I don't agree on the all good saves bit, but I think all classes should get perception as a class skill, so I'm with you on that.
I don't agree on the all good saves bit, but I think all classes should get perception as a class skill, so I'm with you on that.
I'm not sure how much anyone cares, but oldschool pre-3E fighters had saves that rivaled Paladins. A dwarf, halfling, or gnome Fighter could be made with saves better than a Paladin as easily as not tanking your Con.
I made a fighter homebrew not long ago. It's not perfect, but some of its ideas seemed pretty obvious to me:
Perception as a Class skill
4 skill ranks per level.
Good reflex saves. (why the hell fighters don't have this????)
Bravery (renamed Braveheart) granted bonus against mind control effects
Ability to use Con instead of Int or Wis for the purpose of fulfilling prerequisites to get Combat Feats and entering PrC with no spell casting progression.
Pounce at 11th level.
Full attack as an standar action at 20th level.
Plus a lot of abilites that use swift actions. It's class features were highly customizable too.
There you go, more out of combat utility, better protection against spells and higher mobility.
I made a fighter homebrew not long ago. It's not perfect, but some of its ideas seemed pretty obvious to me:
Perception as a Class skill
4 skill ranks per level.
I think this should be the standard really. Virtually every class in Star Wars d20 has 4 + Int modifier. Even their version of Fighter (the Soldier, whose abilities are more or less identical to the 3.x Fighter which was out at the same time). If memory serves, the only class with 2 + Int modifier was the thug NPC class.
Pounce at 11th level.
Full attack as an standar action at 20th level.
I think it would be nice if we could give all characters the ability to move and full attack at some points. They were doing it back in 3E and it wasn't broken then. They were just using 3.0 haste to do it. All martials suffer from this problem. :(
Plus a lot of abilites that use swift actions. It's class features were highly customizable too.
I can get down with this too. One of the nice things about psychic warriors and tome of battle classes was they got things that they could use as swift actions regularly. Stuff like Arcane Strike for bards is a great example of good swift-action feats. I'd like to see some more swift-action options for martials.
There you go, more out of combat utility, better protection against spells and higher mobility.
Seems better all the way around. I think the Fighter's biggest problem is a conceptual one. Fighters try so hard not to fall into any particular niche (and thus remain generic) that it's hard for designers to give them good class features that aren't equally as generic and bland (as demonstrated by stuff like Weapon Training and Armor Training).
Another thing I'd like to see for martials is more scaling feats (for example, Arcane Strike scales, while stuff like Vital Strike does not), and for heavens sake can't we lower the prerequisites on some stuff? There's a lot of feats that are very mundane but require huge BAB requirements, preventing martials from getting access to them until high levels. For example, Critical Focus merely grants a 20% bonus on confirming a critical but requires 9th level minimum; while Strike Back is a terrible feat and requires a 11th level minimum; and Dreadful Carnage requires 11th level minimum and it's nothing but a free Intimidate to Demoralize nearby foes when you kill an opponent.
If we're going to make feats that require you to be really high levels, can't we have feats that are sufficiently fantastic for that level of play? I mean, an 11th level feat that allows you to attack with your melee weapon at a distance like a boomerang (such as chucking your sword at a target, then using your iterative attack to strike an additional target, until you miss or run out of iterative attacks, whereupon the sword lands back in your hands; like some sort of boomerang-chain-lightning).
Agreed that some of it didn't need to be deleted, but I understand it's easier and less controversial for mod's to just delete entire posts instead of editing them.
@ciretose and Ashiel:
I appreciate the fact that both of you are willing to have me as your judge, but I really feel I'm not qualified. Surely someone with better rules mastery is willing to do it. I believe Bob_Loblaw would do a much better job than me. I'll throw in my 2 cents if asked for.
My suggestion for the build challenge is reaching a compromise, each one of you (or a judge of your choice) creates, let's say, 3 reasonably different test/challenges for each character level you decide to try.
Then, you use the same build in all tests/challenges and a post it in a separate thread so anyone can see...
Let's say, 2/3 test must be combat related. Fight lots of thing, fight one big thing, fight caster-like things, etc...
The remaining 1/3 should be more diversified situations, but not one that strays too far from what a fighter/ranger/paladin/barbarian/whatever is supposed to be able to go through without the aid of other classes (even if they sweat it a little). A hall with deadly traps is a good example, invading a fortress too.
Since it appears much of it was deleted (a bit more than was needed IMHO) are we doing the build by build with lemmy as the rule judge or not.
I'll provide builds for a scenario evaluation test and people can judge it as they see fit. Something akin to a Same Game Test.
I gave an example, which may have been missed, so here it is again.
Underground Lake w/ Hidden Treasures/Dangers.
An urban chase scene.
Avoiding an overpowering encounter.
A trapped dungeon.
Archers firing from a cliff.
Tracking someone.
Fighting a vampire and its thralls.
Realizing you're being lied to.
Getting past a very sturdy door with a lock.
Communicating with foreigners (can you speak goblin, magwi, or draconic?).
Fighting a mage post 10th level.
Going through a treacherous bog.
A spider and ettercap infested forest.
Attacked by drow armed with darkness and drow-poisoned weaponry.
Faced with a monster with a mix of brains and brawn (such as a neothelid).
Dealing with monsters with annoying tactical routines (such as ogremagi who have invisibility, regeneration, flying, cone of cold, etc).
Avoiding a nightime ambush in your camp (enemies sneaking up during your rest).
Helping a wounded friend (ally is in below 0 hp).
Helping a sick friend (ally has contracted a dangerous disease).
Helping a poisoned friend (say ally picked up an item laced with black lotus).
Ambushing opponents (the ogre guarding the door is asleep, what do you do?).
Fleeing from enemies (when things go bad, can you slow pursuers, trick them onto the wrong path, etc).
Can you get your treasure out of the dungeon (when you discover that the 3,000 gp worth of treasure is treasure at a 1:1 ratio of gold to pounds, such as finding lots of copper or iron bars, statues, copper pieces, or trade goods such as livestock, bolts of cloth, or suits of armor)?
Your wagon broke, how do you deal with it?
You have to reach X location overland in the shortest amount of time.
You find yourself in arial combat (maybe you decided it would be worth trying to drop the ring in the volcano from the sky, and are attacked by undead knights riding wyverns).
Your favorite weapon has been lost/broke/stolen.
One of your friends has been dominated by a vampire.
One of your friends has been turned into a vampire.
There is a spy in your midst (one of the people you saved is actually a simulacrum spy for the evil of the hour, or is actually a disguised drow assassin).
Sabotage an enemy from within (swallow hole doesn't count, but poisoning an army's food supplies might, or planting a sword in their leader while he sleeps, or stealing all their potions and consumables, or rigging their weapons to break or fail when used).
My suggestion for the build challenge is reaching a compromise, each one of you (or a judge of your choice) creates, let's say, 3 reasonably different test/challenges for each character level you decide to try.
Then, you use the same build in all tests/challenges and a post it in a separate thread so anyone can see...
Let's say, 2/3 test must be combat related. Fight lots of thing, fight one big thing, fight caster-like things, etc...
The remaining 1/3 should be more diversified situations, but not one that strays too far from what a fighter/ranger/paladin/barbarian/whatever is supposed to be able to go through without the aid of other classes (even if they sweat it a little). A hall with deadly traps is a good example, invading a fortress too.
Seems pretty reasonable. I would be willing to do some variation of this.
Another thing I'd like to see for martials is more scaling feats (for example, Arcane Strike scales, while stuff like Vital Strike does not), and for heavens sake can't we lower the prerequisites on some stuff? There's a lot of feats that are very mundane but require huge BAB requirements, preventing martials from getting access to them until high levels.
This. A thousand times this.
In my table we removed Combat Expertise as a prerequisite to Improved/Greater Maneuver feats.
Also, TWF, Vital Strike, Improved/Greater (Combat Maneuver) and pretty much every feat with a Imrpoved/Greater version were condensed into a single feat that scales BAB. A few other feats that are not exactly improved version but are too closely related were unified too (Doge/Mobility and Improved Shield Bash/Shield Focus IIRC... I'd have to check the Modified Feats List we made)
We also seriosuly considered completely removing power attack, deadly aim and combat expertise, instead turnning them into stuff anyone with a BAB of +1 or greater can do. Maybe even Lunge too!
Additionaly, do any of you guys, specially Ashiel and ciretose, have a Fighter homebrew you really like? A what about said homebrew is your reason for liking it?
Ciretose, each one of you propose, let's say, 4 challenges, 3 combat-related (with different types of creatures), 1 focused on... well... anything else. If one of you decides to make these challenges blatantly easier for one class or another, we can all suggest a different idea.
Let's say 3 encounters, all same CR:
1- Neutral creature on Ranger's Favored Enemy list.
2- Evil creature not on ranger's Favored Enemy list.
3- Neutral creature not on ranger's Favored Enemy list.
Repeat once for multiple creatures and another time caster-like creatures, always following the same criteria. These total 9 combats for each character level.
add another 3 non-combat challenges. Let's say, defend a village from an orc tribe, escape the evil wizard's dungeon, find the missing child, gather information about/sabotage the enemy army, get and audition with the king, etc.
You can also pick from a online list of challenges like Ashiel proposed or ask for another person to post something fair.
Let's say we allow CRB, APG, UC and UM. Feel free to suggest any other book. 20pt buy and Standard WBL for all character at all levels.
Stick to RAW. No RAI.
Finally, the most important and most difficult ingredient: common sense. No, there are no penalties for not sleeping, and no, there is no rule explaining gravity either, but please, do not assume the DM is an idiot. You cannot go ten year without sleeping and you cannot air walk (well, unless you actually have access to Air Walk spell or something)
As an optional rule, I'd ban Leadership. I hate that feat.
YOU HEAR THAT, LEADERSHIP? I BET YOUR MOM WAS A TRAIT OR A MONK VOW!
Another thing I'd like to see for martials is more scaling feats (for example, Arcane Strike scales, while stuff like Vital Strike does not), and for heavens sake can't we lower the prerequisites on some stuff? There's a lot of feats that are very mundane but require huge BAB requirements, preventing martials from getting access to them until high levels.
Have to agree here as well. One of the few places where Pathfinder took a step back from 3.5 was in escalating some of the feat taxes on martial characters. All the fighter's bonus feats lose a lot of their shine when every single thing you might want to do eats up 3 or more feats.
i think that's a big part of why using a 2-handed weapon is still generally seen as the best option for melee; it's the only combat style that doesn't come with a huge feat tax attached.
I'll also second Ashiel's suggestion for creating a few ToB-esque maneuvers for higher-level fighter feats. High-level fighters should be able to pull off some insanely badass stunts.
We also seriosuly considered completely removing power attack, deadly aim and combat expertise, instead turnning them into stuff anyone with a BAB of +1 or greater can do. Maybe even Lunge too!
I could get behind this. Power attack is already a feat tax on martials who want to melee. Just rolling power attack and combat expertise into the core mechanics and dropping the feats would not be a bad idea (or drop combat expertise entirely, since it has a lot of overlap with Fighting Defensively).
I was recently reading my copy of OSRIC (1E D&D) and there's an optional rule (fighter specialization is an optional rule as well, so one is just as valid as the other) that allows Fighters to trade excess attack for damage (if your to-hit bonuses meant you hit foes on a roll of 1+, then you got your excess to-hit mods as damage), so if you had a +15 to hit and your opponent only had a 10 AC you'd get +6 damage on every hit against them.
It's kind of mind blowing how awesome Fighters are in 1E. Another thing they get to do is make a crapton of attacks vs mooks. Fighters get 1 attack for every level against NPC-class characters (those who are "0-level"). So a 20th level Fighter fighting goblins would get 20 attacks per round (goodbye you poor green critters :o).
Then they also gained more attacks sooner than Paladins and Rangers (who could also weapon specialize). And they had saves that were awesome, and could become better than Paladins (who specifically noted their awesome saves as a class feature).
Then they only took a -2 penalty when they were fighting with a weapon they didn't have proficiency with, and got more proficiency points than other classes too. I was like "Wow, these Fighters are awesome". :P
Additionaly, do any of you guys, specially Ashiel and ciretose, have a Fighter homebrew you really like? A what about said homebrew is your reason for liking it?
I haven't really bothered with a homebrew at the moment. Most of us use Fighter as a dipping class. My brother and I are the only ones in our group who have built Fighters anytime recently. With Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Antipaladin, and 3.x backwards compatibility (allowing stuff like Warblades), we've usually got our martial needs fulfilled.
If I was to homebrew a Fighter remix, I'd definitely try to capture more of a classic fighter feel, while giving them some tricks that they could use with their swift actions and such.
We also seriosuly considered completely removing power attack, deadly aim and combat expertise, instead turnning them into stuff anyone with a BAB of +1 or greater can do. Maybe even Lunge too!I could get behind this. Power attack is already a feat tax on martials who want to melee. Just rolling power attack and combat expertise into the core mechanics and dropping the feats would not be a bad idea (or drop combat expertise entirely, since it has a lot of overlap with Fighting Defensively).
With this idea, Combat Expertise would substitute Fighting Defensevely. It's much better anyway.
I was recently reading my copy of OSRIC (1E D&D) and there's an optional rule (fighter specialization is an optional rule as well, so one is just as valid as the other) that allows Fighters to trade excess attack for damage (if your to-hit bonuses meant you hit foes on a roll of 1+, then you got your excess to-hit mods as damage), so if you had a +15 to hit and your opponent only had a 10 AC you'd get +6 damage on every hit against them.
That's an awesome idea. Except it might help the players meta-game quite a bit, unless the DM hides how much damage was dealt. (I personally hide the enemies HP, AC and everything else, but let everyone know how much damage was dealt to a given enemy)
I haven't really bothered with a homebrew at the moment. Most of us use Fighter as a dipping class.
Not necessarily one that you use, but is there one that you believe is balanced and well made?
With this idea, Combat Expertise would substitute Fighting Defensevely. It's much better anyway.We also seriosuly considered completely removing power attack, deadly aim and combat expertise, instead turnning them into stuff anyone with a BAB of +1 or greater can do. Maybe even Lunge too!I could get behind this. Power attack is already a feat tax on martials who want to melee. Just rolling power attack and combat expertise into the core mechanics and dropping the feats would not be a bad idea (or drop combat expertise entirely, since it has a lot of overlap with Fighting Defensively).
I more or less agree, with the Caveat that combat expertise starts off pretty weak. Most of my games begin at 1st level, so I like stuff to work from low to high. At low levels it's only a +5% evasion chance, until you hit BAB +4, then it's +10%. It might not be too bad, but currently Fighting Defensively is kind of the sexier option for those trying to stay alive at lower levels (it's +2 to AC, and +3 to AC with 3 ranks in Acrobatics). Plus, I think defensive fighting needs to be a little bit better since it's tactically inferior in most cases (unless you're fighting mooks). I'd need to think about it for a bit.
I do agree that just making combat expertise replace defensive fighting would definitely be more elegant. It scales nicely. I think total defense would need to scale in a similar fashion if we did that though (by 12th level your fighting defensively would be identical to a total defense), and I do think that if a high level warrior wants to go all "soresu" and take a total defense that it should be a nigh impervious defense.
I was recently reading my copy of OSRIC (1E D&D) and there's an optional rule (fighter specialization is an optional rule as well, so one is just as valid as the other) that allows Fighters to trade excess attack for damage (if your to-hit bonuses meant you hit foes on a roll of 1+, then you got your excess to-hit mods as damage), so if you had a +15 to hit and your opponent only had a 10 AC you'd get +6 damage on every hit against them.That's an awesome idea. Except it might help the players meta-game quite a bit, unless the DM hides how much damage was dealt. (I personally hide the enemies HP, AC and everything else, but let everyone know how much damage was dealt to a given enemy)
Well I was just giving an example of how Fighters in 1E had cool abilities that made them stand out. I'm not saying that auto-converting excess hit to damage is a good idea in 3.x/PF (mostly because in 1E you don't have penalties on extra attacks, and converting excess to-hit to damage would be weird).
Now what would be kind of cool would be if warriors (or martials in general) could trade their BAB down. Imagine if a Fighter could go from +20/+15/+10/+5 to +20/+20/+15 or +15/+14/+13/+13 on demand (essentially allowing him to shift emphasis of his different attacks, as long as none of them exceeded his maximum BAB). The only problem is it would probably slow down gameplay like old power attack could (since you'd decide how much of a penalty you'd take on one to add to another).
I haven't really bothered with a homebrew at the moment. Most of us use Fighter as a dipping class.Not necessarily one that you use, but is there one that you believe is balanced and well made?
I've seen some, but I don't recall where exactly. I think the best one was actually part of a set that converted the core 3.5 martials to function more like the Tome of Battle classes and used the Tome of Battle as a resource (allowing Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins to pickup maneuvers and stances, and assigning them appropriate styles such; like Fighters specializing in Iron Heart type stuff while Rangers got the Tiger thingy, and Paladins used stuff like White Raven and Devoted Spirit).
Another thing I'd like to see for martials is more scaling feats (for example, Arcane Strike scales, while stuff like Vital Strike does not), and for heavens sake can't we lower the prerequisites on some stuff? There's a lot of feats that are very mundane but require huge BAB requirements, preventing martials from getting access to them until high levels.Have to agree here as well. One of the few places where Pathfinder took a step back from 3.5 was in escalating some of the feat taxes on martial characters. All the fighter's bonus feats lose a lot of their shine when every single thing you might want to do eats up 3 or more feats.
i think that's a big part of why using a 2-handed weapon is still generally seen as the best option for melee; it's the only combat style that doesn't come with a huge feat tax attached.
I'll also second Ashiel's suggestion for creating a few ToB-esque maneuvers for higher-level fighter feats. High-level fighters should be able to pull off some insanely badass stunts.
Yeah. That's really bugged the hell out of me. We went from 7 feats over 20 levels to 10 feats over 20 levels, but half the martial feats got nerfed or split in two. To get +20% on their combat maneuvers in 3.5, you could take 3 feats and get +4 grapple, +4 disarm, +4 sunder, while in Pathfinder you have to spend 6 feats. So instead of 3/7 (less than half your feats and only 30% of a fighter's bonus feats) you have 6/10 (more than half or 60% of a fighter's bonus feats). When you count prerequisites which are nonsensical (neither combat expertise nor power attack have anything to do with the combat maneuvers nor help them) it rises to 8/10.
And you are so right. You can't wipe your ass in Pathfinder without at least having the Wipe Your Ass feat, but not before grabbing the Pick Your Nose feat and Improved Breathing as prerequisites; requiring you to be 6th level before you can properly apply the toilet paper to your derriere. :P
By the time a Fighter is 20th level, he should be able to preform brain surgery to remove a tumor in a goblin's skull with a throwing knife from 20 feet away without killing it.
I believe I saw this homebrew in the GiantITP.com forums... It's was named "A quick and dirty ToB fix to martial classes" IIRC. It was indeed a very interesting idea.
The only reason me and my friends didn't use it is that out of 6 of us, only 2 have any experience with ToB.
Varying BAB would be cool. instead of getting a near useless 4th attack, increase your 3rd attack. +20/+15/+15. I suppose that could slow down combat, but what if it's something with more limited choices like "give up your last attack and add it's BAB as a bonus to your second to last attack."
So it's either 20/15/10/5 or 20/15/15, which is usually much more useful, unless you are fighting some very, very weak mooks.
Ciretose, each one of you propose, let's say, 4 challenges, 3 combat-related (with different types of creatures), 1 focused on... well... anything else. If one of you decides to make these challenges blatantly easier for one class or another, we can all suggest a different idea.
I'm fine with that, but I am curious as to why Ciretose isn't fine with the list of challenges I posed above. Unless he thinks "your cart is broken, what do you do" or "the NPCs speak a different language" or "you're ambushed by goblins" is somehow being really biased. I put down a wide assortment of adventuring scenarios (many of them inspired by actual games, and the underground lake bit was inspired by the 3.0 DMG). If they seem biased against the Fighter, then I actually rest my case. :\
Let's say 3 encounters, all same CR:
1- Neutral creature on Ranger's Favored Enemy list.
2- Evil creature not on ranger's Favored Enemy list.
3- Neutral creature not on ranger's Favored Enemy list.
All anyone needs to do to tailor encounters against any ranger I make is just avoid the favored enemies I will take. That is, undead, magical beasts, aberrations, and probably evil outsiders. I won't even complain if I never see any of those show up during the tests (a big part of this is because I see that as a gravy ability, and at high levels I have Craft Wondrous Item, Pearls of Power, and Instant Enemy).
Repeat once for multiple creatures and another time caster-like creatures, always following the same criteria. These total 9 combats for each character level.
You can also pick from a online list of challenges like Ashiel proposed or ask for another person to post something fair.
Let's say we allow CRB, APG, UC and UM. Feel free to suggest any other book. 20pt buy and Standard WBL for all character at all levels.
I would prefer 15 PB since it is standard point buy for Pathfinder, but 20 works as well.
Stick to RAW. No RAI.
My favorite. :)
Finally, the most important and most difficult ingredient: common sense. No, there are no penalties for not sleeping, and no, there is no rule explaining gravity either, but please, do not assume the DM is an idiot. You cannot go ten year without sleeping and you cannot air walk (well, unless you actually have access to Air Walk spell or something)
Actually, not sleeping produces horrible penalties. It won't actually kill you in D&D by the rules, but it will lead you to exhaustion which is a horrible status ailment (-6 penalty to Strength and Dexterity, cannot run or charge) and kind of makes regaining spells hard (if not impossible). But I get your point. Which is fine, because honestly, I don't try stupid stuff like that anyway.
As an optional rule, I'd ban Leadership. I hate that feat.
I don't hate the feat (and would allow it in my game, and have before) but it has obvious problems in a test such as this (a Ranger + Leadership is like a party all by itself, since you'd have ranger + pet + cohort with a potential pet for the cohort; which would be more than enough to deal with any challenge while also only counting as 1 character in terms of XP gain).
YOU HEAR THAT, LEADERSHIP? I BET YOUR MOM WAS A TRAIT OR A MONK VOW!
Lawlz. :P
I believe I saw this homebrew in the GiantITP.com forums... It's was named "A quick and dirty ToB fix to martial classes" IIRC. It was indeed a very interesting idea.
The only reason me and my friends didn't use it is that out of 6 of us, only 2 have any experience with ToB.Varying BAB would be cool. instead of getting a near useless 4th attack, increase your 3rd attack. +20/+15/+15. I suppose that could slow down combat, but what if it's something with more limited choices like "give up your last attack and add it's BAB as a bonus to your second to last attack."
So it's either 20/15/10/5 or 20/15/15, which is usually much more useful, unless you are fighting some very, very weak mooks.
A very simple hotfix I used in a game once was letting classes just take a -5 on their additional attacks and leaving it at that (like how monsters can fight with weapons and take their natural attacks at a -5). So martials had +20/+15/+15/+15, 3/4 classes had +15/+10/+10, and 1/2 classes had +10/+5. It obviously increased their DPR but it cut down on bookkeeping and made them more dangerous.
Actually Paladins had the exact same saves in 1E as Fighter, but with a +2 Class bonus.
The kicker was that paladins advanced slower then fighters, so the fighter would often be a level or 2 ahead, especially at higher levels.
So a paladin would have better saves then a fighter of the same level, but might be a little worse then a fighter of the same XP.
Paladins also had the tithe 10% of gold and only ten magic items limitation. On the flip side, you could have a holy avenger at level 10, so's...
:)
And in the UA version of the Paladin, they were a subset of cavaliar, and actually ended up with more attacks then a fighter, although they didn't get the damage bonus from Spec.
==Bob Drouin
Ignore stat and feat requirements for feats taken with Fighter Bonus feats, exactly like monks can do, would be excellent as a Fighter options.
Perception as a class skill wouldn't be out of line, either. Actually, I've always believed fighters should be able to just pick two class skills, which would generally solve the whole skill problem by letting people both customize and grab their favorites.
==Aelryinth
Actually Paladins had the exact same saves in 1E as Fighter, but with a +2 Class bonus.
The kicker was that paladins advanced slower then fighters, so the fighter would often be a level or 2 ahead, especially at higher levels.
So a paladin would have better saves then a fighter of the same level, but might be a little worse then a fighter of the same XP.
Paladins also had the tithe 10% of gold and only ten magic items limitation. On the flip side, you could have a holy avenger at level 10, so's...
:)
And in the UA version of the Paladin, they were a subset of cavaliar, and actually ended up with more attacks then a fighter, although they didn't get the damage bonus from Spec.
==Bob Drouin
The thing that was really loony was that dwarfs, gnomes, and halflings got the +1 bonus to saves for every 3.5 points of Con you have. AFAIK you can only be a human Paladin, but Fighter is legal for all of those races. Which is kind of awesome, because Fighter saves +5 is amazing. :o
EDIT: The game doesn't mention the saves in Baldur's Gate I & II, but they're there. When I learned of the bonus to saves, I decided to test it out. Made an entire party of dwarfs, gnomes, and halflings. Enemies like sirens which normally are capable of ruining your day and forcing a reload were cut down as my warriors just wailed on them, nearly immune to their charms and spells. :P
EDIT 2: Because I'm such a nerd, I came up with a name for their adventuring company. "Kaelsa and the Anklebiters". The save file was called "Shorties". :P
|
@Lemmy
I know you are trying to compromise, but each of us posting showcase scenarios will demonstrate nothing. This is exactly the issue I have with what she has posted so far.
It's the Lamborghini vs Rowboat argument. If I can create a scenario where the clear class advantages are advantageous, so what. Having us alternate who does that demonstrates nothing.
This is much of my issue with what has been posted in the walls of text up to this point. Lots of wins over strawmen you create is not the same as actually taking the build into a campaign.
What would be useful is looking at actual published adventures that neither of us have any control over setting up. Or if we can agree on a person, letting them create scenarios as part of a "campaign".
Having each of us create strawmen is what has been going on up to this point an frankly is the a lot problem I have with what Ashiel generally posts.
|
@Lemmy
I know you are trying to compromise, but each of us posting showcase scenarios will demonstrate nothing. This is exactly the issue I have with what she has posted so far.
It's the Lamborghini vs Rowboat argument. If I can create a scenario where the clear class advantages are advantageous, so what. Having us alternate who does that demonstrates nothing.
This is much of my issue with what has been posted in the walls of text up to this point. Lots of wins over strawmen you create is not the same as actually taking the build into a campaign.
What would be useful is looking at actual published adventures that neither of us have any control over setting up. Or if we can agree on a person, letting them create scenarios as part of a "campaign".
Having each of us create strawmen is what has been going on up to this point an frankly is the a lot problem I have with what Ashiel generally posts.
I've been saying this the entire time.
The value of the fighter is purely subjective and will always remain so. Doesn't matter how many walls of text you want to put up, the end result is always the same.
@Lemmy
I know you are trying to compromise, but each of us posting showcase scenarios will demonstrate nothing. This is exactly the issue I have with what she has posted so far.
It's the Lamborghini vs Rowboat argument. If I can create a scenario where the clear class advantages are advantageous, so what. Having us alternate who does that demonstrates nothing.
This is much of my issue with what has been posted in the walls of text up to this point. Lots of wins over strawmen you create is not the same as actually taking the build into a campaign.
What would be useful is looking at actual published adventures that neither of us have any control over setting up. Or if we can agree on a person, letting them create scenarios as part of a "campaign".
Having each of us create strawmen is what has been going on up to this point an frankly is the a lot problem I have with what Ashiel generally posts.
I disagree. What I'm proposing is more akin to taking a map, laying it out on the table, then comparing how you can get to your destination, which roads you can take, which bridges you can cross, etc. It's not about any single scenario, but a list of scenarios which represent an adventuring environment over the course of a campaign.
But what exactly is wrong with the list that I posted, shown here (again):
Underground Lake w/ Hidden Treasures/Dangers.
An urban chase scene.
Avoiding an overpowering encounter.
A trapped dungeon.
Archers firing from a cliff.
Tracking someone.
Fighting a vampire and its thralls.
Realizing you're being lied to.
Getting past a very sturdy door with a lock.
Communicating with foreigners (can you speak goblin, magwi, or draconic?).
Fighting a mage post 10th level.
Going through a treacherous bog.
A spider and ettercap infested forest.
Attacked by drow armed with darkness and drow-poisoned weaponry.
Faced with a monster with a mix of brains and brawn (such as a neothelid).
Dealing with monsters with annoying tactical routines (such as ogremagi who have invisibility, regeneration, flying, cone of cold, etc).
Avoiding a nightime ambush in your camp (enemies sneaking up during your rest).
Helping a wounded friend (ally is in below 0 hp).
Helping a sick friend (ally has contracted a dangerous disease).
Helping a poisoned friend (say ally picked up an item laced with black lotus).
Ambushing opponents (the ogre guarding the door is asleep, what do you do?).
Fleeing from enemies (when things go bad, can you slow pursuers, trick them onto the wrong path, etc).
Can you get your treasure out of the dungeon (when you discover that the 3,000 gp worth of treasure is treasure at a 1:1 ratio of gold to pounds, such as finding lots of copper or iron bars, statues, copper pieces, or trade goods such as livestock, bolts of cloth, or suits of armor)?
Your wagon broke, how do you deal with it?
You have to reach X location overland in the shortest amount of time.
You find yourself in arial combat (maybe you decided it would be worth trying to drop the ring in the volcano from the sky, and are attacked by undead knights riding wyverns).
Your favorite weapon has been lost/broke/stolen.
One of your friends has been dominated by a vampire.
One of your friends has been turned into a vampire.
There is a spy in your midst (one of the people you saved is actually a simulacrum spy for the evil of the hour, or is actually a disguised drow assassin).
Sabotage an enemy from within (swallow hole doesn't count, but poisoning an army's food supplies might, or planting a sword in their leader while he sleeps, or stealing all their potions and consumables, or rigging their weapons to break or fail when used).
Or even the Same Game Test which neither of us have any control over. I'm more concerned with what's wrong with the other list though. If you think it's biased, then I think this argument is over, since they are just generic themes and situations not tailored to any class (which if a class looks at the list and says "that's not fair..." then we have a problem).
You keep trying to make analogs that don't fit what is being presented, because you're being obstinate; presumably because you simply dislike me as I dislike you, and you let that drive your motives more than it should.
|
|
@Lemmy
I know you are trying to compromise, but each of us posting showcase scenarios will demonstrate nothing. This is exactly the issue I have with what she has posted so far.
It's the Lamborghini vs Rowboat argument. If I can create a scenario where the clear class advantages are advantageous, so what. Having us alternate who does that demonstrates nothing.
This is much of my issue with what has been posted in the walls of text up to this point. Lots of wins over strawmen you create is not the same as actually taking the build into a campaign.
What would be useful is looking at actual published adventures that neither of us have any control over setting up. Or if we can agree on a person, letting them create scenarios as part of a "campaign".
Having each of us create strawmen is what has been going on up to this point an frankly is the a lot problem I have with what Ashiel generally posts.
I disagree. What I'm proposing is more akin to taking a map, laying it out on the table, then comparing how you can get to your destination, which roads you can take, which bridges you can cross, etc. It's not about any single scenario, but a list of scenarios which represent an adventuring environment over the course of a campaign.
But what exactly is wrong with the list that I posted, shown here (again):
** spoiler omitted **...
No matter what you do, it will not give any sort of concrete data on which class will out perform the other. You need a neutral DM who actually knows nothing about this little contest to run a game and then compare the two classes without his knowledge.
|
|
No matter what you do, it will not give any sort of concrete data on which class will out perform the other. You need a neutral DM who actually knows nothing about this little contest to run a game and then compare the two classes without his knowledge.
Which is why I said AP or module, even though it gives the Ranger the advantage of foresight with favored enemies.
|
|
I just clicked on the "Same Game Test" link, which was an example of exactly the problem I was talking about, with the added bonus of being written by someone with a predisposed bias that he spells out.
So no, I won't be following that, and you linking to it with a straight face is a bit disingenuous.
Why won't you agree to a judge and either an AP or modules. I'm letting you pick out the AP, and we picked a judge you "love".
Why are you insisting on the strawman model?
I just clicked on the "Same Game Test" link, which was an example of exactly the problem I was talking about, with the added bonus of being written by someone with a predisposed bias that he spells out.
Um, what?
|
|
I just clicked on the "Same Game Test" link, which was an example of exactly the problem I was talking about, with the added bonus of being written by someone with a predisposed bias that he spells out.Um, what?
It is all strawmen (Creating an enemy you can defeat, then declaring yourself victorious) and it is all about his personally predetermined power levels.
He literally says Fighters and Monks fall into lower levels.
Did you read the link before you posted it this time, or was it like in the other thread?
|
|
No matter what you do, it will not give any sort of concrete data on which class will out perform the other. You need a neutral DM who actually knows nothing about this little contest to run a game and then compare the two classes without his knowledge.That is not necessarily workable. The problem is that any particular DM will have a particular style that can lean towards one side or the other. I mean I have certainly played with DMs that run primarily social intrigue and stealth based adventures, and I have played with DMs that run combat fests. Any one DM will be unlikely to give an accurate cross section of the full spectrum of challenges that may come up due to their particular preferences.
However an AP is a pre-made full adventure. Same with a module or even a pathfinder scenario.
What we have way, way to much of is people creating strawman scenarios that they defeat and then declare themselves champion.
Using APs and modules have the added benefit of knowing that they were written specifically for the game as intended and not for personal home brews with stealthy glowing rocks.
No matter what you do, it will not give any sort of concrete data on which class will out perform the other. You need a neutral DM who actually knows nothing about this little contest to run a game and then compare the two classes without his knowledge.That is not necessarily workable. The problem is that any particular DM will have a particular style that can lean towards one side or the other. I mean I have certainly played with DMs that run primarily social intrigue and stealth based adventures, and I have played with DMs that run combat fests. Any one DM will be unlikely to give an accurate cross section of the full spectrum of challenges that may come up due to their particular preferences.
Exactly. Likewise, certain APs have noticeable and themes. Depending on which path you select you might get "biased results". That's also why I don't want to pick an adventure path, even if it's my choice, because I'd rather go with a generic acid test of widely different scenarios that can represent common events that can or could occur during a game.
When I wrote my adventure scenario list, I didn't have any classes in mind. I asked - specifically - what Ciretose finds biased about it, but he's just moaning on about it being biased without explaining what makes it biased. If someone else would like to add another dozen scenarios to the list (I can think of some more actually; like exploring a 5ft. wide tunnel, or fighting ship to ship, rescuing a child from a burning building, etc). Some of the examples are even taken from various books I've read (the underground lake is from the 3E DMG, the city chase scene is inspired from an AP; the spider infested forest is inspired by both Cloakwood forest from BG I and Murkwood from the Hobbit; the goblin ambush is based on an encounter I posted in another thread about touch attacks; archers from a cliff is mirrored in the Moria scene in the Fellowship of the Ring movie; the sleeping ogre is inspired by a commentary in the 3E DMG about when to award XP; the arial combat question was inspired by both the scene in the 3.x DMG of an archer on a griffon shooting at enemies and a LotR joke; the vampire domination is a reference to the 3E DMG that mentions Lidda being dominated by a vampire and forced to lure her friends into a trap; a trapped dungeon is generic D&D if there ever was; avoiding an overpowering encounter is based on the idea that at least 5% of encounters will be too strong for the PCs to face -- a "run you fools" moment --; fleeing from enemies is based on a popular strategy employed by Khalid from BG I and every smart poster on these boards; the treasure weight thing is based on every GM who has ever included difficult to port treasures; the broken wagon and overland movement question are based on realm adventuring which is a fantasy staple; etc, etc, etc;).
That's the sort of test I would be willing to do, and would be willing to build a character for. In essence, a test that tests the character under a variety of circumstances with no specific tailored theme, no GM bias, no adventure bias, and so forth. In fact, I'd love to add about 30 more obstacles of various sorts, including perhaps dealing with an annoying dragon employing flyby attack to haze enemies, and anything else folks can think of. But first, I'd like a real explanation as to why the list is biased in the first place.
AP/module sounds like a good idea.
Possible problems are
Their encounters/challenges are usually made with a whole party in game. Not a lonely character.
Who is to say how each creature/enemy/ally would react?
What is the criteria of determining a Class' perfomance compared to another?
Strawmen are not the best of idea... But are somewhat possible to make via forum.
Ciretose, please, explain your idea for such contest.
|
|
AP/module sounds like a good idea.
Possible problems are
Their encounters/challenges are usually made with a whole party in game. Not a lonely character.
Who is to say how each creature/enemy/ally would react?
What is the criteria of determining a Class' perfomance compared to another?Strawmen are not the best of idea... But are somewhat possible to make via forum.
Ciretose, please, explain your idea for such contest.
I will go one better and show you.
It has faded out as we lost judges.
And I don't need it to be nearly this detailed.
I just clicked on the "Same Game Test" link, which was an example of exactly the problem I was talking about, with the added bonus of being written by someone with a predisposed bias that he spells out.Um, what?It is all strawmen (Creating an enemy you can defeat, then declaring yourself victorious) and it is all about his personally predetermined power levels.
He literally says Fighters and Monks fall into lower levels.
Did you read the link before you posted it this time, or was it like in the other thread?
Duh. It was a test constructed in 3.5. Go anywhere online and ask about the 3.5 Fighter and Monk. Look at tier lists. The reason Fighters and monks fall low on that test is because it has a variety of adventuring problems and/or scenarios that all the classes are tested against. Fighter and Monk have the most trouble. That doesn't make the test biased, it means the test displayed that they were that way. The fighter and monk fall into that category because they took the test and didn't do so hot. But I'm willing to give even more scenarios. I'm willing to accept more scenarios. Enough scenarios, from different people even, that it's not in any way biased.
If the Pathfinder fighter is not underpowered or with problems, then it should be able to do just fine on that test, or the acid test I provided; because neither are built to poop on the Fighter or any other class. Simply just gameplay material.
Jeez, would you say that studies that show AIDS is linked to HIV is biased against AIDs/HIV because the results show that they are linked? That's essentially what you are doing here, from what I can see.
|
|
So you want me to participate in a contest where you are allowed to design scenarios to showcase the benefits of your class, that was created by someone who created it to help "rebalance" the game to make up for what he describes as weaker classes, including specifically he says by name the fighter class.
And you propose this as a fair and unbiased contest.
But when I say "You pick any scenario or AP" you won't do it because those may have bias.
Seriously. With a straight face?
I'm still trying to understand your idea, ciretose, the link you posted takes to a thread that is basically a succession of strawmen scenarios too.
Was that not what you were refusing to do? Do you want to use those scenarios? Do you want a random encounter/challenge from a random AP? How do we select said encouter/challenge?
You want each of us to post scenarios and you are worried about the bias of an AP that I'm letting you pick.
That is absurd.
You want to be able to control what strawman you face so you can rig the discussion, and that isn't a test.
**** no. Adventure Paths are biased. If I picked Curse of the Crimson Throne, for example, the majority occurs only in a city. So it it is biased against classes based on terrain/location. Meanwhile, if I picked Kingmaker, it's almost all open wilderness. Same problem here. If I picked Second Darkness, then it would favor another type of build specifically. We'd have to run every AP with the same builds to see what we were going with. What if I pick an AP because I am biased myself? Even you yourself said it gave points to the Ranger because you could metagame favored enemies. I say screw that.
I'd rather have a general acid test that is not biased, that represents a wide variety of different scenarios, dangers, problems, and events that can pop up in campaign to campaign or over the course of a campaign. That way there are no issues based on being in a specific location (we would in fact be in tons of locations for the test), nor concerning a specific enemy (merely different themed scenarios over the course of the test, making it hard to metagame the theater of operations).
|
|
I'm still trying to understand your idea, ciretose, the link you posted takes to a thread that is basically a succession of strawmen scenarios too.
Was that not what you were refusing to do? Do you want to use those scenarios? Do you want a random encounter/challenge from a random AP? How do we select said encouter/challenge?
No, that links to a group of people making builds for Rise of the Runelords.
A strawman is something you create to defeat. Using the Lamborgini vs Rowboat analogy, if I said to someone "I bet my boat can beat your Lamborgini in a race." I would lose in most every scenario that didn't involve water.
So me creating a scenario involving water says nothing.
No one involved wrote the AP, but everyone had to argue the value they brought to each encounter that occurred in the AP. And the judges votes on who they agreed with for each encounter.
I am not ok with either of us creating scenarios where we would succeed so we can one up each other in a boat vs car contest.
|
|
Acid test is another way of saying "I want to create clever scenarios I can have an advantage in!"
The game is played in the context of an adventure. I would be fine with running the builds through a wide variety of APs and modules. I would actually prefer it, as it will negate the favored enemy advantage.
Acid test is another way of saying "I want to create clever scenarios I can have an advantage in!"
Just because you keep repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.