|
You could take 90% of the coolness factor of T09S back by just going back to a couple old rules.
1) The only attack action is a full attack. Boom, melees are now always at their best, not just archers. Everyone can move and attack. The whole neccessity of getting Pounce or Vital Strike evaporates...Melees are wholy effective with standard actions, just like spellcasters are! Amazing concept.
2) Go back to Melee all good saves. That gives them the defenses they should have, anyways. In 1e and 2E, Fighter-types had the best saves in the game, not monks.
3) Make attacks/rd a class ability, not a BAB ability. Melees would once again dominate all in melee. No major spellcaster should ever get more then 2 attacks.
Yeah. Wasted many posts in the playtest threads saying just this.
My problem with bo9S is it didn't just do this, without all of the annoyingly unimaginative naming conventions and whole new subsystems.
And the art sucked major ass, imo.
You could take 90% of the coolness factor of T09S back by just going back to a couple old rules.
1) The only attack action is a full attack. Boom, melees are now always at their best, not just archers. Everyone can move and attack. The whole neccessity of getting Pounce or Vital Strike evaporates...Melees are wholy effective with standard actions, just like spellcasters are! Amazing concept.
2) Go back to Melee all good saves. That gives them the defenses they should have, anyways. In 1e and 2E, Fighter-types had the best saves in the game, not monks.
3) Make attacks/rd a class ability, not a BAB ability. Melees would once again dominate all in melee. No major spellcaster should ever get more then 2 attacks.Yeah. Wasted many posts in the playtest threads saying just this.
My problem with bo9S is it didn't just do this, without all of the annoyingly unimaginative naming conventions and whole new subsystems.
And the art sucked major ass, imo.
The inside cover was purple though, so that alone made it sweeeeet.
I've been working on a compromise to this effect in my own game. Basically you can give up some attack iterations for more movement. 5-ft step=full attack. Need an extra 10 feet? 15-ft movement full attack minus the lowest iteration. If you gave up an iteration you lose all attacks, such as from multiple weapons.
I also feel that spring attack should have more feat advancements like were published in PHB2. In the end you should be able to bob and weave across the battlefield getting a cutting jab in here or there. As it stands its either move>attack or 5ft>full attack and nothing in between.
The vital strike feats are a tiny baby step in the right direction, but extra base weapon damage is sorta a joke at higher levels when you need that versatility. If anything things like Power Attack and Vital Strike (as well as Weapon Finesse) should be incorporated into the way combat works for everyone instead of being feats.
I like Bo9S.
I think for certain cultures, a Bo9S character works great. (fire based warblades for Valenar for example.
I like the idea of stances and maneuvers, but feel they should have given the core classes access to similar abilities. Rather than get access if you take a feat...
The fluff actually damaged the system, but then again, the system was just a test-bed for 4e.
There should have been a non-magical equivalent, perhaps a Blademaster...he would gain access to maneuvers/stances etc, but none of them would be (SU), they would all be (EX).
There should have been a non-magical equivalent, perhaps a Blademaster...he would gain access to maneuvers/stances etc, but none of them would be (SU), they would all be (EX).
There is one. He's called the Warblade. Not one of the schools available to the Warblade have any Su or even should-be-Su abilities.
There should have been a non-magical equivalent, perhaps a Blademaster...he would gain access to maneuvers/stances etc, but none of them would be (SU), they would all be (EX).There is one. He's called the Warblade. Not one of the schools available to the Warblade have any Su or even should-be-Su abilities.
:psyduck:
Do...do people actually read the book before commenting on it?
Or the thread? Because we've said that like two or three times here.
Regarding the other "fixes" to melee...some of us really like the maneuver system, you know :p.
It fits real life fighting more then straight full attacks, quite frankly. Fights aren't two people just doing the same thing over and over to each other. Both western and eastern fighting habits had their own styles, and those styles had their own maneuvers, stances, counters, etc, etc.
I like the idea of stances and maneuvers, but feel they should have given the core classes access to similar abilities.
More than once I've seen the comment, "Bo9S classes were designed to replace the weaker core classes." Warblade>Fighter, Swordsage>Monk, Crusader>Paladin. YMMV, though, and I don't remember who said it much less if it was official.
Do...do people actually read the book before commenting on it?
Very frequently people only read a portion of the book and decide that the whole book is that one section repeated over and over. I'm not saying anyone here is or is not doing that, but it's something I've encountered a great deal in discussing the Book of Nine Swords.
PS. Am I the only one who has always mentally linked the Book of Nine Swords with Fred Saberhagen's Books of the Swords, more specifically the twelve swords of power?
Do...do people actually read the book before commenting on it?
Very frequently people only read a portion of the book and decide that the whole book is that one section repeated over and over. I'm not saying anyone here is or is not doing that, but it's something I've encountered a great deal in discussing the Book of Nine Swords.
PS. Am I the only one who has always mentally linked the Book of Nine Swords with Fred Saberhagen's Books of the Swords, more specifically the twelve swords of power?
You aren't the only one. Saberhagen's Sword books were some of my earlier fantasy reading and i made that same connection right off when i first saw the title. So which Sword was your favorite, hmm?
I'm running a PbP campaign based around those swords, actually... though none of my players are Bo9S classes. :P
You do realize that "Capa Ferro" means "Iron Head", right? By that logic, "Perla nera del dubbio" is a perfectly legitimate name. (Hint: that's "Pearl of Black Doubt" in Italian, according to Google Translate)I would have to say that saying, "Bonetti's Defense" feels different to me than saying, "Pearl of Black Doubt." Just because each has a name doesn't mean that they are the same like you seem to assume in your argument.
Your argument doesn't seem to hold water and my reaction to it would have to be ... wait, what?
I did not realize that. My first search just pulled up Capo Ferro of Cagli. Assuming that is accurate, your analysis seems to go off the rails after the first sentence as it is a name rather than just a random pair of words to associate with a style. Just because a name has a meaning doesn't mean doesn't mean that that it is equivalent to any phrase one happens to run though Google Translate.
But still, I admit that translating something produces a different name that I might find more acceptable to the situation. Coup de grâce, riposte, and other phrases have a different impact on me that if one just ran through a translation program to get an "English" version. That doesn't really apply to "Perla nera del dubbio" as the issues I had with the name didn't go away with Google Translate.
I play fighters. Sometimes our groups have too many fighters, not enough casters. I don't see a big need for a magic-combat system, and I wouldn't play it unless asked.
Then, for you and anyone else who dislikes the flavor and/or mechanics of Bo9S: How would you do it?
I'm actually curious. The purpose of the book, beyond being a playtest ground for 4E, seems very much to be bringing the melee fighting classes up to the level of their caster counterparts. They tried doing it with feats, it didn't work. They tried doing it with skill tricks, it didn't work. They tried a spell-ish ability progression, and while it works, you don't like it.
So how would you advise going about a task of improving Fighters, Monks, Swashbucklers, and other melee warrior classes so that they are on-par with the rest of the game? So that at the levels where they begin to cease feeling "adequate" for their task they have capabilities to fall back on that will allow them to remain viable in the efforts of the party?
What is your solution, since the one provided by WOTC does not suit your interests?
Then, for you and anyone else who dislikes the flavor and/or mechanics of Bo9S: How would you do it?
...
What is your solution, since the one provided by WOTC does not suit your interests?
Well I added fighting styles that each provide a different benefit. Everyone has base level specialization in them (if they are proficient in said equipment).
I used one weapon fighting, two-handed fighting, two weapon fighting & weapon and shield fighting.Each provides a slightly different mechanical advantage and can be switched between once per round, depending on the equipment the character has available. This benefits everyone but the Fighter class more so than others. Since there are two levels of specialization for each of those styles a fighter is the most likely character type to master more then one of them. This means that they have the most options on the battle field and encourages different equipment use.
The Fighter class also got a rewrite as well. This included extra abilities that were extraordinary in nature (not supernatural or spell-like).
I changed some other things as well but thats drifting off topic.
Anyways since you asked, I told.
Then, for you and anyone else who dislikes the flavor and/or mechanics of Bo9S: How would you do it?
...
What is your solution, since the one provided by WOTC does not suit your interests?Well I added fighting styles that each provide a different benefit. Everyone has base level specialization in them (if they are proficient in said equipment).
I used one weapon fighting, two-handed fighting, two weapon fighting & weapon and shield fighting.
Each provides a slightly different mechanical advantage and can be switched between once per round, depending on the equipment the character has available. This benefits everyone but the Fighter class more so than others. Since there are two levels of specialization for each of those styles a fighter is the most likely character type to master more then one of them. This means that they have the most options on the battle field and encourages different equipment use.The Fighter class also got a rewrite as well. This included extra abilities that were extraordinary in nature (not supernatural or spell-like).
I changed some other things as well but thats drifting off topic.
Anyways since you asked, I told.
Is any of your stuff posted anywhere, ArchLich? I'd really like to see it, I just finished doing something for 3.5 fighters myself, and am currently working on Monks, Paladins and the rest of the melee-happy gang.
You aren't the only one. Saberhagen's Sword books were some of my earlier fantasy reading and i made that same connection right off when i first saw the title. So which Sword was your favorite, hmm?Do...do people actually read the book before commenting on it?
Very frequently people only read a portion of the book and decide that the whole book is that one section repeated over and over. I'm not saying anyone here is or is not doing that, but it's something I've encountered a great deal in discussing the Book of Nine Swords.
PS. Am I the only one who has always mentally linked the Book of Nine Swords with Fred Saberhagen's Books of the Swords, more specifically the twelve swords of power?
Coinspinner!!!!
I changed some other things as well but thats drifting off topic.
Anyways since you asked, I told.
I did, and I appreciate you being a good sport about it :)
Is any of your stuff posted anywhere, ArchLich? I'd really like to see it, I just finished doing something for 3.5 fighters myself, and am currently working on Monks, Paladins and the rest of the melee-happy gang.
I also would like to see it. Anything to shore up Fighters a bit.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
A fair bit of interesting variation in builds and such for martial classes will be forthcoming in the APG. The parts that I worked on were for fighters, barbarians, bards, druids, and sorcerers, plus some racial things that interact with classes in some interesting ways and some feats that allow characters to do some different kinds of things that counter some of the caster advantages.
I can't really say more than that, other than that there are some new and different options that will be available in that book. Now, as to whether they bring warrior types up to par, you'll have to decide when you see what they all look like on the other side of the developer's desk and the editor's wastebasket.
As to the question of how to fix:
1. The game-play fix to any exploit (including legal ones) is simply a Mutually Assured Destruction social contract between DM and players, one in which the DM holds all the cards because he has an infinite supply of bad guys and very little emotional investment in whether they fail or die. The players (in theory) have much more investment in their characters. If they want to make it an exploit-fight, it's a fight they cannot hope to win.
2. Talk to the other players in your group.
Seriously. The theoretical system problem evaporates if everyone agrees to not be dicks. We are the players. The rules are not the boss of us. The rules may ALLOW being a dick, but we as players are not slaves of the rules. We agree that we are here to have a good time, and though it may surprise some it can be quite enjoyable to play a wizard who doesn't spend all their time chain-binding efreet for wishes.
You may also find that others in your group don't feel like it's a problem for them. It may baffle you as to WHY they don't see it as a problem even when you try to point it out to them, but they may be getting their enjoyment from the game in a way that satisfies them anyway.
I realize that 2 is really a variation of 1, but it's such an important point that I figured it was worth mentioning again. You might also say #1 and #2 are cop-outs for poor design... maybe yes, maybe no. I'll just say that how you play the game matters in a discussion about whether the game is a good game or not. YMMV.
3. If you and your compadres feel like a mechanical change is needed, you can take a limited approach. That is, you can make some simple mechanical fixes or loophole closures, like "all forms of teleportation (except for linked gateways that connect to each other) are inaccurate and arrives at a random distance and direction from the desired endpoint" (allows scrying but crushes scry and die), "bound outsiders never do anything for free, regardless of how friendly they are," improve the saves of martial-type characters or their ability to throw off ongoing effects, bump up the levels of spells that seem too low in level for the effect they grant, and the like.
That doesn't fix the root cause, but it can hammer down the 'proud nails' of the caster/non-caster divide. Casters will still have advantages, but they won't necessarily have "I win" buttons.
4. If you want a bigger hammer, either you hammer fighters UP or you hammer casters DOWN. There are so many different approaches to this that any one is as good of an experiment as another. Choose one that fits the tastes of your group and go crazy.
In your case Bo9S is your answer to #4. I realize your whole question was probably aimed at "what is YOUR #4" answer rather than a philosophical question, but what can I say... I'm a philosopher. :)
I changed some other things as well but thats drifting off topic.
Anyways since you asked, I told.
I did, and I appreciate you being a good sport about it :)
Is any of your stuff posted anywhere, ArchLich? I'd really like to see it, I just finished doing something for 3.5 fighters myself, and am currently working on Monks, Paladins and the rest of the melee-happy gang.I also would like to see it. Anything to shore up Fighters a bit.
The basics of what I did for fighters was give them options that I have tentatively titled Offense and Defense. It works similarly to how fighting styles for Rangers work, and there are a variety of them, including Offense: Feat Options(my personal favorite and the one I've invested the most time in, basically feats just work differently for fighters, giving them more options in combat), Offense Option: Reforge Weapon(you can reforge your weapons for +x bonuses, this takes time and costs money, but less than you would spend in stores), Defense Option: Reforge Armor(as with weapons, but for armor, this one is important because the way the numbers worked this was one of the better options for non-human fighters and made "monster" fighters that much more dangerous), and Defense Option: Adrenaline(a take on Fast Healing that works only for fighters). I'm thinking of making more. I don't want fighters to fight things, I want fighters to kill things.
4. If you want a bigger hammer, either you hammer fighters UP or you hammer casters DOWN. There are so many different approaches to this that any one is as good of an experiment as another. Choose one that fits the tastes of your group and go crazy.
In your case Bo9S is your answer to #4. I realize your whole question was probably aimed at "what is YOUR #4" answer rather than a philosophical question, but what can I say... I'm a philosopher. :)
Actually, that's not what Bo9S does. Pathfinder Fighters (and 3.5 Fighters, for that matter, with enough splat books) are MUCH deadlier than Bo9S characters. What Bo9S did was give fighters more options than "I charge" or "I full attack" (or just "I charge and full attack", for pouncers), with the occasional "I trip as one of my attacks in the full attack" thrown in. Bo9S characters are far less lethal at all level ranges than other similar-BAB characters.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Actually, that's not what Bo9S does. Pathfinder Fighters (and 3.5 Fighters, for that matter, with enough splat books) are MUCH deadlier than Bo9S characters. What Bo9S did was give fighters more options than "I charge" or "I full attack" (or just "I charge and full attack", for pouncers), with the occasional "I trip as one of my attacks in the full attack" thrown in. Bo9S characters are far less lethal at all level ranges than other similar-BAB characters.4. If you want a bigger hammer, either you hammer fighters UP or you hammer casters DOWN. There are so many different approaches to this that any one is as good of an experiment as another. Choose one that fits the tastes of your group and go crazy.
In your case Bo9S is your answer to #4. I realize your whole question was probably aimed at "what is YOUR #4" answer rather than a philosophical question, but what can I say... I'm a philosopher. :)
Hammer UP can be power (as in PF) or in versatility (Bo9S).
Ah, OK. Gotcha then. I'm too used to people complaining about how much more powerful Bo9S is than core, I guess, and am jumping at shadows.
So how would you advise going about a task of improving Fighters, Monks, Swashbucklers, and other melee warrior classes so that they are on-par with the rest of the game?
I rewrote half the game. All of the classes are on even footing now, at our table. Changed the combat mechanics, changed the spellcasting rules, rewrote all the martial classes... it ain't 3.X anymore, that's for sure -- but houstonderek, Jess Door, Andostre, and TOZ don't seem to be complaining.
So how would you advise going about a task of improving Fighters, Monks, Swashbucklers, and other melee warrior classes so that they are on-par with the rest of the game?I rewrote half the game. All of the classes are on even footing now, at our table. Changed the combat mechanics, changed the spellcasting rules, rewrote all the martial classes... it ain't 3.X anymore, that's for sure -- but houstonderek, Jess Door, Andostre, and TOZ don't seem to be complaining.
Please, enlighten us with your stuff. I'm curious now.
I rewrote half the game. All of the classes are on even footing now, at our table. Changed the combat mechanics, changed the spellcasting rules, rewrote all the martial classes... it ain't 3.X anymore, that's for sure.
Same here :)
Is any of your stuff posted anywhere, ArchLich? I'd really like to see it, I just finished doing something for 3.5 fighters myself, and am currently working on Monks, Paladins and the rest of the melee-happy gang.
I also would like to see it. Anything to shore up Fighters a bit.
Here is the fighting styles (sans other system changes):
FIGHTING STYLES
ONE-HANDED WEAPON FIGHTING
Anyone can wield a weapon if they are proficient with it. Every character has the base One Handed Weapon Fighting with any weapon they have proficiency with. As a character becomes trained in the One Handed Weapon Fighting style they become better at their offence and defence.
Level of Training; To hit Bonus; AC Bonus
One Weapon Fighting; +1 to hit; +1 AC
Improved One Weapon; +2 to hit; +2 AC
Greater One Weapon; +3 to hit; +3 AC
Double Weapons: You cannot treat a double weapon as a one handed weapon.
Thrown Weapons: The same rules for melee combat apply when you throw a weapon from one hand.
Two Handed Weapons: Two handed weapons by their very nature cannot be used with One Weapon Fighting.
Shields: You cannot use a shield with the One Weapon Fighting style.
Unarmed Attacks: You can use unarmed attacks as the sole basis for the One Handed Weapon Fighting style but you must declare that at the beginning of the round and it does not change until the beginning of your next round.
TWO-HANDED WEAPON FIGHTING
Anyone can wield a two handed weapon if they are proficient with it. Every character has the base Two Handed Weapon Fighting with any two handed weapon they have proficiency with. As a character becomes trained in the Two Handed Weapon Fighting style they become quicker with their attacks and hit harder.
Level of Training; Damage Multiplier
Two Handed Fighting; Str Modifier x1.5 per hit
Improved Two Handed; Str Modifier x2 per hit
Greater Two Handed; Str Modifier x2.5 per hit
Double Weapons: You can treat a double weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons or a two handed weapon depending on your preference.
Thrown Weapons: The same rules for melee combat apply when you throw a two handed weapon (usually requires the Improvised Weapon Throwing feat).
Shields: You cannot use a shield as a two handed weapon without having the Improvised Weapon Expertise feat (and you lose any AC benefit).
Unarmed Attacks: You cannot use unarmed attacks with the Two Handed Weapon Fighting style.
TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING
Anyone can wield a second weapon in their offhand if they are proficient with it. You suffer no penalties from doing so. Every character has the base Two Weapon Fighting with any weapon they have proficiency with (and is not a two handed weapon). As a character becomes trained in the two weapon fighting style they become quicker with their attacks.
Level of Training; Attack Cost*
Two Weapon Fighting; -4 per hit
Improved Two Weapon; -3 per hit
Greater Two Weapon; -2 per hit
Double Weapons: You can treat a double weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons or one weapon depending on your preference.
Thrown Weapons: The same rules for melee combat apply when you throw a weapon from each hand.
Two Handed Weapons: Two handed weapons by their very nature cannot be used with two weapon fighting.
Shields: You cannot use two shields at once with any proficiency. If a character does try to do so then they gain the AC bonus from one shield only and have a -4 to all their actions and cannot attack.
Unarmed Attacks: You can use unarmed attacks as the sole basis for two weapon fighting or in combo with a one handed weapon.
WEAPON AND SHIELD FIGHTING
Anyone can fight with a one handed weapon and a shield if they are proficient with them. Every character has the base Weapon and Shield Fighting as long as they are using a weapon and shield they have proficiency with. As a character becomes trained in the Weapon and Shield Fighting style they become better at stopping attacks.
Level of Training; Bonus to AC; Reflex Save Bonus
Weapon & Shield Fighting; Shield Bonus; -
Improved Weapon & Shield; Shield Bonus +1; Shield bonus
Greater Weapon & Shield; Shield Bonus +2; Shield bonus +1
Double Weapons: You can treat a double weapon as if you were fighting with two weapons or one weapon depending on your preference.
Thrown Weapons: The same rules apply when you throw a weapon while using a shield as for melee combat.
Two Handed Weapons: Two handed weapons by their very nature cannot be used with Weapon and Shield Fighting.
Shields: You must have a shield to use this fighting style. You cannot use two shields at any time with this style.
Unarmed Attacks: You cannot use unarmed attacks as the sole basis for Weapon and Shield Fighting but you can use them in combo with a shield.
*Attack cost in 3.5 would refer to the negative on all attacks made that round. Two weapon fighting gives you 50% more attacks rounded up. The extra attacks mirror your other attack bonus (shown in italics below.
Examples:
+6/+1 with level 2 training would be +3/-2/+3
+15/+10/+5 with level 3 training would be +13/+8/+3/+13/+8
Fighter class:
Level; Special
1st; Fighter Feat
2nd; Hardened Defence
3rd; Shield Expertise
4th; Fighter Feat, Dog of War
5th; Combat Mastery
6th; Battlefield Adaptation, Rallying Charge
7th; Fighter Feat
8th; Shield Mastery
9th;
10th; Combat Mastery, Fighter Feat
11th;
12th; Battlefield Adaptation
13th; Fighter Feat
14th;
15th; Combat Mastery
16th; Fighter Feat
17th;
18th; Battlefield Adaptation, Cleansing Pain
19th; Fighter Feat
20th; Combat Mastery
Class Features
All of the following are class features of the fighter.
Weapon and Armour Proficiency: A fighter is proficient with all simple and martial weapons and with all armour (heavy, medium, and light) and shields (including tower shields).
Fighter Feats: At 1st level, a fighter gets a bonus combat-oriented feat in addition to the feat that any 1st-level character gets and the bonus feat granted to a human character. The fighter gains an additional bonus fighter feat every three fighter levels thereafter (4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, and 19th). These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats. A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums.
These bonus feats are in addition to the feat that a character of any class gets from advancing levels. A fighter is not limited to the list of fighter bonus feats when choosing those feats.
Hardened Defence (Ex): A fighter using hardened defence can set vs. charge with any weapon.
Shield Expertise (Ex): A fighter with shield expertise can use their shield as a weapon without losing any of its benefits to AC (counts as both a second weapon and a shield).
Dog of War (Ex): A fighter who has this ability can heal from damage (both physical & ability) at twice the standard rate. This bonus stacks with other things that benefit healing like rest, treatment and other non-magical abilities.
Combat Mastery (Ex): Every time a fighter receives they chose one of the abilities below. These abilities cannot be taken multiple times. Fighters gain an additional combat mastery every 5 levels (5th, 10th, 15th & 20th).
Brutal Focus (Ex): Brutal focus can only be evoked if a fighter is facing multiple enemies. It grants the fighter a +2 bonus to their AC and their attack roll against a single chosen opponent. At the same time all other enemies gain a +2 bonus to their AC and their attack roll against the fighter using brutal focus.
Deathlock (Ex): The deathlock ability grants a fighter the ability to cause damage to a creature they engage in melee. After invoking this ability a fighter’s opponent is locked in battle with them. Breaking this lock (by moving out of melee or attacking a different opponent) causes the fighter to gain an attack of opportunity against their deathlocked opponent.
Killing Field (Ex): A fighter with the killing field ability gains two Attacks of Opportunity whenever they would normally gain one.
Limb Blocking (Ex): When a fighter uses limb blocking they choose to block the softer parts of the attacker instead of the attack itself. It can only be used against melee attack, requires an attack & counts as an attack (for the purpose of calculate a rounds actions) On a successful counter hit a fighter reflects 50% of opponents original attacking damage back onto them (you take only ½ damage from original enemy attack). The reflected damage is given the type (silver, bludgeoning, magical, etc) of the weapon you have in hand when attacked (for purpose of DR and Vulnerabilities).
Terrain Superiority (Ex): A fighter with terrain superiority is a master of understanding their surroundings. They can use their surroundings to hinder their opponent and can turn even the most unfavourable seeming terrain against their enemy. A fighter with terrain superiority receives a +1 bonus/5 fighter levels to their AC or Attack (not both) against a single opponent.
Warhorse (Ex): When a fighter has the warhorse ability they gain an additional +2 hp for every toughness feat they have. This is a retroactive hit point gain for all toughness feats the character has.
Rallying Charge (Ex): Rallying charge grants an inspiration bonus to a fighter’s allies when he charges into a group of enemies. The bonus is a +1 moral bonus/4 fighter levels; it applies to the allies' Armour Class and to their attack rolls. Only the highest rallying charge bonus applies if multiple rallying charges are being applied.
Shield Mastery (Ex): A fighter with shield mastery uses shields as weapons with deadly efficiency. The damage of a shield for the fighter is increased by one dice category (1d2 becomes 1d4 becomes 1d6 becomes 1d8).
Battlefield Adaptation (Ex): Every time a fighter receives they chose one of the abilities below. These abilities cannot be taken multiple times.
Disciplined Focus (Ex): A fighter who has disciplined focus receives a +4 bonus to saves vs. enchantment and fear effects.
Grizzled (Ex): A grizzled fighter gains a distinct benefit from their constant exposure to various battlefield conditions. They are granted a permanent +4 bonus on all saves against disease.
Tactician (Ex): A fighter with this ability knows ambushes in and out. When being attacked from hiding or when attacking from surprise the character gets a +4 to their initiative for that round.
Veteran (Ex): A veteran has seen many of the devious creations of man and beast. This ability grants a +4 save bonus against all types of traps.
Cleansing Pain (Ex): A fighter who has the cleansing pain ability receives an additional save throw (at -2) to try and remove any ongoing enchantment whenever they are damaged (limited to one save per round).
I tried to make sure it was 3.5 friendly before posting (adapting it away from the other system changes I made) but I may have missed some thing. Tell me if you like any of it.
There should have been a non-magical equivalent, perhaps a Blademaster...he would gain access to maneuvers/stances etc, but none of them would be (SU), they would all be (EX).There is one. He's called the Warblade. Not one of the schools available to the Warblade have any Su or even should-be-Su abilities.:psyduck:
Do...do people actually read the book before commenting on it?
Or the thread? Because we've said that like two or three times here.
Regarding the other "fixes" to melee...some of us really like the maneuver system, you know :p.
It fits real life fighting more then straight full attacks, quite frankly. Fights aren't two people just doing the same thing over and over to each other. Both western and eastern fighting habits had their own styles, and those styles had their own maneuvers, stances, counters, etc, etc.
Yes, I just happened to forget, since I've only used 1 in a game I ran, and none of my players used them...
Please, enlighten us with your stuff. I'm curious now.So how would you advise going about a task of improving Fighters, Monks, Swashbucklers, and other melee warrior classes so that they are on-par with the rest of the game?I rewrote half the game. All of the classes are on even footing now, at our table. Changed the combat mechanics, changed the spellcasting rules, rewrote all the martial classes... it ain't 3.X anymore, that's for sure -- but houstonderek, Jess Door, Andostre, and TOZ don't seem to be complaining.
Seconded!!
In your case Bo9S is your answer to #4. I realize your whole question was probably aimed at "what is YOUR #4" answer rather than a philosophical question, but what can I say... I'm a philosopher. :)
I actually didn't know you were talking to me until I got down to this sentence. :P
My players and I don't have a big problem with the system as-is. I've had straight up Monks and Fighters in my parties regularly and almost never got complaints from the players. This might be because I tune combat to my party rather than expecting my party to tune themselves to the combat, though.
I've also had Bo9S characters - my current party has one of each, on top of being Gestalt (Crusader|Cavalier, Swordsage|Scout, Barbarian/Warblade|Incarnate). And I for one love the system and thought it did a great job of giving those classes versatility and options the PHB versions lacked.
Then I come online and see people complaining about it, and I'm pissed for a short bit, then I take a break and realize it's not me they're trying to offend, and the anger turns into curiosity, especially when people say they don't like it because they would have done it differently. So my curiosity becomes inquiry about "Okay, what would you do then? I might like yours better."
|
|
Please, enlighten us with your stuff. I'm curious now.So how would you advise going about a task of improving Fighters, Monks, Swashbucklers, and other melee warrior classes so that they are on-par with the rest of the game?I rewrote half the game. All of the classes are on even footing now, at our table. Changed the combat mechanics, changed the spellcasting rules, rewrote all the martial classes... it ain't 3.X anymore, that's for sure -- but houstonderek, Jess Door, Andostre, and TOZ don't seem to be complaining.
I'm playing a rogue 3 / fighter 1 in Kirth's game that, when the dice aren't conspiring to kill me, is pretty bad ass in a fight, especially in tandem with Jess' [I hate the word but she likes it] gish character.
The house rules (which, bound, are nearly as thick as the core book), take the core of 3x/PF, throw in the Bo9S stuff (stripped of the goofiness and made into either feats, talents - did I mention most of the "mundane" classes get talents like rogues? - or class features) add 1e sensibilities (casting is more difficult in melee, but not impossible; melee types are more mobile, stuff like that) and have a dose of Victory Games 007 thrown in.
Classes are far more modular, multi-classing is agonizing due to all the options, and few of the options are sub-optimal, and the [ugh] "gish" option had been addressed rather nicely.
And, even if you chose to single class, there are several options available to make, say, one ranger play and feel completely different from another ranger. And still be viable.
All in all, good stuff, and I plan on adopting most of it when I launch my homebrew again.
Plus, we get updates all the time, so it's like we're subscribers. ;)
P.S.: Those who believe that buyng seeking bows as a secondary weapon is a viable way of becoming capable to figh wizards, should remember, that a weapon with +2 summary enhancement costs 8k GP, and at 9th level a character is supposed to get only 46k worth of bling. And that he must keep his primary weapon and armor upgraded, if he doesn't want to be squashed. Before 9th level, such expenditure on a secondary trick is not even worth considering.An odd stance to take, given the assertion that what limits a fighter is not sheer numbers but versatility.
Sheer numbers limit a melee fighter. Hard. That was not the case in 3.5, where you could put just 4 feats into being a Leap Attacking ubercharger and one-shot most level-appropriate enemies with your two-handed weapon; and then you could spend some on being good at tripping or whatever. But in PF, as the DPR Olympics thread demonstrates, melee fighters only do 50-60 damage per round at level 10, assuming a full attack. The problem is, fire giants still have 142 hps, and bebiliths have 150. Better reach too and little problem hitting example fighters in return. So no, you cannot afford major expenditures on the side without putting yourself at risk. Note that the archer fighter does sligtly more and really can full attack all the time, while not approaching into enemies' range, which is what makes archery good.
Now, casters can fix the fighter's problem of just barely keeping with enemies' numbers, but this just proves that casters still are supposed to pull a dispoportional share of weight and pure fighting parties are not viable by design.By making a minimal cut in the sheer numbers department (a +2 primary weapon for 8K instead of a +3 primary weapon for 18K), the fighter type gains an entire category of heretofore unavailable capability (reliably ignoring miss chance-based defenses), with money left over for a couple of potions.
And by 9th level PF wizards still get things like Scry & Fry and outsider binding, that do not break most games simply because they are so overpowered, that most GMs refuse to milk them for their full potential and screw PCs who use them by sheer fiat.It's an interesting model of playing the game to assume that the rules and the players at the table (including the DM, who is also playing the game) are separate and individually inviolable entities. Or that rules are written without the assumption of human involvement.
Rules are written with an assumption of rational interpretation to avoid having to attach paragraphs of legalese to every spell, feat, and maneuver stipulating every possible exploit.
This is an old excuse, that never was valid. The fact remains that the exact purpose of the rules is to minimize the amount of "rational interpretation" or whatever GM's fiat is called now, necessary to run a game. Also, even by your criteria, rules for which the only "rational interpretation" that does not cause screwing up the campaign is not using them as written, are completely pointless.
Take the 3.5 "selling a wall of iron" exploit - "Well, the rules say the wall is instapermataneous, and it says iron can be sold for such and so amount,
Since when assuming that rules mean what they mean and apply to the universe in a logical, consistent manner is an exploit? This is not some unforeseen interaction of powers from different book, this is the same as using Fireball to cause city fires or whatever. And planar binding a bunch of bodyguards is even more so, because the spell serves no other purpose.
so I can just sit there selling infinite WoI's and making infinite gold, because the item has a price and that means it can be sold, and the market will never be satiated and I will always obtain this price, and I can keep doing this infinitely long and will never be robbed, or have any competition from any other person doing the exact same thing, and with infinite gold I can now buy infinite magic items and become infinitely powerful."
Strawman. Being able to sell Walls of Iron for GP =/= winning DnD and never was equalled to it, except in theoretical examples, explicitly meant to illustrate that DnD economics blow. Also, in every 3.X setting I run those few states that have casters of sufficient level available, widely use conjuring materials for nothing in conctruction.
Of course, that specific loophole was closed in PF (as WoI iron is stipulated as being valueless for sale),
So, you see, even PF designers admit that loopholes should be closed. Except, they miss most of the true loopholes, that just redefine the whole game, if used at all, instead going after harmless stuff, like Glitterdust being good and sellable Walls of Iron.
but the inherent mindset is that if you can imagine a scenario that COULD be true... then it not only MUST be true but it also MUST be TRUE WITHOUT LIMITATION OR CONSEQUENCES, and any limitation or consequence that accrues from hitting the exploit button repeatedly is "just the DM screwing you."
All limitations, if they do exist, should be written by the rules. Adding limitations where the rules have none, for example suddenly starting to invent new defenses against Scrying, or simply giving every NPC in an AP extra budget for items of Nondetection, is just the DM screwing me, yes. As about the consequences, these might, or might not be DM's screwage, depending on what they are. Being Scry&Fried in return is a fair play (but still confirms that Scry&Fry is a campaign-breaker), gods (or their effective equivalents, like uberspellcasters) suddenly outlawing these tactics is not.
Having had the luck to get a pdf from girth with some of his changes, I have to say that I'm a huge fan. Their really well put together, and acheive their aims really well.
Here's the flavor of Tome of Battle: You're a fightan man. That's it. That's the whole flavor.I actually have to disagree here. Flavor and mechanics go hand in hand, and the mechanics of ToB is wildly different from Core.
I dislike the flavor. The use of stances and special maneuvers reeks to me of casters. I like there to be a divide, and ToB completly obfuscates the line between magical and non-magical.
One thing that I'll never tire to say: there is no such a line after levels 6-7 at the latest. Once you can kick a troll's ass in fair and square melee combat, you're tougher that any human in our world ever was. Once you can kick a stone giant's ass, you're way tougher than many, if not most, street-level superheroes. There is no question that every character in DnD gets superhuman abilities at mid-high levels. However, due to the weight of tradition, some classes get arbitrarily narrow superhuman abilities, boiling down to super-endurance and being really good at slicing and dicing or shooting up things. This sucks. This is the main cause for the fighter's obsolescence as the game goes into two-digit levels.
Also, if we look at DnD's inspirations, primarily fantasy, "the line between magical and non-magical" is, most of the time, the line between "having awesome mojo" and "not having it". There are precious few examples of fighting charactes being able to keep up with magic-users in the worlds, where magic is actually useable, without having major supernatural abilities on their own. Only Sword&Sorcery books tend to avoid it and even then far from always (Conan regularly needed plot device McGuffins to deal with evil sorcerers; Fafhrd and Grey Mouser were errand boys for their vaguely uber-powerful sorcerer mentors).
I rewrote half the game. All of the classes are on even footing now, at our table. Changed the combat mechanics, changed the spellcasting rules, rewrote all the martial classes... it ain't 3.X anymore, that's for sure.Same here :)
Is any of your stuff posted anywhere, ArchLich? I'd really like to see it, I just finished doing something for 3.5 fighters myself, and am currently working on Monks, Paladins and the rest of the melee-happy gang.I also would like to see it. Anything to shore up Fighters a bit.Here is the fighting styles (sans other system changes):
** spoiler omitted **...
This is VERY VERY nice- it has a few of the things I put in that I didn't mention, but your stuff is much better detailed/probably balanced than mine. Excellent.
[EDIT] I also like the Baldur's Gate (PC) stuff with the first group of feats.
*cool stuff*
It sounds like getting this into PDF would be a pain in the @#$%&. Which is sad, as it sounds really interesting and I would love to see it.
*cool stuff*It sounds like getting this into PDF would be a pain in the @#$%&. Which is sad, as it sounds really interesting and I would love to see it.Just scroll down and you'll see the stuff titled 'Kirth X'. You should be able to download it right from there.
I'll check this out when I get in. Thanks TOZ.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Sheer numbers limit a melee fighter. Hard. That was not the case in 3.5, where you could put just 4 feats into being a Leap Attacking ubercharger and one-shot most level-appropriate enemies with your two-handed weapon; and then you could spend some on being good at tripping or whatever. But in PF, as the DPR Olympics thread demonstrates, melee fighters only do 50-60 damage per round at level 10, assuming a full attack.
So, which is better:
A. 50-60 points of damage with melee full attack, plus zero countermeasures against miss chance.
or
B. 45-55 points of damage with melee full attack, plus effective countermeasure against miss chance.
The differential in your melee capability is measurable but not significant. The difference in your ability to counter miss chance defenses is a quantum shift.
True, if you used this logic to develop MULTIPLE secondary schticks, you could really hamstring yourself, but to develop one reliable secondary schtick? Not so much.
Rules are written with an assumption of rational interpretation to avoid having to attach paragraphs of legalese to every spell, feat, and maneuver stipulating every possible exploit.
This is an old excuse, that never was valid.
Says the person who has never had to decide what part of the book to leave on the cutting room floor because you're out of space.
The fact remains that the exact purpose of the rules is to minimize the amount of "rational interpretation" or whatever GM's fiat is called now, necessary to run a game. Also, even by your criteria, rules for which the only "rational interpretation" that does not cause screwing up the campaign is not using them as written, are completely pointless.
Speaking of logical inconsistencies, how about false dichotomy?
"The panda bear eats shoots and leaves" is assumed by the author to refer to the dining habits of the big black and whites, not their method of killing after they eat.
Jason Nelson wrote:
Take the 3.5 "selling a wall of iron" exploit - "Well, the rules say the wall is instapermataneous, and it says iron can be sold for such and so amount,
Since when assuming that rules mean what they mean and apply to the universe in a logical, consistent manner is an exploit?
Easy. When they're NOT applied to the universe in a logical, consistent manner, but are assumed to mean "if you take this section of the rules and that one and this one over here" and pretend that those rules and only those rules exist in a vacuum and do not and should never be influenced or affected by anything in the game world.
The Core Rules are not a setting book (and never have been), so they don't contain complete rules for society and culture, in world or in the planes beyond. It doesn't stipulate "infinite wealth exploits are against the rules" explicitly because it makes the rational assumption that the customer already knows this.
You may think that's a dumb assumption, but the people who write stuff for the game assume they are writing to an audience of reasonably bright people.
And planar binding a bunch of bodyguards is even more so, because the spell serves no other purpose.
If you believe the spell serves no other purpose, I'd say you have a rather limited store of creativity.
Strawman. Being able to sell Walls of Iron for GP =/= winning DnD and never was equalled to it, except in theoretical examples, explicitly meant to illustrate that DnD economics blow.
Interesting, since I've seen it be used to make exactly the point that infinite wealth = winning D&D, therefore casters win. Probably on these here Paizo message boards.
Also, in every 3.X setting I run those few states that have casters of sufficient level available, widely use conjuring materials for nothing in construction.
Good for you!
Do you allow (in 3.5, not PF) PCs or NPCs to amass infinite (or just LOTS of) gold by selling WoIs?
Why or why not?
So, you see, even PF designers admit that loopholes should be closed.
Sure, why not? Go crazy!
Except, they miss most of the true loopholes, that just redefine the whole game, if used at all, instead going after harmless stuff, like Glitterdust being good and sellable Walls of Iron.
I'd think you'd be in favor of nerfing low-level SoS spells to close the power gap. Perhaps they should have gone further.
Jason Nelson wrote:
but the inherent mindset is that if you can imagine a scenario that COULD be true... then it not only MUST be true but it also MUST be TRUE WITHOUT LIMITATION OR CONSEQUENCES, and any limitation or consequence that accrues from hitting the exploit button repeatedly is "just the DM screwing you."
All limitations, if they do exist, should be written by the rules.
Back to space limitations, assuming everyone agrees on what the fixes need to be, but you don't think they're valid anyway, so w/e.
Adding limitations where the rules have none, for example suddenly starting to invent new defenses against Scrying, or simply giving every NPC in an AP extra budget for items of Nondetection, is just the DM screwing me, yes.
Strange... it seems like you are arguing against yourself here.
Before you said things like S&F were broken tactics and should have been fixed in the rules.
Now you seem to be saying that they SHOULDN'T be fixed or countered in any way, because that would be the DM screwing you.
So... once the rules come into print, they should never be altered or adjusted in any way? You could have wanted the authors/designers to change certain things, but if they didn't, then the DM is helpless before their OFFICIAL RULES to change anything. Every rule must be followed to its precise letter (or your interpretation of its precise letter, if there is the slightest whiff of ambiguity).
As about the consequences, these might, or might not be DM's screwage, depending on what they are. Being Scry&Fried in return is a fair play (but still confirms that Scry&Fry is a campaign-breaker), gods (or their effective equivalents, like uberspellcasters) suddenly outlawing these tactics is not.
What are gods supposed to do if not be godly?
And what is the DM supposed to be if not the DM?
Now I will agree with you on this point:
The DM should not arbitrarily, capriciously, or (to use your word) suddenly change the rules midstream. I am 100% with you on that. Absolutely.
But I absolutely disagree with the implication that the prohibition on sudden rule changes should somehow extend to the idea that mean that a DM should never change a rule or an interpretation... EVER.
If you think a rule is dumb, CHANGE THE RULE. Talk to the other players at the table, see what they think, and find some consensus. Heck, there's even a rule in the game as written that allows this (and I know you'll probably hate this and see it coming a mile away) - Rule 0.
You may think that's a dumb cop-out, that the designers should have just designed better rules and not rely on the lame Rule 0 crutch to duck criticism. Hey, fair enough. Everybody likes what they like and doesn't like what they don't.
But the designers did include that Rule 0 caveat for a reason, and that is that the rules are an organic thing, and that the folks sitting around the table (including but not ONLY the one with the DM screen) are the ones who ultimately decide what rules are gonna fly and what rules are gonna die. That doesn't mean people from different gaming tables are incapable of talking to each other, because 99+% of the rules we use are going to be the same. But for people who find that one thing or another is borked... they don't use it.
If your point is that the designers are bad designers because they made bad rules and don't want to admit it... your position has been stated and duly noted.
If your position is that the game is unbalanced because casters do this and non-casters do that... your position has also been stated and duly noted.
If your position is that the game is unplayable or un-fun because casters do this and non-casters do that... that's the point where you veer into the neverland, because the truths you hold to be self-evident often do not apply for other people.
I'll check this out when I get in. Thanks TOZ.*cool stuff*It sounds like getting this into PDF would be a pain in the @#$%&. Which is sad, as it sounds really interesting and I would love to see it.Just scroll down and you'll see the stuff titled 'Kirth X'. You should be able to download it right from there.
Seconded! Thanks muchly!
So, which is better:A. 50-60 points of damage with melee full attack, plus zero countermeasures against miss chance.
or
B. 45-55 points of damage with melee full attack, plus effective countermeasure against miss chance.
The differential in your melee capability is measurable but not significant. The difference in your ability to counter miss chance defenses is a quantum shift.
Not really. It is a quantum shift if you can hit reliably in the first place. And this requires a bigger redirection of investment.
Easy. When they're NOT applied to the universe in a logical, consistent manner, but are assumed to mean "if you take this section of the rules and that one and this one over here" and pretend that those rules and only those rules exist in a vacuum and do not and should never be influenced or affected by anything in the game world.
Well, don't your think that your assumption sort of sucks? Good that I don't use it.
The Core Rules are not a setting book (and never have been), so they don't contain complete rules for society and culture, in world or in the planes beyond. It doesn't stipulate "infinite wealth exploits are against the rules" explicitly because it makes the rational assumption that the customer already knows this.
Lack of rules for society and culture is no excuse to screw up the gameworld' physics. And the assumption that the game authors should assume that the customer follows their own line of thinking, instead of, you know, writing clear, non-abusive rules, is anything but rational.
You may think that's a dumb assumption, but the people who write stuff for the game assume they are writing to an audience of reasonably bright people.
Actually, if your words are to be believed, they assume either that they are writing to an audience of rather dull people or that their customers think exactly like them.
If you believe the spell serves no other purpose, I'd say you have a rather limited store of creativity.
And I'd say that reusing "you have no creativity" insult towards those who simply use spells in the efficient manner (and consequently break the game) betrays the limit of your own creativity.
Good for you!Do you allow (in 3.5, not PF) PCs or NPCs to amass infinite (or just LOTS of) gold by selling WoIs?
Why or why not?
Yes. Because not allowing to use the abilty to create stuff from nothing as a source of income is stupid. Before you try to raise a strawman I'd note, that this does not mean that the wealth will amass at the rate greater than those produced by adventuring or without effort.
I'd think you'd be in favor of nerfing low-level SoS spells to close the power gap. Perhaps they should have gone further.
Empasis on SoS spells was among the bestest ideas of 3.5, allowing both casters and warriors to contribute together and making the combat minigame much more tactical and interesting. What went wrong was not SoS, but casters being able to pretty easy get fighter-equivalents through their class abilities, either from the start or after a certain level.
Strange... it seems like you are arguing against yourself here.Before you said things like S&F were broken tactics and should have been fixed in the rules.
Now you seem to be saying that they SHOULDN'T be fixed or countered in any way, because that would be the DM screwing you.
No, it seems like you are raising a strawman. S&F are broken. They should be fixed in the rules. IN. THE. RULES. Because both GMs playing unfairly and rules that at least strongly encourage GMs to play unfairly sucks.
If you think a rule is dumb, CHANGE THE RULE.
Yeah. I have a profound revelation for you too: 2+2=4. Now, how about the authors changing the rules, so I'll have an incentive to actually buy whatever they wrote up, instead of sticking to my houserules? It is not like the issues like Charm Person or Scry & Fry being abusive and campaign-changing aren't evident. After all, they are known since AD&D 2E at least. In fact, in my entire DnD life, I haven't remember a single case of a GM allowing Charm Person to work as written in practice. I would like someone to come up with a version that both does something and is not ridiculously overpowered... but it seems shafting Hold Person is seen as more important, even though it only kills enemies at best, not turns them into allies and is higher in level.
If your position is that the game is unplayable or un-fun because casters do this and non-casters do that... that's the point where you veer into the neverland, because the truths you hold to be self-evident often do not apply for other people.
Except I explicitly stated, that the game is not unplayable or un-fun (outside of the boundaries of "full casters own the world campaign") precisely because the casters, as a rule, don't do certain things. Most players tend to avoid Scry & Fry, or real attempts to build a bodyguard cadre (through mindscrew, outsider binding or whatever), or even planeshifting enemies to the Plane of Tentacle Rape. Heck, every 3.5 Druid I've seen in actual play either picked no animal companion or one useless in combat. But by the rules they totally can do this and more. So why again, after two editions with of tons minor changes, lots of stuff like this still remains on the table?