More or less the stuff in tome of battle. Maybe tweak the actual mechanics, but my answer to the OP's question is 'That stuff' while pointing at the Book of Nine Swords.
Space requirements would be in the game, so that a person can't use a claymore in a tight area, but must use a dagger or the like instead. Since martial classes would have a ton of master weapon proficiencies and most current bonuses wouldn't be tied to a particular weapon, a martial class could easily use the best weapon for the job at hand.
-You still run into the problem of WBL in that every +1 dagger a fighter hangs onto is less cash towards his next + on the weapon he uses 99% of the time.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I could rewrite the fighter class, I'd make feats like Improved Trip and Improved Disarm and Sunder, etc. part of the weapon itself.
Rather than take the feat Improved Disarm in, say, tonfa, you'd take master weapon proficiency in tonfa and, thereby, get Improved Disarm with that weapon for free.
Also, instead of having magic weapons, I'd give martial classes the bonuses. That way, instead of having a particular +5 long sword, they could pick up any weapon and it'd be +5. Don't have a weapon? Pick up a stick and you've got a +5 club.A fighter would, especially at high levels, have master weapon proficiencies in a -lot- of weapons.
The fighter would get the same number of feats they get now, but wouldn't use them to learn stuff like Improved Disarm. They'd use them to learn weapon styles (two weapon fighting and 'sword and board', for example,) and stances. Both weapon styles and stances would scale with BAB.
Space requirements would be in the game, so that a person can't use a claymore in a tight area, but must use a dagger or the like instead. Since martial classes would have a ton of master weapon proficiencies and most current bonuses wouldn't be tied to a particular weapon, a martial class could easily use the best weapon for the job at hand.
Incidentally, in addition to Improved Disarm and Improved Trip and so forth being part of the weapon, weapon types might have additional abilities as well, like extra attacks (the rapier may grant extra attacks), bonuses to hit, and bonuses to initiative (which the dagger may get).
Even with the "magic" power of the weapon coming from the fighter and not the weapon, a lot of people will still stick with one weapon.
"I have specialized in XX, I will use XX, it should always work perfectly in every circumstance."In theory Weapon training should have made switching weapons less of a downgrading, in practice a lot of people see it as a way to get a further bonus to their preferred weapon.
It seem you want two different things, on one hand a specialization more similar to that of the D&D basic/expert/companion/master series, were different grades of specialization unlocked different bonuses and applicabilities for the weapons, on the other hand you want to make the fighter capabilities more independent from the weapon he use.
It is hard to conciliate the two things.
This thread is problematic.
On one side part of the requests are reasonable, on the other people are disregarding the simple fact that warrior types already do most of the damage in game.
Increasing the quantity of damage they do don't seem to be the solution. It will end getting the opposite results I think. Spellcasters will specialize ever more in save or sucks or save or die spells and battlefield control spells.
Net result? It the warrior type get his hands on a target it die. The spellcasters avoid getting hit all ways possible as it mean to be dead.
So we get frustrated warriors because they can't bring the smack to the caster and frustrated casters because they will have to burn all their resources to avoid being killed. In practice an exasperation of the already existing situation.
So giving warrior types more movement/action options that don't directly increase the damage they deliver? Probably it could be a solution, but then the more DPS group will still be displeased.
Earthdawn had some interesting idea on how to give warrior type semi magical powers while keeping them thematically acceptable.
maybe something like a cross between that and the monk could be a solution.
Without, y'know, casting spells.
They should get to choose from among numerous over the top abilities which suit their character.
Basically like "mega-feats".
The kind of stuff Barbarians can get is a good example.
I'm thinking classic comic books, manga, and/or legendary mythical stuff.
|
|
So giving warrior types more movement/action options that don't directly increase the damage they deliver? Probably it could be a solution,I disagree. You don't want to steal the monk's stuff either.
Some possible example then?
the monk has most of the movement options
the barbarian has cornered most of the special combat actions
the avenues left for the fighter seem very small and cramped.
Augean stable cleaning feat, here I come!
If you sat on ice cream, you'd know what flavor it is.
Yes, your arse is just that wise.|
|
I know and that's the challenge. To make matters worse, the ability to grant teamwork feats to the rest of the party is the Cavalier's power, so the fighter can't go in that direction either.The fighter needs to be a weapons expert - able to do things with weapons that other characters can't do.
That is why I was suggesting the mastery rules from the D&D game. Every kind of weapon had different capabilities.
The problem is that it should not be possible for each fighter to be a master in every weapon. It would homogenize the class.
But if we give out the mastery levels in the different weapons we return to the "1 weapon to rule them all" limit.
BTW: look our Earthdawn for the "family weapons". The system to unlock the weapons powers was very interesting.
It really irks me when people respond to something I've written without actually reading what I've written.
Sorry. Its the internet. Brainfarts happen.
|
|
Agreed. The strength of the magical is their spikes in effectiveness, while their flaw is their trough in effectiveness afterwards. Mundane characters are the opposite: they can (for the most part) be equally effective all day. The still have some spikes and troughs, but nothing anywhere close to the magnitude that a caster does.
Having them have special abilities that are always on is normal, the thing that isn't already there is the ability to swap them out by changing weapons. Every fighter ability, for example, is "always on", but based on equipment (not counting bonus feats, which can be all over the place). These are really special abilities, just numeric bonuses and reduction of flaws of the equipment. Why can't we extend that equipment-based styling to less boring and more versatile uses?
|
its my opinion that you choose a barbarian, fighter or rogue to be a combat focused non super human character. if you want to be a non caster that is superhuman play a monk. but i do like the idea of a fighter having the ability to lead an army at 20, or a barbarian being in control of his own horde, a rogue leading the thieves guild. something that adds to their resources and gives them a role playing example of just how badass they are.
" im so epic, i get my own army"
|
|
Do you realize that a typical 10th level Barbarian can bench press 10 tons?
thats a problem with the mechanics, a commoner can technically be even better then a barbarian. so its not really the barbarian being able to lift x amount, its that strength mod y lets you lift x by equation z. if they would make the encumberence charts more " realistic" (yeah i know chew on that piece of fat) then a barbarian wouldnt be so strong.
but what ever
Anyone who says a barbarian isn't superhuman has never seen one punch through a prismatic wall.
Compared to that, which is also easily done by level 10, what's lifting 10 tons?
Do you realize that a typical 10th level Barbarian can bench press 10 tons?thats a problem with the mechanics, a commoner can technically be even better then a barbarian. so its not really the barbarian being able to lift x amount, its that strength mod y lets you lift x by equation y. if they would make the encumberence charts more " realistic" (yeah i know chew on that piece of fat) then a barbarian wouldnt be so strong.
but what ever
A 10th level barbarian can also sunder a spell, grow fangs, jump more then 6 ft straight up, and fly. Well I guess if you can fly having a 6 foot vertical isn't that impressive.
Is some of the issue with non-casters simply that the concept of fighter doesn't make sense? When I think of the 'fighter' archetype (role/concept/whatever) I think of a guy with a sword and courage. But mechanically they end up having to be a bit like batman, only they aren't very good at it. They have to carry a ton of gear/weapons/heavy armor and still hope that they remain effective. Where as the other martial classes (barbarians/paladins/rangers) have a lot they can do in combat, and they have more that they can do outside of combat.
|
|
Anyone who says a barbarian isn't superhuman has never seen one punch through a prismatic wall.
Compared to that, which is also easily done by level 10, what's lifting 10 tons?
I love that barbarians are what martial characters at high level should be: filled to the brim with crazy abilities that in any other context might seem magical.
What I don't love is that other mundane characters don't get anything even remotely like that. All fighters get a feats and flat bonuses. Blegh!
Maybe the approach that should be taken here, though, isn't a generic "Martial characters get 'blah'" approach, but rather to go through each class that is stuck with boring at high level and give them options (such as rogue talents or fighter feats) that add ridiculous powers. Obviously not of the exact same sort as barbarian, but along those lines.
Maybe a Rogue should be able to take a talent to bluff a person so well that their perception of reality changes. (Such as saying "Actually that is a human" and having them truly see a human standing there.)
Maybe give the fighter a feat option that lets them change their weapon's shape into that of a weapon type they have weapon training in (maybe requiring weaponsmithing, or armorsmithing if into a shield) while preserving its magical properties.
I don't know. Just interesting things that seem magical, are not spells, but do tie into the focuses of that class.
Let's face it. If you don't have seemingly magical powers once you're above 10th level, you're not likely to be sitting to well once you've hit 15th. Levels 11 and higher are supposed to be the crazy comic super-hero levels. A monk at that level can easily leap across 60 foot gaps, or over 15 foot walls. A barbarian of that level can shatter a force cage with their bare hand (with the right power). A fighter of that level can... move slightly faster in armor. A rogue of that level can... take 10 in combat.
|
Some ideas:
-Less focus on being awesome with one weapon. 3.5 kept going on this route and while it made fighters damage at high level damage scary, it was kind of boring for the player.
-Substitute cleric abilities but personal basis only. In my playing experience, the time a fighter shone is when they had a dedicated cleric behind them using their turns to buff, heal, remove debuffs. The fighter should have some lower tier, preparation based methods to get these benefits to keep shining. I really like what’s been written about ‘staving off’ save or suck spells. This would be great. We need to be wary of the action economy here as well – the key point is to let the Fighter keep on shining, if only for 1d2 rounds before he succumbs to that Dominate spell.
-I love the idea of a fighter using their amazing BAB to slice a scorching ray or searing light spell in mid-flight. This ability should only be able to be pulled off with an enchanted weapon.
-An ability to go into a ‘You Shall Not Pass!’ fighting mode. When the party races for cover, it should be the fighter standing at the 15 foot entrance while the cleric heals or buffs the rest of the party, ready to get back into the fray while the fighter holds off the hoard.
-I am expecting this to be unpopular, but the ability to ‘deathblow’ and treat the BBEG’s fodder as DND 4.0’s minion system would really make the fighter seem wonderful for PCs. If something is less than half your HD, the newly appointed ‘minion’ suddenly has to start making fort saves as per a watered down coup de grace. This could potentially make a number of feats obsolete or boost their power.
-More legendary use of intimidate. A legendary fighter should be able to draw his weapon and instil panic effects in those with low will.
-Clever use of magical enchantments. A fighter with a flaming sword should be able to ‘steel whisper’ and have his flaming sword shoot a gout of fire across the room, or freeze enemies solid with his frost weapon, or use his holy mace’s holy enchantment to heal himself. He should be so intimate with his magical equipment that he can coax effects out of his equipment that nobody else can – after all, the fighter relies on their armour and weapon for survival more than anyone else.
|
|
I love that barbarians are what martial characters at high level should be: filled to the brim with crazy abilities that in any other context might seem magical.Barbarians aren't intended to be purely mundane. Everything about them indicates that they are, at least, partially tied into some supernatural force. And that makes sense. Barbarians, thematically, should be tied to the spirits of their ancestors or spirits of the natural world or whatever. It's a huge difference from fighters.
That doesn't mean that fighters above 10th level shouldn't have superhuman powers. It's just saying that, from 1st level, Barbarians have a certain tie to supernatural power.
Which is why I'm fine with barbarians having those powers at 1st or 2nd level. Problem is that Fighter/Rogue don't get them. Ever. And those kinds of things are essential at high level.
I like the ideas Kestler proposes in relation to coaxing more out of magical equipment. Thematically appropriate, but still effective. Have a flaming weapon? Use it to send a wave of fire through the room instead of doing a normal attack. Good stuff. Get creative with it and you could get some nice utility abilities out of happenstance. Maybe have a weapon with both Throwing and Returning act like Captain America's shield where, as a full-round action, they can mow down a line or arc instead of attacking a single enemy. Make the ability to unlock these a fighter feat at around 11th level (maybe one feat per bonus equivalent, so you need to get improved to unlock Holy but only the basic for Flaming).
|
|
Part of the problem is that, for the people that dislike how the non caster classes work, the "numeric bonuses" or "always available" abilities after a few months of being introduced in the game become a standard item and they will feel again that they are missing the cool superpower.
You can search a bit the thread about the barbarian once and future combat king and you will find that sentiment reflected in a lot of posts.
"So the barbarian has pounce, how mundane" is a sentiment that you will see in some of those post. Now people is all happy about the new options for the barbarian thanks to Ultimate Combat, wait a few month and you will see again the same kind of lamentation about the lame barbarian.
One part of the problem is that they compare the martial classes to some unbelievable version of the wizard: "At the same level he can bend reality two times casting wish." I have jet to see a wizard going around with 2 Wish spell memorized and 50.000 gp of diamonds in his spell component pouch.
The "reference" wizard always has the right spells, always know all the spells, always has his full spell roster, always has unlimited resources to fuel his spells and magic items.
He never get his wish wrong even casting it in the middle of combat! (If there is a spell where you should be timing how long it takes for the player to describe the effect he want, it is wish. Remember the round is 6 seconds long.)
Maybe that wizard is a bit "coddled" by the GM, it he exist at all?
If I was to create a fighter following the same "guidelines" of the mage above, he would have artifact level weapons and armour, a dragon as a mount, an inherent +5 to all characteristics and enough magic gear to be capable to fly to the moon and back before breakfast every morning.
There is a problem as a non-caster type will be defined too much by his gear, but I have seen good player taking the approach of getting a little less powerful weapon and buying good support gear with the money they have spared.
At the expense of a little less damage they are capable to fly without the help of a spellcaster, they can become invisible, see in the dark, get some form of teleportation, attack touch AC a few times every day and so on, even get some level of battlefield control powers.
I don't know, but a lot of the "problems" depicted for the non spellcaster seem to be born by the choice of increasing the character DPS at the expense of every other option.
Maybe my campaign is different because we all have started playing with 1st edition and we have some ingrained habit, but very rarely I see characters going nova and burning all their resources in one battle, then asking the group to retreat and regroup for the day, so that tomorrow they will do again the same, burning all the resources at the first battle.
|
|
-Substitute cleric abilities but personal basis only. In my playing experience, the time a fighter shone is when they had a dedicated cleric behind them using their turns to buff, heal, remove debuffs. The fighter should have some lower tier, preparation based methods to get these benefits to keep shining.
- Remove the utility from buffing spellcaster
And then? Protest because the spellcaster never do anything useful for the fighter and only think about himself?
If the spellcaster don't have any reason to spend action or spells buffing the fighter they will simply spend those action and spells attacking the enemy or use them to buff themselves.
You get more competition for the fighter instead of collaboration from the other playes.
Unconvinced it si a good idea.
I really like what’s been written about ‘staving off’ save or suck spells. This would be great. We need to be wary of the action economy here as well – the key point is to let the Fighter keep on shining, if only for 1d2 rounds before he succumbs to that Dominate spell.
At that point you can tranquilly remove dominate as a spell (at least against PC and NPC with class levels). Sawing throw +1d2 round before the spell take effect if the ST is failed mean dead spellcaster.
Don't be surprised if it end with the spellcaster conjuring hordes of monsters to attack the fighter while keeping beyond the horizon to avoid being reduced to a pincushion by the archer.
-I love the idea of a fighter using their amazing BAB to slice a scorching ray or searing light spell in mid-flight. This ability should only be able to be pulled off with an enchanted weapon.
make Grapple good somehow (render the target Dazed or Stunned perhaps).
[heavy sarcasm] Make it directly dead and buried. At least the target misery will end faster. [/heavy sarcasm]
Depends on the history and character, of course. This is not a Mmorpg, is a role play game. You can build a house, a castle, a tavern, die with honor, just die, marry the princess, kill the princess, found a reign or destroy one. And, if there's magic, you can have magic items to balance your options with spellcasters, if there's not don't bother about spellcasters.
Oh, talking about power, rage powers "once a rage" should be "once in encounter" or barbarian immune to fatigue will be also immune to magic and energy damage (ending and starting a rage is a free action, saving throw is not an action, so...).
|
|
I agree LilithsThrall , the fighter can be made better and I apologize as I know that may rebuttals are sometime biting.
Brainstorming is always useful, but it seem to go too often in the same direction, the one where the fighter is already directed:
overspecialise, become more powerful in a even more narrow field and then try to apply that narrow expertise in all the situations.
And then what is done for the fighter will not help the rogue.
So, what could work without writhing Pathfinder 2.0?
- some new mechanics made in a way to be more favourable for fighter and rogues than spellcaser, like:
a) mass combat rules where the fighter, cavalier and so on get bonuses (mostly class or or BAB related) when leading troops.
b) training rules related to the above point where a guy skilled in one kind of weapon can teach an unit how to use it and give them bonuses in combat.
c) for rogues the possibility to train people in their skills, giving them an inherent bonus (useful bot for mass combat, guard units [teaching perception], thieves guilds [teaching all the rogue skills] and so on. Essentially a skill monkey rubbing a bit of his skill off on other people.
d) kingdoms rules where being a "common" man and not an intellectual in a ivory tower will help.
e) martial academies, thieves guilds, ruling kingdoms and baronies. All stuff that has fallen into disuse (barring the Kingmaker AP, and if you look that section of the forum it has been a huge success).
f) more in game usable factions, giving decent bonuses and aimed at not caster, in the style of the Faction Guide.
Almost all of the above can be done even without Paizo input and, Paizo willing, it can be put in a hardbound or soft bound with relative ease and little problem of conflicts wit the existing rules. JJ has already said that they are interested in producing some mass combat rules more detailed than the ones in Kingmaker.
Some broad feat made to be more appealing to fighters and rogues than casters. This is harder as they need to have a few prerequisited:
1) they should be more appealing for fighter, rogues and cavaliers than other classes, without making them artificially resticted;
2) they should have a effect broad enough to avoid the overspecialisation effect but they should not be overwhelming when used against someone that has specialized in only in some of the field covered by the broad feat;
3) they should not be the "finish move" of a video game. I would bet that most people wishing for a that kind of option would get bored of their move very fast, and will start clamouring for a new move, more powerful options and so on very fast. And the problem of overspecialisation will still be there;
4) they should not step on the toes of barbarian, bard, inquisitor, paladin, ranger and to some extent even oracle and sorcerer. I.e. all those classes that have a specific focus and/or haven't very few option to change their focus once selected.
While the alchemist, cleric and wizard have some "fixed" capabilities, but the possibility to change the spells selections allow them enough latitude to be still good classes (unless the powers block a too large swat of powers).
That kind of stuff is hard to create and even harder to balance.
|
|
Depends on the history and character, of course. This is not a Mmorpg, is a role play game. You can build a house, a castle, a tavern, die with honor, just die, marry the princess, kill the princess, found a reign or destroy one. And, if there's magic, you can have magic items to balance your options with spellcasters, if there's not don't bother about spellcasters.
Oh, talking about power, rage powers "once a rage" should be "once in encounter" or barbarian immune to fatigue will be also immune to magic and energy damage (ending and starting a rage is a free action, saving throw is not an action, so...).Yes, the fighter character can do a lot of things out of combat, but, as a member of the party, what does he have to contribute to achieving a goal out of combat? He has no social skills as class skills and almost no skill points.
Personally I felt that the unification of some skill has damaged the rogue heavily.
Giving the fighter and the cleric more skills wouldn't be a bad idea.Giving them more stuff helping the "intelligent fighter" would be even better.
AlecStorm, read a bit around the forum. The base of a lot of barbarian build is to get immune to fatigue and cycle the rage on/off to use the "once a rage" powers as "once a round".
|
its my opinion that you choose a barbarian, fighter or rogue to be a combat focused non super human character. if you want to be a non caster that is superhuman play a monk. but i do like the idea of a fighter having the ability to lead an army at 20, or a barbarian being in control of his own horde, a rogue leading the thieves guild. something that adds to their resources and gives them a role playing example of just how badass they are.
" im so epic, i get my own army"
Do you realize that a typical 10th level Barbarian can bench press 10 tons?
As for leading an army, any sufficiently advanced class can do that. One of the defining advantages of sorcerers over wizards is that they are based on charisma and, so, can get huge amounts of followers to march off to war for them.
The sorcerer however will get minuses for having a familiar if he has one, and for strange looks if he's one of those dragon, aberrant, whatever types that mutate as they advance. as well as for other collateral damage to the leadership score depending on what type of sorcerer character he is. (Xykon's Leadership score would be in the toilet if it wasn't for Red Cloak.) Also he's generally less likely to take leadership than a Fighter who not only has the spare feats and is more likely to speak the "language" of a soldier.
Yes, I know you'll immediately harp on the "it's not supported in the rules" tirade. But if you have characters raising private armies, you've already run off the rails of RAW because despite having feats like Leadership this game isn't designed to handle mass combat. Any time a game goes beyond level 12, you're heavily into house rule territory by necessity.
I think fighter is not obsolete, the problem is the build.
If u make a warrior consider putting some int, and take skill bonus preferred class option. If a fighter has not skill that lityhe can use outside of combat is because he didn't put. He can have intimidate, know dungueon and eng, it means that he can make someone speak, organize city defense before a battle... if a player roll a warrior with 9 int and not human and take 1hp extra per level, ok, he has a problem. Maybe some int boosting magical items will work.
Beside skills there's story. Maybe he did something for someone important, and could have help, or he his a member of some organization... this is roleplay, so let's play :)
If u think as GM that the 2 skill point/level classes could have problem give some bunus.
In my opinion, if someone don't want to take social skills he has to play this. I have now a dwarf barbarian, and my contribution in social situation is not zero. I create problems :) Having a low carisma is not like "i don't play in social situations", but is "i play an unpleasant one ".
Perhaps one approach is to define what a Fighter is, considering (as silvercat points out) what the fighter is not.
I've always seen the Fighter as the "professional" warrior class. They are the weapon specialists who trained for years from an elite warrior's guild, or the shrewd and talented mercenary, or the "special forces" units among the lord's army.
What would this mean? It implies a warrior who, instead of being holy (paladin) or savage (barbarian) or a hunter (ranger) or noble and inspiring (cavalier), they are focused on skill and strategy; their shtick is martial genius.