Our group just finished with Rise of the Runelords and decided to use the Pathfinder RPG beta for our next campaign, which will be the Curse of the Crimson Throne adventure path. We'll be doing our usual session summaries and posting those to the Campaign Journals board, but here's where I'll talk about our interaction with the rules. All the players are experienced D&D (and many other RPG) players, late '20's, early '30's.
Here's the starting rules from the DM on character creation.
Books allowed:
* Pathfinder RPG Beta, 3.5e DMG
* Player's Handbook II
* Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords (Crusaders and Warblades only)
* The first "Complete" series (Warrior, Divine, Arcane, Adventurer)
* The second "Complete" series (Mage, Scoundrel, Champion)
* Spell Compendium
* Magic Item Compendium
* Frostburn, Sandstorm, Stormwrack, Cityscape, Dungeonscape
25 point spend on ability scores, per the Pathfinder RPG.
Pick one trait from CoCT Player's Guide and one from the Pathfinder Companion books (Second Darkness is the only one out now, but more will come I'm sure).
Special DM rule to help with the 3.5e "multiclassing problem":
If a caster multiclasses into a non-caster class (this does not include any class that gives caster levels or spellcasting advances), for every 2 non-caster levels he will gain CL and new spells per day as if he had advanced 1 level in one of his caster classes. He doesn't gain any other bennies like domain or school powers. The above rule replaces other multiclassing band-aids like Practiced Spellcaster feat and the Mystic Theurge class, so those things will be unavailable. (Slow casters like rangers/pallys count, and warlocks/invocations count.)
My take - I like this rule "kinda." It helps not nerf spellcasters who take some levels in a non-caster class. However, it doesn't address the opposite (losing too much BAB if you're a fighting type who dips into casting). Also, we argued about one aspect of this - I think it should also apply to classes/p-classes that give limited spellcasting. For example, if you are a caster and take a p-class that only gives casting progression at every other level, you should get one more CL for every two "skipped" levels. Otherwise you nerf all of the existing p-classes. If you can just take, for example,fighter levels and get 1/2 spellcasting with it, then all of the p-classes that give 1/2 or worse casting in exchange for some but not all fightery powers suck in comparison, and there's a lot of these "class-blending" p-classes out there. The DM disagreed. But I'm right.
I started thinking about character concepts and came up with a couple.
1. I know that Crimson Throne is more urban and that there's a Batman-like "Blackjack" character in there that seems cool and James Jacobs mentioned that PCs might be able to "step into his mask". So I thought about a tough rogue, acrobatic, maybe specializing in thrown weapons and intimidation. Possible implementations include Avenging Executioner, Master Thrower, or Tiger Claw school from Book of Nine Swords. But, the character I played in the campaign we did right before RotR, set in the City of Sigil (see the session summaries!)
2. I haven't played a cleric in a while. I considered a cleric of Pharasma, and then go Ruby Knight Vindicator, or even a paladin and go Shadowbane something - I've wanted to do a Wee Jasite cleric or pally for a while and Pharasma's very similar. I also thought about a cleric of Sarenrae; on the one hand she's very Pelor (too similar IMO) but I like her "up with commoners" take. Maybe mix with monk for a Sacred Fist.
Our group got big enough we actually split it for this campaign into two groups of four. It turns out the rest of my group were looking at fighter/rogue/ranger and warlock/sorcerer kinds of things, so I figured "OK, I'll go cleric." I had hoped to not be the primary caster, as I was the primary caster (wizard) in our RotR game, but we need what we need. And the new channeling rules in Pathfinder intrigue me.
Also, I wanted to play a more positive character, and the pic of the cleric of Sarenrae in the Paizo books (cover of "Fortress of the Stone Giants" - Kyra, the iconic cleric from that AP) really intrigued me. So I figured I'd do the cleric of Sarenrae, even do a female one. (I do a female character every once in a while, as we're all grown ups it's not a problem... In fact I hear the other group is 3/4 female by some odd coincidence!)
So, a cleric of Sarenrae it is. Next post, her build!
|
Hi, Ernest. Good to see a new campaign playtest starting up. I enjoy reading accounts from other DMs and players.
I'm not down on your play style, but if I may I'd like to make a suggestion: [b]avoid using splatbooks, even Spell Compendium. My first playtests started off allowing my normal array of splatbooks, with conversion to PRPG for classes. It did not go well, either as a game or as a playtest.
1. There are too many factors to consider to keep everything balanced. It is too much work as a player or DM to consider every result of allowing even one item into PRPG play. In terms of reporting the playtest, it means you have to filter this information when reporting, which creates even more work.
2. Some of the rule interations create wonking power shifts. For example, allowing "Knockback" from 3.0 Sword and Fist created a brutal dynamic whereby one character was decimating his opponents.
3. Some of the books you have in play bring in entire sub-systems, which do not really mesh with the PRPG re-balancing.
As a final word, there is value in allowing the splatbooks - providing Paizo with feedback on how PRPG interacts with other sources. But I thought I would give you the heads up anyway.
Best of luck! :)
Here's where it got a little harder. You see, in 3.5e, you really need to plan your build out some even at level 1. Many prestige classes etc. have weird requirements and if you don't plan for them you won't get into them. And you have to min-max a little. It's hard to play D&D without doing it some. If you don't, and the rest of your party does, they are always outclassing you and that's not fun. And if your party doesn't, but you are playing through published adventures that assume you are, you get your ass kicked.
And from my Rise of the Runelords experience - you better bring a good build for these Paizo scenarios. If it wasn't for semi-cheese stuff from the Spell Compendium and Magic Item Compendium,and everyone having stellar builds that let you throw down a fistful of dice per hit - we would have TPKed many a time. At the end of Rise of the Runelords, our party was level 14 (and we weren't low; the iconics in the back were 14 too) and the Runelord was EL 21. 21! You gotta be in it to win it with that kinda stuff. I wish that wasn't the case, I'd like nothing more than to just pick my next level and feats on what seems fun at the time, but I play the game I'm given.
So I start planning out my cleric's build. We're using a bunch of 3.5e books in the campaign, since Pathfinder is supposed to be back compatible. But the new channeling rules and other alterations have two effects. One, they either make prestige classes and other 3.5e crunch impossible (anythign dealing with domain spells, for instance) or much less desirable (channeling is very important to a cleric now, but of course no p-classes, even ones that progress your spellcasting, progress your channeling). A lot of stuff was ruled out immediately, and with the remainder I ended up with me requiring a bunch of judgement calls from my DM.
First, I asked about using Radiant Servant of Pelor (Complete Divine) as a Radiant Servant of Sarenrae. Technically he said yes, but also ruled that because channeling does damage to undead, there's no Disciple of the Sun, Greater Turning, or other "destroy undead" feats/powers. Sadly, I disagree here too - I would argue that greater turning is LESS powerful than in 3.5e, mainly because the "destroy the undead" and "do damage to undead" effects overlap. If you destroy them, as the 3.5e power allows, the damage done is pointless and lost. And if you're doing enough damage to kill them with the channel, then the additional daily turns you have to spend for the destroy effect are lost!
Then, I asked about taking Crusader from Bo9S, and swapping in the Desert Wind school, with its focus on fire and scimitars, for Stone Dragon. It seemed better to me for RP reasons, as Sarenrae is all about the fire and scimitars. However, the DM ruled that the school seems more powerful than others, so it's nerfed - powers are all 1 level higher, -2 initiator level when you use one. I strongly disagreed with this - none of the Bo9S schools are more powerful than another, they seem balanced by design, and I always considered Desert Wind a weak school because who takes fire damage after about level 5 anyway?
I found this to be an immensely frustrating process. Frankly at this point, I'd rather just say screw the old 3.5e books, if it's going to be this complicated let's play pure Pathfinder, I'm sure they'll come out with some p-classes etc. soon.
You see, our general gamer culture is that if we're playing e.g. D&D 3e, anything in the obviously relevant books is legal (no FR books in Greyhawk, but otherwise others) with minimal DM interference. The conjunction of Pathfinder with 3.5e backstock means that we needed judgement calls on every single little p-class and feat and power. You may not mind, but it was jarring because we don't usually do that.
OK, gripe over, now the build plan!
Hi, Ernest. Good to see a new campaign playtest starting up. I enjoy reading accounts from other DMs and players.
I'm not down on your play style, but if I may I'd like to make a suggestion: avoid using splatbooks, even Spell Compendium.
Heh, you beat me to my next post. Yeah, I feel like the mixing is going to be a huge pain. But it's what Pathfinder is intended to do, according to Paizo. We'll see how it goes as we level up, but at this point I feel like Paizo should jettison 3.5e compatibility and just take D&D in a better direction. I am sure they could put out enough splatbookage quickly to give everyone sufficient feat/p-class options.
|
|
Well, most of the classes do emulate some of the better prestige class options, particularly the fighter, paladin, rogue, sorcerer, and wizard. If you plot out a cleric, I think you'll find that they play stronger than the 3.5 version, but not as much as the previous classes.
Ideally, your DM would allow you to alter some existing feats of choice. For example, a feat that improves the damage of turning by +1d6.
In response to your last post, I don't think "comapatability" is synonymous with "balance". In other words, use with caution. You can use things as is for the most part (I honestly think statblocks and adventures are their biggest concern) and this doesn't invalidate your 3.5 books, but some might not be as valuable as they used to be, so to speak.
Then a late contender comes... The DM is willing to say pretty much anything Paizo is legal, so the new Pathfinder Gazetteer and Campaign Setting books are in. Each has a little crunch hidden away in them.
Although oddly there's some issues, as these books 3.5e, not Pathfinder! So for example, they have a cleric option on p.11 of the Gazetteer for spontaneous domain casting - give up one domain, and do spontaneous casting from the other. Familiar from 3.5e, it's in PHB2 p.37. But in Pathfinder, you don't really have domain spells, you have powers you get at levels 1/2/4/8/12/16/20. So it's unclear how to convert that.
In the Campaign Setting, there's a Holy Warrior option for a cleric - you forgo your domain powers and instead get fighter BAB, d10 HD, and proficiency in your deity's favored weapon. This is a good option, although again with the 3.5e-ism - Pathfinder clerics already get proficiency with their deity's weapon, so you are paying a little more than you should.
I thought for a while over whether to take this option. On the one hand, the Pathfinder domain powers are pretty weak. At their *best* they are "cast one spell you can already cast 1/day." And at worst they are bad; who wants to touch an undead creature to do 1d8 damage, that's what you carry a mace for. They are definitely worse than 3.5e clerical domains, no question. On the other hand, since the rest of my party is shaping up to be warrior, ranger, and warlock or sorcerer, we're very low on spells and spell-likes. If I go the more martial route will I screw us later? If I do, I won't be able to take Radiant Servant or other p-classes with domain prereqs but that's not a dealkiller now either with them being kinda jacked up. And if you put some work into fighting, you get into feat starvation between feats to buff your casting and your fighting. Although (on the third hand?) a lot of the feats I'd take are out anyway. I posted above about the turning feats, and upon reviewing the domain feats (spend a turn attempt to do something) many of those are irrelevant now since channeling is a nice healing trick. In 3.5e if you weren't fighting undead, divine feats were a good way to blow your turns and get *some* benefit out of them. However, almost none of those benefits were equal to the new benefit of 1d6 + 1d6/2 levels of healing! So I'm low on clericy feats I want to take.
Anyway, I am actually a bit worried - Paizo is forging ahead publishing all kinds of books for Golarion in the Pathfinder Companion line, but will the crunch in them be useless in a year when the Pathfinder RPG goes gold? Or will they take the time to publish conversion notes for them?
No really, next time, my build.
Or so I thought, but the ever popular post-eating bug ate my post and I forgot to make a copy first. Paizo, you really need to fix that.
Anyway, we had our first session today! The other three characters were:
* Malcolm, a heavy flail wielding fighter who resembles Titus Pullo from Rome
* Thorndyke, a two weapon ranger found hunting for his dinner in the alleys of Korvosa, who resembles Feral Boy from the Civic-Minded Five of The Tick.
* A half-elf air bloodline sorcerer, whose name I keep forgetting but it starts with V. He can zap electricity at will.
And here's my character!
Annata Vieri
L1 Female Human (Chelaxian) – Cleric 1 of Sarenrae
Quote: "Take heart, the Dawnflower herself shines her light upon us!"
STR 12 (+1)
DEX 12 (+1)
CON 12 (+1)
INT 12 (+1)
WIS 16 (+3)
CHA 17 (+3)
Saves:
Fort +3
Ref +1
Will +5
Init: +3
Move: 30’
BAB: +1 (melee +2, missile +2)
AC: 17
HP: 11
AL: NG
Action Points: 5 (oh, I forgot to mention, we always use action points)
Harrow Points: 4 (an adventure path specific kind of action point)
Languages: Taldane (common), Varisian
Class Abilities:
Holy Warrior - Lose both domains, get d10 HD and fighter BAB. (Pathfinder Campaign Setting)
Channel Energy - 8/day (3, +3 Cha, +2 Extra Turning)
Traits:
Reactionary - +2 trait bonus to Initiative checks. (CoCT Player's Guide)
Religious - +2 bonus on Concentration checks. (Second Darkness Player's Guide)
Feats:
Extra Turning (+2/day)
Selective Channeling (omit 3 targets) - human bonus
Martial Weapon Prof: scimitar - cleric bonus
Martial Weapon Prof: ? - human bonus
Spells:
L0: 3/at will
Guidance
Detect Magic
Light
L1: 2
Bless
Updraft (Spell Compendium)
Gear:
Scimitar
Scale Mail
Large Wooden Shield
etc.
As you will note I finally decided that the domains were lame and just went with the awesome Holy Warrior (aka Paladin Obsolescence).
Annata has olive skin and dark red hair - kinda like this.
First Session Report
The more entertaining and story-oriented session summary isn't ready yet but it'll be posted here when it is.
From a game system point of view, it went well and didn't feel too different from 3.5. There were some notable differences, however:
The clerical channeling was great and I used it a lot to heal people in combat. With Extra Turning" I could do it eight times per day! Once I take "Quicken Turning" (CD) it'll really be hell on wheels. Selective Channeling was nice from two points of view. One, obviously I could omit bad guys. But also, it turned into quite a role-playing decisionmaker for Annata. Include the fallen bad guy, or not? She ended up including folks more often than not and even let it heal Gaedren Lamm after the 'boss fight' with him. It's one thing to not spend a limited healing resource on an enemy, but it's another thing (speaking as a good character) to not allow it to affect someone bleeding out, even if they're a bad guy.
The sorcerer got equal mileage out of his at-will, touch attack "elemental ray" from his elemental bloodline. He took Point Blank Shot, so hitting for 1d6+1 was pretty easy.
Both of these abilities let us adventure a lot longer than otherwise. I had two first level spells and had to burn one on a cure light which unluckily did 3 points early. We probably would have gotten about a third of the way through Lamm's hideout and then bailed to rest because the sorcerer and I would have been "out". As it was, we did the whole thing and then handled a very unlucky random encounter after (an otyugh!).
Also, we liked the reduced skill lists. Everyone was pleased to make Diplomacy for Gather Info, Perception for Search, Acrobatics for Tumble, etc. In fact, the Knowledge skills could use some combining, I thought afterwards - having to differentiate knowledge (local) from knowledge (nobility) to ID a local noble is retarded.
We also liked using Appraise to ID magic items (it was SO worthless before).
We even used CMB some and liked that too! There was grappling with the otyugh and there was a lot less looking things up and it went a lot faster than before (and we've played 3.5e hardcode for years...). That was the main change for the fighter and ranger; otherwise they seemed to play no differently.
So as for the first session, it still generally felt like 3e, with some modest but noticeable improvements.
Oh, also - two of the players didn't have a hard copy of the beta or were otherwise unclear, but besides some folks missing the 1 hp or 1 sp from favored class rule, no one had any trouble with chargen.
Oh, and one other observation - I got a lot of mileage out of the unlimited orisons. "Guidance" is a great one, each time before they embark on breaking into some building or whatever she has the party bow their heads and receive the Dawnflower's blessing - and with the flexibility of +1 to a save or attack or skill roll, it came in useful for everyone several times. And being able to do Light and Detect Magic at will just keeps things moving along without boring sequences of trying to muddle along without them or delay till they're back.
The DM decided to go the route of just advancing us levels at appropriate points. Without spells and items sapping XP, spending 30 minutes doing math at the end of a session to give people XP to the exact point has lost most of its luster. The group was all on board with that. It's a large point of complexity with very little payoff. That apporach might not stand up from a more gamist point of view when people miss games or whatnot, but at least we could go to a "1 XP per session, 3 XP levels you" kind of scheme like many other games. The XP system in D&D is the most Byzantine of any game out there, and that's not a good thing.
|
Oh, and one other observation - I got a lot of mileage out of the unlimited orisons. "Guidance" is a great one, each time before they embark on breaking into some building or whatever she has the party bow their heads and receive the Dawnflower's blessing - and with the flexibility of +1 to a save or attack or skill roll, it came in useful for everyone several times. And being able to do Light and Detect Magic at will just keeps things moving along without boring sequences of trying to muddle along without them or delay till they're back.
I found my players used Guidance extensively too. This orison never saw use in our 3.5 game, but now it gets some appropriate use.
Hi! And I'm one the players from the Friday Group. There's a very brief description of the characters over here. We used the same build options and points. The Friday Gang voted for a much shorter list of splat books and two of us (the cleric/rogue and the sorcerer) have decided to use just the Pathfinder rules.
As far as the first level domain powers being lame. I disagree (being the Cleric of Calistra). The Domain tricks for Chaos (shhh! Don't tell the Paladin.) and Luck have been pretty handy. But I do think that Selective Channeling is a Feat Tax on Clerics. But I'll rant more about that when we get to that point in the play test schedule.
And a brief outline of my character:
Dafnee'
Cleric of Calistra 2/Rogue 2 (Favored Class)
Female Half-Elf
STR 14 +2
DEX 16 +3
CON 13 +1
INT 10
WIS 16 +3
CHA 14 +2
Reflex SV 6
Fort SV 4
Will SV 6
BAB +2
Feats:
Dodge
Skill Focus: Escape Artist
Selective Channeling
Domains: Chaos and Luck
Traits: Addicted Friend, Charming
Once our scribe gets the session summaries done for the Sunday Gang, I'm planning on posting a few notes on how the two groups handled the same encounters differently.
OK, more sessions and we're level three now. My new feat is Quicken Turning (from the old splatbooks). I actually offered to my DM to nerf it down to a move action or something, but he didn't see a problem with it. So now channeling is a free action! Woot! Bask in my healing radiance, boys.
So far I've been meleeing more than casting - because I have so many channels (8/day) I use them instead of Cure Lights. So mostly I've been doing guidance + bless + fight + channels.
I have noticed effects seem more stackable. Guidance is competence, bless is morale, and divine favor is luck. Though DF still sucks only being +1/+1 till level 6.
I like how many of the spells seem to have longer durations, so that they last for a full fight or even more - I am more willing to cast them "before we go in the front door." Guidance, Divine Favor, etc. Though Bless still sucks at 1 round/level. Especially at level 1-3 that's quite some bookkeeping pain in the ass and often not worth the wasted round to cast. I wouldn't mind a little 4e-ism and call spells like that a duration of "the encounter."
I will note that the huge damage benefit of two-handed weapons is starting to come up. My cleric, with the Holy Warrior option, has fighter BAB, a scimitar, and only +1 STR bonus. So I'm putting in d6+1 damage. The fighter has a heavy flail and overhand chop and seems to be pushing 20 hp damage with a good strike (at level 2!) and his crit range is only one worse than mine (I have to crit to do as much damage as he does normally). There are many other threads on how sword and board is way too weak in 3.5e/pathfinder, and it's true.
The ranger's doing a little better with two-weapons, but he ends up missing a lot. Especially as we use action points, and I cast things like guidance, that can be used "on a single roll" - the all-eggs-in-one-basket approach of two-handed weapons becomes even more advantageous.
One suggestion to help with this is make all buffs that affect one attack affect all attacks in a round; that way the two-handed guys (or opportunists, or any other variant fighter build beyond "smack things with the largest weapon") aren't penalized.
I would estimate that the power levels on 1-10 of the different styles are:
Two hander - 10
Two weapon - 7
weapon/shield - 3
one weapon - 1
One weapon guys are just screwed really, not sure what to do about that, but there could be work done on 2w and w+s. Even feated up out the ass they are worse than a generic two-hand guy with overhand chop and not much else (and they require getting feated up to work at all).
OK, level 3 down, we're level 4 now! We finished out Edge of Anarchy today and had loads of fun. Here's my comments on the four classes we're playing and other relevant rules stuff.
1. Channeling is really expanding the adventuring day, as well as the cantrips/orisons and sorcerer at-wills. We did a pretty large undead/construct dungeon without resting, though we got to where the sorcerer and I had zero spells left - but I had some channels and the sorcerer had his ranged-touch electricity zap at will (plus cantrips/orisons) so we kept on trucking through the last couple encounters rather than camp up. We were totally drained of everything at the end but happy. In 3.5e once you were out of spells, the casters would pitch a fit to rest. Now, we felt comfortable that we could still contribute and not be meat for some stray zombie.
2. The new Cleave is nice! Our fighter was using it.
3. We had a number of grapples come up and people had to adjust to how simple it was. "No no, you don't have to roll to oppose." Several times people rolled and were pleasantly surprised to find out the grapple had already been resolved, and on to the next action.
4. In general combat is flowing a little smoother and faster. The CMB thing is part of that.
5. There's still undesirable complexity in the skills. I was trying to Treat Injury today. DC 20 to heal 1 hp/target level, if you beat the DC by 5 you add your WIS bonus, etc. WTF with all the if/then nonsense. We don't have to refer to the combat section all the time any more, even doing grapples and shield bashes and the like, but boy we do when using skills. Make it simpler and/or abstract it. I don't like that every single skill works totally differently.
6. Clarification on terrain types for rangers would be good. We ran up against something that I see a lot, which is concern about whether something counts as a terrain for the ranger's favored terrain bonus. We had an initial ruling that we were in a graveyard in the city, so the ranger's "urban" terrain didn't count, which I regard as BS. I've heard the same thing in the mountains when you happen to be fighting in some trees, etc. I think it should be pretty liberal - if you're anywhere within a human-cleared area, it's urban. If you're anywhere that Mount Somethingorother is around, you're in mountain. Overlap is OK. That's how nature is. Just something that could probably save some game group friction if it had some guidance with it.
7. I've been using Spell Compendium spells with no issues.
8. The DM let me take Quicken Turning from Complete Divine to make channeling a free action - hey, I offered to make it a move action instead. Everyone felt it worked out fine - I have a limited number of the things, and I could radiate healing while doing something useful (semi-useful - a cleric in combat, even with the Holy Warrior thing I'm using, doesn't do much damage, but it makes me feel more proactive).
Oh one note on the orisons - it would be nice if Guidance, Resistance, etc. could just be cast on your whole party at once. My DM's basically letting me do that ("Everyone bow your heads...") Mainly because trying to keep track of the "rounds to live" is a pain if you have to just serially do everyone before you go through a door. They're free, so it just adds clutter of "yours has 7 rounds, yours 8, yours 9, let's go" to not do it. Guidance, Resistance, etc.
There are many other threads on how sword and board is way too weak in 3.5e/pathfinder, and it's true.
Weak damage is the price you pay for that extra Armor Class, it has ALWAYS been that way. Also note, a sword & board character shouldn't be concentrating on damage, but on Hitpoints, Armor Class, and some way of grabbing aggro. This style of play is what has lead to the nickname online the "TANK", sadly most online play has a 'method of grabbing aggro' other than dealing raw damage, that D&D doesn't.
TOUGHNESS, SHIELDMATE(Miniatures HB) & IMP. SHIELDMATE... would be good feat choices for a Fighter/Paladin doing sword & board. My next character will likely be a Paladin, the DM and I will definitely have to invent a method of grabbing aggro, even if it's a feat. GOAD is kinda crappy IMO.
IF you're looking for more damage sword & board, POWERFUL CHARGE might also be something worth looking at. It's an extra 1d8 on the charge only.
Sorry to interrupt. :)
Hey, glad to have someone chime in!
The trouble is, the extra AC is not "worth" the lost damage in game terms. If you kill your opponent in 1/3 the time, his 15% worse chance to hit you doesn't come up.
This is a problem endemic to 3e+ D&D, that as you go up in level the to hits and damage way outstrip AC and defenses.
And I am not a fan of "gamist" aggro mechanics (a reason I don't play 4e). I could see devising some that have more of an in-game justification...
|
Hey, glad to have someone chime in!
The trouble is, the extra AC is not "worth" the lost damage in game terms. If you kill your opponent in 1/3 the time, his 15% worse chance to hit you doesn't come up.
This is a problem endemic to 3e+ D&D, that as you go up in level the to hits and damage way outstrip AC and defenses.
And I am not a fan of "gamist" aggro mechanics (a reason I don't play 4e). I could see devising some that have more of an in-game justification...
I'd like to chip in here on a possible goad mechanic.
The fear response of most organisms is fight or flight.
Fighting types get intimidate as a skill. I would like to see the intimdate skill casue fear at a high enough level (not just shaken)
Make a feat that causes a fear effect that evokes a fight response.
Heck, even making it fear rather than just shaken suddenly makes the fighting types a useful blocking mechanism or obstacle on the board.
Everyone acts all sorts of stupid when they're frightened enough, no matter how intelligent.
I see an aggro tag method as just presenting yourself as a scary enough opponent to either frighten enemies away from you OR frighten tough enough enemies so much they percieve you to be too big a threat to ignore.
This is something Generals used to use Elite units for. Often the fearsome reputation of a unit alone would make enemy generals waste huge amounts of resources trying to neutralise them so they weren't focusing on where the real battle was being fought and lost.
Would that satisfy the requiremnt of not being "gamist" but rather represent a reflection of certain real life mechanics? I'm not sure if it does but I'm going to try for it when the skills and feats sections of the playtest come up.
I think it needs to be a feat to limit how much it gets used against a party though. It really needs to be the purview of characters as most monsters have a fear effect already.
Also, I agree with your take on the AC. Until sword and Board get some way of exerting much more battlefield control, then losing the damage potential doesn't really balance. If they get an aid in controlling battlefield, then they become a different type of threat that may be a viable build for higher level play.
Hope you don't mind me butting in, but I read the thread and this is something I've been interested in for a while.
Cheers
I enjoy your thread- keep up the good work.
I would point out though that putting one of your lowest scores into your melee attacks and then using melee attacks could very well be while you aren't doing any damage.
You made a choice (a good choice, imo) to favor your mentals over your physicals for that character. It only makes sense that the fighter, who has gone for damage over mentals, will be doing /far/ more damage with you.
BAB controls hit probability, but strengh controls damage. Your domain swap gives you one but not the other.
As i said- keep up the good work. .I look foward to reading more
-S
6. Clarification on terrain types for rangers would be good. We ran up against something that I see a lot, which is concern about whether something counts as a terrain for the ranger's favored terrain bonus. We had an initial ruling that we were in a graveyard in the city, so the ranger's "urban" terrain didn't count, which I regard as BS. I've heard the same thing in the mountains when you happen to be fighting in some trees, etc. I think it should be pretty liberal...
I agree liberal is how it should be. A better example would be to simply state that a graveyard is NOT a terrain type it is likely classified as a building or structure, but the CITY/TOWN/VILLAGE it's in very much Urban terrain. Same applies where ever the graveyard is... graveyard in the swamp is swamp terrain, graveyard in the mountains is mountain terrain, etc. Even a large graveyard (Hundreds of miles) is more likely to be plains or desert terrain.
As for the sword & board being weak damage and the need for a taunt mechanic... I apologize for semi-starting a debate, it was not my intention to interrupt your playtest report. It has been an enjoyable read without the need for spoilers (a good thing) from a character's point of view.
(Our group decided against 4th for very similar reasons.)
Howdy, reporting in after our first session of Seven Days to the Grave. Hi everyone!
On the sword and board, it's not my Strength that's the main problem - my scimitar's d6+1 is just a d6+4 with a 18 STR. Meanwhile, the heavy flail fighter is doling out like 22 points of damage. Our two-weapon ranger is sucking too; basically all other fighting forms are << two-handed. Anyway, the real problem is the bad scaling of the usefulness of damage vs attacks vs defense in 3/3.5e, certainly augmented by inflation of ability bonuses (especially with Overhand Chop, which doubles down on it).
The problem with a taunt mechanic is that as the shield doesn't contribute enough to defense, you just get a quickly dead sword-and-shield guy.
We just did level 4 and are moving on to level 5. We had one big combat, against a very high AC and attacks guy. He had an AC of like 25, and was rolling 30's to hit regularly (oh, and DR 10/a specific metal). Neither I nor the ranger could do anything at all, even with weapons that bypassed his DR; basically I and the sorcerer (using UMD and a wand of Cure Light) just healed the fighter while he did all the damage. I used all of my channels (8, quickened!), burned spells, etc. Heck, the sorcerer enlarged the ranger but still to no avail.
It's one thing for a wide divide to come up at higher levels, but should one character really be doing 3-4x the damage of another at level 4? Seems a bit much.
So that sucked a bit. Other than that, everything seemed OK. The sorcerer kept forgetting to use his cantrips (we were dealing with disease and hanging about in sewers and fighting disease-spreading creatures, so I was casting Resistance every chance I got).
Now, I don't believe that a goad/aggro mechanism has anything to do with 2w vs 2h vs s&s (a 2h fighter could goad) and that saying a S&S should specialize in goading is folly because the shield doesn't protect them - but I certainly don't have anything against an Intimidate-based goad mechanic per se. Scare people into not moving by you, perhaps. The "attack me" thing directly is a little strange, what if your opponents aren't the super brave "Let's get the big guy" types? But I can see you Intimidating folks into maybe overlooking your little buddy or being afraid of turning their back on you or moving by you. That seems more realistic to me.
Ernest, I love reading your campaign synopses on your blog, however I have noticed you haven't updated them for the third session in some time. Get to updating! I needs me my reading material! :)
Done! It sometimes takes a while to wrest them from our session scribe. But we play every two weeks like clockwork, so I actually have two summaries in hand! Part III's posted now, and IV will be coming soon. Glad you're enjoying them!
|
|
Excellent. I have been keeping up with them as often as possible. Though we skipped Rise of the Runelords (we were finishing up Age of Worms and a Dragonlance campaign at the time) we are now dedicated to the Paizo APs and into the CotCT. My guys are just at the end of "Escape from Old Korvosa", so it's awesome to hear stories from another group, especially so early on. Must be helpful being a cleric too, my group only has a druid (though the plentiful wands are a great assistance).
Either way, keep them up! Thanks for the update!
OK, more playtest notes. We've gotten to level 6 and are dungeon-crawling in Seven Days to the Grave.
No real new breakthroughs. The two-hander fighter is still way, way outclassing the two-weapon ranger and way outclassing the sword-and-board cleric. Backswing! Cleave! Everyone in the area dies.
Skills have been working out nicely.
One comment - rangers still get screwed on their animal skills. Everything's a magical beast or aberration or otherwise just for some reason isn't susceptible. I'd like to see the animal empathy thing get refactored into a power with specific effects - "make it not attack me," "make it move along somewhere else", etc.
The cleric and sorcerer spells have worked as desired. I'm still loving my quickened channel energies and he's still loving his at-will ranged touch zappy thing.
We are a little more powerful I think; recently we got into one scrape that had me thinking "damn we need to escape" but we ended up rolling over them.
The adventuring day is staying nice and long. In Rise of the Runelords under 3.5 we usually had to stop halfway through each dungeon to rest - in this case, not yet! With the sorcerer's at-wills and my orisons and loads of channels, we're more willing to say "well, let's just try clearing the rest of the level..."
We're waiting to try the new playtest feats. We need some more levels, and so many of them being fighter-only means me and the ranger can't use them, which is lame.
This is less of a rules comment than perhaps an adventure design comment - having fights with a single human boss, especially a spellcaster, is usually pretty anticlimactic as any party can deal out such a large amount of damage. Well, I guess it is a rules comment. With even a sixth level fighter able to hose out 40-50 points of damage in a round, a lot more random is put into a given combat, and it makes it too easy for a single set of blows to take down a boss. We don't want to move too much towards 4e, where the predictability of damage vs hp turns things into a grind, but I think weapon damage needs to be mitigated somewhat. A wizard can only drop a couple 6d6 fireballs a day, but you get fighters and rogues able to do that much or more every round, which is just not right. Same on the other side, where one lucky crit can easily kill even a level 6-7 character (happened with an ogre hook in Runelords and almost happened with a scythe trap this last session in Crimson Throne).
The fix for that is just "tone it down." You can get too many attacks, and the bonus damage on those attacks is just too large. This was a significant problem in 3.5e and the "power up" in pathfinder has made it worse.
On to level 7! We've finished Seven Days to the Grave. So far our play experience is "like 3.5, but a little better". No one is targeting any prestige classes yet; we're finding the base classes interesting and powered enough.
Our sorcerer is on break so we did a session with only the fighter, ranger, and me (Holy Warrior cleric). I'm not missing my domain abilities, though as I'm sword and shield I can't say the higher BAB is helping me much (the additional hit points are though!).
On Fighting:
The two-weapon ranger has maybe closed the power gap somewhat with the two-hander fighter this level - 2w is still < 2h in effectiveness, but maybe only by 20%. If he gets weapons or feats that proc additional effects on hits he may close the gap (if the 2h doesn't increase at a greater rate). Sword/shield is still << 2h by at least 50%, even with the new playtest feats.
On Turning:
I'm still getting a lot of mileage out of Channeling, though it's about this level that the save DC becomes too low and everything makes its save about automatically. That sucks, because what is nominally 4d6 damage is really only 2d6, and unless you're mobbed by a large number of undead you tend to have better choices (including "full attack"). If I didn't have Quicken Turning to make it a free action I would not be using Channel nearly so much any more, and looking at the numbers that'll become more and more true with level.
On Magic:
Being a caster still has its graces and frustrations that are in 3.5e. I remember the early days when a popular house rule was "clerics can spontaneously cast." Wizards tend to be able to focus on one school or whatever, but as a cleric you have to be reactive - if you are facing ability damage, or undead, or whatnot and didn't get the right prot or cure spells then you're jacked. I hate that.
On Skills:
Although we keep having to remember that Search is part of Perception and Gather Info is part of Diplomacy, we're sure not missing the separate skills. We had one rules debate about Bluff vs Diplomacy. As a Good cleric I have high Diplo but zero Bluff. The DM said "trying to convince this person is a Bluff, because it says in Bluff it's for "convincing someone what you're saying is true..." In this case what I was saying *was* true, it wasn't a lie, and it being Bluff vs Diplo meant a good 10 point difference in the outcome. It is true that the difference between the two is a bit hazy in some cases especially when you think about "well, what really is the different skill set..."
On Feats:
We're definitely mixing in 3.5e feats because there aren't enough feats in the Pathfinder book to generate sufficient diversity with the higher rate of feat gain.
We're level 10 now and going strong. No real new breakthroughs so far. We're currently Fighter 10, Ranger 10, and Cleric 10. Technically we have a Sorcerer 10 but that player's been gone for a while so he's sidelined.
The fighter's 2h style is still about 20% superior to the ranger's 2-hander, and 50% superior to the cleric's sword and board. With the armor mastery etc. both the fighter and ranger have a higher AC than the cleric even without shield use.
Channeling energy is still boss. And since I have Turn Outsider, it's serving double duty as detect evil outsider/detect undead because I can burst one. We had a rakshasa infiltrate our party, until I channeled!
Also, we fought a CR10 and CR12 at the same time with three level eights. The fact that I was tossing a quickened channel every round, helping us and hurting them, was the only reason we survived.
Rangers still are entertainingly screwed in terms of animal-handling skills. The ranger may as well slather himself in BBQ sauce before trying a wild empathy check.
Skills are working fine. The new playtest feats are welcome; there's not enough in the beta mainbook. I'm going down the "blinding critical" path. It's going to suck, though, that I won't be able to crit many of my undead enemies to use those critical specials. Needs to be a feat for that! Holy energy can sub for knowing where the gizzard is for a crit IMO.
Spells are working fine, as are skills, nothing of note to say there.
Sword/shield is still << 2h by at least 50%, even with the new playtest feats.
We are having the same issue, though our S&B Fighter hasn't been using any NEW/PLAYTEST feats yet. I plan on running a Paladin next campaign using nothing but shield/taunt feats. His sole purpose will be aggro magnet. I'm considering the "Lion's Shield"(or Spined Shield) as a possible way of increasing his damage output when the time comes.
I'm using spoiler tags to shrink the post, they are not spoilers.BOTH OF THESE ARE IN THE DMG
Lion’s Shield
This +2 heavy steel shield is fashioned to appear to be a roaring lion’s head. Three times per day as a free action, the lion’s head can be commanded to attack (independently of the shield wearer), biting with the wielder’s base attack bonus (including multiple attacks, if the wielder has them) and dealing 2d6 points of damage. This attack is in addition to any actions performed by the wielder.
Moderate conjuration; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, summon nature’s ally IV; Price 9,170 gp; Cost 4,670 gp + 360 XP.
Spined Shield
This +1 heavy steel shield is covered in spines. It acts as a normal spiked shield. On command up to three times per day, the shield’s wearer can fire one of the shield’s spines. A fired spine has a +1 enhancement bonus, a range increment of 120 feet, and deals 1d10 points of damage (19-20/×2). Fired spines regenerate each day.
Moderate evocation; CL 6th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, magic missile; Price 5,580 gp; Cost 2,740 gp + 223 XP.
We had one rules debate about Bluff vs Diplomacy. As a Good cleric I have high Diplo but zero Bluff. The DM said "trying to convince this person is a Bluff, because it says in Bluff it's for "convincing someone what you're saying is true..." In this case what I was saying *was* true, it wasn't a lie, and it being Bluff vs Diplo meant a good 10 point difference in the outcome. It is true that the difference between the two is a bit hazy in some cases especially when you think about "well, what really is the different skill set..."
We had this problem in a previous, non-Pathfinder campaign. When a kobold(me) warned some relatively confused town guards while riding his Large Boar mount/companion. The kobold only had ranks in Diplomacy. "Back up and stay out of this fight if you want to go home tonight."
We had a brief discussion as a group... and the nature of the kobold was not a threatening one, so it was deemed he was pleading or telling the truth, therefore we used Diplomacy.
Ernest Mueller, do you mind if I pick your brain about the cleric's choice of Holy Warrior over domain powers? I'm also a little underwhelmed by the domains as they stand in the PFRPG-Beta rules, so I'm considering sticking with the old 3.5 domains/domain effects instead (though ease of conversion does also play into that).
Under those conditions, would you consider the 'Holy Warrior' class-option to be a fair trade for only one of a cleric's domains, or is it a 'two-domain' 'power'?
And as an odd idea: what if being a 'Holy Warrior' gave you access to otherwise Fighter-only feats? Would that have made it a better 'deal' for foregoing both domains? (Either under Beta domain-rules or those from 3.5.)
I think my group is pretty close to what you guys are playing and I have a few thoughts.
1. the sword and board cleric: you are a cleric, not a fighter. You will never do the damage a fighter does. Likewise, he won't be healing anyone or calling down heavenly fire. Try taking Shield bash feats if you want to do some more damage. Keep in mind you and the ranger get multiple attacks, you will be able to hit multiple enemies while overhand chop will always be a full round action against a single foe.
2. Cleave - very useful, let the fighter whack at the strongest guy, while you take out 2-3 minions at a time and then provide heals.
3. Casters - may not do a lot of damage compared to the fighter, but again, he doesn't get to fly at 9th, set everyone in 30 feet on fire etc.
We have a holy warrior cleric 5th with cleave, power attack, great cleave and selective channeling. We like to call her the "not THAT kind of cleric"
We have a cleric who is travel/prot domains that can zap around the map and heal.
We have a Ranger bow specialty.
A barbarian that to figure out the rage powers requires some kind of quantum physics. Could they have made it ANY more complicated?
We have our overhand chop fighter who we are used to doing massive damage all the time cause we're pretty sure he's a cheater.
Then there's me, I made a rog/fighter, Varisian. I have improved trip, combat reflexes, ex weap prof bladed scarf, dodge and mobility. Basically, my guy dances through the battle and makes things fall down. I get more damage/attacks as attack of opportunity than i do on my turn.
our ranger with the bow proficiency is great and our other hybrids realize YOU ARE NOT PLAYING A FIGHTER. Paizo actually made people WANT to play that entirely useless (in 3e) class again.
While I find value in your playtest feedback, I would appreciate the use of spoiler tags. I know I have players reading the playtest forum and I while I can't stop them from hitting the button, every little bit helps when it comes to avoiding temptation. :)
Can do, though I think generally things like "a rakshasa infiltrated our party" are pretty generic. I'll keep it in mind and spoiler-tag specifics tho.
Ernest Mueller, do you mind if I pick your brain about the cleric's choice of Holy Warrior over domain powers? I'm also a little underwhelmed by the domains as they stand in the PFRPG-Beta rules, so I'm considering sticking with the old 3.5 domains/domain effects instead (though ease of conversion does also play into that).
Under those conditions, would you consider the 'Holy Warrior' class-option to be a fair trade for only one of a cleric's domains, or is it a 'two-domain' 'power'?
And as an odd idea: what if being a 'Holy Warrior' gave you access to otherwise Fighter-only feats? Would that have made it a better 'deal' for foregoing both domains? (Either under Beta domain-rules or those from 3.5.)
Howdy, sure enough! Let's see. I would say with the new domain scheme, Holy Warrior is definitely better than both domains. With the old scheme, where you get 2 powers and a bonus spell choice... Hmm. Your proposal of Holy Warrior + fighter feat access totally would be worth giving up both old domains. (I wanted to juice up my shield use, and I was pissed that the new playtest shield feats are fighter only.) Just Holy Warrior as it stands - close. I'm finding that BAB and HD, while nice, certainly don't make you compete with the fighter where it counts which is damage output. So giving up the old domains for it... I'd say it would come down to a flavor choice.
Really, I don't like that the new domain system is less powerful than the old one - the specials are weaker (those +1 CLs onthe old domains always come in handy). And spell wise, you get about the same number once you add up the bonus spells for both domains. It does depend on the domains though, some of the specials are stupid and some are kinda useful.
I think in general it was a mistake to change them to a system that's
a) about the same
b) but a little less
c) but that breaks back compat for all the domain feats ever published
I think my group is pretty close to what you guys are playing and I have a few thoughts.
1. the sword and board cleric: you are a cleric, not a fighter. You will never do the damage a fighter does. Likewise, he won't be healing anyone or calling down heavenly fire. Try taking Shield bash feats if you want to do some more damage. Keep in mind you and the ranger get multiple attacks, you will be able to hit multiple enemies while overhand chop will always be a full round action against a single foe.
2. Cleave - very useful, let the fighter whack at the strongest guy, while you take out 2-3 minions at a time and then provide heals.
3. Casters - may not do a lot of damage compared to the fighter, but again, he doesn't get to fly at 9th, set everyone in 30 feet on fire etc.
We have a holy warrior cleric 5th with cleave, power attack, great cleave and selective channeling. We like to call her the "not THAT kind of cleric"
We have a cleric who is travel/prot domains that can zap around the map and heal.
We have a Ranger bow specialty.
A barbarian that to figure out the rage powers requires some kind of quantum physics. Could they have made it ANY more complicated?
We have our overhand chop fighter who we are used to doing massive damage all the time cause we're pretty sure he's a cheater.
Then there's me, I made a rog/fighter, Varisian. I have improved trip, combat reflexes, ex weap prof bladed scarf, dodge and mobility. Basically, my guy dances through the battle and makes things fall down. I get more damage/attacks as attack of opportunity than i do on my turn.
our ranger with the bow proficiency is great and our other hybrids realize YOU ARE NOT PLAYING A FIGHTER. Paizo actually made people WANT to play that entirely useless (in 3e) class again.
Good comments! Since people are interested, I'll talk about my own character more in depth... To your points first,
1a. I agree, though I think even a sword and board fighter is way worse than other specs of fighter. I know my cleric shouldn't match up (though with my Holy Warrior choice, it should be just a matter of fewer feats).
1b. Most of the playtest shield feats are fighter only, so bah to that (why, oh why?). Shield bashing is like being two-weapon but riding the short bus to do it anyway; you need all the usual loads of TWF feats and the couple points of AC don't match up to having a decent off-hand weapon (that benefits from your weapon feats and has offensive magic on it). My cleric uses a scimitar so I'm going Improved Crit/Critical Focus/Bleeding Crit/Blinding Crit. I won't do much damage on a hit but I'll crit a lot and get to put big bleeds/blinds on folks when I do. (The blinding also dovetails beautifully with my god choice, Sarenrae, that's how she prefers to punish folks. The only downside is it is crap against undead, and with "Skeletons of Scarwall" coming up I assume I'll be having that problem.)
2. Could have gone Cleave earlier on, true. I'm a bit far long now. Besides, I have a plan...
Re: the zap and heal cleric - I took Divine Focus (Complete Divine: spend a channel to turn a touch spell to short range on an ally) to make sure I can heal people when I need to. Haven't had to use it more than once though. Although now we're at the level I have Breath of Life and suspect I'll have to exercise it more.
The Quickened Turning is the single best feat I have. (Complete Divine, not Pathfinder stock.) Man, if I was having to waste a round to channel, I would be doing nothing but standing in one place and channeling every round of every combat, and I'd quit.
With our other caster sidelined, I am not getting to melee as much as I want, because I'm the only one available to cast every round - so it's on me to do the dispels, buffs, etc. That's a little annoying and I hope it'll change. If I get to melee more I will take a level of Crusader from Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords and get some of the Desert Wind maneuvers that will give me some cool fire-themed strikes and such to use that will get my damage output up. (My DM said I could sub in Desert Wind as a Crusader school since I'm a Sarenrae cleric, but he's counting the powers as one level higher. Sad, but still worthwhile. I disagree with him because fire damage becomes resisted by just about everyone once you hit the mid-teen levels.)
In other news...
Overhand Chop fighters definitely cheat.
Varisian rogue/fighter is great; in last campaign (Rise of the Runelords) we had someone go with the scarf and they were hell on wheels. He was a swordsage/swashbuckler/rogue, but about the same thing.
We are only using the main playtest book to try to gauge pathfinder on its own, undiluted.
That means basic classes/races etc.
We are allowing the web enhancements as well.
shield profs aren't fighter specific, I just looked in the book, they are BAB and previous feat specific.
I personally will be running our Legacy of fire campaign once it ships and my rule is pretty simple: If you invested in shield bash, you are trained in fighting with the shield.
I think those who are using the shield bash as a multiple attack weapon are exploiting the system. The shield attacks are more akin to a bullrush, not 2 weapon fighting. at least that's the way I interpret the intent of the feats.
Also the minuses should be mitigated due to the fact that you are hitting with a huge assed board instead of a stick.
shield bash is intended for large shields IMO,and a buckler will be treated as an unarmed strike that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity in my game.
|
|
As to the weakness of a Sword and Shield Fighter compared to a TH FIghter. (Notice that I did not say a Sword & Shield Cleric,)
What if the AC bonus was more like, . .
Buckler - 2
Light Shield - 3
Medium Shield - 4
Heavy Shield - 5
Tower Shield - 6
And a feat called Sheield Bind that gave you additional damage to your attack to reflect how vulnerable an shieldless opponent becomes when their weapon is prevented from bocking by the shield of a Sword and Board adversary.
Sword and Board should be a viable if not superior option. I am not a historian by any means but it is my understanding that this fighting style was close to, if not the, most popular style due the protection ir afforded the combatant while allowing them to still be effective on the battlefield.
Tam
Sword and Board should be a viable if not superior option. I am not a historian by any means but it is my understanding that this fighting style was close to, if not the, most popular style due the protection ir afforded the combatant while allowing them to still be effective on the battlefield.Tam
I 100% agree. "Sword & board" should be the default "best" option for the man on the street, with only highly trained fighters (lots of feats) then making 2h or 2w better for particular uses. But like you, I'm willing to settle for "at least it's equal!"
Messing with shield, shield feats, etc. could totally solve that (in fact, your sample feat makes me think about a similar thing for 2 weapon fighters... The RL major hindrance to using one weapon only is that a weapon & shield or two-weapon guy could indeed block your one weapon then stab you with impunity. 2w vs S&S should be an offense vs defense tradeoff (and 2w should just be harder to do, it takes way more training and skill).
We are only using the main playtest book to try to gauge pathfinder on its own, undiluted.
That means basic classes/races etc.
We are allowing the web enhancements as well.
shield profs aren't fighter specific, I just looked in the book, they are BAB and previous feat specific.
I personally will be running our Legacy of fire campaign once it ships and my rule is pretty simple: If you invested in shield bash, you are trained in fighting with the shield.
I think those who are using the shield bash as a multiple attack weapon are exploiting the system. The shield attacks are more akin to a bullrush, not 2 weapon fighting. at least that's the way I interpret the intent of the feats.
Also the minuses should be mitigated due to the fact that you are hitting with a huge assed board instead of a stick.
shield bash is intended for large shields IMO,and a buckler will be treated as an unarmed strike that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity in my game.
Probably a good plan. Yeah, I mean the additional web enhancement playtest feats, they are all fighter only.
Let's look at the life of a S&B guy. (As a side note, power attack is better for 2h types, sadly)
Improved Shield Bash - when you do a bash, you still get the shield bonus to AC.
Two Weapon Fighting - need this to not take heavy penalties.
Improved Bull Rush - need this to not take AoOs from rushes.
Shield Slam - requires all the above, free bull rush with slam. You're already at 4 feats spent now, and for this?
Shield Master - requires all the above. I understand the +x/+x based on the shield bonus but am unclear really what "you do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon." So... Since you've taken TWF, you're either -4/-4 (large shield) or -2/-2 (small shield) so this takes you to -2/0 or -4/0, depending.
The problem is all of these are about enhancing a shield as a weapon. And it sucks for that. twf is generally better, and there are feats like two-weapon defense that basically take over the AC bonus niche too. You can change this tree to be "more about" the bull rush but as written it's a minimal part of it.
I agree with boosting the AC bonus of shields. Now, they did try to handle that some in the playtest feats.
Shield Focus - add +1 to shield bonus.
Greater Shield Focus - add another +1 AC (fighter only)
Shield Mastery - gain DR 2/- with a shield (fighter only, req focus). Nice.
Greater Shield Mastery - gain another DR 2/- (fighter only).
The problem is that these are too stingy. For 4 feats, you can have a decent AC and DR boost. But in D&D combat, damage output is >>> AC. It's really only the combat equivalent of focusing down the overhand chop tree if you are real high level and also have feats that make foes attack you or pull AoOs when they do.
So what to do? Boosting stock shield bonuses down the line would be good. Also, you could branch out what they can do. A shield is essentially maneuverable armor. So maybe it could also be good against AoOs or let you move around in combat more safely. Or - maybe you can use your shield bonus "with" other feats (Mobility, in this case). Or extend the cover bonus aspect of tower shields to the smaller shields.
I also allow shield bonus on Aoos.
Basically, the only time you don't get it is when flat footed or flanked (only from one opponent)
Maybe they can add a deflection feat, you can attempt to deflect one attack a round to provoke an attack of opportunity.
ie: I block your sword and deflect it out with my shield, I then take the Aoo with my weapon while you are open. It could work like the 2nd ed parry rules, you make an opposed hit roll against the opponents weapon, then you get the Aoo if successful.
Something like that could be pretty sweet.
On the other hand, maybe an overhand chop that is missed can provoke an Aoo to nerf it a bit.
I think that they need to get rid of backswing, and make overhead chop a full round attack like cleave.
Also, I would like to see more stuff for swashbuckling types. Something that gives more than 1 ac for 2 weapon defense, bring back the parry skill, allow riposte, something like that.
Also I think some CMBs should only provide an AoO on failure, especially bull rush and Disarm (unless the target of disarm is fighting with 2 weapons)
Badass: By RAW, YOU *CAN'T* Bash with Bucklers.
Re: S&B viability, the most viable build I've seen here on the boards made heavy use of the 2WF Feats as well - With the Shield Feats, you were doing 2d6 damage with your Shield Bashes and could also do "free" add-on Bullrushes. I don't think it was 'sub-par' to 'normal' 2WF builds at all, and in fact was superior, due to: Good damage for "off-hand" weapon, free bull-rushes, better AC.
It's actually optimal for such a build to "dual wield" TWO Shields, not for AC purposes (since you only benefit from one Shield's AC), but for optimally benefitting from Weapon Focus/Spec/Training w/ one Weapon (Shield Bashes). I definitely admit that build can leave a bad taste in the mouth of some, but a S&B Fighter CAN definitely be viable.
Badass: By RAW, YOU *CAN'T* Bash with Bucklers.
Re: S&B viability, the most viable build I've seen here on the boards made heavy use of the 2WF Feats as well - With the Shield Feats, you were doing 2d6 damage with your Shield Bashes and could also do "free" add-on Bullrushes. I don't think it was 'sub-par' to 'normal' 2WF builds at all, and in fact was superior, due to: Good damage for "off-hand" weapon, free bull-rushes, better AC.
It's actually optimal for such a build to "dual wield" TWO Shields, not for AC purposes (since you only benefit from one Shield's AC), but for optimally benefitting from Weapon Focus/Spec/Training w/ one Weapon (Shield Bashes). I definitely admit that build can leave a bad taste in the mouth of some, but a S&B Fighter CAN definitely be viable.
How do you get 2d6 damage with a shield? I can see 1d6 (spiked medium) +2 (shield master)... Maybe 1d6+4 if you were demented enough to take Weapon Spec with it. And some from the fighter weapon training.
And anyway, I think the problem is, that's not really a sword and board build. It's just a TWF build where you happen to be using a shield as the off hand. And sure, whenever anyone makes any level 20 build it looks badass. But the question is, what is it relative to using all those feats on another spec? Seems like even in the best case you're burning 2-3 feats you could have used to become even better at twf/2h.
It comes down to that the average level 3 fighter s&b is at a considerable disadvantage mathematically versus a level 3 other spec. And it becomes harder to figure it at higher level, but so far our playtesting says it holds and holds hard through level 10.
On the other hand, maybe an overhand chop that is missed can provoke an Aoo to nerf it a bit.I think that they need to get rid of backswing, and make overhead chop a full round attack like cleave.
Also, I would like to see more stuff for swashbuckling types. Something that gives more than 1 ac for 2 weapon defense, bring back the parry skill, allow riposte, something like that.
I agree a little 2h nerfing may also play into this. This plays into the big problem with high level 3.5 play - it is all about maximal damage output. Defenses aren't competitive for their opportunity cost (except for monsters where you can just give 'em an arbitrary AC/DR/SR, but even with them AC becomes meaningless near level 20).
Right, but doesn't the 20th level Fighter Capstone Ability (Auto-Kill on Crits) favor 2WF?
(2-Handers effectively have Kill-on-Crit before then w/ huge Crits triggering Massive Damage Saves)
Even before then, Vital Strike/IVS, Improved Crit, Crit Focus, Crit Mastery and the Crit->Status Effect Feats all seem like they make 2WF (lots of attacks) very viable. With the Status Effect Feats (blinding, etc), Fighter-types even get something to do besides BIG DAMAGE (or Maneuvers).
All in all, I'm impressed with what Pathfinder has done for Warrior types generally, and Fighters specifically.
I also get the impression that something 'normalizing' Standard Actions/Full Rounds Actions vis a vis Melee/Casters will be making it into the final product...
(Iterative Standard Attacks and Full Round Action casting for high level spells have been mooted by Jason)
I think my group is pretty close to what you guys are playing and I have a few thoughts.
1. the sword and board cleric: you are a cleric, not a fighter. You will never do the damage a fighter does. Likewise, he won't be healing anyone or calling down heavenly fire. Try taking Shield bash feats if you want to do some more damage. Keep in mind you and the ranger get multiple attacks, you will be able to hit multiple enemies while overhand chop will always be a full round action against a single foe.
2. Cleave - very useful, let the fighter whack at the strongest guy, while you take out 2-3 minions at a time and then provide heals.
3. Casters - may not do a lot of damage compared to the fighter, but again, he doesn't get to fly at 9th, set everyone in 30 feet on fire etc.
We have a holy warrior cleric 5th with cleave, power attack, great cleave and selective channeling. We like to call her the "not THAT kind of cleric"
We have a cleric who is travel/prot domains that can zap around the map and heal.
We have a Ranger bow specialty.
A barbarian that to figure out the rage powers requires some kind of quantum physics. Could they have made it ANY more complicated?
We have our overhand chop fighter who we are used to doing massive damage all the time cause we're pretty sure he's a cheater.
Then there's me, I made a rog/fighter, Varisian. I have improved trip, combat reflexes, ex weap prof bladed scarf, dodge and mobility. Basically, my guy dances through the battle and makes things fall down. I get more damage/attacks as attack of opportunity than i do on my turn.
our ranger with the bow proficiency is great and our other hybrids realize YOU ARE NOT PLAYING A FIGHTER. Paizo actually made people WANT to play that entirely useless (in 3e) class again.
I play the Travel/Protection Cleric in this game and totaly agree that overhand chop is a little on the absurd side. I mean when you have a 5th level fighter doing 16 points for minimum damage and 26 for max on a non crit in my opinion things are getting out of hand.
I also have always felt that all versions of D&D have under played the shield. I also play in the SCA and the shield for me and most people I know is about 90% of your defeanse and the armor is their as a just in case the shield didn't block the shot. I play with what I would consider Full plate, Heavy Steel Shield and a Long sword, and I would dare to say my shield provides just as much protection if not more then my full plate.
With this in mind I would tend to agree with the thought of uping the AC for the shields to have a body shield be closer to +10, a heavy shield +8, a light shield +6, and a buckler +4.
Some people might think these numbers way to high and that then their would be no way to get to anyone with a shield, but then you pretty much would need to do what we do, get another person to pin the shield aside while you attack, or sunder the enemy's shield.
These are just some of my thoughts based on real life experiance.
So Badasssailor and I were thinking that what if they made the Armor Training for fighters either count to both armor and shield, or just to shield instead of armor. The theory being just as you get better swinging the sword, you would also get better at moving the shield to block. This would make using a shield a more viable option for fighters, it does not really apply to anyone else though, unless you did something like make anyone proficiant in the shield add some % of their BAB to the shield's AC, maybe half or something.
Any comments?
So Badasssailor and I were thinking that what if they made the Armor Training for fighters either count to both armor and shield, or just to shield instead of armor. The theory being just as you get better swinging the sword, you would also get better at moving the shield to block. This would make using a shield a more viable option for fighters, it does not really apply to anyone else though, unless you did something like make anyone proficiant in the shield add some % of their BAB to the shield's AC, maybe half or something.
Any comments?
I definitely think replacing armor training with shield training would be more sensible. It's true that it only fixes it for fighters,a nd also would PO non-s&b fighters because they'd be getting a "useless ability" - no one likes that. And there's no sense making it a choice between armor training and shield training; if you use any armor at all you certainly don't want to mess with the flat-footed problem. The feat idea has more merit...
Feat 1: Add 1/4 BAB to your shield bonus. Nice, scalable, focuses on the defensive option.
Feat 2: Add your shield bonus to your next attack when an opponent missed you with a melee attack (you probably don't want to allow this in conjunction with the benefit of Feat 1). This is the "pin the shield" kind of thing, where you can get them out of position. Now as I think about this, it might be a reason to take Shield Training rather than Armor Training. Maybe if it's a choice between Armor Training and:
Shield Training: +1 to AC and to any attack made with a shield
It would be a fair option.
As a side note, if you did want to promote the "300" style of shield-no-armor, you could limit these shield related bonuses at your max dex bonus.
Feat 3: Weapon and Shield Style feat - get +1 to hit and +1 to AC when fighting an opponent using only one weapon (one-hander or two-hander).
Just some random thoughts, I'm punchy from a long numbing Savage Worlds game session today. I don't think it's the system's fault (at least not directly) but geez.