How to fix the martial-caster disparity and move away from Pathfinder Ars Magica;
Of all the house rules used in the game I'm playing currently, the following is probably my very favorite:
Once you hit 11 BAB, you get to make one iterative attack on a standard action attack.
|
One of my personal hobbyhorses:
- There should be a cheap 'n' easy way to have an unarmored character that doesn't involve bracer of armor/mage armor (for PCs) or heaps and heaps of natural armor (for monsters).
My homebrew solution was to add a feat that gives a +(3+lvl/4) circumstance bonus to AC that doesn't stack with armor or natural armor. But I'm open to suggestions.
Could be a feat or a replacement ability (if using PFRPG) for Armor Training
Combat Maneuverability: The ability/feat allows the user to add his 1/2 his Dex bonus (round down) again to his AC as a base Maneuverability bonus score. In addition he gets to add 1/2 his BAB (round down) to this bonus. This bonus applies to all melee and ranged attacks and also applies to being hit with ranged touch attacks. Any condition or situation which denies the user his Dex bonus also denies the Maneuverability bonus score.
To use this feat a character cannot have any kind of armor, shield (buckler allowed) or natural armor bonuses. He must also have a base speed of 30 and must maintain a light load or he loses the additional BAB bonus to his maneuverability score.
Special: Characters wearing light armor may still add their base (1/2 Dex bonus round down) Maneuverability score to their AC as long as the amount does not exceed the max Dex bonus allowed by the armor and as long as they still must maintain a light load, use nothing larger than a buckler and have a base speed of 30.
Maneuverability can be substituted with circumstance as a typed bonus, but since I was creating some sub conditions and requirements I titled it as a new AC bonus type. This ability is also very dex dependent, but it is assumed that this would be focus on high dex characters (fighters, barbs, rogues) with decent BAB (vs. your level formula). This also allows for some light armor while retaining some of the bonus from the ability (at least to add 1/2 Dex bonus in twice as base Maneuverability).
Seems too hefty to be a feat (without more restrictions or buy-ins) so I would type this as a class ability/replacement ability or a sort.
Edit: Reduced it to 1/2 Dex bonus round down.
So you're saying you've broken everything to an outrageous degree, but somehow managed to get things about equally overpowered and thus achieved balance? Sounds like it could be amusing, but it also sounds reeeeeeaaaaaaly swingy. If everyone's amazingly awesome, don't initiative and luck become too important in deciding a fight?
The title of this topic forces you into an endless arms race.
The title of this topic forces you into an endless arms race.
All mechanical tinkering forces an endless arms race? Including nerfs? Or changes that don't affect combat at all? Interesting viewpoint... but one I disagree with.
The title of this topic forces you into an endless arms race.All mechanical tinkering forces an endless arms race? Including nerfs? Or changes that don't affect combat at all? Interesting viewpoint... but one I disagree with.
I think he means "rule 0 unwelcome" means that ideas will get increasingly eccentric because there is nobody shooting them down.
Then again, people shouldn't be shooting ideas down anyway, at best they should politely parse the potential consequences. But how often does that actually happen?
@Pathfinder Xtreme: Sounds interesting. Pathfinder Mundane is already a little too super-powered for my taste, but if you really want to push the envelope I'm sure you'll find some interesting things.
I think he means "rule 0 unwelcome" means that ideas will get increasingly eccentric because there is nobody shooting them down.
(Grinds teeth) "Rule 0 unwelcome" means that nobody is shooting down ideas using rule 0 as the rationale for doing so. Unbalanced/unworkable ideas can, and should, be shot down for mechanical or game-play reasons.
Why is this so hard for people to grasp?|
|
I think he means "rule 0 unwelcome" means that ideas will get increasingly eccentric because there is nobody shooting them down.(Grinds teeth) "Rule 0 unwelcome" means that nobody is shooting down ideas using rule 0 as the rationale for doing so. Unbalanced/unworkable ideas can, and should, be shot down for mechanical or game play reasons.
Why is this so hard for people to grasp?
I think only the drive-bys are missing the point, I wouldn't worry too much Kirth.
No one is saying rule 0 is bad, what is being said here is: If you have a problem with something, or don't like the way it works (power level, imbalance, vision, theme, etc) then what would you do to structurally or mechanically to change it?
This is just an idea mill with a desired basis in producing ideas which are rules sound, or if not justified and explained without just using a hand wave of the DM.
I am a strong proponent of rule 0, I also like looking at rule variations, ideas and fixes to bring games closer to an individualized ideal. There is no rule 0 hostility here, and that is not what this thread is about.
What I was trying to say, is everyone thinks their class is being put at a disadvantage. They are only at a disadvanage under certain conditions. The arms race is each side demanding rules that they see as balancing, but are actually imbalancing. Arcain casters are without armor when there is an ambush. They cannot have the shield spell as a readied action because they cannot ready an action till the ambush is launched. Fighters, on the other hand, cannot cast shield. Fighters cannot cast magic missle, unless they have an item of spell storing.
That's why it's a digital choice. Rules arms race or rule zero.
Stop trying to have it both ways. You can't.
Well, that was fun. Back to rules now.
|
|
Sigh....
[rant] And yet another person may want rules/ideas to make their games run closer to second edition play using the PFRPG framework - of course they are power hungry gamers...
Please if you can't constructively critique an idea or option presented, you think the game is perfect already or you don't understand the focus of the thread stop posting. All it does is serve as a distraction.[/rant]
|
Sorry for the wall of text.
My two cents on the martial caster thing, use more monsters good at taking on casters. If only played with one caster as bad as the forums alluded to. basically, if you limit the spells a caster has access to or the time they have to craft items...they tend to become less game breaking, and I say that for having no other viable term. I do agree with casting time increases and making knowledge checks replace spell craft. Swapable feats like the way the inquisitor can swap teamworks feats would work in the martial characters favor. Though I think it should be in a focused group of feats; i.e. disarm & sunder, grapple & trip, ect.
The specialist wizard issue, I actually think that in my groups, wizards tend to be more generalists or item crafters. However I like the focus of specialized wizards, as they do allow for a party with more casters.
Charisma's biggest problem would be that it doesn't always have relevance to playstyle and some mechanics. The bonus to exp I like...save for the potential of punishing players with low Charisma by giving them less exp. I would tack it onto a Wealth bonus at character generation. (Starting GP=Xd6+cha x 10) comes to mind, as far as wealth generation goes. Also, tacking on charisma modifiers to earned wealth from profession checks would serve to make it more viable. The idea is to reward a high charisma rather than making penalties for low. My last suggestion is a bit out there, but perhaps charisma could be used to determin how many bonus magic items a player could have. Providing they get a full set in their campaign, of course.
Monks...that's a can of worms. Well, for starters I focus on Ki and combat manuevers. More ki abilities and more ki. 9 swords is nice, but keeping this mostly pasthfinder, pull out the ki diversity feat from the faction guide and develope more ki powers and feats. Rather than, have the progressing unarmed damage we've had for ages, I vote for using the Fantasy Flight's Masters Strike. In their midnight setting, their "monks", known as defenders, have full BAB and are a tiered class, which gain D6's inplace of increased size to their unamred strike. I'm not suggesting making monks tiered, but the master strike damage I feel is better suited to show the devastating blows of a monk. Feel free to take a look http://darknessfalls.leaderdesslok.com/class_defender.htm . The database has a few useful monk feats as well such as this http://www.pathfinderdb.com/character-options/feats/1238-storm-flurry . Back on track with the focus on combat manuevers, I have manuever training apply to CMB and CMD. I also give monks a bonus to CMB with their dodge bonus. My groups have always used monks like a james bond gadet, concealable and affective when it comes to messing up foes plans. Much like battle shaping spells, monks can change the flow of combat.
Combat manuevers, pretty much I think that they are the realm of fighters, monks, and rogues. To be quite honest, I use them to even the playing field against spell casters and some monsters. Disarm and Trip pretty much ruin most casters. ranged sunder and dirty trick can be just as bad. I actually like the CMB and CMD system as it makes grappling and tripping less of a headache. The only change i would make is that martial types don't suffer AoO's from non martial types lacking the combat manuever feat or a character with a lower BAB...however that idea needs working out.
MT's, the only fix I could see is making the them of the class dual casting or simultanius casting, rather than an endcap of the PrC. The problems would be similar to the way quicken spells can be abused, so the class would need a rewrite...which I might consider once I'm done with my Inquisitor Archetypes. Other ideas would be to allow channeling to be sacraficed to apply metamagic ala complete divine, and some exclusive metamagic abilities. That needs more thought on my part, or the forums.
I wholeheartedly agree with making Exotic Weapons Proficiency more akin to Combat Trick. Each exotic weapon should have a trick or two that can be unlocked by that feat and perhaps a prerquisite for one additional skill/trick.
I'm ok with tiers of rules modification.
Signature
Warning, my spelling is very bad.
Leave no pun behind.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I am working on my own game, but working with PF as a base. The rules themselves will more certainly never see the light of day outside of my gaming group, but one of the rules I am considering applies to the Charisma issue.
I have always thought it was a bit unfair that there were two saves for physical effects and only one for mental effects. Will saves cover a wide range of effects, but I have never really liked that they were all lumped together in the way they interacted with the target (basically by calling for Will saves.)
Why not split will saves into two types. Will saves can handle effects that trying to deceive (i.e. illusion) and a second mental save handle effects that try to coerce (i.e. enchantment.) Let us call this second mental save the Individuality save.
The individuality save is based on charisma and handles any effect that tries to coerce the target to act contrary to how they would normally act.
A will save would still be based on wisdom, but would only handle the effects that target the subject's senses.
This idea is still in it's rough draft form, so I am sure there would need to be some tweeking, but it would be a step in helping to solve the Cha dump stat issue.
Why not split will saves into two types. Will saves can handle effects that trying to deceive (i.e. illusion) and a second mental save handle effects that try to coerce (i.e. enchantment.) Let us call this second mental save the Individuality save.
Oh man, I love this one.
I suggest the terms Suspicion and Defiance to represent saves vs. deception and coercion, respectively.
Why not split will saves into two types. Will saves can handle effects that trying to deceive (i.e. illusion) and a second mental save handle effects that try to coerce (i.e. enchantment.) Let us call this second mental save the Individuality save.Oh man, I love this one.
I suggest the terms Suspicion and Defiance to represent saves vs. deception and coercion, respectively.
Social, charisma based saves, like I suggested earlier.
I am working on my own game, but working with PF as a base. The rules themselves will more certainly never see the light of day outside of my gaming group, but one of the rules I am considering applies to the Charisma issue.
I have always thought it was a bit unfair that there were two saves for physical effects and only one for mental effects. Will saves cover a wide range of effects, but I have never really liked that they were all lumped together in the way they interacted with the target (basically by calling for Will saves.)
Why not split will saves into two types. Will saves can handle effects that trying to deceive (i.e. illusion) and a second mental save handle effects that try to coerce (i.e. enchantment.) Let us call this second mental save the Individuality save.
The individuality save is based on charisma and handles any effect that tries to coerce the target to act contrary to how they would normally act.
A will save would still be based on wisdom, but would only handle the effects that target the subject's senses.
This idea is still in it's rough draft form, so I am sure there would need to be some tweeking, but it would be a step in helping to solve the Cha dump stat issue.
Interesting idea--how would it interact with the classes though? It seems to me that most of the classes good at resisting mental coercion will also be the ones best at resisting magical deception. I can see some exceptions--Rogues in particular--but I'd be interested to hear your take on how they divide.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I haven't thought that far ahead yet. I only really had the idea last night in a state of mind between awake and sleep.
Just off the top of my head, I like the idea of Fighters having a good Defiance save but poor Suspicion save. They would suborn to follow orders but quick to believe what they see. They already have a bonus against fear from Bravery, so it only makes sense to me for it to be that way.
On the other hand, Wizards might have a low Defiance save but high Suspicion save. They are more used to taking orders but also know that not everything is as it seems.
Of course, I think I am wrong in that. I need a day to really think about how to apply the extra save.
|
|
Why not split will saves into two types. Will saves can handle effects that trying to deceive (i.e. illusion) and a second mental save handle effects that try to coerce (i.e. enchantment.) Let us call this second mental save the Individuality save.Oh man, I love this one.
I suggest the terms Suspicion and Defiance to represent saves vs. deception and coercion, respectively.
Willpower and Insight (for Charisma and Wisdom, respectively) could also work.
I have been working on that exact same thing, but as part of a bigger change, in which there would only be four ability scores and each would have its own save. I was going for Strength, Dexterity, Sense and Will. Basically, the idea was to move bonus hp/level to the will stat, representing the fact that you keep going longer in spite of being about ready to drop, fort saves to strength and everything wis or int based to the sense stat. Perception and sense motive would no longer be skills. Instead, they'd be rolled into the sense save. It's a long way off being finished or finalised.
I nearly mentioned this idea earlier, but I hadn't considered just splitting will saves while leaving the rest as-is.
If we split the save, this is how I think class progressions should end up:
- Fighters lose bravery. Instead they get good Defiance and poor Insight. Barbarians and Cavaliers should have the same. Since they have no bravery to give up, they're gaining relative to the fighter. That might be a problem and it might not.
- Rangers should have good insight. This helps them, but I doubt anybody will mind.
- Wizards keep good insight but have poor willpower. This hurts them a bit.
-Sorcerers have good defiance and poor insight. This makes sense to me, but it means they both lose a little power.
- Rogues seems like they should have good insight. Obviously, that would be a boost for them, but arguably they need a boost.
- Paladins Clerics clearly out too have good sense and defiance.
-Druids keep both.
- I'm uncertain about oracles, alchemists, summoners, witches and magi.
|
|
Possible topics include, but are in no way limited to:How to fix the martial-caster disparity and move away from Pathfinder Ars Magica;
How to make it so that every single wizard is not automatically a specialist;
How to make Charisma something other than an auto-dump stat;
Why monks still suck fat wax candles, and how to fix them;
How to alter combat maneuvers so that they can actually get some use;
Why the mystic theurge punishes his teammates, and how to lighten their burden;
How to make exotic weapon proficiencies actually worth a feat;
etc.
1. Allow Martial classes to become more adaptable than casters either by skills or techniques. Make caster stats useful for non-casters too,
"An intelligent fighter is a better fighter than a mindless berserking fighter"2. Perhaps by improving generalist wizards?
3. I liked the idea of using it as an alternative stat for all skills regarding interaction.
4. Monks don't suck they just play differently than what they were supposed to play.
Right now the idea of the skirmishing monk is a bit of a failure,
A strength based full attacking monk is considered a lot better even close to a fighter damage-wise.
Flurry of blows is a trap, also known as Two Weapon Fighting.
Two Weapon fighting is better than two-handed weapon fighting only when you can apply additional damage per hit boost (like Sneak Attack).
5. Combat Maneuvers are quite handy in a game, provided that you can use your imagination and properly use them by description and not as rolled dice.
6. Make the entry requirements higher let him able to advance at level 9 or 10 he should be quite capable to provide without being a burden.
7. Now that is a tricky one.
Supposing that Simple weapons can be effectively used by anyone without proper training and Martial weapons are quite difficult to master without proper training then Exotic weapons should be quite extraordinary that although they can be used with proper training they can do much more with the extra focus of a spent feat.
F.E. Whip can be used as a Martial weapon but cannot attack adjacent opponents without risking to hurt your self, with EWP it can be used as normal and even can used several weapon tricks with it (something like those in complete scoundrel).
Sorry Regrs, but what you're describing is still monks sucking fat wax candles.
They don't do anything they're supposed to do. They're accidentally good at the wrong things too. That they happen to be effective if you know how you should build them doesn't change the fact that only going by the rulebook and not the collective knowledge of pathfinder fans, you'd build a terrible monk who'd be no good at anything that you wanted him to be best at. And that's awful.
I mean, you said yourself that their iconic class feature is a trap. Just because they can manage without it working doesn't mean that they should.
5. Combat Maneuvers are quite handy in a game, provided that you can use your imagination and properly use them by description and not as rolled dice.
????
Im not sure if you are saying that they should only be flavor but provide no me chanical benefit or not please clarify.
About Combat Maneuvers from Evil Lincoln's spin off thread:
My issue is even investing 3-4 feats into one maneuver you still have an extremely limited chance of sucess to pull it off against the monsters in the beastiary due to the size differential/ stat inflated CMD's. Sure Tripping a quadraped should be difficult but lets look at a CR 6 monster (when a fighter can take "greater" combat maneuver X) the Babau AC 19 CMD 23, ettin ac 18 CMD 23, as examples of biped, weapon using type monsters of that CR. To make it so you have to beat both in an all or nothing attack effectively raises the AC of the monsters to 23 or increase the miss chance by 20%. The bonuses for improved and greater cancel out this increased "AC" at this level but as the CR increase the differential between CMD and AC increases:
CR 10 Fire Giant AC 24 CMD 31,
CR 11: barbed devil AC 26 CMD 34, Cloud giant AC 25 CMD 37,
CR 12: lich AC 23 CMD 25 (hooray for a caster type)
What if Maneuvers required a "setup" not a full fledged feint but a measure of throwing your opponent off guard to catch them with the maneuver.
Going off of the force of will idea Kirth has long championed.
CMD would be based off of Cha mod, not Str+Dex Mod. Makes Cha useful lowers CMD's to make maneuvers more useful.
How to fix the martial-caster disparity and move away from Pathfinder Ars Magica; Of all the house rules used in the game I'm playing currently, the following is probably my very favorite:
Once you hit 11 BAB, you get to make one iterative attack on a standard action attack.
So this puts martial characters on par with characters who can stop melee from approaching them, create a wall of metal from thin air, petrify people, etc. how?
So this puts martial characters on par with characters who can stop melee from approaching them, create a wall of metal from thin air, petrify people, etc. how?
You can hit them more if you reach them, I presume.
I mean, yeah, it doesn't make martials into casters... but certainly it is better than keeping martials so woefully stationary. It might be inadequate by your standards, but it's not progress in the wrong direction.
Nobody suggested it does that, only implied that it at least helped a little. Anything with no drawbacks helps a little.
I see a lot of big, complex ideas for rule changes being thrown up this thread. While some of these may have particular value, I'm of the opinion that the simplest solution is often the best... After all, the Pathfinder RPG evolved out of a collective desire to RESIST dramatic change, (that change being 4e). If the rules could be further optimized with only minimal changes to the way we play, then I suspect that the community as a whole would be happier for it.
A few examples in particular that immediately grabbed my attention:
The suggestion of allowing a monk to Flurry as a standard action here is an interesting one, allowing you to get your extra attack on the move without going full-on Pounce-mode.
I'd be VERY tempted to see how this would work when applied to TWF in general. But then, I probably only think this way because I recently had to witness one of my players trying to use/build a dual-wielding character... It truly was painful to watch, during combat. >_<
How to alter combat maneuvers so that they can actually get some use; There's 2 ways to go about this. 1, consolidate the Combat Maneuver feats into fewer feats. 2, they do not provoke AoOs. I prefer the 2nd because I think the AoO causes lots of tactic movement in combat, which really slows down the game.
I too wondered if consolidating all the "Improved" maneuver feats into a single low-level feat would be a good move. I'd personally hesitate to remove maneuver-based AoOs entirely, but that's personal preference.
Charisma-based feats
(Luck of Heroes/Paragons/Kings)
I really do like the idea of feats that allow the mechanical development of extraordinary lucky (ie, NOT supernaturally/magically lucky) characters. I've had a player who has been making inquiries in this direction, and I think these feats might act as a suitable option to help him scratch that itch. My only concern is that they might infringe on the territory of the current Hero-Point system...
Oh, and everything that's been said so far on the splitting of Will saves into two different saves is pure gold, IMO.
...okay, I'm done now.
I suggest the terms Suspicion and Defiance to represent saves vs. deception and coercion, respectively.Willpower and Insight (for Charisma and Wisdom, respectively) could also work.
Liking this idea more and more. I prefer Willpower and Insight personally, although it messes around with a type of bonus that already exists. Off course if we're going that deep in re-manipulation of rules, that's a relatively minor re-tool.
'findel
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I am not sold on Willpower and Insight. Both words suggest wisdom and I already have mixed them up in talking through this idea.
Defiance is at least charisma sounding.
However, toe-may-to/toe-mah-to. The names themselves don't really matter.
What does matter is:
- What each one covers.
- What stat each one is tied to.
- Arranging the good and poor saves for class.
To be honest, I think that shouldn't be too much work to do. We have the basics of the first point, the second point is decided, and the third one just needs work and play testing.
Splitting Will into two DIFFERENT saving throws? Bad, bad, bad. Now EVERYONE is MAD. Great.
Just do what they did in 4e. Let Charisma or Wisdom be used for Will saving throws. (Then add in some thing to prevent Paladin from double stacking - like if they take Charisma to Will, they only get half Charisma mod to Will from Divine Grace.
It's not so much that everyone is MAD, more that each ability score actually has a general use. 4e is excessively complicated for what it actually does, because they've simplified the functions of the scores, but not reduced their number. If you're going to give me a charisma score, but no use for it as long as I have wisdom, or visa versa, do me a favour and de-clutter my sheet by combining them into a single score.
Assuming we like the old scores though, going with the idea of splitting will saves to make two halves which make more sense than will saves as they are and giving one half to charisma seems like a good idea.
Besides, what's the problem with everyone benefiting from multiple scores? MAD just means "being better at more things helps you". The main problem with it is that many classes only need to be good at one thing and so are better. Making all classes MAD is about as much an improvement as making no classes MAD.
If it's done right, this might even help address significant class imbalances through giving weaker classes an extra half a save and taking half a save away from some stronger classes.
A new save that uses Charisma make me happy.
Since it's a social save Bards and Paladins should be good at it.
So possibly Cavalieres.
Signature
Warning, my spelling is very bad.
Leave no pun behind.
It's not so much that everyone is MAD, more that each ability score actually has a general use. 4e is excessively complicated for what it actually does, because they've simplified the functions of the scores, but not reduced their number. If you're going to give me a charisma score, but no use for it as long as I have wisdom, or visa versa, do me a favour and de-clutter my sheet by combining them into a single score.
Because the saves use interchangeable ability scores does not mean the ability scores don't have other uses.
And how the hell is it excessively complicated?
|
|
So this puts martial characters on par with characters who can stop melee from approaching them, create a wall of metal from thin air, petrify people, etc. how?
If the object of the 'fix' is to give martial characters the exact same abilities as magical characters, just using different descriptors, there's a game for that.
Since this isn't that game's forums, I'm pretty sure almost nobody here want's to 'fix' perceived martial / arcane disparities by making them carbon-copy clones of each other, just one with a sword and the other with a staff.
A martial character shouldn't be able to turn people to stone or any of that stuff. He should be vital in other areas, and with not every single facet of class and role design contingent on PVP dueling capabilities of 'mage vs. fighter must be exactly equal in all things, at all times.'
How to fix the martial-caster disparity and move away from Pathfinder Ars Magica;
I've seen a lot of ideas rolling around. One of my favorites is to make casters partially MAD, since they're essentially single-attribute (with Con as a potential second stat). And the idea behind that is to use Cha as the stat used to determine their save DCs, regardless of class (this would have the dual effect of making sorcerers competent when comparing them to wizards). My other favorite is to pick the more powerful spells (SoS/SoD, particularly powerful defensive spells, etc.) and increase their casting times. I would keep Evocation spells standard actions, to balance them against better spells.
I've also toyed with the concept of making spell resistance something similar to a magical AC that everyone has, being 10 + cha modifier + extra bonuses. The only problem I'm having is figuring out how to boost it. Feats and magic items are easy, but I can't think of something to equate to armor except for maybe adding 1/2 level as a bonus or something.
How to make Charisma something other than an auto-dump stat;
An idea I've been running with for a little while is to equate charisma to a character's natural luck. Once per day, I allow a player to add their charisma modifier to 1 roll, modifying the actual roll, not the result. This means that one could potentially negate a natural 1 or boost a roll to a crit/natural 20, literally modifying the "luck" of the roll.
Why monks still suck fat wax candles, and how to fix them;
The first thing I do with monks is increase them to a full-fledged full-BAB classes, d10 health and all. After that, I substitute con with wis on hp and fort saves, effectively eliminating con as a required stat. Third, and finally, I allow standard full attacks as a standard action a la the mobile fighter. I've toyed with the idea of adding wis on damage, but feel that this version makes the monk feel more defensive.
How to alter combat maneuvers so that they can actually get some use;
I've eliminated requirements on the combat maneuver feats in my games, but they still don't see much use. Eliminating the AoOs seems like another possible fix, but then I'd have to re-work the feats.
How to make exotic weapon proficiencies actually worth a feat
I've always liked the idea of making each exotic weapon a simple or martial weapon, and then making an "advanced weapon proficiency" for certain weapons that grants them an extra powers (Bastard sword as a 1-handed weapon and whatnot). I've just never had the patience to get to work on that idea.
-The Beast
Charisma is really, really tricky.
In classes that don't use Charisma, it's essentially worthless. Doesn't do jack. You're a fighter? Why on earth would you ever want charisma? The same goes for barbarians, or monks, or etc, etc.
On the other hand, classes that do use Charisma use it a lot. Paladins? Paladins want the best damn charisma they can get even before any theoretical buffs to it!
This was the biggest problem with charisma in 3.x - class abilities. For the most part, class abilities that went off a modifier almost universally used charisma. This lead to charisma as being completely binary - either you had class abilities that used charisma and thus really freaking wanted it or you didn't and, well, didn't.
This makes adding to charisma difficult. Sure, you want it to be something vaguely worthwhile for fighters and barbarians and etc, etc. But buffs to charisma means that those classes with charisma-based abilities are going to get a lot stronger. I admittingly don't really have an answer to this.
Because the saves use interchangeable ability scores does not mean the ability scores don't have other uses.
And how the hell is it excessively complicated?
Well, I really don't want to get into a 4e related argument here, but the way I see it, the 4e scores are all pretty much as useless as charisma in pathfinder. Your class tells you which scores you're using and you can completely ignore the rest, safe in the knowledge that they don't matter.
In theory, they've simplified the functions of the scores and balanced them all, but in practice, some of the scores aren't really there anymore.If they only difference between Cha builds and Wis builds is different skill bonuses, why not make that the only difference? We already have a trained skills system that could handle that, after all.
Some other scores have more unique uses beyond skills, but it's not much. Constitution is pretty important, but dexterity only does initiative and strength is sometimes used for opportunity attacks even when it's not a favoured score. That's about it.
I said the game was excessively complicated for what it does, not excessively complicated in absolute terms. In general, it does quite simple things, it's just that it always seems to use lots of numbers to do them. Like proficiency bonuses. In theory, adding them simplifies the game by removing non-proficiency penalties, but in practice, it's another number to add when you're working out attack rolls.
It might not be rocket science, but it's got twice as many numbers as it needs.
ProfessorCirno, I think we can get away with buffing the sorcerer by making its favourite stat more useful. It may be good, but the wizard is very similar and already benefiting from general uses of the stat its abilities are based on.
If we're going with the split saves idea, it doesn't even help the paladin at all. He already gets charisma to all his saves, so just say he can add Wis and Cha to his willpower/defiance/wossname saves instead of Cha*2.
Not sure the bard will become overpowering either, or that the oracle is any different from the sorcerer in that regard.
|
|
Sorry Regrs, but what you're describing is still monks sucking fat wax candles.
They don't do anything they're supposed to do. They're accidentally good at the wrong things too. That they happen to be effective if you know how you should build them doesn't change the fact that only going by the rulebook and not the collective knowledge of pathfinder fans, you'd build a terrible monk who'd be no good at anything that you wanted him to be best at. And that's awful.
I mean, you said yourself that their iconic class feature is a trap. Just because they can manage without it working doesn't mean that they should.
True enough, monks do need a major revamp in order to become what the pathfinder fandom wants.
So the questions should be:-How do pathfinder fans want the monk to be.
-Is there a basis for the desired monk or should the monk class follow a path similar to the cavalier orders/sorcerer bloodlines in order to create several kinds of monks that satisfy all players.
-Should the monks be Extraordinary or Supernatural in nature and development.
@Dragonsong
I don't propose to discard the Combat Maneuver system and have it as a flavor only factor in the game.
I propose that the system remains as it is and add a subsystem to improve chances (success/failure) based on the descriptions that the player adds as flavor to his combat maneuver.
That's why I like charisma for social saves.
If you want to use wisdom for it, there's a feat for that.
As an option, you don't have to let feats complicate your game.
Signature
Warning, my spelling is very bad.
Leave no pun behind.
Sorry Regrs, but what you're describing is still monks sucking fat wax candles.
They don't do anything they're supposed to do. They're accidentally good at the wrong things too. That they happen to be effective if you know how you should build them doesn't change the fact that only going by the rulebook and not the collective knowledge of pathfinder fans, you'd build a terrible monk who'd be no good at anything that you wanted him to be best at. And that's awful.
I mean, you said yourself that their iconic class feature is a trap. Just because they can manage without it working doesn't mean that they should.True enough, monks do need a major revamp in order to become what the pathfinder fandom wants.
So the questions should be:
-How do pathfinder fans want the monk to be.
-Is there a basis for the desired monk or should the monk class follow a path similar to the cavalier orders/sorcerer bloodlines in order to create several kinds of monks that satisfy all players.
-Should the monks be Extraordinary or Supernatural in nature and development.@Dragonsong
I don't propose to discard the Combat Maneuver system and have it as a flavor only factor in the game.
I propose that the system remains as it is and add a subsystem to improve chances (success/failure) based on the descriptions that the player adds as flavor to his combat maneuver.
Yes there should be monk paths.
Way of the dragon, monkey, rat, crane, ect.Signature
Warning, my spelling is very bad.
Leave no pun behind.
Well, I really don't want to get into a 4e related argument here, but the way I see it, the 4e scores are all pretty much as useless as charisma in pathfinder. Your class tells you which scores you're using and you can completely ignore the rest, safe in the knowledge that they don't matter.
In theory, they've simplified the functions of the scores and balanced them all, but in practice, some of the scores aren't really there anymore.
Both yes and no. Class builds that need certain scores don't really have to worry with the other score for certain defenses or offense. But 4e also doesn't suffer from cookie cutter syndrome because SOME stats might be useless some or all of the time to SOME class builders instead of one or more stats being useless ALL of the time to ALL of a certain class.
It's TREMENDOUSLY better than the situation we find ourselves in right now and taking up that design would fix the issue flat out.
Like proficiency bonuses. In theory, adding them simplifies the game by removing non-proficiency penalties, but in practice, it's another number to add when you're working out attack rolls.
Really? Really?
It might not be rocket science, but it's got twice as many numbers as it needs.
That's a laughable assertion. Unless your next paragraph complains about the literally dozen different types of bonuses you can add to every single numerical item in 3.5/Pathfinder - which it doesn't.