|
Couldn't find another thread yet, so here is my own :)
*edit* found it in general discussion *edit*
Everyone can look here for the preview.
Their is allusions to math clues hidden in the stats, and I think it comes down to the Combat Maneuver Defense, it says he gets Dex and Deflections, so +2, and +5, I am assuming BAB? So another +14, and Str? so +3?
Giving us a 2+5+14+3 = 24, and a CMD of 34, so a base CMD of 10? Just like AC? hmmmm?
I think with the other modifiers, that satisfies the complaints against the 15+ number from beta?
Does that mean other situational bonuses apply as well now?
Excellent preview! I really like the sound of Two Weapon Rend. Very nice!
I might have gone with this thread instead.
|
Also, the new power attack seems to allow you to go beyond mere STR restrictions. Here's my guess:
Hint: weapon training (heavy blades +3, light blades +2)
So, longsword: power attack 3 STR, 3 weapon training, 1 weapon focus, 1 greater focus = 8?
Shortsword: power attack 1 STR (1/2 STR on off-hand), 2 weapon training, 1 weapon focus = 4?
:)
Also, the new power attack seems to allow you to go beyond mere STR restrictions. Here's my guess:
Hint: weapon training (heavy blades +3, light blades +2)
So, longsword: power attack 3 STR, 3 weapon training, 1 weapon focus, 1 greater focus = 8?
Shortsword: power attack 1 STR (1/2 STR on off-hand), 2 weapon training, 1 weapon focus = 4?
:)
It seems more likely that Power Attack and Combat Expertise are now level-related or BaB related.
Valeros is 14th level and can use Power Attack and Combat Expertise for a maximum of -4 to hit. The bonuses are then +4 to AC for Combat Expertise and +8 to damage with the one-handed weapon and +4 to damage with the light weapon.
We can argue that a character can take a penalty to hit equal to -1 for every +3 BaB (or -1, and then an additional +1 for every +4 BaB... who knows) and an equivalent bonus to AC (Combat Expertise) - maybe doubled if using a shield (not confirmed).
With Power Attack, it clearly changes the bonuses granted: -1 hit for +2 damage with the longsword (one-handed weapon), -1 to hit for +1 damage with the shortsword (light weapon) - and perhaps, -1 to hit for +3 to damage with a two-handed weapon.
Just my 2c.
|
Anyone else notice that his armor bonus seems to be off? He's getting +9 total from his breastplate. His Armor Training bonus use to make that a +12 total armor bonus. So am I missing something? Did they change Armor Training earlier Did they change the armor bonus of a breastplate to +6? Seems odd to me.
|
|
As pointed out by Jason the preview was designed to show off feats and was not build for optimal capability. He chose the weak will save in designing Valeros.
As for your first point, when going head to head against a clone it should be hard to hit yourself. A 20% chance is pretty good when realisticly you shouldn't be able to, knowing exactly what the other would do. The true test is seeing how he stands up against other things of the same level; whether that be other characters or monsters will determine how well his build works out. Granted we know that should a mindflayer come along he better borrow a helm of mindblank or something.
Seems weird to me that you add your STR and DEX bonuses to your CMD. There's some logic in it, but it still makes it prohibitively difficult, which is sad. I want Combat Maneuvers to be not uncommon, so that PCs don't just decide that stabbing something is the only real option.
|
|
Seems weird to me that you add your STR and DEX bonuses to your CMD. There's some logic in it, but it still makes it prohibitively difficult, which is sad. I want Combat Maneuvers to be not uncommon, so that PCs don't just decide that stabbing something is the only real option.
Don't forget the base has dropped to 10 not 15, so you may not have your warrior get into a UFC style match up with another warrior, he will be able to push around and abuse any caster class. Those guys may put abilities into dex, but they are unlikely to have stacked both dex and str, and even still have low bab's
Solid preview. Three glaring problems with current version of Pathfinder rules:
- Valeros vs Valeros - CMB +17 vs CMD 34 means 20% success chance, means 1 success in 5 attempts. With most maneuvers requiring standard action, it is not worth it to use maneuvers (especially when comparing Valeros AC vs damage output)
- Valeros vulnerability to sunder - since monsters, especially giants, often have high strength, it is quite safe to assume that it is easier for them to perform sunder... since most of Valeros feats are tied to longsword, once it is broken, his feats go *poof*
- Will save +3 (+7 vs Fear)
Pathfinder BETA, page page 294, Monster statistics by CR, column Primary Ability DC, row CR 14: 23
(this assumes non-optimized, standard encounter monster)
So if I make a monster for a standard encounter, and the said monster signature ability targets Will save, Valeros becomes a toast 19 times out of 20.
Well...
-valeros is a poor example of this matter. he has a very low STR score and no feat for improving cmb and no special weapon to accomplish specific maneuvers. plus, he has a high DEX score. The sum of these things made its build a poor choice for a maneuver-oriented playstyle.
-yep, its build is so longsword-dependent that it's true. But there's a whole world of feat out there... this should not be a problem.
-mmmh... let's see... WIS 8, no magic items which give saving bonuses, no iron will feat... once again, valeros is a poor example. It has been built in order to be a sword-swinging badass with a poor intellect.
The system allows you these things (thanks GOD it's not 4e), but it's your choice. or better, it's player's choice.
|
|
The system allows you these things (thanks GOD it's not 4e), but it's your choice. or better, it's player's choice.
Um that seems unnecessary flaming of 4e. 4E has an awful lot of choice, if anything more choice, its just different choices. If you don't like it that's fine, but some of us play more then one gaming system happily, as they both have their pros and cons. Its just off topic here.
|
So Valeros may look like a badass thanks to great picture, but in (game) reality, if a 5th level Wizard makes a suggestion to go gather flowers (for 5 hours), our 14th level hero will most likely do so (for 5 hours, if the suggestion is stated properly).
And I don't see this as a problem. Everyone should have a weakness. Otherwise, DM's everywhere will have an even harder job making the players look like they have beat the odds.
I think my next NPC wizard is going to "suggest" picking flowers..... thanks for that one!|
|
So Valeros may look like a badass thanks to great picture, but in (game) reality, if a 5th level Wizard makes a suggestion to go gather flowers (for 5 hours), our 14th level hero will most likely do so (for 5 hours, if the suggestion is stated properly).And I don't see this as a problem. Everyone should have a weakness. Otherwise, DM's everywhere will have an even harder job making the players look like they have beat the odds.
I think my next NPC wizard is going to "suggest" picking flowers..... thanks for that one!
Well, having "weaknesses" is relative -- in most games, a weakness or flaw does not incapacitate you 90% of the time it gets targeted. Maybe this shouldn't even be possible in games like D&D?
This is further emphasized if you're using point-buy, because the melee types need to have decent STR and CON score (plus Dex, if you're going for the two-weapon/finesse build -- just like Valeros) and therefore you cannot really invest a lot in Wis.
Anyone who thinks this is not so can use the 'Epic' point buy (25 pts.) and swap his feats/magic items to show how Valeros could achieve a decent Will save against foes of his level (let's say, DC 23-25). And by "decent" I mean "fair", i.e. at least 40% chance -- and let's remember that he still should be an effective two-weapon wielder after any modifications.
A PC like Valeros puts a difficult choice to DMs: should you let NPCs or monsters use SoS/SoD-effects against him, knowing that the most powerful melee guy is taken out with 90% certainity? Or should you target another PC with Will-based effects most of the time -- someone who at least has a decent chance? Or use them at all? Because I don't personally like running or playing in the "90% chance to take out someone on round 1"-type of fights (especially if the duration lasts until the end of the fight, or even longer).
|
|
The system allows you these things (thanks GOD it's not 4e), but it's your choice. or better, it's player's choice.Um that seems unnecessary flaming of 4e. 4E has an awful lot of choice, if anything more choice, its just different choices. If you don't like it that's fine, but some of us play more then one gaming system happily, as they both have their pros and cons. Its just off topic here.
Exactly. Some of us do like apples AND oranges.
To repeat: The stat block was not meant to be a powerul character or anything. It was designed to show off as many cool new rules as possible.
It doesn't really matter whether or not this Valeros would be eaten by a grue within 2 minutes.
I mean, level 14 without any cloak of resistance? I think the only characters like that I've seen in D&D games are characters who do it with magic (there's Superior Resistance which works all day and grants you a big save bonus).
My take for Combat Expertise, Power Attack, and others: base number is 2, plus 1 for every 5 levels you have. So at first, you can go +2/-2, at 5 you get +3/-3, at 10 +4/-4....
Both Str and Dex to CMD could be excessive, but with the base being dropped to 10 instead of 15, it is somewhat evened out. Plus, a lot of creatures focus on one over the other.
Um that seems unnecessary flaming of 4e. 4E has an awful lot of choice, if anything more choice
I don't think 4e gives you more freedom than PF.
If a non-optimized warrior has a problem with using maneuvers, there is much smaller chance with other classes taking advantage of this mechanic.
Depends wholly on the character.
This here is a bad example. He's a warrior focussing both on strength and dexterity, but more on dexterity. And he doesn't have agile manoeuvres. That means he's not really into that sort of thing, and it would be easy enough to get into it.
And this is in addition to the fact that he's not optimised.
So I don't really see this being a discouragement for other classes.
The canonical party includes but a one melee character, of which maneuver competence is likely to be limited to restricted amount of possible builds.
The "stereotypical party" has two and a half to three melee characters: The Fighter, with his stereotypical greatsword; The Cleric, with his Mace and Shield; and the Rogue, with his Rapier and maybe shortsword or dagger (though that one often uses a bow, hence the 2 1/2 - 3).
The typical cleric is both wise and strong, and uses his magic to make himself stronger still, grant him more battle prowess.
In the old days, clerics could come pretty close to, or even surpass, fighters in their own game. In PF, it's been defused somewhat, but clerics are still no weaklings when it comes to melee.
-yep, its build is so longsword-dependent that it's true. But there's a whole world of feat out there... this should not be a problem.If it was possible to retrain specialization feats
Something like this should be handled on a case by case basis. The core rules should have guidelines and general advise, but no hard rules.
For some, it is okay that you can spend 5 gold pieces and half an hour and change from swordsman to archer, but others think that the specialisation comes from long and hard training and shouldn't be changeable - at least not without good reason and involving a lot of time.
In my opinion, the whole point of a fighter with weapon specialisation and other feats like this is that he's spend an awful lot of time training with that specific type of weapon. It should not be easy (if at all possible) to just forget all that training and pick something else up in a couple of hours.
And it's not like he's dependant on that very weapon. It's weapon specialisation (longsword), not weapon specialisation (The Longsword Angrachvul, forged in the fires of the Holy Mountain and tempered with the blood of saints).
or something actually cool like through Atlantean Sword Kata, I would appreciate it.
Nice scene.
What about it? Unless you wanted to show us what Dazzling Display looks like in action.
I am of the school of thought where reply "Roll another character and buy different items" is not a correct answer. My preference lies with characters which can adapt to changing environment.
Then build them like that. This one wasn't. Doesn't mean you can't build them like this. Just means that this one, well, wasn't.
Still, d20 problems are not entirely new to me, and our current campaign setup (retraining, Tome of Battle maneuvers) allows to circumvent such problems.
Tome of Battle might be a nice book, but the fighter is a fighter, not a spellcaster with a sword. He never will be.
And as you say: Retraining is easy enough to set up as a houserule if you want it. But it shouldn't be the standard.
Sounds way too much like WoW to me - the way the fanatics I know always talk about how they apparently go to a trainer in the game, pay some gold, and BAM! Essentially have a new character with completely different abilities.
That's nice for a computer game, but I don't want it in my RPG. For me, that destroys credibility. Plus, if you specialise, you specialise. You trade versatility for focus. If you can change that focus at a moment's notice, you haven't really specialised. You've become really good at everything.
I'm just a little bit sad that despite quite a few articles posted on this during playtest, only a single aspect of the issue, that of an overpowering Fear, was addressed.
Well, for every one who is for stuff like Tome of Battle, there are ten who don't want it. So it isn't changed. Simple math.
So Valeros may look like a badass thanks to great picture, but in (game) reality, if a 5th level Wizard makes a suggestion to go gather flowers
Not. Because this preview character was never meant to be real, not even in the game.
Even the sample character from PF 6 had a better will save, and that was before he could afford more feats.
At this level, he's bound to have something like a cloak of resistance +4 at least. Maybe a headband of wisdom, too, and the iron will feat.
Bonus is probably around +10 in a more normal character.
A PC like Valeros puts a difficult choice to DMs: should you let NPCs or monsters use SoS/SoD-effects against him, knowing that the most powerful melee guy is taken out with 90% certainity? Or should you target another PC with Will-based effects most of the time -- someone who at least has a decent chance? Or use them at all? Because I don't personally like running or playing in the "90% chance to take out someone on round 1"-type of fights (especially if the duration lasts until the end of the fight, or even longer).
Don't mean to get too off topic. But I use a simple solution to such a situation that is unbiased and fair: randomly determine which PC is the target with a die roll. Never had a player argue with it. I don't use it exclusively mind you. When a BBEG needs to be nasty, it's going to be nasty! But for general foes, I roll a die to determine who gets hit with what… it gets rid of the impression that I'm picking on anyone.
I don't know what kind of games people are used to playing in, but Valeros would work just fine in ours. The cleric (or the bard or the wizard or the sorcerer or the rogue) would note that Valeros has a little weakness because he spent more time building up his fightery powers than his will save and would compensate by taking protection from evil or getting a wand. You can fight off the effects of a lot of really powerful charm effects with a 1st level spell that keeps on going all combat long. Even dispel magic would work fine. There's nothing wrong with a fighter neglecting Will. I can't believe so many people actually think that is a problem in a game where companions work together. What about Wizards and their fortitude and reflex saves. Oh no! Sky is falling!
I do like the Bravery boost, though. Not because I think it is necessary to prevent fighters from being glass cannons, but because I think fighters should be as brave as wizards.
I mean, level 14 without any cloak of resistance? I think the only characters like that I've seen in D&D games are characters who do it with magic (there's Superior Resistance which works all day and grants you a big save bonus).
Unless the character can make it himself he wont have it by default at level 14 in my game. I don't have a magic item bazaar for him to go shopping at in my world.
I don't think assuming every level 14 has all the stat buff, save buff items based on his assumed gold amount is wrong. I don't assume when I am playing a fighter I will have such items, thus I take Iron Will when it becomes clear my will save is an issue. But as you pointed out they were trying to highlight the cool new things, Iron Will is not a cool new thing so that just skipped it. I don't think that's a big deal personally.
In the old days, clerics could come pretty close to, or even surpass, fighters in their own game. In PF, it's been defused somewhat, but clerics are still no weaklings when it comes to melee.
Old days means something different to you then it does to me. In the old days the cleric wasn't even close to the fighter in melee power, no expicational strength, no multiple attacks, really poor weapon selection...dang war hammer with it's d4+1....that aint a war hammer that's a freaking ball-peen hammer.
In 3.x though you are right a cleric could buff himself to the sky to complete pretty solidly with the fighter in melee.
To be fair in the discussion, the 14th-level Valeros from PF6 has a +5 Will Save (+2 cloak of resistance, same 8 Wis). Those characters were also *distinctly* called out by Paizo for *not* being optimized, fyi.
IMHO, maneuvers should be a valid combat option for any character with Medium BAB and 16+ in relevant ability against equal CR opponents.
Here I'm going to ask.. "Why?"
Now before you go off talking about how a middle of the road character should get to do X, Y, and Z - let me say I agree with that. But look closely at your question. If a group is facing a creature of equal CR in a normal encounter, then it is 4-on-1. If every (or most) of the members of the party had a close to 50% chance of grappling/pinning/tripping/disarming that creature (without any maneuver training), there would never be any other strategies. Even the mages would contribute their "grapple chance" by an enlarge person spell or similar benefit.
If instead you mean that a character with medium BAB and 16+ should be able to use a maneuver against a creature CR-4, that with his three buddies is making up an average encounter, I agree completely. 4 CR-0's would be a *highly* challenging encounter.
But for the sake of argument, let's have that character act against a mirror of himself. Since you said 16 in the relevant ability, I'm presuming that if needed he has Agile Maneuvers. CMB = BAB + 3. CMD = 10 + BAB + 3 + other stat (let's call it +2 since it must be lower than the other) = BAB + 15. A 12 is needed for success, or 45% chance. Against a creature CR-2 to CR-4? Plenty of opportunity.
Is that not high enough?
Taking the Valeros preview, if his Str and Dex were swapped (or he had Agile Maneuvers), he would have +20 vs. 34, needing a 14 (35% chance), without using any of his myriad feats for another +2.
Don't mean to get too off topic. But I use a simple solution to such a situation that is unbiased and fair:
Fairness? You're a lousy GM! ;-P
Personally, I mostly do what feels right for the character in question. Enchanter who knows his stuff? Probably trying the fighter first. Orcish shaman-priest with a hatred for the champions of weaker faiths? He might try to paralyse the cleric.
Might call for a new character if the weaknesses are too pronounced, too obvious, and aren't taken care of, but that can happen. But I don't go out of my way to attack weaknesses per se. (Unless we happen to talk about a twinked little number by an unrepentant powergamer....)
|
|
On the topic of character optimization, I know it is a personal style thing, but does anyone not make optimized characters these days? I love to squander skill points, and take flavour feats.
My Barbarian has a high cha, and a few ranks in perform, does he ever plan on multi classing as bard or skald, absolutely not, but he likes to recite poetry while in a rage (which is technically not allowed as you can't make int/wis/cha checks well raging but as it has no mechanical effect my GM doesn't complain.)
Is his Wisdom/Will Save woefully low? Sure, but does he care, absolutely not, its fun to just be a barbarian whose so bent on becoming part of the tales he recites, that he chases fame recklessly.
|
|
Don't mean to get too off topic. But I use a simple solution to such a situation that is unbiased and fair:
Fairness? You're a lousy GM! ;-P
Personally, I mostly do what feels right for the character in question. Enchanter who knows his stuff? Probably trying the fighter first. Orcish shaman-priest with a hatred for the champions of weaker faiths? He might try to paralyse the cleric.
Might call for a new character if the weaknesses are too pronounced, too obvious, and aren't taken care of, but that can happen. But I don't go out of my way to attack weaknesses per se. (Unless we happen to talk about a twinked little number by an unrepentant powergamer....)
I think the random solution works for unintelligent monsters, but once someone has pissed them off, warrior attacks, rogue strikes, magic clearly sourced from one character, I have beast and monsters focus on the thing that is pissing them off them most.
On the topic of character optimization, I know it is a personal style thing, but does anyone not make optimized characters these days? I love to squander skill points, and take flavour feats.
My Barbarian has a high cha, and a few ranks in perform, does he ever plan on multi classing as bard or skald, absolutely not, but he likes to recite poetry while in a rage (which is technically not allowed as you can't make int/wis/cha checks well raging but as it has no mechanical effect my GM doesn't complain.)
Is his Wisdom/Will Save woefully low? Sure, but does he care, absolutely not, its fun to just be a barbarian whose so bent on becoming part of the tales he recites, that he chases fame recklessly.
I have an elven fighter who has perform dance, mainly because I see his style of fighting as more of a dance with lazy appearing moves that strike unexpectantly. My high level cleric has survival because he likes to hunt in his off time, he also has mounted combat because he leads knights into battle often and well was encouraged to be able to ride with them, even though he never really fights from horseback.
So, basically, in your opinion, this writeup does not provide information as to how the game looks like with regard to building playable warrior characters.
A bit disappointing approach for a preview of an iconic.
No. According to Jason, this writeup is not supposed to show off every possible way how to create a fighter. It's not meant to be effective as a player character. It's meant to be effective as a way to show off new stuff.
The typical cleric is both wise and strong, and uses his magic to make himself stronger still, grant him more battle prowess.And now you're hypothesizing... with no preview material to back up your opinion.
How the hell would preview material back up what I said about the typical cleric.
And it's more than my opinion. It's my experience.
IMHO, maneuvers should be a valid combat option for any character with Medium BAB and 16+ in relevant ability against equal CR opponents.
You can't overgeneralise things like that.
What level are you talking about? At 1st level, Str 16 is no big deal. At level 20, it's pathetically weak - look at your average level 20 barbarian or fighter, or CR 20 Monsters focussing on melee.
And what opponent are we talking about? A weakling wizard? Or a great wyrm green dragon monk?
It's not about learning and forgetting, it's like learning a role and then learning another while the previous text is forgotten with falling out of use.
Those guys aren't playing a role in a movie.
Sure, a good actor can make a convincing hacker in one movie, a secret government agent in the next, play a great warrior in the movie following that and finally becomeing a great wizard.
But only on screen. He couldn't really hack his way into a computer system, couldn't infiltrate hostile government, beat chuck norris in barehanded combat and throw spells around.
Meanwhile learning a new weapon takes several hours.
You can do that. Your usual warrior is proficient in all simple and martial weapons so switch all day long.
But a character with weapon focus, weapon specialisation, greater weapon focus, greater weapon specialisation, improved critical, weapon mastery and weapon supremacy (I'm sure I forgot a number of weapon specific feats there), won't trade his life-long training with one kind of weapon for something else in a week. Not in my game, and not in RAW PF.
It doesn't fit the flavour.
But if you like a different flavour, you're welcome to houserule it. It's not as if it were hard to do so.
And maneuvers are not spells, more like special actions bordering on supernatural.
They go quack. They waddle. They're ducks.
Unless the character can make it himself he wont have it by default at level 14 in my game. I don't have a magic item bazaar for him to go shopping at in my world.
Your choice. And your responsibility to remember it when designing encounters.
Old days means something different to you then it does to me.
Well, sorry that I still have all my hair in the right places, with the right colour ;-P
Not my fault you called your first love "Hun" because she was one. :D
Not my fault you called your first love "Hun" because she was one. :D
You have to admit it sounds more endearing that "Fritz", "Boche" or "Kraut-Eater".
Your choice. And your responsibility to remember it when designing encounters.
My players know if they want to have access to all kinds of magic items they don't find in an adventure there are a set of item creation feats they can take. That's why they are there.
Well, sorry that I still have all my hair in the right places, with the right colour ;-PNot my fault you called your first love "Hun" because she was one. :D
Actually while I am nearly 40 my wife is in her twenties. :P
My first love....never mind I can't remember that far back.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I have an elven fighter who has perform dance, mainly because I see his style of fighting as more of a dance with lazy appearing moves that strike unexpectantly. My high level cleric has survival because he likes to hunt in his off time, he also has mounted combat because he leads knights into battle often and well was encouraged to be able to ride with them, even though he never really fights from horseback.On the topic of character optimization, I know it is a personal style thing, but does anyone not make optimized characters these days? I love to squander skill points, and take flavour feats.
My Barbarian has a high cha, and a few ranks in perform, does he ever plan on multi classing as bard or skald, absolutely not, but he likes to recite poetry while in a rage (which is technically not allowed as you can't make int/wis/cha checks well raging but as it has no mechanical effect my GM doesn't complain.)
Is his Wisdom/Will Save woefully low? Sure, but does he care, absolutely not, its fun to just be a barbarian whose so bent on becoming part of the tales he recites, that he chases fame recklessly.
My Pathfinder Society character has ranks in Diplomacy and Sense Motive, as well as the Negotiator feat, since he was the son of a mechant and the lessons he learned carried over to his adult life. Those two skills are crossclass for Rangers. My Living Greyhawk sorceror/cleric could commonly be found on the front of the front lines of the battle, despite the lack of any combat skills whatsoever (spells aside), because that's the way he was.
Anyways, I think Valeros is perfectly fine. This guy isn't a guy who solos on his own; as I recall, he's usually pulled in the wake of Seoni or Meri, one who's capable of handling those nasty Will effects and one who... isn't... plus, Kyra can usually be seen trudging behind. Hell, from his equipment list, it looks like Valeros is more worried about being lit on fire than he is being compelled to pick flowers.
Actually while I am nearly 40 my wife is in her twenties. :P
Wow, robbing the cradle, aren't you? ;D
|
|
You have to admit it sounds more endearing that "Fritz", "Boche" or "Kraut-Eater".
Hey, I love Kraut in all it's forms: Sauerkraut, Rotkraut and whatnot.
And I think that Kraut-Eater is far more endearing than
"Eater-of-Breakfast-Sausages-made-with-a-max-of-50%-meat"
or
"Drinker-of-Beer-made-from-anything-but-hops-and-barley"
:-)
Not my fault you called your first love "Hun" because she was one. :DYou have to admit it sounds more endearing that "Fritz", "Boche" or "Kraut-Eater".
Huh?
Edit: Ah, I see now. For some reason, Americans used it to insult Germans. Even though it doesn't make sense really. But it not making sense does make sense.
|
|
Don't mean to get too off topic. But I use a simple solution to such a situation that is unbiased and fair: randomly determine which PC is the target with a die roll. Never had a player argue with it. I don't use it exclusively mind you. When a BBEG needs to be nasty, it's going to be nasty! But for general foes, I roll a die to determine who gets hit with what… it gets rid of the impression that I'm picking on anyone.
That's one way to handle NPC actions -- I used to do it that way, too, but these days I just try to determine the most logical target in each situation. "Random targeting" is naturally more "fair", but it may seem silly in some situations, such as if the fighter is charging at the BBEG ("Hey, that rogue over there in the background looks nasty... or should I get that huge, muscular guy swinging that wicked-looking sword and charging at me... nah, I'll pick the rogue!").
If you were to fight your own self, what chance, do you think, you'd have to accomplish a maneuver? 35%? Or closer to 50%?
5%. I just know myself too well. There's no fooling me.
Besides, the problem here is that a fighter, a combat expert class, is unlikely to succeed.
That's beside the point.
The fact here is that an offensively weak fighter who's out of his element, is unlikely to succeed against a defensively strong one.
Make him more offensive, give him some training in the area, and the chances look better. Let him face off against an enemy that isn't a warrior, or not so good a defender, and things change again.
Why? Are you going to steal my cookies?
What? Are you on drugs? Or just antagonistic?
All of the levels. The key term is: "equal CR".
It's not the CR. It's the fact that you state a fixed attribute value. Str 16 can be a lot, and it can be inconsequential, depending on the level.
It's like saying that a wizard with int 16 should be very capable. It might be true at 1st level, but at 20th, he cannot even use the three highest spell levels.
All it took was to revise CMB formula to allow CM success chance to depend on BAB in a less linear way.
You're still screwed, since you expect your Fighter 66 with Str 16 to trip the colossal+ prismatic great wyrm with strength 73.
Might as well say "a fighter should always be able to trip a wizard, because he's a fighter". It just doesn't work that way.
And your problem actually doesn't stem from BAB, it stems from ability scores.
It's only natural to lose proficiency in the field you do not exercise. It's natural to be able to get better by studying harder.
It's not natural to forget years of mastery and replace them with a different mastery in a couple of days.
It's not like medieval swords were forged in a robotic forge, each smithed according to precisely the same measurements. Hardly.
It's not like D&D forces you to specify a specific specimen of longsword. You specify a weapon type, but nowhere does it say they're all perfect copies of each other.
But learning to fight with a longsword for dozens of years doesn't mean you can become one of the best archers in a week.
while car drivers need to retest their driving skills from time to time.
No, they don't.
I guess that makes Rogue talents to be spells, too? How about Pahtfinder's Barbarian Rage powers?
They don't go quack, and they don't waddle.
|
I do wish at ths point that they should not be telling us they can't show us stuff in the Alpha. A few months ago alright three months from release makes me want to buy the product less. At the very least what was a guarenteed purchase is something I'm going to be spending sometime looking through. Those in my gaming group who dislike 4E and like 3.5. so far see nothing that should encourage them to buy PF.
We need to see what the system can do and optimized builds imo. Otherwise the Fighter comes across as looking like just any old 3.5. fighter with one or two new parts tacked on. Those who play 3.5. already know what a 3.5. fighter looks like. Show us what a PF class looks like.
I'm getting the PF books as I no longer have my 3.5. books. I was made an offer I could not refuse to part with my 3.5. stuff. Not because I think it does a better job then 4E because I like many games. Not to mention in my area you can find both 3.5 and 4E games so I like being prepared in case I have to join either game. Still so far I'm finding the previews somewhat lackluster and find Paizo reluctance to show us what is in the Alpha version strange to say the least.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Nitpick, memo: this is NOT the Alpha version. The Alpha version's boat sailed way before the Beta version was published.
Second, have you looked at the Beta version download, which is for free? If so, then you'll have a good idea what to expect from the Final version of the Pathfinder RPG, with a few alterations that most of the number crunching members of this board have already deduced with a (to throw out a random number) 90+% chance of being right.
Now, my personal view, but if this were a system that I was completely unfamiliar with, I wouldn't want to see an optimized character build (I hate min-maxing); rather, I'd prefer to see two or three character builds using the same class, to show the wide range of things that a character can do in the system. Since this is a system that I'm intimately familiar with, though, I'm just dandy with seeing only Valeros.
|
|
Nitpick, memo: this is NOT the Alpha version. The Alpha version's boat sailed way before the Beta version was published.
I know it's not the Alpha version. Why they are still being so secret about what the can't or can show at this point makes no sense imo.
Second, have you looked at the Beta version download, which is for free? If so, then you'll have a good idea what to expect from the Final version of the Pathfinder RPG, with a few alterations that most of the number crunching members of this board have already deduced with a (to throw out a random number) 90+% chance of being right.
Pointless imo to do so at this point. Why would I want to reread the Beta and then waste my time trying to see what they kept or not. Maybe a few months ago not now. Not with the Alpha so close to being released. I'm in no particular mood to go through all the threads on this forum to see what they kept or not. At this point it's up to Paizo to do.
Now, my personal view, but if this were a system that I was completely unfamiliar with, I wouldn't want to see an optimized character build (I hate min-maxing); rather, I'd prefer to see two or three character builds using the same class, to show the wide range of things that a character can do in the system. Since this is a system that I'm intimately familiar with, though, I'm just dandy with seeing only Valeros.
You are right to a certain extent. They should not just show an optimized build. Neither should they just show a non-optimized fighter either. And let's be honest here to a certain extent almost everyone maiximizes. Why not show us a build that is? Right now as it stands Valeros shows me nothing new really. Certainly nothing that can be done under 3.5. Paizo needs to build interest in those who are on the fence with PF and 3.5. Imo these previews don't do it.
|
|
memo,
Couple of points:
1) It's not an Alpha. You accept this then keep referring to the final product as the Alpha. This makes you look like you're not listening or don't understand.
2) It's three months away and they'll be releasing a teaser every week (more or less). Do you really want them to tell you everything right now or would you rather get a build up to the final release? I know which one makes much more sense as a marketing campaign.
3) It is a marketing campaign. Releasing everything now would sap the enthusiasm for the next 12 weeks and result in fewer sales. This is obviously not in Paizo's best interest
4) I doubt they'll release everything until the final release. Otherwise why should we buy what is quite a hefty book?
5) It's previews. They're snapshots not the complete picture. This is hardly unusual. Do you get to watch the whole movie two months before it's released in cinemas (well, unless it's Wolverine)?
EDIT: I didn't realise CMB/CMD was part of 3.5. Silly me.
Creative Director
|
We're being secretive and coy because we're still several months away from the book's release. If we pull back the curtain now and in its entirety, then the anticipation and excitement about the book will peak early. It's all marketing, basically; we're trying to create a slow build up to the book's release so that when it IS available, there'll be a lot of excitement about it. That's probably going to ruffle some feathers and make some folk impatient, but since the release date is set in stone, I would hope that it would be better to do periodic previews than do nothing at all! :-)
As for the previous preview of the fighter... we've heard a lot of feedback and have taken that into account. The next previews will be a bit more descriptive about what's going on and won't simply show you a stat block; we'll be more clear about what exactly we're trying to preview in each one, and what we're NOT trying to show off. Note that doesn't mean we'll try to fully optimize each preview character, since that style of play isn't for everyone. But leading off with Valeros the way we did was probably not the best way to start things out. We'll try to make the next ones more informative.
We're being secretive and coy because we're still several months away from the book's release. If we pull back the curtain now and in its entirety, then the anticipation and excitement about the book will peak early. It's all marketing, basically; we're trying to create a slow build up to the book's release so that when it IS available, there'll be a lot of excitement about it. That's probably going to ruffle some feathers and make some folk impatient, but since the release date is set in stone, I would hope that it would be better to do periodic previews than do nothing at all! :-)
As for the previous preview of the fighter... we've heard a lot of feedback and have taken that into account. The next previews will be a bit more descriptive about what's going on and won't simply show you a stat block; we'll be more clear about what exactly we're trying to preview in each one, and what we're NOT trying to show off. Note that doesn't mean we'll try to fully optimize each preview character, since that style of play isn't for everyone. But leading off with Valeros the way we did was probably not the best way to start things out. We'll try to make the next ones more informative.
Hi James,
I would like to thank you for NOT Min/Maxing the Iconics. I hate min/maxing as a GM, and I try to discourage it as much as possible in my games. The easiest way of course is to take a min/maxed character out of his min/maxed environment. When someone min/maxes a character for combat, they end up in a RP situation, where they have not the right skills or abilities (Note, that it is a situation where they have access to those skills/abilities but passed them over for min/maxing combat). Someone min/maxed to be a diplomat but at the expense of being poor at combat is self addressed, usually. :)I would have liked more details on the build though, and I would suggest linking to the Iconic's backgrounds (which you posted in the blogs) for each build. Then, in the descriptions, go through how they were built with the background in mind. That, to me, would be the best way to preview the class. And of course, some more details into the rules behind how the stat-block came to be. But I think you're already looking at that, from your comment above.
I am relatively new here, but would like to thank you for all the work Paizo has put into this, I really didn't like 4E, and I love what I've seen so far, and I'm looking forward to August (already pre-ordered the RPG and the beastiary).
|
Creative Director
|
First off; welcome to the boards!
We won't be doing much to tie these builds to the iconics' current personalities and back stories; that will wait until we actually start statting them up at the backs of the Adventure Paths and the Modules. AKA: The stats you see for them here won't necessarily be the same for them in the modules; we're more interested in showing off bits of the RPG than we are in developing the characters themselves in these previews.
That said, we WILL be a bit more descriptive going forward.
NOTE: One thing this preview also shows is how the format of the PF RPG stat blocks is pretty much unchanged from what we've been doing. One more way that compatibility with pre PFRPG stuff and post PFRPG stuff should be easy to handle...
|
|
James, despite my criticism I think you guys *have* done a great job! And as I'm not a "min-maxer" either, some of my comments derive from the fear that "rules mastery" is still a required part of the system under the "usual" circumstances (note: in my own group everyone adjusts the numbers in their campaigns so this is not an issue, but I also game with people who would see Valeros and other characters like him being "seriously gimped"). Yet I remain hopeful that you guys have managed to add more balance to the high-level play. :)
EDIT: I thought this preview was quite descriptive, and not simply a stat block?
We're being secretive and coy because we're still several months away from the book's release. If we pull back the curtain now and in its entirety, then the anticipation and excitement about the book will peak early.
You know, I'm already sold on the PFRPG. No way I'm not getting it. You can have the money now.
Also, I can keep a secret. Especially if I get to rub other people's noses in the fact that I know stuff they don't (well, secret stuff they want to know but can't. I don't mean the stuff I know that they don't because of my high intelligence).
So there's really no reason not to sende me the book now. Or at least the PDF. If you prefer, I even won't run around and sing "I have it I have it". I'll keep my mouth shut altogether.
Just send me the book. Now. Please?
By the way: my Diplomacy check to convince you of my plan is 5000.
As for the previous preview of the fighter... we've heard a lot of feedback and have taken that into account. The next previews will be a bit more descriptive about what's going on and won't simply show you a stat block;
Didn't you do that already? I checked again. You did. The text accompanying the stat block was larger than the stat block. And that stat block is a lot of air.
But if you provide us with even more text, I'll be fine with that.
Note that doesn't mean we'll try to fully optimize each preview character, since that style of play isn't for everyone.
See, that's another reason for giving me the book early: They want a gimped character? I'll give them one. I min-max that character so bad they weep for 8 days straight. They see exactly how powerful a PF character can be. Well, not cleraly, because of all the bitter tears, but they can have it read to them by someone else (preferably loudly to be heard over the sobs).
Provided they don't die from sheer despair, they will have to buy the book.
NOTE: One thing this preview also shows is how the format of the PF RPG stat blocks is pretty much unchanged from what we've been doing. One more way that compatibility with pre PFRPG stuff and post PFRPG stuff should be easy to handle...
I like the format a lot, but I would like it even better if you'd separate feats into "feats that give combat options" and "feats that don't give combat options" like Monte Cook did with Ptolus (he used the terms "crucial feats" and "other feats"). After all, feats like Toughness and Weapon Focus already are implemented in the stats, wheras feats like Combat Expertise and Cleave are not.
|
|
memo,
Couple of points:
1) It's not an Alpha. You accept this then keep referring to the final product as the Alpha. This makes you look like you're not listening or don't understand.
This is the second time someone has pointed out that it's not an Alpha. I KNOW that kindly not remind of that a third time please.
2) It's three months away and they'll be releasing a teaser every week (more or less). Do you really want them to tell you everything right now or would you rather get a build up to the final release? I know which one makes much more sense as a marketing campaign.
I don't want them to tell me everything no. Yet at the same time the can no longer go around saying "the product is months away from release we still can't tell you anything" routine. It would be aceptable if it was still six months away from release. Not when it's coming out in 3 months imo. You make a good point about the marketing campaign yet it's not like it's a new version of 3.5. When it's all said and done all PF is really is a reworked 3.5. with some parts added to it. It's not like their reinventing the wheel.
3) It is a marketing campaign. Releasing everything now would sap the enthusiasm for the next 12 weeks and result in fewer sales. This is obviously not in Paizo's best interest
True to a certain extent. Yet what is the real worry? It's not like they have to worry about Wotc competing against them. Or anyone else. AT this time unless I'm wrong Paizo is the only big supporter of PF. I can't see them losing that many sales. Espcially to a product most people know about already. As I said it's not like it's a totally new take on 3.5.
4) I doubt they'll release everything until the final release. Otherwise why should we buy what is quite a hefty book?
Considering how many fans have been waiting for this book and any new 3.5 material the chances of interesting dropping in PF imo are slim to none imo. It's after it get released depending on how well received PF will be. Personally I'm not seeing hardcore 3.5. fans switching over. Not for a few new rules. Espcially not when the Core PF books cost almost as much as the 3.5 core set.
I work in retail. If you think the addition of new rules is enough to make customers ignore the price tag all I can is good luck to that. When the Canadian dollard was stronger then the American Dollar prices of certain items dropped. Unfortunately consumers thought the price drop happens overnight. If I buy 20 barrels of oil at 60$ I'm not going to sell them for 48$ strong currency or not. Our sales dropped and our online sales increased.
5) It's previews. They're snapshots not the complete picture. This is hardly unusual. Do you get to watch the whole movie two months before it's released in cinemas (well, unless it's Wolverine)?
If it's a new movie no. If I have already seen the earlier Batman movies and went to watch the newer ones I would have an idea of what to expect. I'm not trying to sound negative. I plan to buy the book yet it seems that everything about PF is being viewed with rosy colored glasses and that imo is dangerous thing imo.