Using Beta in RotRL (Stop buffing the fighter class)!!!


Playtest Reports

151 to 200 of 544 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

psionichamster wrote:

150 posts and no real solution, just a lot of stupid back and forth on the nature of playtesting and whos gamer cred is better than the others.

man i feel sad right now

-t

There's no need to be sad. We all have different perspectives about what is best in a game system and we all have different ideas of how the PRPG should be structured to accomplish those goals. This isn't going to be either a quick or an easy process.


Wrath wrote:

[...]Reumere, the reason I waded into the argument side of things was because posters were saying fighters were completely useless and should be dumped at high level.

I certainly don't think they're perfect but I do feel they serve a purpose and do it ok.

The people I play with, feel a bit constrained by lack of options. It's not that they are actively declining to play melee classes, it's just that as a person who GMs responsibly, I would like to support everyone's right to have equal opportunity to contribute to overall fun.

However, since these people are pretty independent, creative and experienced, they appreciate being able to sometimes do things without relying on crutches and charity of others (solving personal side quest, for example, should not be a deadly challenge if the CR of opposition is 4 points below yours).

Wrath wrote:
I did propose some tweaks above that I think will improve fighters at high level. Mostly its about allowing them to maximise their potential to do what they do. Lots of attacks.

I am against adding more attacks or improving damage as it directly leads into hostile waters of glass jaw (glass jaw: guy who can dish but cannot take damage) and Cyberpunkish extremes (Cyberpunk combat class, Solo, was all about high initiative score - if you went first, the caliber of your guns usually ensured your victory). What I desire are:

- additional combat options which allow to inflict various degrees of negative conditions,
- enhanced mobility (the fewer 5' step rounds needed, the better, melee guys should be able to catch up with flying/invisible/walled off opponents)
- improved resistance to special attacks
- decreased dependence on magic items

Wrath wrote:

[...]PS. on a side note, if you limit magic items in the game are you also limiting magic in terms of spells available and creatures encountered? That's a genuinely curious question btw, I like to see how others design their worlds for ideas I can pilfer. I could definitely see fighters struggling in that game world but it's your world so go for it.

I play a world where magic is readily available and widely used and the problem is far less obvious in our game. Maybe the settings we're using is also part of the clouding issue.

The basic assumption of Scared Lands goes like this:

- magic items up to 10K gold value have their value tripled,
- since this is post apocalyptic setting, not many people can afford them, so there is no real market for magic items,
- magic items beyond 10K gold value are of special status, i.e. they are not available generally unless manufactured or looted.

The campaign consequences are:
- spellcasters with item creation feats are scarce (I have made it harder to obtain those feats since I had to somehow explain why there is item shortage 150 years after the war),
- item creation is viewed as dangerous and debilitating business (you make them at the cost of your health - I know that associated xp cost is not that significant, but that's how most people who dabble into arcane think about it, and so most such items are made either by spellcasters for themselves, by prisoners or debtors or those who have agreed to be contracted to do such stuff),
- wondrous items are comparatively rare compared to weapons and armors,
- items with charges are easier to obtain than permanent magic items.

Additional gameplay changes/effects:
- players have higher scores than suggested by manual (power to characters, not their items),
- items +1 and +2 are much more treasured and serve over many levels,
- CRs of encountered opponents are intentionally lower than suggested by core books, however number of opponents are increased (i.e. single BBEG with mmany special abilities in such campaign, is more of a threat than score of low CR enemies),
- due to high number of enemies, melee types usually get time to land a few blows,
- characters advance a little slower due to lower CR of opponents.

The real problem is that even unoptimized spellcasters are getting more and more prominent. This is something I am not comfortable with - you, see in the course of play, every player is free to drop their current character and create a new one at the same level.

And if such thing happens, or if someone mentions they feel like doing that, I get the vibe that something is not right - we're all mature people, we do not abuse this system, and since my campaigns last years, everyone is free to make a switch (temporary or permanent one).

So, when I see that people start slowly moving to spellcasters, or talking about that (it happened previously several times in different campaigns), I know it's time to research options.

Regards,
Ruemere


Aubrey wrote:


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.

The Exchange

ruemere wrote:

I am against adding more attacks or improving damage as it directly leads into hostile waters of glass jaw (glass jaw: guy who can dish but cannot take damage) and Cyberpunkish extremes (Cyberpunk combat class, Solo, was all about high initiative score - if you went first, the caliber of your guns usually ensured your victory). What I desire are:

- additional combat options which allow to inflict various degrees of negative conditions,
- enhanced mobility (the fewer 5' step rounds needed, the better, melee guys should be able to catch up with flying/invisible/walled off opponents)
- improved resistance to special attacks
- decreased dependence on magic items

Thanks for the response Reumere,

I think your first point will come with the feats section of playtest. I reckon every person on these boards has created a feat at some stage or another to try and address issues that have arrisen during game play. It will be interesting to see how Paizo reads them all and vets them as I believe they'll be swamped.

Enhanced mobilty is defintely needed, I can see that with feats (or I would prefer as a class ability). This to me is more about getting to use all of your attacks though, rather than some of the other stuff. I guess for specific settings everyone could tap into the magic of a world to get things done. I think the flying, teleporting option would have to be setting specific really. However the trick is the core rules should be flexible enough for people to be able to build those settings with more ease. The flexibility is provided atm by magic items. However, fighters are completely dependent on items to overcome certain things whereas anyone who can tap into magic isn't. The Earthdawn role play game had a world setting where everyone was tapping magic using talents. 4th edition is similar. I think that type of fix for magic tapping or supernatural abilities for fighters should be setting specific but that is only a preference and understand your alternate opinion.

- Yep, some improves to lock down spells would be good, but I think the fix will come in feats again. This is the biggest area where I can see why people would think fighter types are draining their actions. If fighters could more independantly break enchantment/compulsion effects (at least) then that would be a good step.

ruemere wrote:


The campaign consequences are:
- spellcasters with item creation feats are scarce (I have made it harder to obtain those feats since I had to somehow explain why there is item shortage 150 years after the war),
- item creation is viewed as dangerous and debilitating business (you make them at the cost of your health - I know that associated xp cost is not that significant, but that's how most people who dabble into arcane think about it, and so most such items are made either by spellcasters for themselves, by prisoners or debtors or those who have agreed to be contracted to do such stuff),
- wondrous items are comparatively rare compared to weapons and armors,
- items with charges are easier to obtain than permanent magic items.

I like the concept behind your campaign. I'm certainly not going to be judgemental of it. I also agree with your assumption based on evidence (about people leaving their class for magic users).

I have some suggestions that may mitigate the effect you're if you'd care to read them

Spoiler:

Have you tried making the casting of certain magics also dangerous. Say level 5 spells or more get some nasty repercussions if overused or failed. Warhammer roleplay has the insanity effect for playing with the warp. It's a low magic item campaign world (but completely differnt game system). There's also the possibly of randomised effects at certain power levels. Apply them equally among the goodies and baddies. However, this is only a suggestion, it is your campaign world and you sound like you know what you're doing.

The base rule system is currently written assuming a wealth per level system and ready access to magic items. If you take that assumption away some of the other parts are going to be heavily affected I guess. I'm not sure if it should stay that way, but my experience of using the rules in a magic item heavy world has levelled the playing field with my fighters significantly.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ckafrica wrote:
Aubrey wrote:


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.

That applies to everyone here. Your arguments will not be won by saying everyone who doesn't play the way you want to is stupid/playing it wrong/coddled by the DM as CoL is prone to do. That is what is being complained about, not the arguments, but the fact that CoL is incapable of being polite. You catch far more flies with honey than vinegar, after all. And you have far more chance of persuading people to adopt your changes if you don't conduct yourself like you're the messiah come to educate the ignorant masses.

Secondly, I can be fairly sure that you won't get a brand new fighter class because the designer has said you won't in several different threads where far more modest changes than the ones proposed here have been rejected as too much. If you want fancy powers, wait till the feats chapter gets reviewed and suggest them there. Feats are far easier to get approval for than wholesale rewrites of class abilities (even when, for the Fighter, they are his class abilities).

Thirdly, we are not shouting down the changes. We are pointing out their flaws, failures to fix the problems or if they're necessary at all in any but the most extreme kind of play. As we want to play Pathfinder, too, our opinions on what it should be are as valid as yours.

Fourthly, regarding the thread topic, until the feats chapter, there is very little that can be suggested. It might be possible to:

a) Allow the Fighter to include a combat style training instead of Armour Training/Weapons training so that certain feats function better for him

b) Borrow a page from the Book of Experimental Might II and give Fighter Bonus feats a boost over feats chosen normally.

But apart from that, the Fighter is pretty much limited to feats as his special abilities and we're not discussing those officially yet.


Let's see here...

Wrath is just trolling, therefore he is being ignored.

Jal Dorak wrote:

Crusader, referring to your side of a debate as "Smiting Imbeciles for Great Justice" isn't helping your case. It isn't funny, it isn't clever - wait, I take that back, it IS funny because it is laughably juvenile.

Second, you keep referring to "attacks" and you having to "respond". You've made it quite clear that you do not tolerate people who you disagree with, think are stupid, enjoy other games, somehow offend you, etc. You set yourself up to be offended, because you inherently and admittedly deal with people in a divisive and antagonistic manner and for some reason consider your personal views to make you superior to the other people on these boards.

Now, as to the issue of the fighter, I've brought this up before. One of the reasons I feel fighters fall behind is that the warrior classes are forced to use a high percentage of their WBL on combat gear just to keep up with the enemy. The spellcasters are not subject to this limitation, and can freely spend their wealth on other powerful items.

Paragraph 1 is only partially correct. That is not how I am referring to 'my side', it is how I am referring to my actions under specific circumstances.

Paragraph 2 is also only partially correct. I do not have a problem with being disagreed with. I have a problem with blatant stupidity. Disagreement is actually productive provided both sides are at least somewhat competent. My disagreements with some of the other experts have led to important resources being devised and new approaches mapped out. And that's just talking CO stuff here, it happens everywhere else as well. Other guy pulling an Ed Grueberman on me? Forget it. For those of you that do not get the reference it means when someone who has no idea what they are talking about starts repeatedly and aggressively attacking the competency of an expert until said expert's patience runs out and Ed gets a 'Boot to Da Head' for his efforts. Then, instead of learning his lesson he keeps it up, ultimately resulting in him trying to get everyone to attack the expert who mows them all down with more 'Boot to Da Head'.

Paragraph 3 I agree with. You forgot to mention crafting increases their WBL though.

Patrick Murphy wrote:
I understand the point you are trying to make and I appreciate the humor. However, we both know, a first level wizard would very rarely choose spells for such remote situation (as you mentioned). More importantly, this wizard is not a slayer of anything. It just bypassed the golem momentarily. Also, if the golem were starring at the wizard and them a cloud obscures the wizard, the golem would go into the cloud looking for said wizard (as you said). But, wouldn't he continue to look for the wizard regardless of other non-threatening affects? A silent image cannot get his attention if the golem is not looking at it, which it is not, as it is focusing on the obscuring mist.

A Wizard at the levels where he'll actually find golems has plenty of 1st level spells to set on fire, or can just pay 12.5 gold for a scroll. Either way, it works fine. Overcoming encounters gets you the experience for them. Making it stand around stupidity while you happily press on means you have defeated it. Anything else is a house rule (which just promotes mindless hack and slash as you are now punished for not leaving a trail of corpses behind you).

Selk wrote:
I'm not sure it's possible to have a constructive conversation with someone who likens themself to an archmage.
Dictionary.com wrote:

a·nal·o·gy /&#601;&#712;næl&#601;d&#658;i/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-nal-uh-jee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun, plural -gies.
1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2. similarity or comparability: I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
3. Biology. an analogous relationship.
4. Linguistics.
a. the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
b. a form resulting from such a process.
5. Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
[Origin: 1530–40; < L analogia < Gk. See analogous, -y3]

—Synonyms 1. comparison, likeness, resemblance, similitude, affinity. 2. correspondence.

Also, strawman less.

Sueki Suezo wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Tgdmb = The Gamer's Den. It's a place where people extremely knowledgeable about the game hang out. A lot of people here don't like it because they don't dance around with political correctness, they get to the point. And when someone tries to insinuate they are wrong when they clearly are right it's open season with the firestorms time. If they actually are wrong though they can deal with that, because they're actually quite cool as long as you don't set them off.
It's very unfortunate that what amounts to a culture clash and a failure of diplomacy is effectively eliminating good ideas before they can even be seriously considered. Based on what I've seen from your posters so far, you seem to have a laundry list of suggestions on how to improve the game. I'm especially interested in your specific ideas regarding how to balance Tier 1s downwards and balance Tier 3s upwards - this seems to be the core controversy that causes the most arguments on the Paizo Forums right now.

Squirreloid has said most of the productive things I was going to say. Though at this point I am seriously questioning the worthiness of continuing to help those here as I am mostly just getting a troll squad mobilized on me for my efforts. You're constructive, which is great. But at the moment, you are in the minority. If they wish to shoot themselves in the foot, I'm inclined to let them. Do you have some form of off forum means to be contacted? This one lacks PMs, so the easy way is out.

Paul: Except that if the DM is making the enemies go easy on the PCs he is coddling them. That is fact, not insult. Having them attack the melee guy? Going easy = coddling. Why? Because he's the least threatening member. No need for me to say more, since Squirreloid has already covered that part. Therefore, either the melee guy picks one of the very short list of builds that makes him relevant and threatening so the enemies do attack him, or they ignore him, walk around, and there's really no reason for him to ever be there.

If someone chooses to disregard advice because they cannot separate petty little personal feelings from what matters (practicality) that is their loss, not mine. They are welcome to shoot themselves in the foot. I will not stop them. I don't care if I'm liked here. In fact I'd prefer it if I were not, since many around here adopt the very juvenile mindset of taking advice because they like the speaker and not because the advice is actually of any quality. When speaking to mature individuals, being liked is not an active liability, therefore I easily do it. I don't want my advice taken because you like me. I want my advice taken because you've thought on it on your own and determined it to be valid, independent of the source. Likewise, I want my advice shot down because you've factually proven it to be invalid, not because 'Wah Crusader of Logic is a meanieface! *puts fingers in ears* Lalala!'

See, if I make a mistake I'd like to know about it so I can correct it. With that mindset obfuscating things, the waters become muddied and it becomes much more difficult to tell if there is actually a flaw with my idea, or if it's just someone with paper thin skin using it as an excuse to try to discredit me. Or just a troll making a nuisance of themselves.

As long as this juvenile mindset continues, it is in my best interests to exaggerate these 'messiah tendencies' to comical levels to deliberately filter out those who will not give me useful feedback so that only those that can separate the idea from the person will reply, and therefore I can continue my neverending journey for self improvement unimpeded. I find that comparison hilarious by the way, since I'm about as un Jesus like as it gets.

The Exchange

Aubrey wrote:
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.
ckafrica wrote:

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.

I have no problem with debate - what has no purpose is flaming, which was my point. I'm not shouting anyone down. What I am doing is disagreeing with CoL and I am being insulted and belittled in return. I am happy to agree to disagree, but CoL isn't. I don't really know how you can write this when CoL is boasting of having "trapped" me (though what the nature of this trap is, and how I am trapped, is lost on me) - even if he has trapped me, what exactly does it prove other than his desire to score points instead of "debate" (and let's face it, debating is not what he does) the rules? Debate away by all means. I ducked out of this thread because it has turned into a slanging match, not a debate, and I'm finding corresponding with CoL distasteful due to his attitude - which also hardly promotes debate either.

CoL got upset when I pointed out his interpretation of the rules for illusions was against the rules. I'm also sure there is needle amongst the Frank fans given my history with him, which probably explains some of CoL's desire to score points on me and your extremely partial review of our correspondence. If you are genuinely serious about wanting to have an impact on PF, and genuinely interested in debate (as opposed to presenting an argument and insulting all those who disagree, which seems to be the approach of some, though I happily admit, not all in the optimisation camp) then I suggest the following: (1) respect the people you are dealing with, even if you disagree with them, because if you don't, they will lose all respect for you and the views you espouse and make your job to influence all the harder; (2) make actual rules suggestions and constructive feedback based upon actual play, not mind experiments and criticism; (3) understand what PF can, and cannot, do, and make your suggestions appropriate to that. Looking for a total revision of the 3.5 rules and expecting PF to provide is a strategy that will end is disappointment. And anyway, such a revision already exists - Frank wrote it.


The trap he is alluding to is where I deliberately put something in my posts then followed it up immediately by saying this is a test to see if he is reading everything before replying to it. Had he read the entire thing before responding, he would have ignored that paragraph and not responded to the test segment. Instead he jumped right into it, thereby proving he isn't even reading what he is responding to. The context of his posts already very strongly suggested that, I just set up the test as proof. I then went on to do the exact same thing again, getting exactly the same result. You'd think at least he'd avoid the trap with the sign beside it marking it as a trap the second time so he could at least get away with pretending to look like he was reading before replying. Yet, he did not. Why is that?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Crusader of Logic wrote:

Let's see here...

Wrath is just trolling, therefore he is being ignored.

Jal Dorak wrote:

Crusader, referring to your side of a debate as "Smiting Imbeciles for Great Justice" isn't helping your case. It isn't funny, it isn't clever - wait, I take that back, it IS funny because it is laughably juvenile.

Second, you keep referring to "attacks" and you having to "respond". You've made it quite clear that you do not tolerate people who you disagree with, think are stupid, enjoy other games, somehow offend you, etc. You set yourself up to be offended, because you inherently and admittedly deal with people in a divisive and antagonistic manner and for some reason consider your personal views to make you superior to the other people on these boards.

Now, as to the issue of the fighter, I've brought this up before. One of the reasons I feel fighters fall behind is that the warrior classes are forced to use a high percentage of their WBL on combat gear just to keep up with the enemy. The spellcasters are not subject to this limitation, and can freely spend their wealth on other powerful items.

Paragraph 1 is only partially correct. That is not how I am referring to 'my side', it is how I am referring to my actions under specific circumstances.

Paragraph 2 is also only partially correct. I do not have a problem with being disagreed with. I have a problem with blatant stupidity. Disagreement is actually productive provided both sides are at least somewhat competent. My disagreements with some of the other experts have led to important resources being devised and new approaches mapped out. And that's just talking CO stuff here, it happens everywhere else as well. Other guy pulling an Ed Grueberman on me? Forget it. For those of you that do not get the reference it means when someone who has no idea what they are talking about starts repeatedly and aggressively attacking the competency of an expert until said expert's patience runs out and Ed gets a 'Boot to Da Head' for his efforts. Then,...

Your 'advice' on golems being immune to illusions was shot down. You did not take it well. In fact, you insulted everyone who disagreed with you about it repeatedly.

As I asked earlier, given your posting style is counterproductive to your assumed goal of getting your changes implemented, why do you continue with that strategy?

Or, to put it in your style, you post in a stupid way because you don't do things my way. If you don't take my advice, that means you're obviously inferior and should be insulted further. You just have to take the advice out of the sneering tone to appreciate it. Are you seeing why this might be a problem? Why make it harder for people to get your advice? I simply don't see why you're wasting your time when it's fairly easy to present things better and have more chance of success.


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Paul Watson wrote:


Secondly, I can be fairly sure that you won't get a brand new fighter class because the designer has said you won't in several different threads where far more modest changes than the ones proposed here have been rejected as too much. If you want fancy powers, wait till the feats chapter gets reviewed and...

One could argue that revamping (or remaking) a character class goes a lot further to making sure the rules are backwards compatible (and easily assimilated into all the other d20 supplements that exist). More so it keeps life more simple than if we keep trying to tweak feats just for the fighter. When we start tweaking feats and adding "extra boosts" for fighter feats, we need to have some form of rules that allow us to do that for all the hundreds of feats that exist in the myriads of other d20 supplements that exist. Otherwise we cripple the fighter yet again by forcing him to only get benefit from the 30 feats as apposed to 300 possible fighter feats he could take from other supplements. It’s like saying a sorcerer can learn and cast all these hundreds of spells from every supplement in print – thus making for a myriad of potential sorcerer options, but then telling him he looses all his bloodline abilities if he casts spells from any other book but the revised core. Never mind the headache as a GM of trying recall extra feat boosts and if you used it or not, and for which NPC, does class X qualify for this feat boost because its also gets a fighter bonus feat, but technically is not a fighter and so we go on…


Wrath wrote:
Thanks for the response Reumere,

You're welcome.

Wrath wrote:
I think your first point will come with the feats section of playtest. I reckon every person on these boards has created a feat at some stage or another to try and address issues that have arrisen during game play. It will be interesting to see how Paizo reads them all and vets them as I believe they'll be swamped.

I think so, too. I would like though some official information now - for example:

- there would be tiers to feats,
tier 1 feats for everyone at any level [core feats],
tier 2 feats for levels 9 to 15 [heroic feats],
tier 3 feats for levels 16 to 20 [legendary feats],
tier 4 feats for levels 21 to 30 [epic feats],
tier 5 feats for levels 31 and beyond [avatar feats]...
- feats of tiers 2 and higher would be usable only if the GM allows and only if the characters themselves would be of sufficient level.

It would be possible to use higher tier feats earlier (to run superhero campaign, for example). It would be possible to disallow certain tiers to keep the campaign style more similar to 3.5.

Heroic feats - basic fantasy anime (superhuman jumps with duels over rooftops), i.e. no city levelling spells or guys fighting in the air.
Legendary feats - heroic fantasy anime and over the top fighting, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Berserk (both manga and anime).
Epic feats - the epic as an extension of basic classes.
Avatar feats - Heracles, demigods and divine avatars level of play.

Wrath wrote:
Have you tried making the casting of certain magics also dangerous. Say level 5 spells or more get some nasty repercussions if overused or failed. Warhammer roleplay has the insanity effect for playing with the warp. It's a low magic item campaign world (but completely differnt game system). There's also the possibly of randomised effects at certain power levels. Apply them equally among the goodies and baddies. However, this is only a suggestion, it is your campaign world and you sound like you know what you're doing.

This brings up issues similar to those of fumbles and killing criticals. Basically, negative effects of such systems penalize characters who play in long term campaigns - probability stacks against those who employ such skills/spells eventually leading to serious problem thanks to one or more unlucky die rolls.

I am pretty familiar with the way how the things work out in WFRP, as I have GMed 1st edition over the course of 3.5 years. The characters travelled Empire (Castle Drachenfels included), completed many advanced careers and finally finished their epic story closing a chaos portal in a middle of Empire fighting latest avatar of Witch King himself.

Wrath wrote:
The base rule system is currently written assuming a wealth per level system and ready access to magic items. If you take that assumption away some of the other parts are going to be heavily affected I guess. I'm not sure if it should stay that way, but my experience of using the rules in a magic item heavy world has levelled the playing field with my fighters significantly.

I realized this some time ago, however, as I said, availability of items with charges, larger than average party, higher than usual scores and several special add-ons serve to solve the problems somewhat. Unfortunately, it's not enough now as the sheer power of spells proves to influence game more than artifacts.

regards,
Ruemere

PS. I have just finished reading "frank_k_0.5.1.pdf" by Frank Trollman himself. Heartily recommended stuff with very sound options.

Some things are written tongue in cheek, but mechanically the classes are going to be very fun to play.

The Exchange

Crusader of Logic wrote:
The trap he is alluding to is where I deliberately put something in my posts then followed it up immediately by saying this is a test to see if he is reading everything before replying to it. Had he read the entire thing before responding, he would have ignored that paragraph and not responded to the test segment. Instead he jumped right into it, thereby proving he isn't even reading what he is responding to. The context of his posts already very strongly suggested that, I just set up the test as proof. I then went on to do the exact same thing again, getting exactly the same result. You'd think at least he'd avoid the trap with the sign beside it marking it as a trap the second time so he could at least get away with pretending to look like he was reading before replying. Yet, he did not. Why is that?

Thanks for pointing that out - for everyone else who didn't read all of your stuff either.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tarinor wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:


Secondly, I can be fairly sure that you won't get a brand new fighter class because the designer has said you won't in several different threads where far more modest changes than the ones proposed here have been rejected as too much. If you want fancy powers, wait till the feats chapter gets reviewed and...
One could argue that revamping (or remaking) a character class goes a lot further to making sure the rules are backwards compatible (and easily assimilated into all the other d20 supplements that exist). More so it keeps life more simple than if we keep trying to tweak feats just for the fighter. When we start tweaking feats and adding "extra boosts" for fighter feats, we need to have some form of rules that allow us to do that for all the hundreds of feats that exist in the myriads of other d20 supplements that exist. Otherwise we cripple the fighter yet again by forcing him to only get benefit from the 30 feats as apposed to 300 possible fighter feats he could take from other supplements. It’s like saying a sorcerer can learn and cast all these hundreds of spells from every supplement in print – thus making for a myriad of potential sorcerer options, but then telling him he looses all his bloodline abilities if he casts spells from any other book but the revised core. Never mind the headache as a GM of trying recall extra feat boosts and if you used it or not, and for which NPC, does class X qualify for this feat boost because its also gets a fighter bonus feat, but technically is not a fighter and so we go on…

How? if you give the fighter a Warblade's maneuvers (or the equivalent given Warblades aren't OGL and so can't be used) then you have to choose them and add them for every fighter. If you change the feats, you just apply the known effect of the feat. If you add additional feats, the old fighter doesn't have to take them. You are correct that option b) would have more significant backwards compatibility issues. However, there is precedent in the Clerical domains (which may be a bad example given the reaction that has provoked).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ruemere wrote:

Heroic feats - basic fantasy anime (superhuman jumps with duels over rooftops), i.e. no city levelling spells or guys fighting in the air.

Superhuman is not a good starting point. Base level feats should not be superhuman. They might become superhuman at later levels, i.e. feats could improve with level (or tier as you put it).

This is a difference of play style, though. Both should be accommodated, if possible, but it is hard to accommodate Slayers type anime and pulp-type traditionally fantasy within one game.


ckafrica wrote:
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.

Agreed. That's a laudable goal, one that I've tried to work toward. But having identified problems, the next step is to make suggestions at fixing them... and this is where the discussion breaks down. Certain folks whose focus has solely been in finding problems seem to be congenitally unable to offer any positive (as opposed to negative) input: they offer no suggestions, patches, fixes, or anything else except "all ideas suck" comments and (sometimes unwarranted) snide attitude.

Contrast the following:

Little Kid #1: "The red crayon isn't quite the color I'm looking for."
Little Kid #2: "Try this red-orange one; it's still close to red, but the slightly orange tone should be better for what you need."

(or)

Little Kid #1: "The red crayon isn't quite the color I'm looking for."
Little Kid #2: "That's because crayons are useless and if you had the artistic ability of a piece of wet cardboard, you'd already know that."
Little Kid #1: "Do you have any magic markers, then?"
Little Kid #2: "Markers run out of ink and are therefore worthless."
Little Kid #1: "Colored pencils?"
Little Kid #2: "Lead breaks. Useless."
Little Kid #1: "What, then?"
Little Kid #2: "We need a magic alien-crafted pen that never runs out of ink and is perfect."
Little Kid #1: "Where do we get one, or how do we make one?"
Little Kid #2: (silence)


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
The trap he is alluding to is where I deliberately put something in my posts then followed it up immediately by saying this is a test to see if he is reading everything before replying to it. Had he read the entire thing before responding, he would have ignored that paragraph and not responded to the test segment. Instead he jumped right into it, thereby proving he isn't even reading what he is responding to. The context of his posts already very strongly suggested that, I just set up the test as proof. I then went on to do the exact same thing again, getting exactly the same result. You'd think at least he'd avoid the trap with the sign beside it marking it as a trap the second time so he could at least get away with pretending to look like he was reading before replying. Yet, he did not. Why is that?

Ah, fiendish. Aubrey can't be bothered to read every last word you write? Wow, big scalp there. Why is that, do you think? Because he didn't think it was worth wasting the time on, given that your views have long been debased by your clear lack of D&D field experience?

Given that you also pointed out you rather odious world-view in that post, I suspect I know who came out looking better, to be honest.

Epic Trolls are Epic.

Debased when, how, and by who? A squad that may or may not be a sock puppet army rallying against the big meanie who doesn't 'talk nice'? *yawn*

The fact you are defending someone clearly proven to be a troll means you yourself are one. Congratulations.

As if that were not enough, another person doesn't get the meaning of the word trap. Seems I have to insult everyone's intelligence including my own by spelling out the very obvious again. The only correct response to that paragraph is to ignore it entirely and regard it as fabricated as it was stated to be a trap, therefore replying to it or otherwise taking it seriously means you fail at reading comprehension. Now, we can turn this into a flame fest, or I can focus on the few people that are being productive here. I'd prefer the latter, but I have no qualms about putting idiots in their place.


Paul Watson wrote:
ruemere wrote:

Heroic feats - basic fantasy anime (superhuman jumps with duels over rooftops), i.e. no city levelling spells or guys fighting in the air.

Superhuman is not a good starting point. Base level feats should not be superhuman. They might become superhuman at later levels, i.e. feats could improve with level (or tier as you put it).

This is a difference of play style, though. Both should be accommodated, if possible, but it is hard to accommodate Slayers type anime and pulp-type traditionally fantasy within one game.

"tier 1 feats for everyone at any level [core feats],

tier 2 feats for levels 9 to 15 [heroic feats],
tier 3 feats for levels 16 to 20 [legendary feats],
tier 4 feats for levels 21 to 30 [epic feats],
tier 5 feats for levels 31 and beyond [avatar feats]... "

Level 9 =/= starting point.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
ruemere wrote:

Heroic feats - basic fantasy anime (superhuman jumps with duels over rooftops), i.e. no city levelling spells or guys fighting in the air.

Superhuman is not a good starting point. Base level feats should not be superhuman. They might become superhuman at later levels, i.e. feats could improve with level (or tier as you put it).

This is a difference of play style, though. Both should be accommodated, if possible, but it is hard to accommodate Slayers type anime and pulp-type traditionally fantasy within one game.

"tier 1 feats for everyone at any level [core feats],

tier 2 feats for levels 9 to 15 [heroic feats],
tier 3 feats for levels 16 to 20 [legendary feats],
tier 4 feats for levels 21 to 30 [epic feats],
tier 5 feats for levels 31 and beyond [avatar feats]... "

Level 9 =/= starting point.

You are correct. I misread ruemere's post.

The Exchange

Crusader of Logic wrote:
The trap he is alluding to is where I deliberately put something in my posts then followed it up immediately by saying this is a test to see if he is reading everything before replying to it. Had he read the entire thing before responding, he would have ignored that paragraph and not responded to the test segment. Instead he jumped right into it, thereby proving he isn't even reading what he is responding to. The context of his posts already very strongly suggested that, I just set up the test as proof. I then went on to do the exact same thing again, getting exactly the same result. You'd think at least he'd avoid the trap with the sign beside it marking it as a trap the second time so he could at least get away with pretending to look like he was reading before replying. Yet, he did not. Why is that?
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

Ah, fiendish. Aubrey can't be bothered to read every last word you write? Wow, big scalp there. Why is that, do you think? Because he didn't think it was worth wasting the time on, given that your views have long been debased by your clear lack of D&D field experience?

Given that you also pointed out you rather odious world-view in that post, I suspect I know who came out looking better, to be honest.

Crusader of Logic wrote:

Epic Trolls are Epic.

Debased when, how, and by who? A squad that may or may not be a sock puppet army rallying against the big meanie who doesn't 'talk nice'? *yawn*

The fact you are defending someone clearly proven to be a troll means you yourself are one. Congratulations.

As if that were not enough, another person doesn't get the meaning of the word trap. Seems I have to insult everyone's intelligence including my own by spelling out the very obvious again. The only correct response to that paragraph is to ignore it entirely and regard it as fabricated as it was stated to be a trap, therefore replying to it or otherwise taking it seriously means you fail at reading comprehension. Now, we can turn this into a flame...

Another person? Is this a joke? I'm defending myself. You did read who this was from, right? A sock? It has my name on it. Did you fall into your own trap?

Thanks, CoL - I'm beginning to enjoy this again.

As I think I'll go out on a high, and as it's getting too easy anyway, I'll bow out for good now. Promise.

The Exchange

hey Aubry and CoL, get a room! I normally am in agreement with CoL but this is a bit to much. yadda yadda yadda, your both very smart idiots.

some debate is good, but if your being talked around, you might be going the wrong way. hey Aubry, I often dont agree with you (only because in your world, all you need to do is give the Fighter a lollipop and it the most awesome class around) but please man up and jump out of the message board. that goes for you too CoL (or pleasantly ignore each other and only address other peoples points)

The Exchange

You have a point, Sneaksy, and so I'm out of here.


Sneaksy Dragon wrote:

hey Aubry and CoL, get a room! I normally am in agreement with CoL but this is a bit to much. yadda yadda yadda, your both very smart idiots.

some debate is good, but if your being talked around, you might be going the wrong way. hey Aubry, I often dont agree with you (only because in your world, all you need to do is give the Fighter a lollipop and it the most awesome class around) but please man up and jump out of the message board. that goes for you too CoL (or pleasantly ignore each other and only address other peoples points)

I'm not even sure what he's talking about anymore, but he's not the only one taking shots at me. I think I have sufficiently filtered out the undesirables, so I have nothing further to say to him. Though if someone else attacks me, I know the filter failed and we're back to step 1.

Now, who has something constructive to say to me?

Sovereign Court

Crusader, your dictionary reference was expected, but misplaced. Yes, you were making an analogy but you were also making one worthy of ridicule. I’d call it hyperbole but, considering your overall style, I’m inclined to take you seriously.

An attack upon your character and your inflated sense of self regard is not a straw man argument. It’s an expression of dislike of you as a writer. I’ve refrained from addressing (or rephrasing) your arguments because I generally agree with your points. However, you continue to paint yourself into a social corner with your histrionics.

Aubrey is (was) trying to engage you in a debate. I’m not. I’m commenting as an observer. Regardless of your logic or your gravitas in person, here, in this forum, you are immensely boorish. A veritable caricature of snotty gamer. Your arguments unfortunately take a back seat to your tone.


Crusader of Logic wrote:


Now, who has something constructive to say to me?

How about everyone just go for a walk, and remember how fantastically silly it is to argue about a game anonymously on the internet?

The Exchange

DEAR GOD IN HEAVEN SELK, stop throwing gasoline! what was even the point of the last post but to be annoying. I dont care that you would never take CoL out to a nice seafood dinner and call em in the morning, nobody cares.

now everyone go to their corners, if you do I will give you 1 billion internetz!

nothing but love for my fiery friends, peace....(i mean it)


*hands sneaksy the fire extinguisher*

You might need this.


Sneaksy Dragon wrote:
DEAR GOD IN HEAVEN SELK, stop throwing gasoline!

I don't think Selk is the problem here.

Sovereign Court

I digress. I'll continue to read Crusader's work because it's generally solid, and I'll try to filter his commentary. I'm sorry for the gasoline (and the explosion, if it comes) - I'm just a fan of Aubrey's work and I think he deserves some respect from his debate partners.

Thanks.


Selk wrote:
I'll continue to read Crusader's work because it's generally solid

Could someone post a link to some of this work? On this particular thread I've seen reasons why Bo9S is needed (alas, Paizo can't simply pirate that source), and mention that Improved Trip needs to be de-nerfed (I agree), but no new suggestions.

The Exchange

toyrobots wrote:


How about everyone just go for a walk, and remember how fantastically silly it is to argue about a game anonymously on the internet?

<sigh> so true. My wife actually read some of this thread and laughed at those of us arguing because it was "just a game". Had me blushing for some time.

Sorry about all that. I'll endeavour to provide constructive debate from this point.


Paul Watson wrote:
ruemere wrote:

Heroic feats - basic fantasy anime (superhuman jumps with duels over rooftops), i.e. no city levelling spells or guys fighting in the air.

Superhuman is not a good starting point. Base level feats should not be superhuman. They might become superhuman at later levels, i.e. feats could improve with level (or tier as you put it).

This is a difference of play style, though. Both should be accommodated, if possible, but it is hard to accommodate Slayers type anime and pulp-type traditionally fantasy within one game.

I know that you have replied to CoL's post here, however I'd like to clarify my post myself.

Also, your reference to Slayers is quite excellent, as Gourry's (aka fighter with artifact sword) and Lina's (aka wizard with city levelling spells) difference in power levels is very relevant.

Clarifying proposal of segregating feats into tiers:

Me, quoted by Crusader of Logic wrote:


"tier 1 feats for everyone at any level [core feats],
tier 2 feats for levels 9 to 15 [heroic feats],
tier 3 feats for levels 16 to 20 [legendary feats],
tier 4 feats for levels 21 to 30 [epic feats],
tier 5 feats for levels 31 and beyond [avatar feats]... "

The rough level distinction is based on my knowledge of spell power levels, as witnessed during years of play. Basically tier one ends a little above E6 style gaming, tier two opens with Dimension Door and introduction stronger Save or Die spells and ends with Limited Wish, tier three is about artifacts, Wish spells and basically top of arcane power growth.

Tier four deals with "what now" types of games - you've reached canonical top, and now you're remaking the world according to your preferences. You're also probably playing most dangerous games with powers that be. You're still quite mortal, you're still vulnerable to nasty stuff, but you also have numerous resources at your disposal (like wizards who also cast Wish spells).
Tier five begins with characters being on the par with avatars of deities - spontaneous Miracles, apparent immortality and being alienated from mortal power levels... and does not end.

By attaching such label types of feats, it would be possible for GMs to both rule as to what type of game is to be played. And when (after all, if a GM says it's ok to use Legendary feats for 10th level characters, you would get probably a game similar to Mutants and Masterminds).

The reason for proposing this is my little contribution to accomodate points of view presented here - everyone would get their own sandbox as per their preferences.

Myself, again, I am not prejudiced against warriors getting powers similar powers (in strength, not in effect) to spells, as I have seen over the course years that this actually improves gaming experience for everyone, including spellcasters.

Why do I think that spellcasters benefit from power-up of their warrior friends? Because when you are completing strategic plan to take over a castle from iconic evil chap, you don't need to worry that your temporary absence from play will result in TPK. Because if things go wrong for the caster, he knows that his friends may still save him. And if worst comes to worst, and TPK occurs, the caster's owner does not feel bad since the warriors had an equal opportunity to save the day, or does not debate whether hiring another spellcaster instead of bringing over his drinking buddies would change the outcome.

Regards,
Ruemere


Ruemere, I largely agree with your analysis. Discounting anything above 20th level as beyond the scope of the initial Pathfinder rules, I see no reason why the other "tiers" couldn't be effectively implemented by making fighter feats with prerequisites like "weapon training +2," "bravery +4," etc. -- that would not only make them fighter-only feats (aka a-la-carte class features), but would lock in the effective "tier" as well.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ruemere,
Apologies if I came across as slightly more blunt than I could have. Your proposal did not catch me in the best of moods, can't imaigne why, and as I said, I misread it and thought you were proposing starting at heroic tier feats.

I tend to break the pre-epic game into five level bands, each one being defined by the number of attacks a martial character will get, which is close to your tiers.

Having high-fantasy/wuxia/anime type feats at mid range is not so much of a problem as they're still options only. And I agree, the casters are far more versatile than the Fighter. The problem comes if the powers the Fighter gets look too much like spells as that's not what a Fighter should be, IMHO.

Now, many of the Warblades stances and powers could be cannibalised for good ideas to turn into feats that would have much the same effect, and that I could easily get behind. Because they're options. If you want to push your fighter towards the anime type combat then the flaming sword type feats would work, while you could equally move towards ones that give you a free knockdown attempt when you hit the bad guy with your warhammer or allow you to mow down your enemies like chaff before a scythe (probably in the top tier). However, wizards will always have more options than a fighter out of combat and will always be able to do things a fighter can't. I don't want a fighter summoning celestial creatures to fight for him, for example.

Unfortunately, until the feats chapter gets opened, we'll be arguing ourselves in circles as we can't resolve the fighter until we resolve the feats.

I wouldn't mind if the fighter got bonuses with combat feats, but as has been pointed out, this would hurt backwards compatibility (at least a little). I'd also like the combat feats to advance with level in the same way that the old +2/+2 feats now do. That way, you could treat the fighter as one step higher and make him the master of feats he was supposed to be rather than the guy who gets more feats than anyone else but anyone could do what he ds if they wanted to.


Selk wrote:

Crusader, your dictionary reference was expected, but misplaced. Yes, you were making an analogy but you were also making one worthy of ridicule. I’d call it hyperbole but, considering your overall style, I’m inclined to take you seriously.

An attack upon your character and your inflated sense of self regard is not a straw man argument. It’s an expression of dislike of you as a writer. I’ve refrained from addressing (or rephrasing) your arguments because I generally agree with your points. However, you continue to paint yourself into a social corner with your histrionics.

Aubrey is (was) trying to engage you in a debate. I’m not. I’m commenting as an observer. Regardless of your logic or your gravitas in person, here, in this forum, you are immensely boorish. A veritable caricature of snotty gamer. Your arguments unfortunately take a back seat to your tone.

I tend to make my points in a humorous way if possible. It often serves as a preemptive counter to the easily offended if I'm cracking jokes while making a point. Now I could get completely serious, but I've found that tends to result in whoever I'm talking too quickly withering because they find me too intense when I don't filter myself. It also would set off the sensitive people around here a lot more often. Nah, I think we're better off with the jokes.

Kirth, can you be more specific as to what you're looking for? This forum is formatted quite poorly so it's not easy to find prior posts.


Crusader of Logic wrote:
Kirth, can you be more specific as to what you're looking for? This forum is formatted quite poorly so it's not easy to find prior posts.

Understood. I'm assuming you've made a stab at "fixing" the fighter by now -- everyone and their brother has, myself included -- and wondered how your proposals compared to some of the others being kicked around. For example, on the "stickiness" thread I proposed an intercept-and-stop feat; others (yourself included) were discussing the more standard "taunt" mechanism -- but I don't recall it ever getting to the point of a solid proposal. Do you have a writeup of your proposed mechanics?

Likewise, I've proposed a number of options to make it more difficult for spellcasters to blithely charm the poor fighter, who's whaling away at the wizard with his sword and accomplishing nothing. Increasing effective reach (possibly via an intercept feat) and greatly increasing the Spellcraft DCs is one possible avenue of approach -- not necessarily the best, but a quick fix requiring little in the way of new mechanics. Do you have your own means of rectifying this?

You were quick to shoot down SR (I'd give 'em a flat 11 + class level, the way you give a kid a lolipop -- it won't keep 'em from being hungry, but at least it keeps 'em from whining too much about it). Certainly, though, there needs to be some way to prevent a simple low-level spell from auto-taking-the-fighter-out-of-the-fight. I'd be interesting in seeing what you advocate.

Given more the pressing concerns above, fixing the vast disparity in creature hp vs. fighter damage seems to be low on the list, but bonus dice obviously don't do it for you -- which is OK, I can see how splatbook multipliers could make a straight bonus more attractive, even if I don't own said books. Do you advocate a simple bonus equal to BAB? Some other sort of scaling bonus entirely? Some other fix?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Kirth, can you be more specific as to what you're looking for? This forum is formatted quite poorly so it's not easy to find prior posts.

Understood. I'm assuming you've made a stab at "fixing" the fighter by now -- everyone and their brother has, myself included -- and wondered how your proposals compared to some of the others being kicked around. For example, on the "stickiness" thread I proposed an intercept-and-stop feat; others (yourself included) were discussing the more standard "taunt" mechanism -- but I don't recall it ever getting to the point of a solid proposal. Do you have a writeup of your proposed mechanics?

Likewise, I've proposed a number of options to make it more difficult for spellcasters to blithely charm the poor fighter, who's whaling away at the wizard with his sword and accomplishing nothing. Increasing effective reach (possibly via an intercept feat) and greatly increasing the Spellcraft DCs is one possible avenue of approach -- not necessarily the best, but a quick fix requiring little in the way of new mechanics. Do you have your own means of rectifying this?

You were quick to shoot down SR (I'd give 'em a flat 11 + class level, the way you give a kid a lolipop -- it won't keep 'em from being hungry, but at least it keeps 'em from whining too much about it). Certainly, though, there needs to be some way to prevent a simple low-level spell from auto-taking-the-fighter-out-of-the-fight. I'd be interesting in seeing what you advocate.

Given more the pressing concerns above, fixing the vast disparity in creature hp vs. fighter damage seems to be low on the list, but bonus dice obviously don't do it for you -- which is OK, I can see how splatbook multipliers could make a straight bonus more attractive, even if I don't own said books. Do you advocate a simple bonus equal to BAB? Some other sort of scaling bonus entirely? Some other fix?

Actually I shot down the taunt because it'd likely get stuck with 10 + half HD or levels + Cha which means for your typical Fighter it has a 95% failure rate and for one who has made themselves even more multiple attribute dependent by boosting that stat it still fails most of the time, because that formula only gives viable DCs if it uses your primary stat for your calculations.

Spell Resistance, even if it actually works is an active liability as you have to light a round on fire to lower it just so you can be buffed. Not an issue out of combat, but in it? Healing too.

Once they actually have some options, damage can be considered. They aren't that bad at dealing damage as a THF charger, or a THF tripper (with non nerfed Improved Trip of course). It's just the everything else that is completely trivial.

With that said... some sort of Immediate action movement up to half your move speed might work, except they can just move around you again (see: spiked chains for a counter). It needs to be a class feature though, and given to all front liners. After all, Paladins are almost as small in the pants as Fighters are. I just don't discuss them too much because the Crusader completely supersedes them and their poorly thought out code combined with lackluster class features. Technically the same is true of Warblades to Fighters, but at least Fighters were good to dip for a few more feats before (except now everyone got a few more feats for free). It's also a more commonly used example.

I'm not so sure about the reach (again, spiked chains). I'm also not so sure how much good making it harder to cast defensively will do seeing as a prepared mage is better at absorbing damage than a Crusader is, who is itself a very durable class. By absorbing damage, I mean making almost everything miss compared to the Fighter who only has AC and maybe a single 20% miss chance to fall back on and is therefore practically auto hit as AC is not a valid defense. Come back to me on that, but currently I'm thinking the worst that'd happen is the mage says AoO me if you can, guy swings with a 90% chance to miss or so, spell goes off anyways.

Preventing a single spell from taking them out = give them Concentration as a class skill, followed by giving them the ability to make a Concentration check instead of a Will save as an Immediate action once per encounter. A natural 1 on the check is not an automatic failure. Well, this could be a little clunky as that skill got folded into spellcraft, but the idea is that their focus lets them have a better chance of shaking off enchantments. Since it is 1/encounter, it's not going to block everything but does let them have it when it counts. Yes, I just ripped off some Diamond Mind maneuvers. While you're at it give them a sensible Iron Heart Surge. And by sensible I mean written more clearly, and Immediate action activation so you can actually shake off the things you're supposed to shake off like nausea, poison and stunning but not shake off the things you aren't supposed to like anti magic fields, the sun, and other high level random effects. This should obviously be higher level than the first ability which would be quite suitable at low level. ToB gets it at 1, so it wouldn't break anything to include it as innate to the Fighter, Paladin, and anyone else of the hit the thing with the other thing persuasion.

Damage again we will have to come back to, but it needs to be straight damage, not damage dice. That also helps crit focused types who are currently quite subpar since that's a multiplier too. That is another thing that needs to be worked on as focusing on lots of criticals is just flat out inferior to reliable damage due to its swinginess, the immunities, and the lack of reach. More to the point the stuff that builds off criticals like xxx burst is just plain crap. You need to crit on a 7-20 just to make say... flaming burst better than flaming, which is itself subpar. A * 3 crit weapon needs 14-20 to do the same thing. * 4 needs 16-20. Except all of these are impossible, even if Keen and Improved Critical stacked (which they should, that's the first step). So either the bursts need to become far cheaper than +1 (yes, it's +2 but the plain flaming is +1 of that) which means make it a straight cost adder, or the bursts need to be greatly improved, as do the normal properties. After all, 1d6 added to every swing was incredible when enemy HP capped around 88, and 1d8+6 was very good damage to be dealing. Now? Forget about it. It's another hold over that hasn't changed with the times. About the only way it's worth it at all is via a Lesser Crystal of Energy Assault which means you get Flaming (or Frost, or whatever other flavor you want) in a modular form for 3k. You can only use one crystal at a time though so even for 3k it's a little hard to justify compared to say... heal 5 a hit when striking living creatures, max 50 a day. For anywhere from 6k to 38k depending on existing enchantments? No.

So there's a baseline for you. Flaming, Frost, whatever for 3k. Then whatever burst for another 3k with the caveat that you can only get one of the above for that cost, and the burst has to match the normal property. In other words you can get a +1 Flaming Burst sword for 8k, but if you wanted to add Icy Burst as well you'd have to take it as a normal +2 property making the weapon now a 24k +1 Flaming Burst Icy Burst sword. Or just get it +1 Flaming for 5k, then add Icy Burst and it's 21k. I specifically include the you only get it cheap once clause as getting all four bursts for 24k would be a bit much. If you add the Sonic one to that 5 bursts for 30k.


Crusader of Logic wrote:

1. Actually I shot down the taunt because it'd likely get stuck with 10 + half HD or levels + Cha.

2. Spell Resistance, even if it actually works is an active liability as you have to light a round on fire to lower it just so you can be buffed... (Instead) Yes, I just ripped off some Diamond Mind maneuvers. While you're at it give them a sensible Iron Heart Surge.

3. some sort of Immediate action movement up to half your move speed might work, except they can just move around you again. It needs to be a class feature though, and given to all front liners. After all, Paladins are almost as small in the pants as Fighters are.

4. I'm also not so sure how much good making it harder to cast defensively will do seeing as a prepared mage is better at absorbing damage than a Crusader is, who is itself a very durable class.

5. Except all of these are impossible, even if Keen and Improved Critical stacked (which they should, that's the first step). So either the bursts need to become far cheaper than +1...

1. Also, it would exclude mindless critters, anyone with a high Will save, etc., even on a 1 for the save. That's why I favor sort of immediate move/combat maneuver to block/attack routine (the attack to give them something to think about other than just walking away again).

2. I'd almost want to make it a quick fix by saying "the fighter has SR equal to 11 + his class level against spells and spell-like abilities cast by opponents." (Paladins could get something similar as an aura, eventually). If that's TOO much, some sort of mechanic like yours could work... write up a description if you get a chance and we (meaning you, people here, and, most importantly, the designers at Paizo) can take a look at it.

3. Yes. I might even make it up to full speed; after all, a quickened dimension door has a much longer range than that, and doesn't get blocked.

4. Understood about soaking damage. Some sort of true seeing feat ("Pierce the Fog of War") would circumvent displacement, mirror image, and the like... and if he can't overcome DR/adamantine (vs. stoneskin), he has no business running around pretending to fight. That said, I'd also very much like to see some sort of dispelling strike feat (count as a targeted greater dispel magic, CL = BAB)... I'll work on writing one.

5. Keen and ImprCrit certainly need to stack; maybe Sean Reynolds will show Paizo his math on that, now that he's on board, and they'll believe him. Rather than (or in addition to) cheaper burst effects, I'd like to see various feats to blind, immobilize, or whatever on a confirmed crit.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

Crusdaer of Logic wrote:
Preventing a single spell from taking them out = give them Concentration as a class skill, followed by giving them the ability to make a Concentration check instead of a Will save as an Immediate action once per encounter. A natural 1 on the check is not an automatic failure. Well, this could be a little clunky as that skill got folded into spellcraft, but the idea is that their focus lets them have a better chance of shaking off enchantments. Since it is 1/encounter, it's not going to block everything but does let them have it when it counts. Yes, I just ripped off some Diamond Mind maneuvers. While you're at it give them a sensible Iron Heart Surge. And by sensible I mean written more clearly, and Immediate action activation so you can actually shake off the things you're supposed to shake off like nausea, poison and stunning but not shake off the things you aren't supposed to like anti magic fields, the sun, and other high level random effects. This should obviously be higher level than the first ability which would be quite suitable at low level. ToB gets it at 1, so it wouldn't break anything to include it as innate to the Fighter, Paladin, and anyone else of the hit the thing with the other thing persuasion.

There's already a Feat that does this... Steadfast Determination, allows your Con mod to Will saves instead of Wis and Natural 1's on Fort saves aren't automatically failures. Only downside is prereq of Endurance.


primemover003 wrote:
There's already a Feat that does this... Steadfast Determination, allows your Con mod to Will saves instead of Wis and Natural 1's on Fort saves aren't automatically failures. Only downside is prereq of Endurance.

Not OGL = can't use for Pathfinder. Otherwise, I'd say file off the Endurance prereq and give it as a bonus feat (aka class feature). Wait: let's just add to the bravery class feature! Make the bonus apply to all Will saves (not just vs. fear), and no auto-fail on a 1 -- maybe ramp up the rate at which it improves slightly. Also, a feat so that 1/day per +1 of bravery, you can reroll a failed Will save 1 round later as a free action.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

Right just because it's not OGL doesn't mean we can't use it as a benchmark for PFRPG feats, class features, etc. That feat's almost too good. Also just because it's not OGL doesn't mean that PFRPG can't look at it as a balance point. Part of the design philosophy IS to be able to continue using our 3.5 library.


primemover003 wrote:
Right just because it's not OGL doesn't mean we can't use it as a benchmark for PFRPG feats, class features, etc.

This leads me to wonder.

Once the OGL runs dry, who is going to even care? Will any company really bother to come after Paizo for incorporating generic versions of 3rd party feats that work?

I'm really curious about the legal state of this project, but this already-contentious thread is not the best venue for discussion...

The Exchange

Crusader of Logic wrote:
Actually I shot down the taunt because it'd likely get stuck with 10 + half HD or levels + Cha which means for your typical Fighter it has a 95% failure rate and for one who has made themselves even more multiple attribute dependent by boosting that stat it still fails most of the time, because that formula only gives viable DCs if it uses your primary stat for your calculations.

I see taunt as a feat being used off your Intimidate skill with a DC for success. DC could be 10+half hit dice+will. Intimidate of course uses charisma but Pathfinder already contains a feat that allows you to use your strength for intimidate (I'd rather see this as a class ability).

So Fighter 1st (16 strength, but could be higher I guess) has taunt of
+3(str)+1(rank intimdate)+3(class skill) = +7

Average 1st level DC = 10 + 1(HD) + 1 (wisdom or intelligence depending on how you argue targetting opponents for prefence attacking works) = 12. So fighter taunts on 5 or more. Obviously if the opponent is a magic user this DC will be higher, and might be lower for others so I assumed an average of 1.

Mid levels - +5 (str, though magic and ability buys, possibly higher) + 8 ranks + 3 class skill = Total of +16 for taunt

Baddies DC's will be more variable - 10 + 6 (half hit dice, assuming variablity here) + 3 will modifier (also variable) = 19. Almost guaranteed success. Maybe increase to full hit dice (say on average around 10 - 12 HD fighting 8th level player) - DC now becomes 23 - 25, so the player still succeeds better than 50% of the time

This pattern continues up the chain of levels but hit dice and strength scores and will saves are much more variable so I'm reluctant to crunch numbers on this one. I'm sure others might be willing to try though.

This should scale fairly well and make it a better than even chance for the fighter to succeed at taunting an opponent to engage them rather than anyone else.

You could tie feats to it to broaden the number of opponents that attack you and the method in which they attack (so incensed at you they rush to attack with hands and feet and teeth). Since you're now using strength to be intimidating, it has nothing to do with language dependencies but I'm sure some creatures would have to be immune to the taunt (mindless creatures probably). I don't see that as too big a handicap.

The big weakness is that nearly all your opponents could use it against you as well, so maybe the prereqs need to be a bit stiff. Alternatively, we could accept the fact that to be useful it actually already requires a second feat for fighters to use, and make this one completely dependent on strength (trying to be the biggest percieved threat in a battle isn't about telling the guy what you're going to do to him , its about LOOKING scary enough to be concerned about). Since this means spending two feats for access, its something that fighters can get with little concern, but mosters and NPC's will have to consider carefully if they want to gain the benefit or not.

This is an alternative taunt mechanism to what you propose CoL, which removes the multi stat problem you thought wasa weakness, works to the strength of the character, and scales appropriately with level. It provides battlefield control for fighting types and allows for expansion through additional feats. It also makes one of the few skills a fighter has access to much more useful.

What do others think of this as a possible help for the frontline fighter groups. This came up in another thread (fighter stickiness), but since that's dead in the water and the discussion floated this way, thought I'd throw it out there.


toyrobots wrote:
primemover003 wrote:
Right just because it's not OGL doesn't mean we can't use it as a benchmark for PFRPG feats, class features, etc.

This leads me to wonder.

Once the OGL runs dry, who is going to even care? Will any company really bother to come after Paizo for incorporating generic versions of 3rd party feats that work?

I'm really curious about the legal state of this project, but this already-contentious thread is not the best venue for discussion...

It wouldn't surprise me if some companies were sittng back and watching what happens with Paizo and the PFRPG. If Paizo can carry on the OGL legacy I think others will jump on the bandwagon.

In some form or other, great or small, I think OGL is here to stay.


primemover003 wrote:
Crusdaer of Logic wrote:
Preventing a single spell from taking them out = give them Concentration as a class skill, followed by giving them the ability to make a Concentration check instead of a Will save as an Immediate action once per encounter. A natural 1 on the check is not an automatic failure. Well, this could be a little clunky as that skill got folded into spellcraft, but the idea is that their focus lets them have a better chance of shaking off enchantments. Since it is 1/encounter, it's not going to block everything but does let them have it when it counts. Yes, I just ripped off some Diamond Mind maneuvers. While you're at it give them a sensible Iron Heart Surge. And by sensible I mean written more clearly, and Immediate action activation so you can actually shake off the things you're supposed to shake off like nausea, poison and stunning but not shake off the things you aren't supposed to like anti magic fields, the sun, and other high level random effects. This should obviously be higher level than the first ability which would be quite suitable at low level. ToB gets it at 1, so it wouldn't break anything to include it as innate to the Fighter, Paladin, and anyone else of the hit the thing with the other thing persuasion.

There's already a Feat that does this... Steadfast Determination, allows your Con mod to Will saves instead of Wis and Natural 1's on Fort saves aren't automatically failures. Only downside is prereq of Endurance.

That is not nearly the same thing. Using your Constitution instead of your Wisdom on all Will saves =/= Making a Concentration check instead of a Will save as an Immediate action 1/encounter. It also doesn't address the IHS ripoff.

Not responding to the others on the grounds it is unclear just what they're trying to do. The wording is very poor, so I can't decipher it.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Crusader of Logic wrote:
Now, who has something constructive to say to me?

Eh, I dunno that you'd see it (or anything else responding to your thoughts of the moment), but I'd say some time away from the keyboard this weekend would be a good thing, judging by the volumes of text on this page alone. You might win an argument, but victories in online arguments are hollow, from my experience. No jelly or custard on the inside. Not even Mallow.

Maybe do some tabletop role-playing. It's fun.


Wrath wrote:
This should scale fairly well and make it a better than even chance for the fighter to succeed at taunting an opponent to engage them rather than anyone else.

My issue with taunt is less with the mechanics than with the underlying silliness. OK, pretend I'm an intelligent guy, I know the enemy wizard can wipe out my whole group with one spell. So what do I do? I attack some armored bozo who sticks his tongue out at me? Strains my in-game suspension of disbelief, unless it's magic, in which case it should be (and is) a bard spell, not a fighter ability. (Also, so many critters are immune to mind-affecting effects that I don't think it will get as much use as it should).

The fighter needs to be able to intercept enemies; otherwise he's not doing his job. One option is of course the "taunt," which embraces the fighter's low mobility as a virtue, and brings the enemies to the fighter. Another, more dynamic option for the fighter's player is to give the fighter, through a feat/feat chain, the ability to make a full move as an immediate action, and stop moving/charging enemies cold with a subsequent combat maneuver (like a trip, but they're not necessarily prone, just "checked"). As soon as feats are opened up for discussion, I'll post drafts for discussion and/or critique.

Liberty's Edge

Crusader of Logic wrote:


For the record, Aubrey = Authority. Aelryinth isn't the same person though.

I'm Spartacus.


I'M SPARTACUS!!!

Liberty's Edge

I'm not sure, but I think Sebastian is me, when my multiple personality takes over, like Tyler Durden.


Heathansson wrote:
I'm Spartacus.
Michael Keaton on Celebrity Jeopardy]I'm Batman.[QUOTE="Alex Trebek wrote:
For the last time, no, you are not!

151 to 200 of 544 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Playtest Reports / Using Beta in RotRL (Stop buffing the fighter class)!!! All Messageboards