due to multiclassing results from a lack of foresight by WotC in the 3.x multiclassing rules. They tried to correct this in Unearthed Arcana when they explained you should only get that +2 boost once and use the fractional progressions for each class thereafter.
I posted an alternate way of achieving the same 3.x progressions back in Alpha1, but I suspect it's lost in the archives at this point. Basically, it turned the +2 bonus into a series of 3 feats that can be gained only once (Good Fortitude, Good Reflexes, Good Willpower). For each save, you would then count the number of class levels in which you had a good save and reference the bonus for that level. Next you would count the number of levels in which you had the poor save (for that same save) and add the two bonuses together along with the bonus from the Good Save feat.
Considering that someone who can't even can't and add will probably fail at actually playing D&D, it was a very simple solution that perfectly reproduces the intended fractional progressions and eliminates the save cheese that comes about when a DM mistakenly allows the +2 bonus to be gained multiple times thru multiclassing.
I'm still hopeful that Paizo will tackle this critical aspect of character creation/advancement before the final book is sent off to the printers. WE might know how to make a multiclass character, but Joe-Noobie probably doesn't — PfRPG should be able to stand on it's own as a complete work without actually requiring outside knowledge.
Yeah, and I'm pretty sure those people are
a) level 1, and
b) non-proficient with other forms of weapons.
A lot of the suggestions in here might be more appropriate for such a time as when Paizo decides to do a PfRPG 2nd Ed (if ever).
I think that they will do something like that in a couple of years after PRPG's first release, when 3e/PF truly reaches the end of its lifecycle.
When it happens, I'll make sure to cast my vote for 3e style BABs over a unified system.
I might agree to something like shifting all rolling to the actor (so saving throws will be replaced by magic attack rols), and using something other than BAB for magic attacks (likely caster level)
However, for the sake of backwards compatibility, there are unfortunately just some "problems" that can't be "fixed" this go round.
Exactly. And a complete overhaul of the attack and save progression would go to far.
Plus, I still don't think that it's a better solution than the current one.
As for the Saving Throw progressions, the assertion that saves can be either really high or really low due to multiclassing results from a lack of foresight by WotC in the 3.x multiclassing rules.
I agree. I think that with a decent fix to multiclassing rules, that can be corrected.
Way to invalidate your own argument.
|
|
[
I'm happy to leave the discussion here. Let me just say that I'm intrigued by how a Wizard could be made better at fighting than a Fighter under any ruleset, much less 4e (where Fighters are actually quite good at fighting). Colour me a skeptic, but I'd very much like to see the stats behind this.
Easy. You have heard of Gish, correct? this term came from 2nd edition from Githyanki (the original Fighter/mages).
Wizards don't need Str: Polymorpo covers that.
Oh, the Fighter has Good AC? Wraithstrike: Touch attack + Power attack (sure the Wizard has bad back but he still hits now).And yeah, you can't hit him with displacement (all low level spells to far) much.
Don't get me started on CoDzilla with Divine Power (if Cleric).
I was assuming we were talking about this in relation to 4e. Understandably, under 3.5 any Wizard can do the Fighter's job better than the Fighter himself, but many of the abovementioned things (Polymorph, Wraithstrike, touch attacks) are all absent in 4e, at least at the moment. I will concede that in 3.5 a Wizard can be a better fighter than the Fighter, but I don't see it happening in 4e, at least not at the moment.
Anyway, I understand the argument that my suggested subsystem for correcting saving throw progressions would be a bit too drastic. Personally I'd prefer something along the lines of fractional saves, but that only solves the problem of multiclassing: it doesn't solve the fact that a character's "weak" save is going to be so low at higher levels that they'll be hard-pressed to succeed at a roll against their weak save. I already mentioned the level 20 Fighter failing his save against a Pit Fiend's fear aura most of the time (which is somewhat rectified by the Pathfinder Fighter's bonus on fear saves) if one assumes the standard level 20 Fighter (+6 base save and at most +2 from Wisdom).
Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes don't, in their current form, really solve the problem, because feats are a very precious resource in 3.5 and it is often better to use them to make a character better at what he does and not make them suck less in an area where they're not good at. Besides, since these feats do not scale the 10% increase in succeeding at a highly situational roll isn't usually enough to coax a player into picking one of these feats.
Personally I feel that simply fixing the save-boosting feats to improve along the lines of the skill-boosting feats would fix the problem somewhat and make these feats actually worth taking, but personally I don't like the idea that a character has to be "built" a certain way to be relevant at higher levels of play.
Just because you're a fighter it doesn't mean you should automatically be equally skilled with every form of combat and able to use all the little tricks you've picked up with them. A fighter who's spent their whole career wearing a breastplate and using a spear/shield combination finds a really nice two-handed axe in a treasure. Suddenly they can abandon the fighting style they've used for however many levels and pick up an entirely different one without being at a serious disadvantage. That's retarded.
The class is called "Fighter" not "Single Weapon Specialist." Any Fighter is a doofus who doesn't train off-handed, with and without armor, sober and drunk, unarmed and armed with as many weapons as he can. You train to use them so you can fight better against them with the weapon(s) you prefer.
The Fighter does all this training while the spellcaster is learning his runes and lore. It's what makes him a Fighter and not a dude who picked up a sword and decided to go adventuring.