One of the things I'm really liking about the PFRPG, esp. with the APG & some great 3PP support, is that the core classes can suitably cover a broader range of archetypes than 3.x could do.
I've seen pit-fighting pugilist barbarians, swashbuckling fighters & rogues, fighter-brawlers, etc. Although I haven't had a chance to see each in play yet, they all seem like interesting builds.
The earlier 3.x class design philosophy, however, seemed to ID a "barter system" as necessary for the variant builds to be viable against the standard class. A few skill points here, a replacement feat there, a new class ability, etc.
I encourage my players to choose an archetype first and then we try to arrive at the most suitable class. The enhancements offered in the PFRPG have me questioning that "barter system" mentality now, however.
Take the mobile swordsman concept: whether it's an Arcana Evolved Unfettered, a Swashbuckler class, or a new archetype out of the APG; this guy is never going to wear anything heavier than medium armor. Maybe he'll fight with a shield, but certainly not a tower shield and isn't likely to use a 2-handed weapon.
His heavy armor proficiency is effectively wasted. If the class didn't have it, he'd have to burn a feat to get it.
Should the ability simply be wasted? Or should he get a replacement feat, skill points, etc.?
Just looking to see how others handle this sort of thing. I'd also find it helpful when I am importing/updating a class from another source what, if anything, I might need to add or remove from a class.
Thanks!
If a character isn't using a class feature, they shouldn't get bonuses for it instead of having it. They buy the entire package when they sign up for a class, good and bad, and their abilities define their character. Thinking up ways to use your abilities in ways you wouldn't normally keeps the game fresh in my opinion, and the ability for someone to just trade in everything "my archetype doesn't use" for a ton of goodies to play a cookie-cutter boring no-ability character doesn't sit right with me.
Every druid and ranger in the world would trade in Woodland Stride and Wild Empathy. I would probably trade in Nature Sense and Trackless Step too; they're very situational and may not come up in the entire game. Can I have four free feats for these class abilities I wouldn't use anyways?
As an aside, since the Mobile Fighter archetype from the APG does get Armor Training 1 and 2, he probably would just use full plate seeing as he can move full speed in it and his max Dex in non-magical full plate would be +3. Mithral for +5 if he really wants to keep pumping Dex, but like, I don't see him going past 15 at char gen with a minimum of 13 for Dodge so he can start going down the Spring Attack route if he wants to.
Why does the fighter gain the ability to move easily in heavy armor? Because he spent time to train himself to fight while wearing such an encumbering armor. If he really doesn't want to use heavy armors, he could use that time to train something else.
However, it could be argued that he spent all his time wearing heavy armors, thus automatically training medium and light armors too. If he wants to use medium armors instead, he would have to spend the same time training with a medium armor, and gain nothing.
Whatever the case is, the rules are silent on this, so it's back to Rule 0 handbook (you gain something only if your GM agrees).
I love this idea! My fighter only uses a longsword, I think he should get a bonus feat for each of the other 56 weapons he doesn't use.
LOL!!!
Shows where that line of thought can take you!!!
Well we COULD go the other way and just simply buy all the skills we have after starting at nothing, but then that would be GURPS :)
Yes basically your talking a skill based system vs. a class based system.
I have tried this before and had mixed results but nothing says for your home game you can't do just that but as one person has pointed out one munchkin can ruin your balanced game. This is why good rules is not a supplement for a good GM.
In a WotC book, Drow of the Underdark, fighters traded medium and heavy armor proficency for a +2 in initiative and the ability of adding dexterity as a damage bonus against flat footed opponents.
You could g on a similar route, or maybe add 2 skill level if the PC renounces to medium and heavy armour.
be careful, is prone to abuses.
His heavy armor proficiency is effectively wasted. If the class didn't have it, he'd have to burn a feat to get it.
Should the ability simply be wasted? Or should he get a replacement feat, skill points, etc.?
I have no problem with class variants that swap out proficiencies for other abilities. Losing heavy armor proficiency definitely isn't worth getting a feat of one's choice.
|
I have no problem with class variants that swap out proficiencies for other abilities. Losing heavy armor proficiency definitely isn't worth getting a feat of one's choice.
Back in beta I proposed that a Fighter could swap out heavy armor and tower shield proficiency for a +1 dodge bonus to AC (that only applied when not wearing / using those items and not heavily encumbered), and also swap out medium armor and heavy shield proficiency for an additional +1 dodge bonus to AC (when not wearing / using medium+ armor or heavy+ shields, and not encumbered at all).
The +1 or +2 AC bonus wasn't a huge deal compared to the AC bonus that could come with medium or heavy armor, or with a heavy shield, and, IMO, made the lightly-armored swashbuckler-y fighter a bit more viable.
I love this idea! My fighter only uses a longsword, I think he should get a bonus feat for each of the other 56 weapons he doesn't use.
When other classes with martial weapon proficiency require a feat to use a longsword then you might be on to something.
Until then, thanks for playing.
FYI, I'm not a player seeking to pimp-out my PC with a ton of new abilities.
I'm a GM that occasionally likes to tinker with class design. The question I'm posing is sincere: Does the desire to play an archetype that doesn't (at least on the surface) neatly fit into an existing class deserve replacement abilities to keep the class balanced?
In the variant class design philosophy of 3.x, the answer was yes. In the PFRPG, the answer is sometimes yes -- some archetypes are substituting abilities for others, some just go unused.
Perhaps a better example would be the Ranger (pre-APG). If I'm only using core PF rules and wanted a spell-less ranger, my only option is to strip spell-casting from the class. Presumably, this weakened the class against the others b/c in the APG we have a Skirmisher archetype. The removal of one ability warranted compensating replacement abilities.
So, if I know out of the gate a player's desired archetype will never use a class ability (like heavy armor) does it warrant a replacement?
For what it's worth, I used to think "Yes, it needs a variant ability." I'm now leaning towards "No, not necessary", which is why I'm asking the question.
I think the 3.5 book Buy the Numbers took a pretty good stab at this, but the ability to munchkin is too great. The alternative features in the APG do a good job at trying to fix some of this, but balance is a tricky thing and bartering while keeping it is complicated.
If someone wrote a Buy the Numbers but as balanced as Pathfinder, I'd be ready to drop $40 on a hardcover... just saying. :D
|
I don't have a problem with this idea, as long as you're not getting something better (or maybe even as good as) the original ability you're giving up. If a class gets Power Attack as a bonus feat, you can't replace that with any old feat the player wants, as they'd obviously choose a feat that is much better (for them) then Power Attack.
I like the idea of losing heavy armor prof and gaining a +1 to armor class. It's in a similar mechanical vein as the original ability without being quite as good, and it fits in with the mobile fighter concept.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'd point out that if you want to make a fighter who doesn't use heavy armor or tower shields but gets other stuff instead, you could build a ranger instead, and use the urban ranger from the APG to be less of a woodsy type. Or a rogue with the swashbucker archtype. Not sure there's a need for 4 ways to get to the same place, but if you feel you NEED to build your character on a fighter chassis, then you can just build a new fighter archtype.
Classes are nothing but packages of abilities.
So why have classes at all and not just abilities you can put together?
The answer is simple of course, you see what happens if you follow the ongoing Eidolon discussion - min maxing resulting in extremely different strengths and ultimately one "best" character concept. In short this system gives you the illusion of variety but only serves to kill all variety.
So, for general play, no, nothing more needed than the carefully balanced replacements in the APG.
In your private game I would say go for it, but be clear to your players that this is for archetyping only and not for extreme min maxing or else yuo might find yoursself flushed with all kinds of request to swap out "unneeded" (aka weak) abilities.
Some classes have the strength of being versatile, even if they don't want/use it. Proficiency with all martial weapons, or all armors, it's still useful even if you don't plan to use it. When you find that +3 full plate of invulnerability or +5, Holy ranseur, you'll be glad for it.
But versatility =/= a feat, ability for ability. You'll only use a couple of the weapons you're proficient with. You'll only wear one kind of armor at a time at least.
Giving up *lots* of them for a smaller benefit is a viable trade, but it's not "abilities for ability", it's "versatility for specialization".
Oh, and @BPorter:
You have missed the point. Both for my post, and class ability choices. They make it so you can have a whole bunch of options. Like on a car. The dealership isn't going to take out the moon roof and throw in a turbo kit just because you don't look up while driving.
I didnt' miss your point I just didn't think you were making much of one. Sorry. (I like sarcasm as much as the next guy, it just rarely reads well on the Internet.)
If there was no need to ever compensate for an unused ability there would never have been variant class abilities or APG archetype ability swaps in the first place.
I picked the example I cited b/c there's a pretty persistent desire expressed on these boards to have a lightly-armored fighter archetype. It's not as clear-cut an issue as scrapping spellcasting ability from a class, however. That was the point of my question, was a class ability removed equal to a feat (or something else)? Where's the line between "yes" and "no"?
|
|
Perhaps a better example would be the Ranger (pre-APG). If I'm only using core PF rules and wanted a spell-less ranger, my only option is to strip spell-casting from the class. Presumably, this weakened the class against the others b/c in the APG we have a Skirmisher archetype. The removal of one ability warranted compensating replacement abilities.
Well, it's not core, but there was always the Spell-less Ranger from Kobold Quarterly ...
Just saying ... :)
Perhaps a better example would be the Ranger (pre-APG). If I'm only using core PF rules and wanted a spell-less ranger, my only option is to strip spell-casting from the class. Presumably, this weakened the class against the others b/c in the APG we have a Skirmisher archetype. The removal of one ability warranted compensating replacement abilities.
Well, it's not core, but there was always the Spell-less Ranger from Kobold Quarterly ...
Just saying ... :)
Yes, I need to pick that up!
This sort of thing can get out of hand if taken too far, but I myself allow swaps to a certain extent. Shield or your heaviest level of armor proficiency for an extra skill point. Rangers who give up spellcasting for 1d6 sneak attack at any level at which they'd have gained a new spell level. Etc.
However, what works for one group (i.e. 40-pt buy gestalts) might not work for another so I don't really see there being a clear-cut yes/no dividing line.
I would take it on case by case and I would make you prolly lose more than you would gain by a bit. There was a guy a few months ago that wanted to play a bard that had the martial bastard sword prof instead of rapier and shield profs. I wouldn't see a game balance issue if he did so I would let him for his character concept.
The plethora of alternate levels, racial levels, and variant abilities points to the fact that there is absolutely nothing wrong with creating your own. The only question is appropriate balance.
Exchanging Hvy Armor and Tower Shield profs for Fleet, Dodge, Run, or an Exotic Weap Prof seems perfectly acceptable, just beware of Munchkins who will try to convince you that giving up proficiency in each and every martial weapon should warrant an additional feat for each weapon sacrificed.
The key is reasonableness on the part of the player. Gaining a minor ability or a single thematically related feat is perfectly reasonable. Creating an Uber-Character isn't.
The best way to judge what is a reasonable exchange is to look at the existing variants (3.5 has quite a few to look at as well). Find one that gives up what the player wants to give up and compare what the existing variant gets in return. Then offer something of equal power.
It's really no big deal. If you want a "second opinion", post the proposed trade (and ignore the "never trade anything!" opinions) and you should get a pretty good idea if it's reasonable or not.
Hope this helps.