Stuff
Fair enough the rules back in the older editions are usually vague and less prescriptive, that's why the rules are held more sacrosanct. Although even with the phb in front of me I cannot find that specific section.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would modify casters.
- All non-damage standard action spells are full round actions just like making a full attack.
- Quicken spell can bump a full round action spell up to a standard action for +2 spell level.
- Quicken spell can bump a standard action spell up to a swift action for +4 spell levels.
- If you are casting a damage spell, you can take a full round action to empower the spell for free.
It cuts down a lot of caster mobility without actually nerfing their abilities without nerfing blasters into the ground.
The Dirty Trick maneuver (or other combat maneuvers) could solve some of it, if people are having issues. Pathfinder has a fairly broad system for rolling dice to do tricks in combat. At higher levels you could just make them more powerful, like combining cleave with trip to say that the barbarian is hacking at legs.
Though, in my experience I think it's good that casters get slightly more powerful utility- and ability-wise than martial classes, just based on the nature of their class. At low levels martial characters dominate which represents their world where being the toughest, fastest or strongest sonovagun around is the best way to survive. And since arcane secrets and the favor of gods build upon themselves caster characters eventually achieve their supreme power, if they survive enough power attacks and pins to get there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without nerfing spellcasters any? I've heard some suggestions, such as letting Fighters ignore some feat prerequisites or giving them more skill points, and I'd love to hear more. Personally, I really think it comes down to giving martial characters more versatility, not more power, as I feel that issues of versatility is where all the disparity comes from, but how does one go about doing this?
You don't need to nerf spellcasters, but giving martial characters other things besides just hitting things is a good first step. Look at the Pathfinder barbarian and all their rage powers. They have some that heal them (not much sadly), give them special attacks or options they don't normally have, let them become immune to certain conditions, give them area of effects, and so forth.
Want to reduce caster martial disparity? Take some cues from World of Warcraft. WoW took so much from D&D that it can give some back. A warrior (the WoW equivalent of a D&D Fighter or Barbarian) at high levels can do really cool stuff, like break out of snares to charge his enemies, bounce spells back with his shield, or turn into a whirling dervish of moving death on the battlefield in a big mobile AoE. They're not casting spells, but they do impressively epic things due to their skill and martial prowess.
The 3.5 Tome of Battle did a lot of this very well. Options are where the real strength of casters lies, more often than not. It's not about one spell being super amazing, but the fact you don't have to rely on just one spell.
However a lot of people gave a lot of hate towards the Tome of Battle because apparently giving warriors the ability to build a martial arts style by choosing stances, counters, and maneuvers, and then separating the techniques into levels somehow made them into spellcasters; despite the fact they were just using their swords, shields, and axes in new ways. There were some of those schools of martial arts which had supernatural powers in them, but they belonged to the Sword Sage (a monk-like class) and the Crusader (a paladin-like class).
What you really need to do is give options that don't revolve around full-attacking, and it definitely doesn't need to be a feat, unless the feat gives several options in one go (similar to how tactical feats gave about 3 new options).
Until you give martial characters options, the disparity will continue. It's one of the reasons martial characters have to rely on magic items to remain relevant at later levels. Simply because they have no options or way to address those things. If at 7th level a warrior could act as if under the effects of freedom of movement to charge regardless of impediments, or spend an immediate action to block a dragon's breath weapon, daze and opponent with a single well placed shot, wound an opponent to stagger or slow them down for a round, or even do things like redirect spells using their shields, and so forth...well then you could do something that was more relevant.
|
Well one approach would be to give all non-casters a slew of new powers/abilities to stay on par with casters.
Or nerf casting (in general) and how some spells work with regard to risk/reward, reliability, and overall power (easiest approach).
Or something in between...
Or not
So we have a few options on the table.
I like Ashiel's idea. It does sound like it'll take forever and invalidate all the existing archetypes. though. Still, it could work.
I like Ashiel's idea. It does sound like it'll take forever and invalidate all the existing archetypes. though. Still, it could work.
If you're looking to do a collaboration, I would be willing to lend my mechanical skills to it. I'm currently working on a rewrite of the 3.x/PF system which is intended to address most of my personal issues with all three systems, but if I can lend a hand to helping you or anyone else with some mechanics, it seems like a noble cause to me. :)
I think the opposite may work better, with me helping out your rewrite. I don't have time to do a massive one of my own. I could help someone else with a rewrite, though.
At the moment, I just house rule the vital strike feat chain as something everyone gets automatically, grant a feat per level instead of per two levels, and allow (but by no means require) combat maneuvers to be done as move actions. Hopefully that'll make things a bit more fun for the martials without requiring me to do a whole revision I lack time for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or Kirthfinder. Which is nothing like 4e.Another thread on this?
The answer is 4e. Or something like 4e.
Or a point-buy system, like Champions.
Something to remember..
One of the things that makes DnD work (I'm going to ignore 4e because anything I say about that may provoke an edition war) is that different character classes have different styles of play.
It works because different players enjoy different things about the game. Some players like to be the guy who swings for the fences, some players like to be the guy who protects his buddies, some players like to be the guy who knows stuff. There are even players who like that the style of play of their character is different from everyone else's.
The problem with making fighters work like wizards isn't the argument as to whether they are casting spells. Its over whether or not that diversity in styles of play is being respected.
The fighter fix is NOT to make it more like the wizard.
Fortunately, I don't think anyone wants to make the Fighter more like the wizard, unless you mean in merely giving them options. The Tome of Battle, for example, never made Fighters like wizards at all. The mechanics weren't the same as magic, the effects weren't the same as magic, and so forth.
Darkwing Duck, I think you have good ideas on everything except 7 and 8. I prefer weapon and armor to be largely cosmetic decisions to encourage people fighting with what they want to fight with instead of what one combo gives the best stats. Same with races, which is why I use races that only have slight differences. I do agree that classes should play very differently, however, and I agree with a lot of your ideas.
This sentiment confuses me. Evocation (as direct damage anyway) is waaay overrated. It doesn't contribute much to the disparity at all.
3. Create two different types of casters: You're either an Evoker only, or you're everything except for an evoker. IE you can choose to deal damage and play that role, but lose the ability to alter reality/buff/control, etc. Or you can alter reality/buff/control/SoS/SoD but physical damage is someone else's schtick.
Oh, I agree :) Except in cases of multiple targets, where AoE owns. I was 'proving an example by making a point' instead of proving a point by using an example :P Thank you for pointing this out.
What I mean by this is that *the* complaint about casters is that they can do everything the martials can, sometimes betters. My suggestion is to chop up the versatility into forced specialization. My example was meant to say that a caster must now choose to fill the role of a striker, or he must choose to fill the role of a meta-game specialist/controller, he could not do both. This would make the martials more vital than they are currently perceived to be because they are the only ones who could do it, and who could do it well.
Of all of my suggestions, I have only done 2.5 at my table, and only for our Kingmaker Campaign. Our other 2 campaigns are RAW. We like both styles, and we like the variety.
--PC
I made up a new house rule regarding the Fighter. Fighters have 8 plus int modifier skill points per level and all Knowledge skills, Stealth, Perception, Acrobatics, Heal, Linguistics, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Use magic Device, and Disable Device are class skills along with the normal class skills.
Why? Fighters need a more versatility, and I like the idea of that coming from being a skill monkey. As for 8 skill points, it won't unbalance the game, and I see Fighters as a class that should have a whole lot of skills. Fighters are trained professionals, right? If this is so, why shouldn't they have a bunch of skill points? As for the extra class skills, I gave them all Knowledge because knowing your enemy and the history and cultural reasons for conflict makes perfect sense, so Knowledge skills make sense, even ones like Arcana (I fight many magical beasts and spellcasters. Why should I not learn as much as possible about them?). Spellcraft has a similar justification. A Fighter fights spellcasters enough that it is justifiable to learn about what they can do so that they can recognize what spells are being flung at them. As for UMD, Fighters are well trained professionals. It is perfectly feasible for a well trained professional to want to learn to use magical resources. Acrobatics is useful for seaship or airship based Fighters or more flamboyant individuals, Stealth is useful for lighter armed Fighters (it's another perfectly feasible thing for a professional to want to learn), and Linguistics is useful for soldiers, sailors, or mercenaries who do a great deal of traveling to many locations, and such. Heal is useful for reasons so obvious I shouldn't have to say, Sense Motive is there because Fighters often do things like stand guard duty, and nobody wants an easily fooled idiot on guard duty. The same goes for Perception. As for Disable Device, warfare often involves a lot of complex machinery. A Fighter just may know something about the inner workings and how to sabotage them.
If you choose a Fighter archetype that changes the official number of skill points from two to something higher you gain the difference.
Good idea?
I made this suggestion in the other thread, but I put out the idea of giving fighters the ability to use weapons more effectively at higher levels, and as actual abilities, not as part of a long feat chain and only available when they get a lucky critical nor as part of a limited archetype. Fighters should be able to hold back enemies with a spear, crush armor and deal damage in the same attack using an axe, deflect and counter dangerous blows with a sword, etc. Perhaps such techniques should be part of the whole Weapon Training.
Such things would make different weapons look more attractive as well as make the fighter feel more diversified. They don't even have to be particular weapons, it can be whole groups of weapons.
My other suggestion (if you decide to keep the ridiculous long feat chains) is to allow the fighter to change feats on a weekly basis, not confine them to once per 4 levels. I don't see why someone can't spend a month training to change their fighting style, especially one considered to be martially exceptional.
Other things that should be considered are using the mundane to accomplish interesting effects.
A fighter or rogue might perhaps be able to use a pair of daggers to help them climb a wooden wall (bonus to climb checks), or use their weapons to cut away entangling effects (AKA freedom of movement), use metallic objects to direct light into the eyes of their enemies and thus creating a distraction.
Although these sort of things one can get away with anyway if they are creative and have a GM who games by rule of cool.
Other things that should be considered are using the mundane to accomplish interesting effects.
A fighter or rogue might perhaps be able to use a pair of daggers to help them climb a wooden wall (bonus to climb checks), or use their weapons to cut away entangling effects (AKA freedom of movement), use metallic objects to direct light into the eyes of their enemies and thus creating a distraction.
Although these sort of things one can get away with anyway if they are creative and have a GM who games by rule of cool.
I could write in as a house rule that if you try that stuff in my campaign in a way that makes sense it'll probably work.
I made up a new house rule regarding the Fighter. Fighters have 8 plus int modifier skill points per level and all Knowledge skills, Stealth, Perception, Acrobatics, Heal, Linguistics, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Use magic Device, and Disable Device are class skills along with the normal class skills.
Why? Fighters need a more versatility, and I like the idea of that coming from being a skill monkey. As for 8 skill points, it won't unbalance the game, and I see Fighters as a class that should have a whole lot of skills. Fighters are trained professionals, right? If this is so, why shouldn't they have a bunch of skill points? As for the extra class skills, I gave them all Knowledge because knowing your enemy and the history and cultural reasons for conflict makes perfect sense, so Knowledge skills make sense, even ones like Arcana (I fight many magical beasts and spellcasters. Why should I not learn as much as possible about them?). Spellcraft has a similar justification. A Fighter fights spellcasters enough that it is justifiable to learn about what they can do so that they can recognize what spells are being flung at them. As for UMD, Fighters are well trained professionals. It is perfectly feasible for a well trained professional to want to learn to use magical resources. Acrobatics is useful for seaship or airship based Fighters or more flamboyant individuals, Stealth is useful for lighter armed Fighters (it's another perfectly feasible thing for a professional to want to learn), and Linguistics is useful for soldiers, sailors, or mercenaries who do a great deal of traveling to many locations, and such. Heal is useful for reasons so obvious I shouldn't have to say, Sense Motive is there because Fighters often do things like stand guard duty, and nobody wants an easily fooled idiot on guard duty. The same goes for Perception. As for Disable Device, warfare often involves a lot of complex machinery. A Fighter just may know something about the inner workings and how to sabotage them.
If you choose a...
Pathfinder already has given the Fighter all he needs to be competent with skills. At the most I would give them 4 + Int modifier like monks get, and give them more class skills to choose from (why Perception isn't a skill for them I may never know). However, since Pathfinder has allowed them to place plenty of ranks into skills, simplified the skill system, and rewards dipping skills, they are already in a far better place skill-wise than they were in 3E/3.5.
Likewise, skills are good, but they aren't where the Fighter is really hurting later on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never needed to fix it. My group only plays gestalt, and we have sort of an unspoken rule that everyone takes one martial, one spell casting class. Every toon can pull his weight, and make it easier for others via buffs.
I like 8. It's not massively unbalancing, but it makes a deal of sense for the Fighter to have an epic number of skills. It's not a complete fix, but it's an intuitive one.
I don't see why they didn't originally get Perception, either. That's why I gave it to them, along with other things that make sense for a professional soldier like Knowledge and Linguistics.
The reason there is a disparity is because of battlefield control spells. A step in the right direction would be to give martial characters a greater degree of battlefield control (widen their range of options)
Combat Maneuvers are the martial character's version of Battlefield Control.
A step in the right direction would be to make Power Attack, Combat Expertise and all Combat Maneuvers standard combat options for everyone.
Anyone can sacrifice accuracy for power or defense. The more BaB you have, the better you are at it.
Anyone can try to trip someone or push someone, or steal from someone. People with higher BaB are better at it.
The feet trees should just be one feat that scales with BaB. Get to +6 BaB, you get the benefit of the Greater Maneuver effect.
Give *more* options for Maneuver-type effects. Feats and abilities that trigger combat maneuvers from attacks (or vice versa) are really good. So are reactive Maneuver abilities (like the Flowing Monk's Redirect)
It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
I wonder if the Rogue player agrees that giving the Fighter 8 skill points isn't massively unbalancing.I like 8. It's not massively unbalancing, but it makes a deal of sense for the Fighter to have an epic number of skills. It's not a complete fix, but it's an intuitive one.
I don't see why they didn't originally get Perception, either. That's why I gave it to them, along with other things that make sense for a professional soldier like Knowledge and Linguistics.
Rogues have other things besides lots of skill points, and they can have 10 (not like the class couldn't use a buff).
The question is whether or not the other stuff that the Rogue gets (eg Trapsense, Evasion, etc.) are equivalent to the ton of feats and better BAB Fighters get.Rogues have other things besides lots of skill points, and they can have 10 (not like the class couldn't use a buff).I wonder if the Rogue player agrees that giving the Fighter 8 skill points isn't massively unbalancing.I like 8. It's not massively unbalancing, but it makes a deal of sense for the Fighter to have an epic number of skills. It's not a complete fix, but it's an intuitive one.
I don't see why they didn't originally get Perception, either. That's why I gave it to them, along with other things that make sense for a professional soldier like Knowledge and Linguistics.
Not really. Rogues are pretty much useless compared to any non-Rogue build intended for the same things. That's not so much an issue with the Fighter (which is a bit underpowered compared to other full BAB classes) as it is with the Rogue. Rogues have lots of problems, but I don't think skill points are it, and I don't think making the Fighter smarter will change much.
I made up a new house rule regarding the Fighter. Fighters have 8 plus int modifier skill points per level and all Knowledge skills, Stealth, Perception, Acrobatics, Heal, Linguistics, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, Use magic Device, and Disable Device are class skills along with the normal class skills.
I mean no malice or hard feelings toward you, but this is a terrible idea. Speaking as a pure fighter player from 1-16, we really don't need this. At all. We kill things, we kill them well. Better than many classes. We don't need skills. We are not skill monkeys nor should we be.
I disagree. I think Fighters should focus on intelligence, training, and tactics, and have lots of skills, especially Knowledge skills. Any other full BAB class can already kill things as well as or better than a Fighter, as well as be useful outside of combat. The Fighter needs to catch up a bit, and the highly trained professional soldier makes perfect sense as a skill monkey.
There are few classes that can match the damage potential of an offensive fighter, and none of them can do so as reliably. I generally stay out of arguments regarding class balance, more so with classes I've not as much experience with, but current Fighters are nothing short of fantastic.
Maligor:
I had a defensive reply all typed out, but I'm not going to get into a hostile or defensive discourse with you in open forums. If you'd like to contact me and have a civil discussion contact me at EpicRPGBlog@gmail
My first reply in this thread was my answer, I wouldn't make wholesale changes to the classes.
However I do have ideas but they don't have to deal with classes, but with making weapon specialization and focus be more than +1 to hit or damage. For example Weapon focus would give you access to a weapon mastery trick. Weapon Focus (Flail) would let you choose from several abilities, such as Disarm +2, Bell Ringer, etc. But Greater Weapon Focus (Flail) Plus Weapon Specialization (Flail) Might let you choose from more specialized tricks like critical stun, trip +4, disarm +4 etc.
I haven't touched my original idea since Ultimate Combat came out, so I might actually make changes to it now..
I don't know why you need to make melee classes more attractive, people who want to play melee classes play melee classes, I've never had an issue with everyone wanting to play a caster, in fact a lot of times I'm lacking arcane casters more than melees.
It's not about damage!
Casters don't have an advantage because of their damage potential. Any argument that includes raising a martial character's damage output is completely missing the point. The only thing that will do is make GMs give monsters more hit points.
It's about control. It's about manipulation. It's about the fact that at the same level a Fighter has Cleave, a Wizard has Color Spray and Sleep. At the level Rogues do an extra 5d6 damage, a Cleric had Greater Command and Symbol of Sleep.
The fact is, casters, generally speaking, don't care about their damage output. That's not why they're there and it's not what they do. They can deal damage when they need to, but it is not what makes them powerful.
There are few classes that can match the damage potential of an offensive fighter, and none of them can do so as reliably. I generally stay out of arguments regarding class balance, more so with classes I've not as much experience with, but current Fighters are nothing short of fantastic.
That's just not true. Out of all the full BAB classes, the Fighter is the one that is consistently outclassed. For sheer DPR, you want a Barbarian or Paladin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin Damage is Nice. But then you run into a group of Neutral Mercs, or neutral anything for that matter. THEN the Paladin plays backup hero and prays for the day when his sins will be forgiven for whatever brought these NONEVIL things to his doorstep that have a beef with him.
The only limit on Barbarian damage if he's wielding a Two Handed weapon is...well, there is none. 1.5x your STR bonus means that if you somehow get a strength modifier of +10, it just became +15, and your numbers get huge and wonky. On the other hand, if you're a two weapon fighting Barbarian (which is foolish, but hear me out) or using a one-handed weapon (also foolish, but hear me out), then you're looking at +4/+4 on everything AT MOST when you're raging.
Fighter gets +6 to hit, and +8 to damage across 20 levels if they pick one weapon for the weapon focus/specialization/etc tree, and have said weapon as your first weapon training weapon. And if you're a dragoon with a lance, that number just became +6/+12.
You've got it backwards. Barbarian Rage runs out. Paladin Smite runs out even FASTER depending on how many enemies he smites that day, and if his enemies aren't evil (such as stupid, naturally neutral animals), he's kind of useless as a frontliner other than as a Meat Shield. Fighter Damage is Forever. IT does not run out. It never stops. As long as they have their chosen weapon, they can keep doing that incredible damage all day, every day.
This is not an argument about damage Vs. Damage. It's about consumable resources versus static resources across a day of adventure. The point of consumable resources is that they let you stack high the damage and the destruction for a short period of time. (Paladin Smite, Wizard Spells, etc.) They run out fast if the DM knows what he's doing.
Meanwhile, Fighter Damage is the ultimate Static Resource. It's there all day, every day, and when you've got 8 encounters in the final showdown of your campaign...you'll be staring in awe at the majesty of the Damage That Doesn't Die Down. The Fighter reigns supreme on the battlefield, with this and 22 to 23 feats across 20 levels. Bring out the builds, and if you've got a real tinkerer on your hands, his fighter is a terrifying beast of battle.
I think you are overestimating how often resources run out for Paladins and Barbarians. It's not very common, and any intelligent party rests after each fight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
THAT sounds like a party whose DM has never imposed a time limit, penalized a party for taking 3 weeks to do a 2 day quest, and whose never read the CR system/guidelines very closely. That's just...well, that's just gross negligence on the DM's part. I apologize for saying so, but no party should EVER be given that much time to do ANYTHING.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are few classes that can match the damage potential of an offensive fighter, and none of them can do so as reliably. I generally stay out of arguments regarding class balance, more so with classes I've not as much experience with, but current Fighters are nothing short of fantastic.That's just not true. Out of all the full BAB classes, the Fighter is the one that is consistently outclassed. For sheer DPR, you want a Barbarian or Paladin.
I dunno. Perhaps I'm not up on DPR builds these days, but every DPR cap in core is owned by the Fighter, and out of core they get some other goodies. Off the top of my head, the only way I can imagine a barbarian beating a Fighter in DPR is with pounce+lance, but if a Fighter had Pounce he'd take it right back, I think.
For example, static damage is where it's at. By 20th level, a Fighter can sport a +12 Strength easily enough. Two handed weapon brings you to +18, then +7 from training with gloves, +4 specializations. Toss in the fact that the +7 from weapon training means having a net +1 to hit power attacking for another +18 damage. So per strike the Fighter is looking at +52 damage with a +5 weapon, and you auto-crit and your multiplier is increased by x1. Likewise, you have the feats to spec dual wielding, so you can get some gnarly damage with a double-weapon since by RAW it's still a 2 handed weapon and you take attack penalties but not damage penalties for dual-wielding (so you get full PA benefit, x1.5 strength mod, and with double slice you deal full strength on off hands, etc).
The 2 handed Fighter humorously just kills people with single-strikes. Scythe-wielding 2handed fighter can make a single attack at -5 (which will still hit due to your +9 to hit from Training/Focus) to auto-crit for weapon damage x5, which is basically 10d4+260 or an average of 285 damage plus any critical feats which activate. It also is one of the few Fighters that doesn't have to worry about full-attacking, so can remain quite mobile.
Problem is Fighters don't have options. :P
THAT sounds like a party whose DM has never imposed a time limit, penalized a party for taking 3 weeks to do a 2 day quest, and whose never read the CR system/guidelines very closely. That's just...well, that's just gross negligence on the DM's part. I apologize for saying so, but no party should EVER be given that much time to do ANYTHING.
Don't insult me.
There are few classes that can match the damage potential of an offensive fighter, and none of them can do so as reliably. I generally stay out of arguments regarding class balance, more so with classes I've not as much experience with, but current Fighters are nothing short of fantastic.That's just not true. Out of all the full BAB classes, the Fighter is the one that is consistently outclassed. For sheer DPR, you want a Barbarian or Paladin.I dunno. Perhaps I'm not up on DPR builds these days, but every DPR cap in core is owned by the Fighter, and out of core they get some other goodies. Off the top of my head, the only way I can imagine a barbarian beating a Fighter in DPR is with pounce+lance, but if a Fighter had Pounce he'd take it right back, I think.
For example, static damage is where it's at. By 20th level, a Fighter can sport a +12 Strength easily enough. Two handed weapon brings you to +18, then +7 from training with gloves, +4 specializations. Toss in the fact that the +7 from weapon training means having a net +1 to hit power attacking for another +18 damage. So per strike the Fighter is looking at +52 damage with a +5 weapon, and you auto-crit and your multiplier is increased by x1. Likewise, you have the feats to spec dual wielding, so you can get some gnarly damage with a double-weapon since by RAW it's still a 2 handed weapon and you take attack penalties but not damage penalties for dual-wielding (so you get full PA benefit, x1.5 strength mod, and with double slice you deal full strength on off hands, etc).
The 2 handed Fighter humorously just kills people with single-strikes. Scythe-wielding 2handed fighter can make a single attack at -5 (which will still hit due to your +9 to hit from Training/Focus) to auto-crit for weapon damage x5, which is basically 10d4+260 or an average of 285 damage plus any critical feats which activate. It also is one of the few Fighters that doesn't have to worry about full-attacking, so can...
Huh. Interesting. The best I've ever seen is a THF Barbarian.
Without nerfing spellcasters any? I've heard some suggestions, such as letting Fighters ignore some feat prerequisites or giving them more skill points, and I'd love to hear more. Personally, I really think it comes down to giving martial characters more versatility, not more power, as I feel that issues of versatility is where all the disparity comes from, but how does one go about doing this?
I don't there is a supposed caster / martial disparity. I think there is a caster / melee disparity.
Fighters? Yes, I do think they have a problem, but that is already debated in other threads, like this one .Of all the core classes I think the most problematic are rogue, fighter and monk.
As for nerfing spell casters? I would not. (although I would probably nerf some of the options in UM. ).
Better boost the fighter, Rogue and vanilla Monk.
some fixes:
move + more than one attack.
Boost saves at higher levels (fighter and Rogue)
less feat taxes
Better out-of-combat problem-solving utility stuff
Most of the problems can actually be fixed with feats, rogue talents or Ki powers. Paizo don't need to re write the book.
More skills to the fighter? A feat that lets him add 2 skill points every time he levels up as a fighter.
Better saves?
Improved bravery
Prereq: Fighter 6.
Benefit: Add +2 to will Saves. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels beyond 6nd
Rogues: Let them pick Improved Feint and Gang Up as rogue talents without any prereq. At higher levels they should be able to Feint as a swift action. Feat or Talents that let them use dex instead of str to damage. Say, prereq: rogue 6.
Etc, Etc. Most can be fixed with feats.
Some stuff needs to be redone.
Vital strike.
Remove or rework Combat Expertise or make it a trait.
Slim down or rework or remove some of the feat taxes/feat chains.
Remove weapon fines. Let any character use dex or str when he attacks in melee, or make weapon fines a part of some classes's Weapon Proficiency.
However I do have ideas but they don't have to deal with classes, but with making weapon specialization and focus be more than +1 to hit or damage. For example Weapon focus would give you access to a weapon mastery trick. Weapon Focus (Flail) would let you choose from several abilities, such as Disarm +2, Bell Ringer, etc. But Greater Weapon Focus (Flail) Plus Weapon Specialization (Flail) Might let you choose from more specialized tricks like critical stun, trip +4, disarm +4 etc.See, those are pretty good ideas for Fighters.
I don't know why you need to make melee classes more attractive
I don't. I just answer the threads I find interesting.
The Rogue is the only class that needs a tweak, in my mind. Even then it need not be damage output, but more about making SA easier to deliver, but make it a standard action to employ (to reduce all the TWF SA jazz). That and the combat styles I mentioned previously.But the big stuff I mentioned above is what I'd do to put non-casters on the same level as casters. In my experience with d20 (as in d&d 3.x and PF), casters dominate the mid-to-high level game while non-casters celebrate incomparably small victories.
The Rogue is the only class that needs a tweak, in my mind. Even then it need not be damage output, but more about making SA easier to deliver, but make it a standard action to employ (to reduce all the TWF SA jazz). That and the combat styles I mentioned previously.
I'd rather be rid of SA completely.
The Rogue is the only class that needs a tweak, in my mind. Even then it need not be damage output, but more about making SA easier to deliver, but make it a standard action to employ (to reduce all the TWF SA jazz). That and the combat styles I mentioned previously.I'd rather be rid of SA completely.
How would the Rogue be useful in combat? Or even considered "dangerous"? Please consider that giant monsters are common enemies in PF, with all their CMB/CMD.
Don't insult me.
Sorry. Did not mean it to be like that. I did not realize...yeah. Sorry.
But a lot of the things you're talking about are fixed through the the use of time limits, and punishing the party for dragging their feet, or making it so that finding safe campsites is a difficult task indeed. Never let the party set the pace of play, or they'll relax, drink tea and steamroll the opposition with their vast supply of daily reloaded resources. The "disparity" between Caster / Martial is usually caused through either rules loopholes, or through Casters not being forced to unload their daily resources throughout the day.
If you don't force a party to use it's resources throughout an actual day of adventuring, the classes with Static, Guaranteed power always look bad. :(
Huh. Interesting. The best I've ever seen is a THF Barbarian.
Natural Attack Barbs, lul. I can't type this enough, its all about natural attacks :) See here.
One thing that would help rogues a lot is if they actually benefited from critical hits. Sneak attack should be affected by crits. How lame is it that when they crit, they get to often only add an additional 1d6 damage?
Perhaps when they crit, treat this as an opportunity to deal Sneak Damage. Sneak damage wouldn't be multiplied, even if the target is flanked. This gives Rogues another avenue to produce sneak damage w/o the hassle of flanking. And at first glance this isn't imba because crit chances are so low, that he'll still want to try and get a flanking position.
--PC