|
i would beg to differ. the extremist (like me) would rather have class abilities that set them apart from a warrior with bonus feat, almost all Fighter supporters want (at the minimum) a strong list of Fighter only feats. if you would not like to see that...then you might be on the other side of the issue.
Exclusive feats != class features (although they're similar in some respects). You would be one of the people I'm talking about.
|
Me, I want to see options in the combat rules that let melees continue to contribute in higher level play. I don't care if fighters get class abilities, but I want all melee classes to be useable, not just the fighter. And if we're going to do this with feats and not changes to the combat section of the rules, then it should be tied to BAB, not the fighter class.
Me, I want to see options in the combat rules that let melees continue to contribute in higher level play. I don't care if fighters get class abilities, but I want all melee classes to be useable, not just the fighter. And if we're going to do this with feats and not changes to the combat section of the rules, then it should be tied to BAB, not the fighter class.
Yes; unless monks and paladins get a major overhaul, they need to be viable as well. Changing the combat rules from 3.0 standard back to something closer to 1e would do the trick. Barring that, feats that scale with BAB seems like the way to go. Fighters might get some fighter-only feats, that would be fine -- but the main tricks that used to be possible for all melee characters (intercepting, moving and attacking, disrupting spellcasting) should still be available to all melee characters.
|
|
Yes; unless monks and paladins get a major overhaul, they need to be viable as well. Changing the combat rules from 3.0 standard back to something closer to 1e would do the trick. Barring that, feats that scale with BAB seems like the way to go. Fighters might get some fighter-only feats, that would be fine -- but the main tricks that used to be possible for all melee characters (intercepting, moving and attacking, disrupting spellcasting) should still be available to all melee characters.
And anything that is designated as fighter-only had better rock hard, just like other class features for other classes do. Getting +4 to damage with your weapon while the spellcasters are getting things like Harm and Planar Binding is a joke.
And anything that is designated as fighter-only had better rock hard, just like other class features for other classes do. Getting +4 to damage with your weapon while the spellcasters are getting things like Harm and Planar Binding is a joke.
Word. Shoot, count how many all-day spells the casters can keep up, vs. how many bonus feats a fighter gets. Every one of those feats needs to pull double duty just for the poor guy to stay even, and that assumes the playing field is leveled (i.e., if you can't move and full attack, you shouldn't be able to move and cast a spell, either...).
Trap is not an emotive term and has nothing to do with personal bias. A trap is a trap -- it is a choice that is far weaker than other choices you could make with no payoff. There are no players for whom traps are excellent choices, there are simply players who think traps are excellent choices. This perception does not make the trap an excellent choice. It is still a trap. The feat is still weak beyond measure, people who choose it are still making characters weaker than they could be, and it still needs to be fixed -- and by fixing it, the players who think it is good due to their lack of game system mastery (which is a bad thing, mind you, for a game to have to rely on to be playable) are actually justified with it being good.
Firstly, the choice of 'trap' is emotive, even if you don't realise it. To invoke the concept of being ticked and imprisoned by a choice is playing on emotional responses rather than reason. One should never use a term in its own definition. Making a choice which makes your weaker in combat is not a 'trap', it is simply placing another priority higher than effectiveness in combat. It would be accurate and reasonable to describe the choice as 'not being optimal' if the aim is always to be combat effective, but you choose biased and emotive language instead.
All choice in life are not equal, you say that these choices should be improved, but you give no reason. Despite the fact that they are currently useful to many builds. At its most basic, this feat decrease a characters chance of being hit by 5%, this benefit can be taken advantage into the double digits of level.
Let me give you an example; I cut logs fairly often, we have a wood burning fireplace, so its one of my chores as it where. If I where to be given an axe, which cut 5% better across a 2/3 of my remaining years of chopping I would consider that a good axe. Even if the axe blunts and is no better than any other axe, it was still a good investment for 2/3's of my chopping. It becomes a better investment still, if i for instance know that I will stop chopping before I ever blunt the axe. So a fighter in a campaign which will end around 12th level, because that's when the group feels that the game stops being fun, will always gain the benefit of taking CE
And this is the exception as opposed to the rule. Yes, there are circumstances that nullify each and every feat. However, in considering two feats that have fairly equal effects, if one is applicable in nearly every circumstance but is nullified under certain rare situations and the other is not applicable except under certain rare situations, the second is still vastly inferior and is still a trap.
They are both appliciable over a wide variaty of conditions, it is merely that your game style and preference, which bias your opinion do not include them. Also, the poster has just made the claim that power attack was useful in ever fight. The statement was a response to that.
And here you go off the deep end. You do not need Combat Reflexes to be a dashing swordsman. You could be a commoner with a skill focus in basketweaving and you would be able to RP as a dashing swordsman. Your feat choices, and, indeed, your entire combat function, is completely separate from your character. Just describe it better. Talk about your fancy footwork, and your decisive blow. This is what defines your character. Don't let your stats get in the way.
No, here your understand of what it is to be a good roleplayer and the importance of words, fails to keep up with your arguement.
Good role-playing is accurately and persuasively playing your character, your character is based upon the attributes, skills and feats. All of your choices, throughout your characters progression inform what you are playing and how it should be played. If you have a low charisma and play the character as charming and witty, you are role-play poorly. Do not confuse role-playing with acting, they are separate skills. A good roleplayer will usually be a good actor(atleast at the gaming table) , but he does not have to be.Let us investigate the idea of the 'basket weaving commoner' as a 'dashing swordsman'.
1 : marked by vigorous action : spirited <a dashing young horse>
2 : marked by smartness especially in dress and manners
Well, according to pathfinder(pg. 335 to 338), the average commoner basket weaver, is no spirited, thanks to his low wisdom and will save, nor is not marked by his smartness of manner, given his low charisma and lack of class skills in social stats. He can be smart of Dress in theory, but half forfilling one criteria isn't enough in to be honest. So the commoner is not dashing, to play him as such is poor role-playing.
1: one skilled in swordplay ; especially : a saber fencer
2archaic : a soldier armed with a sword
If he is human, the commoner might be proficient with a sword, but he is not skilled by any stretch of the imagination and if he where a professional soldier, he would likely be a fighter or a warrior.
Unintelligent creatures react. If presented one target, they will attack it, yes. If presented three targets, one hitting hard, one hitting soft, and one not hitting at all, they react to the largest threat because even the least intelligent being has a sense of self preservation. Therefore, barring a DM who willingly abandons his monster's RP to justify your poor feat choice, unintelligent monsters will react to you just the same as an intelligent monster -- once it realizes you pose no offensive threat, it will ignore you.
Oh god, do I have to debunk this again? I can speak with a degree of certainty on this subject because i studied Ethology through my university degree.
Lets deal with animal intelligence. Most animals will select a target and continue to attack it until driven of. This is evidenced by canine attack behaviour. If you hurt enough to get it to leave a target alone, you have hurt it enough to make its entire attack uneconomicial on a cost benifit analyses, which means it will flee. Simple intelligence work on simple maths, something is worth being injured for or not. Mating is worth being injured for, eating is not.
The baseline for unintelligent creatures is plants and slime molds, as they are real life examples of creatures that appear in DnD and deserve zero intelligence. Plants and molds behaviours are governed by tropisms and mechanical reflects. The not capable of reason, they move towards or away from specific stimuli or contact with specific stimuli trigger a single behaviour. Certainly, the behaviours expressed by zombies are more complex, but they are not capable of complex threat analysis.
In summation of this element, it is you who is miss understanding how low intelligence and unintelligent threats behave. You are guilty of Anthropomorphism.
In certain circumstances, yes, you can goad an intelligent creature into focusing on you and only you. If you hold a specific item that creature is focused on, or stand on a specific part of terrain, yes, the enemy may choose to focus on you and only you. But again, we reach a situation as above -- this feat is one that only proves it's worth once in a rare while, as compared to an alternative that proves it's worth in nearly every single fight. That the feat even functions is an exception to normal combat, as opposed to the rule.
Here you where right, this is a reasonably rare example, but intelligent character actions and tactics and NPC's with depth tend to make it more common.
Lastly, your entire argument is based on the assumption that Combat effectiveness is the most important thing. It is only one side of the coin and to a great many people, the less important one. You're biased by your play style and tastes, your offering advice on roleplaying, when from what you have said, you show your self as having fundamental misunderstood fairly core principles of what it is to role-play.
Just a quick responce, i will deal with the rest later.
Forgive me for trying to make the game playable at high levels of game system mastery. Apparently this isn't the game for me. I should just accept that melee classes are completely and utterly useless and either play only casters or go play 4e, since apparently despite promises of balance in Pathfinder this isn't the game for me.
Oh wait, you aren't Jason. So you can't decide that balance is off the table for the things that PF is attempting to nurture.
Firstly, i did not say that 'this was not the game for you.' I very nearly did say it, but i don't like that form of arguement. But since you've put the words in my mouth already, i will state MY ACTUAL views on it.
Yes, i do think that you might enjoy narrative skirmish games more than roleplaying games base from your statements, i am led to beleive that is how you play DnD. You might like Inquisitor, though i rather suspect that your love for 'balance' might get in the way of your appreciation for it. That said, if you want to continue to play DnD the way you do, cool, good on you. I never once said or implied that you shouldn't be playing the game.
In fact, i wish to see high level melee function better, i am sure we all do. But accusing reasonable, but selectively useful low level feats of being the cause is of it is silly.
No, what we need is better high level feats, ones which build on lower level feats. The cap stone shield feat should Double the total AC granted by your sheild so that tower sheild users. Their should be armor use related feats which functions like the new sheild feats, but for armour, again with a capstone feat which rewards taking the pre requisites. Aditional feats in the style of Combat expertise, which scale of strength, charisma and dexterity. Fighter specific DR feat chains, which provide stacking untyped DR. Small amounts in the upper low/lower mid, but increasingly large amounts at high levels, scaling on
More feats like, shall not pass which allow the fighter and other melee or ranged combatants to influence battle tactics will also help.
But saying 'rar rar rar, combat expertise is crap, yeah.' doesn't help
To be less snarky, I am trying to make this game more playable for me. Yes, my play style is different than yours. However, your playstyle works more than fine with rules that utterly fail or with no rules at all. MINE DOESN'T. Mine requires a game that actually delivers balance and has meaningful choices. And yet, the changes needed to fix my playstyle have absolutely no change on your playstyle -- but you're still set against them for no reason beyond spite! Please, for those of us who enjoy combat just as much as roleplaying, stop trying to keep us from getting what we need to continue playing 3.5. All you are doing is damaging the Pathfinder product and guaranteeing that more people will emigrate to 4e which actually delivers these goals.
'Two men are using identical desk top computers.
One man sits down and uses the computer as he finds it; he beleives it works.While the other unplugs the computer and trys to operate it; he beleives that it is broken.'
If you push a game system to the point where it breaks, by playing at its extremes in all cases, you are not finding a fault in the system, you are making a fault in the system. If you build every wizard as a Intelligence 20 at creation optermised to perfection machine of destruction, instead of a character built with hobbies(represented by skill allocation and feat us), naturalistic unspiked attribute, ofcause the game will break down.
Getting a little off-topic, friends.
What are the feats that we all agree are too sub-par for any character to ever take? Proposed fixes?
Let's not talk about meta-systems, that never goes anywhere.
Getting a little off-topic, friends.
What are the feats that we all agree are too sub-par for any character to ever take? Proposed fixes?
Let's not talk about meta-systems, that never goes anywhere.
Whirlwind Attack.
Seems awesome conceptually, but mechanically, it is terrible.
It is also really compelling when you are fighting stacks of goblins and kobolds, but ceases to be as cool when you are fighting multiple Ogres, Bugbears, or anything with multiple attacks, since a single attack against any of these is unlikely to drop them.
Problems with Whirlwind Attack:
Requires a Full Round Action.
Must have more than 1 opponent within reach. Therefore, opening your character up to multiple full round attacks in response.
As a capstone feat, it is weak, and it should be something which synergizes with Spring Attack and Mobility.
The only solution I have is to attach a combat manuever rider to Whirlwind Attack, like the Bullrush attached to Shield Slam. Trip seems ideal, since it shuts down the multiple, flanking bonus, full attack reprisal, and allows good synergy with Combat Reflexes.
Whirlwind Attack.Seems awesome conceptually, but mechanically, it is terrible.
It is also really compelling when you are fighting stacks of goblins and kobolds, but ceases to be as cool when you are fighting multiple Ogres, Bugbears, or anything with multiple attacks, since a single attack against any of these is unlikely to drop them.Problems with Whirlwind Attack:
Requires a Full Round Action.
Must have more than 1 opponent within reach. Therefore, opening your character up to multiple full round attacks in response.As a capstone feat, it is weak, and it should be something which synergizes with Spring Attack and Mobility.
My recommendation? Allow a character with whirlwind attack take a full attack while moving, splitting up attacks amongst targets as he pleases. Fits the concept of a large number of attack against multiple opponents, but has none of the drawbacks.
My recommendation? Allow a character with whirlwind attack take a full attack while moving, splitting up attacks amongst targets as he pleases. Fits the concept of a large number of attack against multiple opponents, but has none of the drawbacks.
I like your suggestion better than mine, although I would recommend that the character be limited to a single move action. This makes it effectively Pounce, only better and worse in some ways, since you can't double move, but you can move where ever your move could take you (no straight lines), although it does eliminate the ability to take out 9 kobolds in one round. Less fireball, more scorching ray.
Next candidate:
Dodge
The advantage of Dodge is that it provides an AC bonus which stacks with everything. Currently, it scales once, at 10 ranks of Acrobatics. However, it does use a swift action.
To fix it, I would increase the scale to +1 every 5 ranks of Acrobatics. This makes it more scalar, and keeps some parity to effects which grant deflection bonuses to AC. Since it uses a swift action which could be utilized for any number of other purposes, this is not overwhelming, since it will not always be on.
I think it is useful to think of Dodge, and other intro level feats, as the swift action or other equivalent of a 1st level spell, once you reach level 8 or higher. Useful enough that you might be willing to use a swift action on it, but only if you didn't have something better to do with it.
Just want to throw something out there that hasn't been mentioned yet:
I noticed some strength leaning towards allowing feats to scale with level.
There's one problem with that: monster HD scale faster than their CR does.
One suggestion was having, say, Iron Will, provide +2+1/2lvls to Will. Sounds great, doesn't it?
But what happens when the CR 9, 14HD Frost Giant takes it? He gains +9 to his Will save, significantly more than the +6 a 9th-level character gains. And don't forget that Giants advance at +4HD/+1CR, or in the case of this Iron Will, +2 to Will/+1CR, on top of +1.33 to Will/+1CR from HD advancement. So the Giant with Iron Will gains +3.33/+1CR, while a PC gains +1/+1lvl when Will is a Good save, +0.88/+1lvl when will is a Poor save. The advancement gap is further exacerbated by attribute bumps.
Basically, if you have feats scale by level, they'll be superior on monsters. And don't forget that monsters get more feats than PCs do, as well.
-Matt
|
|
Just want to throw something out there that hasn't been mentioned yet:
I noticed some strength leaning towards allowing feats to scale with level.
There's one problem with that: monster HD scale faster than their CR does.
One suggestion was having, say, Iron Will, provide +2+1/2lvls to Will. Sounds great, doesn't it?
But what happens when the CR 9, 14HD Frost Giant takes it? He gains +9 to his Will save, significantly more than the +6 a 9th-level character gains. And don't forget that Giants advance at +4HD/+1CR, or in the case of this Iron Will, +2 to Will/+1CR, on top of +1.33 to Will/+1CR from HD advancement. So the Giant with Iron Will gains +3.33/+1CR, while a PC gains +1/+1lvl when Will is a Good save, +0.88/+1lvl when will is a Poor save. The advancement gap is further exacerbated by attribute bumps.
Basically, if you have feats scale by level, they'll be superior on monsters. And don't forget that monsters get more feats than PCs do, as well.
-Matt
That's just another illustration of why the CR system is broken, isn't it? Presumably that's best fixed in the PFRPG monster treatment, I would say.
That's just another illustration of why the CR system is broken, isn't it? Presumably that's best fixed in the PFRPG monster treatment, I would say.
'Cept as James Jacobs has informed us, that's not likely to happen.
What I have established is that in order to repair the system, big-picture thinking must be used. One cannot look to repair feats without running into issues with monster Challenge Rating, for example.
-Matt
|
|
That's just another illustration of why the CR system is broken, isn't it? Presumably that's best fixed in the PFRPG monster treatment, I would say.'Cept as James Jacobs has informed us, that's not likely to happen.
What I have established is that in order to repair the system, big-picture thinking must be used. One cannot look to repair feats without running into issues with monster Challenge Rating, for example.
-Matt
Or at least with monster advancement. To be honest, I'd like feats fixed and if need be I'll have to ad hoc monster advancement if Paizo don't want to look at it.
Or at least with monster advancement.
True.
I know I might sound like I'm shouting the same point till the (sacred) cows come home to those paying attention, but that's only because I see its importance.
Every change has a cascading effect. For example, if the three save feats were to suddenly scale by level... monsters with those feats suddenly become much harder to touch with save-based effects, thus making save-or-die effects less useful.
Stuff like that.
-Tangential Matt
Or at least with monster advancement. To be honest, I'd like feats fixed and if need be I'll have to ad hoc monster advancement if Paizo don't want to look at it.
One way that seems to be a preferred one of the Paizo design staff is to add an alternate scalar mechanism, like lashing Dodge to Acrobatics.
I respect the general concept of this, especially if the value which is scaled against is more likely to be a PC option than a Magical Beast option.
|
|
One way that seems to be a preferred one of the Paizo design staff is to add an alternate scalar mechanism, like lashing Dodge to Acrobatics.I respect the general concept of this, especially if the value which is scaled against is more likely to be a PC option than a Magical Beast option.
Given that the monster advancement system will still be broken -- elite array for getting one level, frex -- it seems to me that fixing it or ad-hoccing it is going to be important for any DM anyhow, so I would just stick to designing feats for players and then reassess how CRs are awarded to advanced monsters.
Given that the monster advancement system will still be broken -- elite array for getting one level, frex -- it seems to me that fixing it of ad-hoccing it is going to be important for any DM anyhow, so I would just stick to designing feats for players and then reassess how CRs are awarded to advanced monsters.
We've got different points of view. I've been writing adventures and DMing more than playing lately, so I've taken the stance of wanting to work from the challenges down rather than the PCs up.
I am hoping that some clever person will publish some monster scaling rules in something like KQ that we can all use and ignore the 3.5/PFRPG versions.
Well, I've been slowly putting together something on my own. Any advice on publishing it?
-Matt
Or at least with monster advancement.True.
I know I might sound like I'm shouting the same point till the (sacred) cows come home to those paying attention, but that's only because I see its importance.
Every change has a cascading effect. For example, if the three save feats were to suddenly scale by level... monsters with those feats suddenly become much harder to touch with save-based effects, thus making save-or-die effects less useful.
Stuff like that.
-Tangential Matt
I have to agree, it is part of why i think the idea that individually scaling feats are a really bad idea.
Strings of feats which end up in high end pay outs will allows characters to functions against monsters, without massively improving the monsters.
|
|
That is a serious issue, I agree, but as Jason has already stated that the only way to help fighters is through feats rather than class abilities, and most other martial characters get at least a portion of their class abilities through bonus feats as well, we are left with a huge problem. Fixing martial classes through feats that don't suck worse than cantrips makes monsters, which outstrip characters in the HD arena already, ungodly strong when advanced. Not fixing them leaves martial character players the sad, bored sidekicks of those people that play full spellcasting characters.
It really is a truly fundamental issue.
Spellcaster spells level to some extent with the spellcaster. His resources are limited, but when he has single spells that can end an entire encounter, a mid to high levelled spellcaster isn't that limited, really.
Fighters don't do enough damage at high levels unless they remain immobile. And their capabilities, because "fighter" makes sense to us in the real world, are, I feel, always lowered to what's "realistic", which does them a serious disservice when comparing them to casters. The quick outpacing of AC by rising attack bonuses in combination with forcing a meleer to go toe to toe with an enemy to do full damage exacerbates the martial character's problem - he doesn't have the hit points to measure up to a melee threat toe to toe, he can't get his defenses high enough to avoid having to have the hit points necessary to measure up, and he has no capability to act like a shield wall in front of the powerful but still slightly squishy mages because of the way movement, attacks of opportunity and turn mechanics work. Feats for fighters range in power from weaker than a cantrip (which casters get an infinite supply of!!!!!) to maybe a second level spell. Very few of them scale, and some of the few that allowed a fighter to attempt to remain relevant until maybe level 10 have been nerfed to oblivion. The fighter has lost all ability to do damage and remain mobile, he's lost the ability to protect and defend others, he's lost the ability to interfere with spellcasters' ability to concentrate as they focus on warping the fundamental laws of the universe. What can he do? He can't even get enough skill points to sit home and knit well!!!
This problem is throughout the system, and every time I've seen a good fix proposed, it gets shot down as not being backwards compatible. I guess, as I've stated before, we are being told that having the game be backwards compatible is more important than having a robust system. As this system is in development for a year, and I'm seeing lots of good input on the issues that are being shot down as not backwards compatible enough, I'm nearly convinced it's pointless to try to help Pathfinder RPG playtest anymore.
I'm not sure why the fundamental problem is not being addressed. Maybe it's because us system analysis geeks don't present ourselves in a friendly way. I have held my head and groaned in despair at some of the good analysis posts that have been so aggressively and rudely worded I knew the shining nugget of truth would be missed in all the dross. But please, please, Jason! Give me some hope! Is a solution to this fundamental issue seriously going to be considered? Is a robust system more important to Pathfinder RPG than not forcing GMs to add 2 extra skills when converting a fighter in a 3.5 module to Pathfinder RPG?
|
|
Regarding better, scaling feats and the effect on monster advancement, fixing monster advancement just breaks less that we care about, I think. I mean, sure, backwards compatibility gets a hit in terms of pre-published advanced monsters, but the player experience is enhanced by being able to do stuff like move and still do significant damage and the role of the opponents is just to be tough enough for that to be challenging. So, it turns out that the rules that tell us what 'tough enough' is, for advanced monsters, are wrong already and perhaps more wrong if we make better feats. Well, the latter enhances player enjoyment and the former is broken already, and it seems to me that fixing monster advancement should already be on the agenda, so the negative effects of better feats don't outweigh the benefits in game enjoyment. As a DM, I'll just ad hoc monster advancement (or just not give them access to cool feats, if I'm in a rush, although that won't fix the other pre-existing problems with monster advancement) if Jason/Paizo want to leave the system as it is, but at least I'll have meleers being able to do the sort of stuff that they ought to do without me as DM playing the opponents as morons.
|
|
Yeah, maybe I'm just feeling cynical today, but every solution suggested that didn't cause these problems has already been rejected, so we're left changing feats - which cascades through the system much more than updating class features.
*sigh*
I would really like to push that iterative attacks are a standard action instead of a full round action. If you distinguish this from the full attack action of a monster with natural weapons, this helps meleers a lot and makes battle more dynamic. The hydra is still only able to full attack with 5' step or no movement, but the melee character is able to run 30' and still unleash hell.
As this system is in development for a year, and I'm seeing lots of good input on the issues that are being shot down as not backwards compatible enough, I'm nearly convinced it's pointless to try to help Pathfinder RPG playtest anymore.
You're not the only one feeling that way. Backwards compatibility is both Pathfinder's strength (can use one's existing 3.5 library) and its weakness (acts as a reason to not fix the system), so we're left with power-creeping the PCs, under the logic of them being an isolated system ("adding +1 hp or skill point/lvl won't break anything, right?") without taking into account the big picture.
But, on the other hand, at least they're trying. I'm more likely to find a game of Pathfinder than my own complete rewrite, and it gives the unsatisfied-with-4E types something to rally behind, so that's good.
I guess for now, we're left with just evaluating the changes that were made, such as smacking down Pathfinder Power Attack and all the other feat nerfs, instead of changing the fundamentals, like Challenge Rating and monster advancement, which aren't even on the schedule.
-Matt
feelin' for Jess
|
|
Yeah, maybe I'm just feeling cynical today, but every solution suggested that didn't cause these problems has already been rejected, so we're left changing feats - which cascades through the system much more than updating class features.
*sigh*
I just don't like the idea of fixing stuff as fundamental as melee with class features, because I want meleers to be able to melee without having to pick a particular class to get features. My preferred fixes are in feats and in combat rules...
I would really like to push that iterative attacks are a standard action instead of a full round action. If you distinguish this from the full attack action of a monster with natural weapons, this helps meleers a lot and makes battle more dynamic. The hydra is still only able to full attack with 5' step or no movement, but the melee character is able to run 30' and still unleash hell.
I'd like it changed so that a global penalty -- say, -2 -- was picked up for every incremement -- say, 10' -- of movement, as a standard combat rule. I guess I'd be OK with the movement then being limited to one move action and all the attacks in the standard action, just with penalties according to how much movement was made (which is a version of what you're suggesting and would also allow for other allowed things to be done in the move action and pick up some penalties according to how much of the move action they really take, so that drawing weapons in which you have at least a +1, for example, which can be combined with a move action, might accumulate a -2). Move 30', make all your attacks but at -6 each. Perhaps it would also be OK to trade off movement for attacks (another thing that's been mulled by people like Kirth Gerson and also by me), otherwise, so move 30', make all attacks at -6, make one less attack to get it back to -4, make two less attacks to get back to -2; this addition would allow for more than one attack at full AB even with a move (and presumably it would have to be worked with you trading off your lowest attacks first), but I don't have a problem with that because more attacks helps the problem with meleers. So, anyhow, I'd be OK with either suggestion or them in combination.
|
|
You're not the only one feeling that way. Backwards compatibility is both Pathfinder's strength (can use one's existing 3.5 library) and its weakness (acts as a reason to not fix the system)...
The problem is, I don't understand Paizo's definition of "backwards compatible". The changes made to the rogue are backwards compatible, but adding 2 skill points to non-spellcasting 2 skill point classes (paladin and fighter) for a total of 4 isn't? Huh? If I understood the reasoning behind their stands on some of these issues, I might be willing to keep going, but it just doesn't compute that powering up sneak attack isn't an issue, but allowing fighters a medium range of skills is.
A big part of the issue is, I'm not sure why they're taking the stands they're taking. I would rather change the fighter class to have real class features than revamp all feats to make them viable fighter class features that still, somehow, don't overpower advanced monsters. I would rather fix tactical combat rules and auto-succeeds on defensive casting to allow for dynamic battle and some level of martial character parity with spellcasters than power everyone up to the point where every level of play over level 5 is a binary Insta-win/Insta-die thing. I would rather fix the extreme lack of parity between different skills than insist that the vestigial Performance skill is necessary for the Bard class to function.
My greatest hope is Jason's got something big in mind that he's playing extremely close to the vest. Thus far I haven't seen any indications of it, though.
*full-attack suggestions*
Or... we could look at things from a different, wider perspective.
It seems, at least to me, that the reason full-attacks exist in the first place is to balance martial damage output with higher-level spells. A single attack does not scale nearly as quickly as a caster's highest-level spells do. So, in a roundabout way, full-attacks represent a spellcaster taking longer amounts of time to complete higher-level spellcasting. At 11th level, when a full-BAB PC is at +11/+6/+1, a spellcaster takes three times as long to cast his 6th-level spells than he did with his 1st-level spells. Not chronologically, but with regards to action capacity. One attack per spell at 1st, two attacks per spell at 6th, three attacks per spell at 11th, and four attacks per spell at 16th.
So, looking at the situation from this direction, one logical conclusion comes to mind:
Instead of granting multiple attacks to compensate for higher-level spells, why not make higher-level spells take longer to cast?
As mentioned a moment ago, one attack per spell at 1st, two attacks per spell at 6th, three attacks per spell at 11th, and four attacks per spell at 16th. Why not slow down casting time instead of speeding up attack time to follow this progression?
-4th and 5th-level spells require two standard ("attack") actions to complete.
-6th and 7th-level spells require three standard actions to complete.
-8th and 9th-level spells require four standard actions to complete.
So if a spellcaster wants to cast, say, Disintegrate, he'll be able to cast it, but then he loses his next two standard actions. Or full turns; the idea will have to be revised of course.
This way, we can then accomplish what iterative attacks were designed to accomplish, and then we'd be able to phase out the convoluted "it's all about getting your full-attack, because full-attack > everything else" system that currently stands. Play would be sped up, as all the full-attack math would not have to be done, and combat would be more interesting, since damage would no longer come in massive spikes as it does now, allowing PCs and monsters to defend themselves instead of sitting back and dying to a full-attack. Also, other non-full-attack actions, like bull-rushes, would be viable again, since they only have to compete with the effectiveness of a single attack, not a full-attack as well as the actions which grant one.
-Matt
The problem is, I don't understand Paizo's definition of "backwards compatible".
Preach it, sister!
Favored class hit point and skill point additions and racial attribute power-creep are much more harm to backwards compatibility than, say, rewriting and condensing Perform, yet which one gets changed and which one doesn't?
The concept is sound... the execution is just soooo unfocused, inconsistent, and often unnecessary.
-Matt
Director of Games
|
Hey there all,
I have been reading this thread for days now and I have come to some conclusions. I agree that feats should not suck, but neither should they live outside their role. That means a balancing act of sorts. While some feats should scale, to at least maintain relevance, others should be a power in their own right. There is no simple solution here. Not every feat is going to be a power house at high levels, just like some spells become useless at higher levels.
Much of my goal here is to balance out some lopsided treatment of melee classes at high levels and I think some of the new feats accomplish that, although there is still some work to be done. I also understand that this can be frustrating from your perspective. What we can change and what we can't is often unclear, but I can assure you that it is never arbitrary. This entire process would be a whole lot easier if I did not have any limits, but then I am pretty sure we would end up with a pretty different game (although I am pretty sure I could maintain the flavor, compatibility would suffer).
So.. I am locking this thread down. It has moved on from being useful to wandering from topic to topic. Move along folks... things are still developing. I need to get back to monsters, or the other half of the game equation that can affect balance.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing