If you really want granularity, Point Buy allows ½, ¾ and even 99/100 progression.
I think it is an interesting idea, TOZ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I put far more effort into my response (which you clipped in your reply) than you did with your entire "proposal". The only legitimate gripe you have is that I've shown that the Emperor has no clothes on.
Wait, ToZ is an emperor?
AND he's naked?
That takes guts. +1
TOZ's random thought of the day.
Ditch the medium BAB progression.
You're either meant to be in melee or not. And your BAB corresponds to that.
Solves the Rogue/Monk arguments on that front.
I have to disagree here. I also don't see what removing it adds to the game.
Sometimes you can choose whether you want to be in combat or not when you make the character as opposed to being auto-assigned. This is explained below.Medium BAB classes are those that are normally decent in combat, but not combat masters, such as clerics and bards. A full BAB classes is expected to excel in combat.
Medium BAB classes also have the option to either be made to be in combat or do support things. Once again I go back to the cleric and druid. I think a half BAB cleric would be too much like the priest from Tome of Secrets, which was terrible on defense. If you give the cleric Full BAB the fighter might lose his job again. Full BAB for a druid and people will be asking why bother playing a fighter. 1/2 BAB on a druid and the wildshape focused druid falls to far behind
In case anyone decides to argue semantics with me and says wizards excel in combat I will point out that I primary mean hp damage dealt with manufactured and natural weapons*
*I just figured that would be easier than dealing with the TL:DR tirade that would have followed.
I would give rogues full BAB. But then, I don't balk at full BAB/full SA progression. A fighter will still outdamage him.
Maybe for now. We have no idea what Ultimate Combat brings.
Currently a strength based rogue can do 25 DPR without sneak attackThe DPR goes to 50.54 with sneak attack and a flank.
Full BAB
No Sneak Attack is good for 34.4
With sneak attack and a flank the rogue gets 63.99
Falchion Fred came in at 59.25.
Does that mean the rogue is better at combat? I would say no since it needs to have a flanking buddy, and it needs to get setup or it is still down by about 20. I do think it makes the rogue the better overall choice though. There are not a lot of precision damage immune enemies in Pathfinder, and the rogue gets enough skills that it can be useful outside of combat, much more than a fighter can.
PS:4 points of damage is not a lot for an entire round at level 10, but if the rogue is buffed that 34 points of damage becomes 55 with haste so now he is doing enough damage to matter even without sneak attack.
I know DPR is not a measure of what will happen in a game, but it does give possibilities which is all we can really go on before we actually play a game.
You put up a major proposal to change the game at it's roots with no particular reason, and no particular gain to do so and for some reason expect to be treated seriously for the total lack of effort you make in presenting such a radical idea?
Perhaps you missed the fact that this thread is in "Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew", but I think that a hostile response on the level that you've produced is completely uncalled for.
I think the idea is crap, myself, but by responding to it like ToZ is trolling instead of just floating ideas, you've really made yourself seem like a jerk.
By all means, tell us why you think it's a bad idea. But simply berating the OP because you don't like him is bad form, even if you were right.
That goes for you too, ToZ, you're smarter than that. We all have our snappy days. Snap out of it. Snap into a slim jim.
I have to disagree here. I also don't see what removing it adds to the game.
It would only add in a less-is-more kind of way. I'm not saying that this should be the way to go, but some streamlining is often beneficial.
I think it is good to question fundamental principles once in a while, else we get stuck in paradigms that only slows and restricts design.
All the better if this discussion proves that 3/4 BAB is worthwhile but if turns out to be deadweight, that should be taken into consideration for future iterations.
Regardless, it's not like Paizo is going to re-print all its material by tomorrow morning. That's why I'd encourage all posters to participate in the discussion (rather than discredit the discussion) if they have something to say.
'findel
What to do with clerics/druids/magus and them? Screw them. Toss them into the garbage heap.Which is where the melee guys have been residing since 10th level, so the party can be re-united at last?
No the "melee" guys are not in the garbage heap at level 10. The garbage heap is where the class doesn't exist anymore at all.
Also I'm not sure why everyone else seems to have such a problem with what they call "melee" (when really what they mean is more along the lines of classes that hit things with weapons) We have a girl at our table who doesn't really have the slighest clue of whats going on at all. The only thing she knows is hitting things with her sword. (This is the player, not just the character) She cannot RP worth much of anything. But lemme tell you, she slaughters everything. Even when we were playing 3.5 and most of her critical hits didn't do anything but hit, there was hardly a monster that could take blows from her sword, and we where at level 12-13.
Course we allowed just about everything in our game. The only time I came close to beating her in DPR was when I started playing a totemist. (Course the totemist was completely over powered as I had about 5-8 attacks per round at level 4)
|
By all means, tell us why you think it's a bad idea. But simply berating the OP because you don't like him is bad form, even if you were right.That goes for you too, ToZ, you're smarter than that. We all have our snappy days. Snap out of it. Snap into a slim jim.
LazerX is one of the few that I can safely say I disagree with on all levels. I have done my best to ignore his posts where I encounter them, but I figured this was as good a time as any to establish the rules of our relationship clearly. I don't bother him, he doesn't bother me, we're both happy.
At the very least, this thread had benefited me in Kirth's observation on wizard BAB.
I do agree that his entry into the thread was like overhearing a statement at a coffee shop and throwing coffee in the speakers face.
Because basically...
Those are all valid points IMO. Next time though, let's get straight to the objective ruleswonking and bypass the "U R Stoopid" stuff. We're in , context can make a bad rule into a good one. A lot of people here are playing with enough houserules to make my head spin, whose to say it's bad for their game?
In this subforum, things that would be downright stupid to advocate for permanent changes to the RAW ought to be treated with potential. The RAW is quite safe from these ideas! No need to lash out.
Anyway, the thing I like about mid-BAB is that it is usually combined with a few other mid-class features. That gives you some of the most customizable classes in the game, where you can choose to reinforce some features and sacrifice others. It sounds like eliminating mid-BAB would be a step toward removing this kind of class. That's not a great thing, in my opinion.
I acknowledge the parsimony argument (two would be simpler), but going down that road very quickly leads me to BAB-as-Skill, and combat skills, which I think are super logical. At that point, I give up and go play another game. Ya'll feel me?
It's not just that it's a lousy idea... it's a solution without a problem.
There's a lot merit in what you're saying, but I also think it's slightly premature to be making that argument. TOZ isn't at the proposal stage yet, merely at the bouncing around off-the-wall ideas stage. Sometimes the only way to make viable progress in a given field is to start off down the road on something STOOOOOOOOOOOPID and see where it takes you. In those instances, totally abandoning all protocol and wandering around a bit can lead to a lot of places -- most worthless dead ends, but maybe one is the start of a big paradigm shift that can bring huge dividends down the road -- like the semiconductor, or digital music.
TOZ started with "random idea: what if...?" not with "here's what I want to do, and how I'll do it." Maybe the idea will be totally unworkable, once mechanical restructuring of classes is done and maybe even some playtesting takes place -- it may be fatally flawed and die stillborn. But without pursuing the idea to that stage, it's sort of too soon to tell.
I think it's an interesting idea.
However, that might be coloured by the fact that I do the vast majority of my gaming in the level 1-8 range (and 8 is pushing it), so the total difference would be a whopping +2 to attacks either way.
Note that if you combined it with improved multiclassing rules, then you could build up a medium BAB class as a combination of two other classes, anyways. (E.g. a level 8 "inquisitor" could be a cleric 4/rogue 4 with a total of +6 BAB; likewise a "magus" could be a wizard/fighter.)
Just allow 1E multi classing, and use their progressions.
Fighters 1/1
Clerics 2/3
Rogues 1/2
Mages 1/3.
If you want a higher TH, take a second class and gestalt the BAB. A f/w 7/11 had a +9 BAB, etc. Everybody takes fighter levels to shore up their (gasp) fighting ability. Strange how that works. But you pay the XP to make it happen, and lag behind in raw levels.
I use 'limited multiclassing'. I let anyone take a level of another class as a multiclass, and gestalt them. The cost is always the cost of your next xp level.
You get one 'main' class/string, and can't combine the two. I.e. if you are a wizard/sorc/MT on your main string, you can't take wiz or sorc as a multiclass to add to your levels there. You could be fighter, rogue, anything else...but not anything in your main class.
This encourages multiclassing and dipping without costing horrible amounts, but also lets people adventure in the mid levels and broaden their skills without having to get 'higher' level.
Max level is always Main class/2, +1. So, at 10th, 6th level is the highest you could be in an off class.
Per level bonuses like Con to Hp and Int to skills only apply once, to the main class. Skill points from secondary classes can only be spent on class skills. Hit Points bonuses for say a wiz/f 10/6 are figured with a bonus = the average improvement for hit dice. For PF, this means +2 HP per fighter level, or +12 hit points.
Saves, just take the best by level as they improve, in gestalt fashion.
==Aelryinth
It's not just that it's a lousy idea... it's a solution without a problem.There's a lot merit in what you're saying, but I also think it's slightly premature to be making that argument. TOZ isn't at the proposal stage yet, merely at the bouncing around off-the-wall ideas stage. Sometimes the only way to make viable progress in a given field is to start off down the road on something STOOOOOOOOOOOPID and see where it takes you. In those instances, totally abandoning all protocol and wandering around a bit can lead to a lot of places -- most worthless dead ends, but maybe one is the start of a big paradigm shift that can bring huge dividends down the road -- like the semiconductor, or digital music.
TOZ started with "random idea: what if...?" not with "here's what I want to do, and how I'll do it." Maybe the idea will be totally unworkable, once mechanical restructuring of classes is done and maybe even some playtesting takes place -- it may be fatally flawed and die stillborn. But without pursuing the idea to that stage, it's sort of too soon to tell.
Well, yes, it was obviously in the bare bones stage. But if you are going to post it online, you obviously want peoples opinion, and in that case he could have at least given enough thought to make us go "hum that seems interesting, let me think about it" but instead we got
TOZ's random thought of the day.
Ditch the medium BAB progression.
You're either meant to be in melee or not. And your BAB corresponds to that.
Solves the Rogue/Monk arguments on that front.
From the bottom: It does not in anyway solve the rogue problem, unless you remake the whole class, in which case is easier to remake the class without messing in one mechanic that affects a dozen other classes. It also would be much easier to just give the monk full BAB than mess with a mechanic that is extremely ingrained in several design choices. And "You're either meant to be in melee or not." No,just no. There are plenty of concepts that ARE supposed to be decent combatants but not great ones, many ideas that can be either a good combatant with some side abilities or a supporter that can hold his own for a couple of rounds of fight. And then you remember all the other things this change would affect, like CMB and CMD and the gish classes...
Give us something to work with here! It's a big mechanic change, is there really a problem that needs that much fixing? What would you do to keep the rogue somewhat balanced? And the cleric? The inquisitor? The alchemist?
is there really a problem that needs that much fixing
That's what I'm talking about -- fixing apparent problems isn't the only approach to progress. In fact, that approach is reactive rather than innovative: it puts you perpetually behind the ball, and it also strongly discourages serendipitous discoveries of whole new ways of doing things. Already someone piped in with a "medium BAB = full BAB/low BAB multiclass," which would mean the Inquisitor would be built as a cleric/rogue. Taking that a few steps further, it should be possible to build a variant Pathfinder in which there are maybe 3 modular classes, and a potentially infinite number of additional classes built using various proportions of each. (The bard might become a sorcerer/rogue archetype, for example, with bardic performance being chosen in place of sneak attack.) That would mean redoing parts of how multiclassing works, but given that multiclassing currently is an "auto-fail" choice for casters, that's maybe yet another area that could use some shaking up. But it would also mean that we don't need 17,000 splatbooks of new base classes, and most prestige classes could be subsumed into the mix. Down the road, it could lead to a game in which you can build just about any character you can imagine, and they'd all be relatively internally balanced.
That's admittedly off the top of my head, but I personally don't believe that Pathfinder is the best possible game system for all players, and that any alteration or paradigm shift must automatically be deletorious. If that approach were true, we'd all still be playing Chainmail.
is there really a problem that needs that much fixingThat's what I'm talking about -- fixing apparent problems isn't the only approach to progress. In fact, that approach is reactive rather than innovative: it puts you perpetually behind the ball, and it also strongly discourages serendipitous discoveries of whole new ways of doing things. Already someone piped in with a "medium BAB = full BAB/low BAB multiclass," which would mean the Inquisitor would be built as a cleric/rogue. Taking that a few steps further, it should be possible to build a variant Pathfinder in which there are maybe 3 modular classes, and a potentially infinite number of additional classes built using various proportions of each. (The bard might become a sorcerer/rogue archetype, for example, with bardic performance being chosen in place of sneak attack.) That would mean redoing parts of how multiclassing works, but given that multiclassing currently is an "auto-fail" choice for casters, that's maybe yet another area that could use some shaking up. But it would also mean that we don't need 17,000 splatbooks of new base classes, and most prestige classes could be subsumed into the mix. Down the road, it could lead to a game in which you can build just about any character you can imagine, and they'd all be relatively internally balanced.
That's admittedly off the top of my head, but I personally don't believe that Pathfinder is the best possible game system for all players, and that any alteration or paradigm shift must automatically be deletorious. If that approach were true, we'd all still be playing Chainmail.
Yes, eventually you realize that for better balance and maximal options you need a point based sistem, but if I wanted to play GURPS I would play GURPS. And the way you decribe making a bard, for instance, seems more complicated than it has to be. It would scare new players, turn aside the players that don't like to muck too much with character creation and award the players that have the numeric savvy and imagination that we usually call powergamers and munchkin.
And that is all beside the point. What I'm saying is that given the little we got, the idea seems frankly bad. Compare with Laurefindels thread here. It about as far out as TOZ idea, but it has enough thought behind it to get us thinking before the kneejerk reaction reaches the keyboard. If you want your idea to be heard, or more, getting good responses, at least put a little effort on it. Give us a reason to think this idea might have merit. Instead of "You're either good at fighting or you aren't so I think we should cut middle BAB". That just looks like flamebait to start a fight. Nothing against you or TOZ, I actually like your houserules and even when he has a different opinion than mine his posts are usually funny and in good humor instead of annoying and insulting like LazarX, KaeYoss and Gorbacz. But this thread got on my nerves something fierce.
But this thread got on my nerves something fierce.
Without any sarcasm, and I absolutely am in no way trying to diss you here, I'd honestly recommend just ignoring this thread -- which may die soon anyway if no new ideas come up. (And speaking of getting on nerves, I should admit that at one point, in frustration with nay-saying, I even started a thread entitled something like "WARNING: MECHANICAL TINKERING AND BRAINSTORMING HERE -- EVERONE WHOSE SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING IS TO YELL 'IT'S FINE!' PLEASE STAY AWAY." Because my nerves are equally subject to fraying sometimes, so I understand.)
Anyway, if this were a serious suggestion being pitched to Paizo in the main rules forum, yes, you should shoot it down. I would, too. And I'd sort of hurt if everyone didn't do so, because it kind of does sound bad, on the face of it (disregarding where it might lead). But that's not the case; this thread is safely tucked away in the "random suggestion" forum so everyone will know it's not meant as a formal entreaty to make this change.
Yes, eventually you realize that for better balance and maximal options you need a point based sistem, but if I wanted to play GURPS I would play GURPS.
To finally get to the point: I'm sure as hell not telling you to play GURPS, nor, I think, is TOZ. But on the other hand, if TOZ and I and others would like to develop a Pathfinder-GURPS Hybrid out here in the "homebrew suggestions" forum where we don't bother anyone else, why would people feel the need to tell us we're not allowed to do so? I mean, are we taking up too many valuable electrons that are desperately needed elsewhere?
To finally get to the point: I'm sure as hell not telling you to play GURPS, nor, I think, is TOZ. But on the other hand, if TOZ and I and others would like to develop a Pathfinder-GURPS Hybrid out here in the "homebrew suggestions" forum where we don't bother anyone else, why would people feel the need to tell us we're not allowed to do so? I mean, are we taking up too many valuable electrons that are desperately needed elsewhere?
Hiperbole for Hiperbole mr. 17.000 splatbooks. And except for the last post TOZ came as pretty much insulting troughout the thread. That didn't help anyone to see it in another light. I get that sometimes bouncing ideas to see what happens is necessary but you really need to think it through a little more before throwing it to the wolfs. To keep with the metaphor, the idea was too skinny, so we chewed out the feeder.
Hiperbole for Hiperbole mr. 17.000 splatbooks.
Touche! And, yes, my sister-in-law actually calls me a "Hyperbole." Frequently, as if it's my name. And I kind of like it.
Hyperbole, not hiperbole.
That's my job, Sonny! And it's "wolves," not "wolfs."
It's been a long time since I've taken a look at Kirth's house rules... if you're approaching a point-buy system, any BAB progression can be built, so you're essentially ditching all progressions.
If you're trying to stick with a class-based system, forcing everyone into either a high-combat or low-combat role by default stifles many desirable concepts at face value. Forcing people to play specialists might keep them from running their characters into the ground numerically, but from a style perspective it "feels" wrong (not to mention some people will manage it anyway).
I've found great success incorporating the Gestalt rules to bolster concepts that fall flat on their face in normal play. People who can realize their concept through a single class can simply focus on the abilities of that class, and the second one is merely gravy. Rogues who want to be high-combat masters can take Barbarian or Fighter as their second class, and be put on the higher Base Attack track... Rogues who don't care as much about combat as thievery can take Sorcerer, Wizard or Trickery/Travel Clerics and stick it out, BAB-wise, but gain all sorts of spells to help crack those bank vaults. I've never liked the monk, so I can't comment on how to "fix" it... but Gestalt seems to work out okay for increasing versatility of "flat" classes like Fighter and patching classes like Rogue. It also lets you make use of all sorts of sub-par classes like Healer or Marshal without as much trepidation.
(Notice: I can't quite get the hang of point-buy systems: I, like many other players I've known, spread their points too thin on "shallow" abilities to be of any use, or feel stifled when I specialize at high cost)
"WARNING: MECHANICAL TINKERING AND BRAINSTORMING HERE -- EVERONE WHOSE SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING IS TO YELL 'IT'S FINE!' PLEASE STAY AWAY."
Kirth, you wound me! I yell "IT'S FINE" quite constructively, or so I think.
Thinking more about this, calls BAB entirely into question for me. Why not eliminate it altogether. Rip out that column of the character table completely, and eliminate it from attack and combat maneuver bonus calculations.
Increase Weapon Focus to a +2, get rid of Greater Weapon Focus, and have Weapon Focus stack with itself. It can be taken at any level and you don't need to be a fighter. Now you -really- have to spend resources getting good at hitting things!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bleh, second language and all that. I'm surprised my verbosity kept up for so long before tumbling down. Especially considering I'm battling three trolls in another thread.
Successful Troll salutes your bravery! *Official Troll Salute*
Thinking more about this, calls BAB entirely into question for me. Why not eliminate it altogether. Rip out that column of the character table completely, and eliminate it from attack and combat maneuver bonus calculations.
Increase Weapon Focus to a +2, get rid of Greater Weapon Focus, and have Weapon Focus stack with itself. It can be taken at any level and you don't need to be a fighter. Now you -really- have to spend resources getting good at hitting things!
Or make it a damned skill like 95% of all RPGs.
Sir, thank you, sir. *Salute*
Or make it a damned skill like 95% of all RPGs.Thinking more about this, calls BAB entirely into question for me. Why not eliminate it altogether. Rip out that column of the character table completely, and eliminate it from attack and combat maneuver bonus calculations.
Increase Weapon Focus to a +2, get rid of Greater Weapon Focus, and have Weapon Focus stack with itself. It can be taken at any level and you don't need to be a fighter. Now you -really- have to spend resources getting good at hitting things!
You just blew my mind.
What would that look like?New skills...
Melee (STR) (ACP) (Untrained)
Ranged (DEX) (ACP) (Untrained)
Spell Attacks (DEX [or casting stat?]) (No ACP) (Trained only)
Classes currently with full BAB would add 1/2 their level to melee&ranged skills (a la Track class feature)... Add melee&ranged skills as class skills to various classes; add spell attacks to various other classes? Skill Focus would give an instant +3 to hit. Skill Mastery would allow 'taking 10' on attacks. The synergies are endless !!
You just blew my mind.
What would that look like?
It would look like something completely unfitting for a game where you fight more often than not. If you're going to run a low-combat campaign it might work, but in that case, why bother changing the combat rules?
It would look like something completely unfitting for a game where you fight more often than not. If you're going to run a low-combat campaign it might work, but in that case, why bother changing the combat rules?
You just blew my mind.
What would that look like?
Got to disagree there, out of personal experience. It would certainly change the dynamic more than a little, but because max ranks are a thing, I don't think it would be that bad.
Bear in mind, I don't do this. Because it would be a radical change, and I'm usually against those. But I think it can be done. It's certainly no more drastic than the premise of this thread, or many of the other house rules that the folks here run with.
Yeah, it strikes me that the change would effectively be all classes get -1 skill points and fighter types (i.e., those with fighting as a class skill) get +3 to attack.
When you put it that way, you almost argue me into doing it. Good going!
Should we make AC a skill, too, then -- replacing the automatic +10 with the skill? This would also allow for a 'defense bonus' some folks were looking for in other threads...
At this point I'm just saying things I think are ridiculous, but hey, you never know what could come of it.
Should we make AC a skill, too, then -- replacing the automatic +10 with the skill? This would also allow for a 'defense bonus' some folks were looking for in other threads...
At this point I'm just saying things I think are ridiculous, but hey, you never know what could come of it.
What do you know, I've played with that too!
Following all of these impulses feels right, but believe me it ends up somewhere less fun and more realistic.
The less fun part comes into play the second they release a new rulebook and you don't get to use any new feats. Or when that new AP issue drops and the GM is too exhausted to convert everything to the skill-driven übersystem.
Mark my words: I play the RAW, but I have lots of ideas languishing because playing the game is more fun than writing a new one.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it strikes me that the change would effectively be all classes get -1 skill points and fighter types (i.e., those with fighting as a class skill) get +3 to attack.When you put it that way, you almost argue me into doing it. Good going!
Heh. It could be cool.
There was a regular poster here for a while that ran a really unique homebrew. His chief innovation was hp - you got a fixed number based on race and then +1 hp each level thereafter. All weapons and spells had their damage reduced to something like 1 pt/die. My description doesn't do justice to it. At first, I thought it was idiotic, but came to appreciate it's old school charm and leathality as he explained it further.
Yeah, it strikes me that the change would effectively be all classes get -1 skill points and fighter types (i.e., those with fighting as a class skill) get +3 to attack.When you put it that way, you almost argue me into doing it. Good going!Heh. It could be cool.
There was a regular poster here for a while that ran a really unique homebrew. His chief innovation was hp - you got a fixed number based on race and then +1 hp each level thereafter. All weapons and spells had their damage reduced to something like 1 pt/die. My description doesn't do justice to it. At first, I thought it was idiotic, but came to appreciate it's old school charm and leathality as he explained it further.
Hardly innovative..that system was in Arduin Grimoire II way back in 1976-77.
Mark my words: I play the RAW, but I have lots of ideas languishing because playing the game is more fun than writing a new one.
Does it need to be? I'm fairly new around these parts; has anyone/any group ever tried to just throw something entirely new (but inspired by/related to Pathfinder) together?
The fighter while training all his life to hit things (all 10 years of it) How many weapons has he trained to use?
Last I counted there was something like 60+ feats worth of weapons, armor and shields the fighter has.
The wizard? like half a feat worth of weapons.
I'm fairly new around these parts; has anyone/any group ever tried to just throw something entirely new (but inspired by/related to Pathfinder) together?
It's not entirely new, but you might look at THESE.
Kirth, you wound me! I yell "IT'S FINE" quite constructively, or so I think.
What TOZ said. And, yes, you generally give mechanical reasons why you feel things are fine, rather than simply taking it on faith that the existing rules are perfect in all respects for all groups.