| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree. The Fighter has something to contribute to social encounters. This is a player issue, not a rules issue. Contributing to social encounters is something that should be dictated by creativity, not dice and stats.
You have, unintentionally, struck a nerve.
I HATE it when people confuse roleplay with social encounters. They are two different things.
I don't really think I was doing that. My point is that you can roleplay your way through social encounters in a way that you often can't do in combat. Between combat and social, one is logically going to rely more on dice rolls, yes? And social should logically be more roleplay-heavy, yes? There ought to be an element of the game where you aren't either buffing, building, or going on auto-pilot. And social encounters weren't dictated by dice before 3.0, apart from the occasional CHA check.
I'm not really sure what you're complaining about. If you want a more charismatic fighter, then don't dump Charisma. Pick feats and traits that boost his Charisma skills. Can't spare the feats? The fighter gets more than any other class. And it's not like you don't have options for playing melee-heavy guys with social skills. What about Cavalier? Hate the mount? How about the Standard Bearer?
And if you need more skill points, then don't dump Intelligence. Part of the reason their skills are so low is so that we aren't flooded with ginormous fighters with Str 20, Con 18, Int 7.
|
More skill points in general
Consolidate some Craft, Perform, Knowledges and other skills so the skill point expenditure is more worth while
Drop the Fly skill
Find a way to make Profession skills useful or just drop them and make a general rule for making Profession checks (e.g. An ability check with a +2 to +5 scenario if the character's background is relevant, ala Common Knowledge checks in Savage Worlds).
More Hit Points at level 1, suggest adding Con score to the amount.
Overhaul and simplify the grapple rules - they are a mess at the moment (worse than 3.5 IMHO).
Consolidate a lot of the conditions so we only have.
Depower or get rid of channelling - it is such a major source of healing that if a party doesn't have a Cleric or Oracle of Life party they can be at a serious disadvantage (at least that is how I envision it, I could be wrong).
Give each character the ability to recover some hit points themselves, e.g. having a rest could recover Character Level + Con Bonus in Hit Points.
Implement ways for magicians to have a few spells always at their command - more than just cantrips. Something like Reserve Feats from 3.5.
Get rid of those feats that were purely around for backwards compaibility e.g. Stealthy.
Don't be afraid to break backwards compatibility - make the upgrade worthwhile!
More skill points in general
Drop the Fly skill
More Hit Points at level 1, suggest adding Con score to the amount.
Get rid of those feats that were purely around for backwards compaibility e.g. Stealthy.
Don't be afraid to break backwards compatibility - make the upgrade worthwhile!
I can agree with dropping the fly skill. Or making it monster only.
More hit point.. NO. All you are asking for is number inflation. It isn't necessary. If you want more start at 3rd level.I DO NOT agree with your dislike of backwards compatibility. I have a ton of 3rd ed. stuff that I prefer to continue being able to use.
Its piss-poor design to have classes that are social classes and other classes that are combat classes.
Players want to feel that they can contribute at any time. To make the players playing fighters feel that its now time to make a taco bell run because the party is doing social stuff now is bad.
Likewise, the players playing bards shouldn't have to feel second class because the party is doing combat.
The fighter needs to have something to contribute in social situations and the bard needs a chance to become alpha in combat.
That one is more player design than character design. I am playing a Bard right now that is more than capable in melee, and dominating in social aspects. A fighter only needs to make their character slightly different to make them socially capable.
If I was to change anything it would be the crafting rules. It is still just a bit to complex to make something, thus making crafting consistently the most underwhelming and least used feats I have experienced so far.
Have you ever actually read the fighter description? Which skills do you think the fighter should be subpar on; climbing, knowledge(engineering), knowledge(dungeoneering), handle animal, ride, survival, swim? Because of his limited skill points, he has to be subpar in many of them - especially if he's going to be up to par in Intimidate. So, compared to his average fellow party members (ie. not the skill focused classes, but the other classes), which ones should he be subpar at?Subpar? Should take?
Take a trait or two that that gives you a perform or knowledge skill.
Let someone else take ride, let the Ranger or Druid take survival.
It's sounds like every single one of your fighters comes out a cookie-cut of the previous one, perhaps you give them different names?
I have played fighters but each has been a concept in their own right. Most have had decent perception. But others can't swim, may know next to nothing about engineering. (All of them filled the role of meatshield i.e. filled the role in the party that was needed).
Just because a skill is a class skill does not mean you are required to have maximum ranks in it.
Have you ever had an idea of a character come to you? Try working backwards. Start with a name and 'know' who your character will be and then figure out what skills and class might be required to fit your role and idea. You might be pleasantly suprised. (Try it in PFS is you don't want to invest in the concept for an AP).
Why would you not want survival? IMO it is one of my favorite skills in the game.
That one is more player design than character design. I am playing a Bard right now that is more than capable in meleeWould you mind sharing two or three wow moments you had with your bard in combat (ie. those moments when your bard pulls off some really cool move that makes everybody sitting at the table happy/excited)?
Haste or good hope usually get people excited. So does heroism. Inspire courage making the difference between a miss and hit is pretty good.
I hear that my bard, last session, hit an enemy with grease to stop them from charging the party; they botched the save and dropped prone instead. That was pretty amusing.
You know those silly racial magic abilities - and feats that give you say..3 0th level spells once per day?
Make them useful, minor magic casting based on feats. Let the spell casting progress by the number of minor magic feats the player has chosen.
1 Feat (or racial): 3 0th level spells.
2 Feats 3 0th 1 first.
3 feats 5 0th 3 first
4 feats 5 0th 3 first 1 second
5 feats 5 0th 3 first 3 second
6 feats 5 oth 5 first 3 second 1 thirdTune the number of spells as you wish.
Why would I spend feats on this though?
Okay, that's one. I asked for two or three.I hear that my bard, last session, hit an enemy with grease to stop them from charging the party; they botched the save and dropped prone instead. That was pretty amusing.
It is my experience that the real "wow" moments come not from the class or build, but from the dice and the players. An absurd plan actually succeeds against all odds, A lucky roll or two for you, a few bad rolls for the enemy, and DM that likes to add to the moment and provide fluff leads the wizard to beating the orc leader to death in a fist fight, a twenty on the right roll leads to a fighter trapped in a dragon's mouth and said dragon having a 3 day stand off. These are the things that people tell their friends about, these are the things that they remember. Sure an uber charger who can hit 175 min damage or a bard who is better at combat than the fighter is impressive, but these aren't the things people tell around a camp fire.
Hm. What do I wish had been handled differently. Well, Rope Use for one. And the fact that it doesn't exist anymore, unless it involves tying someone up. The summoner class in general. I have this extreme loathing for Eidolons. Rogues seem far more subpar than in 3.5. They need a bit of a boost, and trapfinding needs to return to more of a Rogue specialty. Paladins. Ugh Paladins. Allow the Paladin a little bit of swing room. Allow the Paladin to be any good alignment as opposed to just Lawful. Exotic weapons. Make a reason for them to exist. Make them useful somehow, instead of not used 99% of the time. Oh, and the final thing. Identifying magic items. Go back to the 3.5 rules. Or better yet, go back to the 2nd edition rules. The easier it gets, the cheaper it feels. There's no sense of wonder when you find an awesome sword stuffed in the middle of a treasure hoard. It becomes "here, I'm gonna stare at it for 3 rounds and we'll know all about it."
There's more, but it has to deal with stuff in the setting itself instead of actual core rules.
Would you mind sharing two or three wow moments you had with your bard in combat (ie. those moments when your bard pulls off some really cool move that makes everybody sitting at the table happy/excited)?
That one is more player design than character design. I am playing a Bard right now that is more than capable in melee
Sure, I would be happy too.
The first is the first encounter we had in the campaign. The party was trying to fend off a warforged that was doing all that he could to get past us to a merchant that we were hired to defend. I hung in the back to get that merchant into a carriage, using my social skills to motivate the merchant to flee instead of stand in the streets and pee themselves. The Monk and Psion in the party were doing all they could to hold off the warforged but, as they so often do at low levels, the dice were against them and nothing was landing. The Psion had run dry on power points without landing a single power and the monk could not land a blow, though the warforged was struggling right along with them to hit the monk (built for AC more than anything). So I slip in, hitting the warforged with grease on their weapon and causing them to drop it to the ground. When they go to retrieve the weapon I land a solid strike on the warforged and dish out a chunk of damage. The round goes through with the forged swinging wild for me with his newly retrieved weapon, loosing his grip again and throwing the weapon across the street. I take advantage and strike again, landing another blow into the warforged armpit and in two strokes felled the enemy without taking a single point of damage.
The second example was later in the campaign when I was a bit more of a hyrbrid. As a Bard 4 / Rogue 2 / Fighter 2 with Two-Weapon Fighting and Weapon Finesse I was holding my own quite well in battle. In one particular moment while raiding a fortress run by the Dragon Below the party had become seperated when the Monk and Psion fell down the slide trap and I managed to avoid it. Walking down the tunnel in an attempt to find a way down to the party (they shouted painful warnings not to slide down) I encountered two Ogre Barbarians. I immediately engaged, dropping a quickened grease on one of their weapons and a regular grease on the floor beneath them. With one disarmed and the other on the ground I engaged. I nickled and dimed the ogre, slipping back to heal with my wands and potions when I needed to, until I finally ended the Ogre with a solid blow to his abdomen. The other Ogre got to his feet at this point and I laid out a glitterdust to blind the target. Sliding in and taking advantage I slapped the ogre time and again with the rapier and dagger combination and getting in the sneak attack damage. The Ogre went down quickly and I was able to make my way further in to locate the rest of the party and rescue them. I won this with creative fighting and a good stock of potions and wands, but it was enough to conquer the beasts alone.
I love playing the bard, but again, it is all about the design of the character that has made it even remotely possible for the character to be as effective as they are. These are just a few of the moments during the course of the campaign where the party was hooping and hollering with excitement as I took over the battlefield.
A fighter only needs to make their character slightly different to make them socially capable.Show me a first level fighter character that doesn't have to sacrifice any of his core skills (handle animal, climb, swim, etc.) and has social skills.
The player that chooses to make the fighter without those skills, of course. I have never played any character that uses Handle Animal and at most I am putting 1 rank in ride. Then there is climb, where Str is usuall more than enough to conquer the low DCs that you encounter with Climbs. If you need a boost then get a potion of Spider Climb. Same with Swim, where the natural ability should be enough. You need more? Then Water Breathin, Water Walk, and Freedom of Movement all present viable options that you can get through potions or party members. The majority of the fighters skill set are artificially duplicated and there is not one skill in their tree that I would consider essential to a fighter. So go ahead and put ranks in Intimidate and have some dip in Cha for the character if you want to go down that angle. There is nothing wrong with that at all.
EDIT: Revisiting this, actually that might be something to fix. Get the fighter a skill set that is more viable and not so easily replicated through artificial means.
Yes, and a big reason the Bard has no (or little) wow factor in combat is because bardic performance has no die roll.
It is my experience that the real "wow" moments come not from the class or build, but from the dice and the players.
That is why you make the bard sing or dance instead of play an instrument. They you can still fighting while singing and engage the enemies all you want. The Bard that I play could easily be stripped of all the multiclassing that I did and be a straight bard that is just as effective. I only dipped because I wanted more feats and evasion, but a straight bard can easily be a quality character. There is nothing wrong with the class, it just takes some though and planning ahead to make it effective. It is much tougher to do than, say, a straigh Barbarian or Fighter which can make up for mistakes by just breaking heads open.
|
i wish the ninja was an actual base class. would have been nice to see the ninja able to cast spells or something while still keeping melee viability, something similar to a bard but not as great of a caster. i just think they ruined a great potential to add a new support class to the game thats different then all the rest.
Would you mind sharing two or three wow moments you had with your bard in combat (ie. those moments when your bard pulls off some really cool move that makes everybody sitting at the table happy/excited)?
No problem. The most focused character I ever built was a 10th level halfling bard named Rabbit who played the banjo for his Bardic Performance. All spells were buff/debuff. Sunk feats into boosting enchantment DCs.
The crew was going up against a group of hellhounds like by a Greater Hellhound (I forget the specific details of the BBEG). This same hound had come close to wiping a previous version of the party, and had killed one of the longest surviving party members outright (but he was true rezzed a few weeks later).
I managed to successfully Confuse a few of the lesser hounds, and when the BBEG came within range, I switched to the Dirge of Doom (makes enemies shaken, lowers Saves by 2) and cast Oppressive Boredom on him. His will save wasn't terrific to start with, so for about two rounds lesser members of the party pounded on him until the Paladin could get there and finish him off.
This was seen as a pretty big vindication for the earlier defeat/retreat. Even the DM was impressed, and like... proud.
EDIT: BTW, the banjo was a flavor thing. Because I actually brought one to the game and played whatever he was playing.
The most interesting and different thing about this character was that once we got in combat, I almost never had to roll dice for this character. It was the DM who was rolling dice to avoid my spells for a change.
I believe that many posters have made the point clear that the bard is effective in the hands of a capable player, multiclassed or not. Just like any class, it is the player that makes the character, not the character that makes the player.
I never said that the Bard wasn't effective in combat, though. What I asserted is that he's never Alpha in combat. He rarely has any wow moments in combat.
Everybody posting how their Bard is effective does absolutely nothing to disprove that assertion.
I want to hear about straight Bard characters who have had multiple wow moments in combat, not about Bards that are just effective in combat.
Maybe you should define what you consider "wow" moments in combat to be?
I never said that the Bard wasn't effective in combat, though. What I asserted is that he's never Alpha in combat. He rarely has any wow moments in combat.
Everybody posting how their Bard is effective does absolutely nothing to disprove that assertion.
I want to hear about straight Bard characters who have had multiple wow moments in combat, not about Bards that are just effective in combat.
Each moment described is a "wow" moment. Those moments turned the tide of the battle, helped the party succeed, and showed that the bard could rule the battlefield. In each example posted the bard was the alpha in that fight for times that range from a round to the entire battle. Every class has the "wow" moment potential, but not all classes to be front liners. I would hate the game if every class was equally as good in all aspects as every other class. Might as well play 4th ed if we are going to go down that road.
If your wow moment is a massive number of dice hitting the table from a mages spell, or the Barbarian dropping a critical great axe blow that kills the high level enemy in one hit then you might be setting a bar that can't be reached by everyone. Impressive, party saving, tide turning, inspirational actions in combat are the ones that are "wow" moemnts to me. Each bard in this thread has more than qualified for that.
A group of us have been through a few books of the RotRL AP and we're veteran RPers but very new to Pathfinder. We find most of it very good but think that some of the rules are puzzling or unnecessary. Some general thoughts we've had for house rules so far (these haven't been implemented, simply bandied about as suggestions):
- Drinking potions are a move action.
- Standing up is a move action and does not provoke an AoO
- Requirements for fighter levels for all feats are removed. (BAB requirements remain).
- Rogue Talents are fairly underwhelming.
- The design of most of sorcerer bloodlines is infuriating/baffling.
I already did. I'll do it again. A "wow" moment is when everybody around the table gets really excited/happy because of something the character did. A "wow" moment is instantly recognized as something the character did and is something that people talk about for a long time afterwards when remembering the campaign and continue to identify that character as the one who pulled it off.
A "wow" moment is not just being effective. It is not just making a difference between success and failure. It is a shining moment for the character where they succeed spectacularly and where that character is identified as the one who succeeded spectacularly.
To make sure I am understanding this correctly, because the posters here did not end their post with, "Then the entire group started cheering and applauding me and they were all in awe of what I was just able to do with the [INSERT CHARACTER HERE]," then none of those moments were "wow" moments to you? I had no idea that we had to include the mundane description of applause every time we answered your question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does that mean that the Bard class is destined to never be Alpha in combat? Maybe my premise is wrong. I'm still waiting to hear evidence that it is.
Why should the bard be Alpha in combat? They're alpha in social situations.
That's ok. I don't want my bard, or my rogue, to be the equal of the fighter in a fight. That's his schtick. Why would I take it away? These classes have plenty of effectiveness in combat, so it's not boring for them. They shine in social, so that's good.
I don't see a problem with having second tier combat classes. Support is fun too.
This was seen as a pretty big vindication for the earlier defeat/retreat. Even the DM was impressed, and like... proud.At what point did the party get happy/excited by your actions? When did they pat you on the back for pulling it off? Was it when you cast oppressive boredom or when they finished killing the BBEG?
To answer your question, there were big smiles after the beast was dead. There was a palpable sense in the air that something had changed from the previous encounter - and that something was the bard.
Could he have defeated the enemy without the help of a Summoner, Cleric, Monk, and Paladin? No, certainly not. But could they have done it without him? Well, we tried it with me playing a blasting evoker instead - no dice.
What is an "Alpha" in combat? Alpha implies one player taking the credit for a victory. It implies a struggle for dominance between opposing players. It implies competition to see who is the toughest, most dangerous, most important. Why is this a thing to strive for in a cooperative roleplaying game?
This is not a term I've heard applied to Pathfinder or even RPG games before. I'm familiar with roles like Leader, Striker, Tank, Controller. These terms imply that everyone has a role to play and that no one role is more important than the others. These terms are indicative of unity and teamwork. And that, to me, is a lot more fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haven't read the thread past the first couple of posts; apologies if I'm repeating anyone.
Friendly competition is a good thing - even in teams.
What is an "Alpha" in combat? Alpha implies one player taking the credit for a victory. It implies a struggle for dominance between opposing players. It implies competition to see who is the toughest, most dangerous, most important. Why is this a thing to strive for in a cooperative roleplaying game?
Why should a bard ever be 'alpha' in combat (ugh, I feel ill just repeating that)? If a martial/caster mix class can do BETTER than a pure martial AND a pure caster, why would anyone play something different?
It's a buffing class that is meant to be effective at lots and be the best at -absolutely nothing-. That's a known, a given, a fact of life if you're going to play a bard. It generally holds true with any mix class too, and is a reason why casters should NOT be able to drop 10 levels into martial and keep full casting ability.
Haven't read the thread past the first couple of posts; apologies if I'm repeating anyone.
Weapon Finesse- isn't it about time that this was just given, or at least a weapon property like brace or reach that would allow weapons that had it to use DEX for attacks rather than STR? Alignment- it just causes rules bloat and disagreements. It can be pretty easily removed from the game almost entirely.
About Weapon Finesse:
Not sure about making it a given, but I darn sure would shift damage adjustment to Dex as well as attack.
Alignments...I honestly don't understand the problems people have with them. Maybe it's because I've known them so long. But I'm with ya on that weapon finesse. =)
Actually most GM's don't house rule it, but I will admit other than sneak attack I don't know the purpose of it.Change the stupid initiative rule that says if you have not yet acted you are flat footed.
I agree that your flat footed in a surprise situation.
but according to the rules if your opponent is 50 feet away and your both having a heated discussion with weapons drawn that opponent can charge 50 feet and hit you in the face with his great axe while you stand there flat footed with a stupid look on your face.
most DMs just house rule it but it just seems like something that should be looked at in official rules.
Dont you think it would be better to change the general rule and just give rogues an exception to the rule so that in any case NOT involving rogues or a surprise attack this penalty is eliminated?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I already answered this question. Players play because they have fun being the heroes in an adventure (being the heroes, not being the help). At any particular time, the table decides if they are going to be in combat or non-combat time. That is, they decide which player gets to act the hero.
But, good game design shouldn't treat being the hero as a zero sum game. All the players should be able to play the hero all the time. There shouldn't ever be a case where a player feels they might as well go take a Taco Bell run because they've got the wrong character. That's not teamwork, that's silos of excellence.
When you've got a game system where people take turns going to sleep, they are no longer playing the game they intended to play. They are no longer working together with friends to achieve a goal. They are, instead, taking turns going to sleep.
Actually, some players don't mind being the "help." If I, as a fellow player, can best use my tactical options to make someone else feel awesome, should I not make my friend feel awesome? Not everybody can be the star all the time. Paraphrasing The Incredibles: "If everyone is special, then no one is."
Sometimes the wizard's best move is to enlarge person the fighter. Then the fighter feels cool, and the wizard feels cool for helping. And both people contribute to the success of the group.