|
I've been toying with the idea of "areas of competence" where a character get to add 1/2 their level to certain types of skills and potentially take 10, and/or some other perks whose main benefit is not combat situations. Like, you get to choose one of the following (just as examples):
house rule idea:
Spoiler:
Military - You are used to working with or in organized armies. You may add half your level to all knowledge checks pertaining to warfare and may take 10 on such checks. You may add half your level to all diplomacy, sense motive and gather information checks when dealing with military business. If you gain the leadership feat, you may, instead of gaining a single cohort, gain two cohorts of the appropriate levels, though they must have only levels of the warrior and expert classes and have military background.Scientific - You are used to working with scholars and scientist. You may add half your level to all checks pertaining to finding information in libraries and to learning who has knowledge of a subject. In addition, choose a knowledge skill as your field of specialization. You may add half your level to all checks pertaining to that subject.
Religious - You are used to working with a particular set of religions. Choose one of the nine alignments. You may add half your level to all knowledge checks pertaining to the beliefs and church of any god of the chosen alignment or who is no more than one step away from that alignment, and take 10 on such checks. You may also add half your level to diplomacy, bluff and sense motive checks when dealing with religious matters among followers of those faiths.
Of course it would have to be fine tuned a lot, and a lot of other areas of competence added (as well as getting a better name for it).
This would mean classes which have a hard time being good at stuff out of combat will have one area where they are competent, and might mean that the "single party face" is less relevant, as all characters will probably have somewhere they're at...
i like this idea. you missed Underworld. maybe this is a free Background trait. this goes towards the idea that everybody has an appropriate time and place to do the talking. the other option is to reverse inventivize the diplomacy check if a character tries to 'gather information' in the wrong circle - like, the happy-go-lucky bard or the nerdy-smart wizard would be at a penalty to go poking his or her nose around the bars and taverns 'run' by the local thieves guild.
are you talking about the tactician?
the rager would just have 2 exta skills points and the paladin would have lower skills, not to mention that int helps with the 11th ability of the archetype.
Good point, but it still took you 11 levels to actually benefit from your Int score, and even then I'm not sure about how much it actually adds to the fighter (I can't check the SRD right now, and you didn't post the character's special abiltiies).
Note that if forced to melee i have point blank master.
Fair enough, although PBM comes somewhat late, so you'd suffer a bit for a while.
It also depend on the party composition. With the tacician ability and the enilading fire I have an extra +2 to attack, but if that would not be viable in the party i could have other teamwork feat.
Well, I suppose increasing your own numbers is different from full-attacking, still not as versatile/interesting as I'd like Fighters to be in combat, but okay.
I thought about taking weapon finesse, that and a agile weapon would make viable to melee.
Should have done that already, IMO. Personally I don't like to depend on weapon enhancements to be able to deal damage, but since melee is only your secondary fighting style, I think that's a valid option. May I suggest a magic Silversheen cestus? I love those things!
The build also shows that fighter do not needs to maximeze str or dex to do good damage.
You call tat not maxing Dex? Okay then... Not that I think that's a bad thing. I've never had a problem with Fighters' attribute distribution, only with its necessary feat selection to stay competitive in DPR/AC/Random-Combat-Effectiveness-Thing (his whole reason to exist). You did take the whole weapon spec chain.
EDIT: and about races, I do not see really a problem here, everyones play with a build not just with a class. the important thing is to make good characters if fighter allow that then there is no problem.
there are races taht are better for fighters other are not that good.
I think race selection is a fair point, to an extent. If you have to be human just to have more than 3 skill points per level and be capable of doing something outside of a fight, somethings is wrong.
That's why I built my fighters as half-elves, just to check if I could do it without the extra feat and skill point.
|
Mostly the fact that the other martials do so and don't have to sacrifice any combat.Fighter's are at a point where they can sacrifice some combat, still kick ass at it and be able to go the skill route if need be.
What's the difference between really kicking ass and really really kicking ass?
I've got an idea for a fix. What Fighers need is to be able to reduce their armor check penalties relative to other classes. That would be like giving them a bonus to all of their Dex and Strength skills.
C'mon Paizo, make it happen!
EDIT: While we are at it, Fighters should get a bonus to attack and damage that stack with enhancement bonuses for the weapons they use the most. They are fighters after all. And maybe a bonus agaist fear effects.
That would help a lot I think.
a half orc can trade darkvision for skilled, then they can regain darkvision 90 by trading ferocity. meaning the half orc, effectively gains skilled and an increase to darkvision, in exchange for ferocity.
thus a half orc, can be as skilled as a human
unless the human takes the inferior fast learner feat at level 1.
there is also the open minded feat from dreamscarred press's psionics unleashed (bonus skill point per level)
and an alternate Elan trait that grants skilled as well, in psionics expanded.
so there are 3 races that can gain skilled, 1 of which is 3rd party
half orc (alternate trait)
human (part of the package)
elan (3rd party, alternate trait)
races that gain an intelligence bonus without using some kind of variable bonus, 1 of which is 3rd party
elf (+2 dex/int -2 con)
sylph (+2 dex/int -2 con)
aasimaar (a few bloodlines in blood of angels)
tiefling (+2 dex/int -2 cha)
samsaran (+2 int/wis -2 con)
ratfolk (+2 dex/int -2 str)
blue (+2dex/int -2 str, 3rd party)
a 15 starting strength is all you need. especially since monsters are tailored around 3/4 bab instead of full bab as the standard.
Mostly the fact that the other martials do so and don't have to sacrifice any combat.Fighter's are at a point where they can sacrifice some combat, still kick ass at it and be able to go the skill route if need be.
What's the difference between really kicking ass and really really kicking ass?
I've got an idea for a fix. What Fighers need is to be able to reduce their armor check penalties relative to other classes. That would be like giving them a bonus to all of their Dex and Strength skills.
C'mon Paizo, make it happen!
Reduced armor check penalties are nice but they aren't equivalent to skill points.
I mean I'm glad that heavy armor can be used by fighters without turning water encounters into complete instakill situations but I still don't understand why people are so adamant about keeping the fighter at 2+Int skill points?
What is the consequences of conceding the point that some games might actually have a use for additional skill points? Does the world end?
Paizo didn't change it for reasons of backwards compatibility but that isn't to say that it's a bad idea for people to change them themselves.
Good point, but it still took you 11 levels to actually benefit from your Int score, and even then I'm not sure about how much it actually adds to the fighter (I can't check the SRD right now, and you didn't post the character's special abiltiies).
When you use the Aid Another special attack, it lets you Aid Another a number of allies up to your Int mod, but you must aid them all against the same opponent. Note that it doesn't lift any of the other limitations of Aid Another - you must be able to make a melee attack against the opponent, the allies in question must all already be engaging the opponent in melee, the bonus is still only +2, the bonus still only applies to one attack, and it still costs a standard action to use.
It's... not very good.
The Battle Tactician class feature is pretty cool, though:
At 15th level, as a swift action, a tactician can grant his Intelligence modifier as an insight bonus on the attack rolls made by a single ally within line of sight that can both see and hear the tactician. That ally gains the bonus until the end of the tactician’s next turn. The tactician can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + his Intelligence modifier.
But of course it doesn't unlock until fifteenth level because why let a fighter benefit from having a good Int score before giving wizards eighth-level spells?
a half orc can trade darkvision for skilled, then they can regain darkvision 90 by trading ferocity. meaning the half orc, effectively gains skilled and an increase to darkvision, in exchange for ferocity.
thus a half orc, can be as skilled as a human
unless the human takes the inferior fast learner feat at level 1.
there is also the open minded feat from dreamscarred press's psionics unleashed (bonus skill point per level)
and an alternate Elan trait that grants skilled as well, in psionics expanded.
so there are 3 races that can gain skilled, 1 of which is 3rd party
half orc (alternate trait)
human (part of the package)
elan (3rd party, alternate trait)races that gain an intelligence bonus without using some kind of variable bonus, 1 of which is 3rd party
elf (+2 dex/int -2 con)
sylph (+2 dex/int -2 con)
aasimaar (a few bloodlines in blood of angels)
tiefling (+2 dex/int -2 cha)
samsaran (+2 int/wis -2 con)
ratfolk (+2 dex/int -2 str)
blue (+2dex/int -2 str, 3rd party)a 15 starting strength is all you need. especially since monsters are tailored around 3/4 bab instead of full bab as the standard.
Keep in mind that +2 Int isn't necessarily the equivalent of +1 skill point per level due to the ability to dump int to 7 and still get a minimum of 1 skill point.
Int 7 Human Fighter with FCB for skill points still has 3 skill points per level
Int 9 Elven Fighter with FCB only has 2 skill points.
Plus -2 Con :(
Your point about the game being balanced around elite arrays is definitely relevant though. If you use a mix of CR-1, CR, and CR +1 encounters with the rare CR +2 encounter you should be able to power through most encounters with pretty suboptimal builds.
If your group has people hanging around the bleeding edge where the game turns into rocket launcher tag at higher levels then suboptimal builds are going to leave the 15 strength fighter feeling inadequate especially once planar bindings and such start showing up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is like one of those dreams where you have six blankets to give out in the middle of a snowstorm but there are seven people and no matter how you work it around and worry at the problem someone is still going to freeze to death and then you have to eat them and oh god why does my stomach hurt so bad.
Keep in mind that +2 Int isn't necessarily the equivalent of +1 skill point per level due to the ability to dump int to 7 and still get a minimum of 1 skill point.
Int 7 Human Fighter with FCB for skill points still has 3 skill points per level
Int 9 Elven Fighter with FCB only has 2 skill points.
Plus -2 Con :(
Your point about the game being balanced around elite arrays is definitely relevant though. If you use a mix of CR-1, CR, and CR +1 encounters with the rare CR +2 encounter you should be able to power through most encounters with pretty suboptimal builds.
If your group has people hanging around the bleeding edge where the game turns into rocket launcher tag at higher levels then suboptimal builds are going to leave the 15 strength fighter feeling inadequate especially once planar bindings and such start showing up.
the elven fighter shouldn't try to copy the human fighter's schtick. a smart elf will either use that dexterity bonus for archery, or, they will use that intelligence bonus as a tactician or lore warden. and they wouldn't be anywhere near as likely to dump int.
Elite Array Elf Archer (slightly tweaked)
Str 13
Dex 17 (15+2)
con 12 (14-2)
int 14 (12+2)
wis 12
cha 7
2 feats behind it's human counterpart, but it has no speed penalty with stealth for the price of trading a useless racial trait, has either low light or darkvision, a bonus against enchantments, immunity to sleep, and free proficiency in a few exotic weapons a human was too lazy to waste a feat on. a 20 point build would increase strength and wisdom to 14, and a 25 build would have that plus a 14 constitution.
or, they will use that intelligence bonus as a tactician or lore warden.
Sure would be nice if those actually had class features that benefit from a high Int mod. (Tactician eventually gets a good one that does... at 15th level.)
i like this idea. you missed Underworld. maybe this is a free Background trait. this goes towards the idea that everybody has an appropriate time and place to do the talking. the other option is to reverse inventivize the diplomacy check if a character tries to 'gather information' in the wrong circle - like, the happy-go-lucky bard or the nerdy-smart wizard would be at a penalty to go poking his or her nose around the bars and taverns 'run' by the local thieves guild.
Oh, the idea wasn't for this to be an exhaustive list - I think there are _many_ different areas of competence that could be used, including underworld (though a different name might be appropriate so as to not be confused with stuff involving dwarves and svirfneblin), merchants, rural, seafare etc etc etc. I'm not suggesting it to be tied to the four classical classes/roles, and neither to be tied to a specific class (for example you could very well be a fighter most at home in a religious setting, or a scholarly rogue, or a military wizard)
or, they will use that intelligence bonus as a tactician or lore warden.Sure would be nice if those actually had class features that benefit from a high Int mod. (Tactician eventually gets a good one that does... at 15th level.)
they do, it's just not under the chart, but in the guise of their skill list. more skill points, means more chances to milk the tactician/lore warden skill lists. i wouldn't recommend dissing a skill list improvement. you trade +1 to ATK/DMG and +1 potential AC for a skil list imropovement.
Seriously you get more skills and more points to spend them on. I didn't bring up Tactician just because of how much I like my completely awesome tactics.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ilja
sure. in fact conceptually it is the direction that 5E is going. the obstacle to incorporating this kind of concept into a pathfinder game is that final skill bonuses shoot for the moon over a 20-level progression. this isn't a bad thing per se, but it does mean that there are only three ways to introduce mechanical competency within a given sphere:
1) raise the math. give a flat bonus based on character level or somesuch, or similarly, allow greater control over the dice results; like permitting rerolls or the taking of 10 or 20. this is your suggestion.
2) restrict access. this can be done by creating a requirement such as a feat or the inability to perform untrained.
3) lower the math. this esentially combines #1 and #2 in that it restricts access through penalization. this is what i suggest in that other thread i linked. penalties of -5 or even -10.
so as far as your suggestion goes, i might argue that method #3 would be the most unobtrusive and thus most elegant way to 'tack onto' the robust, complicated rule system of pathfinder. rather than create yet more feats and features.
in fact, i could imagine doing this with the already created Background Traits, maybe combined with what the character has already invested in Knowledge skills (like Local, Nobility, Arcana, etc) - and even expanding the Knowledge skill to new spheres (not every knowledge skill must cover a monster type, right?) - to form the basis for a more diverse range of Diplomacy and gathering of information.
i suppose we are now treading into the controversial realm of (shhh!) DM fiat. but this is an off-topic brainstorm anyhow. cheers.
Seriously you get more skills and more points to spend them on. I didn't bring up Tactician just because of how much I like my completely awesome tactics.
you also have the advantage of your DM not forcing you to play like an idiot. which would happen with some adversarial DMs if you brought a 7 int PC.
if i had to choose playing the dumb man-child who can't even tie his shoes, or the foul mouthed jerk, i would choose to play the foul mouthed jerk.
i like my skill points, and i rarely play a character with less than 5 per level. so feats like fast learner and open minded are priorities for me. as is exploiting cosmopolitan to gain perception and diplomacy as class skills.
if given a 20 or 25 point buy, i doubt i will ever invest a less than 14 in intelligence.
Exactly!
I know how you feel. I love skill points, and refuse to play a character with less than 4 (the reason why my Paladin is human, although the extra feat doesn't hurt).
Luckly, my GM gives 2 extra skill points for Fighters and Paladins. I do the same for all classes with only 2 skil ranks per level (except wizards and witches) and Monks, but it doesn't matter becaue noone wants to play monks... Heh.
That simple change goes a long way to make Fighters more fun.
(I also give Paladins Knowledge(Planes) and Intimidate as class skills, while Fighters get Heal, Perception and two other skills of the player's choice).
monsk have 4 skills per level.I know how you feel. I love skill points, and refuse to play a character with less than 4 (the reason why my Paladin is human, although the extra feat doesn't hurt).
Luckly, my GM gives 2 extra skill points for Fighters and Paladins. I do the same for all classes with only 2 skil ranks per level (except wizards and witches) and Monks, but it doesn't matter becaue noone wants to play monks... Heh.
That simple change goes a long way to make Fighters more fun.
(I also give Paladins Knowledge(Planes) and Intimidate as class skills, while Fighters get Heal, Perception and two other skills of the player's choice).
Lemmy statement implies that monks get 2 additional skill points as well, granting them 6 base skill points. At least, that's how it was written.
monsk have 4 skills per level.
I know. That's why I mentioned them separately.
(...)I do the same for all classes with only 2 skil ranks per level (except wizards and witches) and Monks(...)
Would it be clearer if I said "I give 2 extra skill points to Monks and also to every class that only gets 2 per level, with the exception of wizards and witches."
EDIT: Ninja'ed by Ashiel. He got it right.
Monks: 6 skill ranks per level:
Fighters/Paladins/Sorcerers/Clerics/Whatever-else: 4 skill ranks per level.
Wizards/Witches: Only 2 skill points (because they are full casters based on Int anyway... The exception is the Scarred Witch archetype, who also gets 4 skill points)
I increase every class by +2 skill points per level as a minimum to changes. I also increase the class skill list for most classes.
Interesting enough it actually limits into dumping some because an int 7 actually results in a two skill point penalty
Making weapon finesse a function of the weapon ratherththan feat based is a nice rogue boost assuming you don't increase Bab or make a feat for Dex to damage
|
|
If you give them 4, then monks 6, then you have to give bards, Rangers and inquisitors 8, and now rogues need 10...and then fighters are still behind and skills mean nothing.
I would be fine with them having 4, same as monks. I kind of think it is silly Barbarians have more than fighters, so I would swap them.
I love Ad&d but the 1e and 2e thief class was never a paragon of good design. Limiting the rogue to skill monkey is really a great design choice. My personal opinion is that we can enhance combat for rogues without messing up the game
It is areasonable houserule. How do you compensate it for rogues?
Monks: 6 skill ranks per level:
Fighters/Paladins/Sorcerers/Clerics/Whatever-else: 4 skill ranks per level.
Wizards/Witches: Only 2 skill points (because they are full casters based on Int anyway... The exception is the Scarred Witch archetype, who also gets 4 skill points)
I don't think that Fighters (or even Cleics) having 2 extra skil points per level is stepping on the Rogue's toes...
That said, Rogues and Ninjas are unified into a single class that ges the abilities from both, they also get an extra Good Save and boosted Rogue Talents/Ninja Tricks. Not to mention that they benefit hugely from things like TWF being reduced to just 2 scaling feats and Dodge/Mobility being unified into a single feat (cleverly named "Dodge & Mobility").
Overall, most martial characters benefit greatly from the shortened feat chains, reduced prerequsites and scaling feats. Fighters not only benefit more than most for having more feats, they also ocasionally get extra benefits as well.
e.g: Weapon Focus scales with BAB (+1 for every BAB +8, max of +3 at BAB +16), and Fighters add double that bonus to damage rolls.
If you give them 4, then monks 6, then you have to give bards, Rangers and inquisitors 8, and now rogues need 10...and then fighters are still behind and skills mean nothing.
I would be fine with them having 4, same as monks. I kind of think it is silly Barbarians have more than fighters, so I would swap them.
The problem is not that other classes have more skill points, but that Fighters have so few! IMHO, no class should have only 2 skill points per level, not even full casters or big-dumb Barbarians! It's rather frustrating.
I only added the extra skill points for Monks because Monks need all he help they can get. Not that it matters, anyway, noone in my group is interested in playing a Monk (or a Cavalier, for that matter).
I love Ad&d but the 1e and 2e thief class was never a paragon of good design. Limiting the rogue to skill monkey is really a great design choice. My personal opinion is that we can enhance combat for rogues without messing up the gameI do not feel rogues need that much of combat improvement. they do situational damage and that should be fine. Rogues nees their own niche and that niche should not be damage (maybe another knd of contributon to combat)
I think rogues probably could get access to situational status effects but improvement in rogue situational burst dps isn't a bad thing but I pretty firmly put rogues into the martial class of classes
Rogues can spend a talent to reroll a die on a diplomacy check once per day, Bards can't do that, therefore Rogues are perfectly fine.
I'm glad rogues never need to make more than one diplomacy check per day...
best way to fix a rogue.
1. make them full b.a.b. (not neccessarily the d10 to go with it) and give them a good fortitude save.
or 2. turn the trap sense bonus into a proper dodge bonus to AC, but only in light armor.
or 3. merge the unique abilities of the rogue and ninja into one class
in other words, trapfinding, poison use, ki pool, evasion, trap sense, no trace, light steps.
or 4. give it a cryptic's psionic progression
or mix and match any combination of the above.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actual best way to fix a rogue.
1. Make Talents not suck.
2. Give them actual class features that let them do things.
Ok so wait when is it okay for me to play a rogue or fighter?
Or I mean what if I play a rogue/fighter hybrid, will the world explode, or just my head? Will Pathfinder explode?
I'm really scared, I think I'm playing pretty bad classes guys and I don't want it to mess up the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok so wait when is it okay for me to play a rogue or fighter?
Or I mean what if I play a rogue/fighter hybrid, will the world explode, or just my head? Will Pathfinder explode?
I'm really scared, I think I'm playing pretty bad classes guys and I don't want it to mess up the game.
No one reasonable is going to jump down your throat for playing a weaker class. In the end it doesn't matter as long as you're having fun with the game.
It's also fun to have these discussions and debates about what classes can contribute, so long as you don't take it too seriously.
No seriously I'm pretty worried because I don't want to blow up Pathfinder.
Maybe if I just dip into Fighter and Rogue, but not too much?
I feel like I'm crossing the streams, but with lower DPR and skill effectiveness.
|
No seriously I'm pretty worried because I don't want to blow up Pathfinder.Maybe if I just dip into Fighter and Rogue, but not too much?
I feel like I'm crossing the streams, but with lower DPR and skill effectiveness.
Splash a level of monk on top of that and you'll be all set.
If the problem persists, try a level of druid.
Man if I add Monk to the mix is this one of those things where like you eat some pop rocks then drink a coke and your stomach explodes?
I think just to be safe I'll get rid of those class pages in my CRB.
It's the only way to be sure.
You can always mix rogue and fighter and other than forgoing FCBs (assuming you don't actually want to burn a feat on eclectic) I think it makes for a good mix of the two classes.
Or you can just go with a urban ranger archetype and get full BAB, some decent weapon feats, good skill points and selection plus some other interesting class features.
or you can sacrifice a little BAB and go bard and get some spellcasting and group buffing ;)
It pains me greatly that whenever I think of a Rogue character, I keep asking myself "why not take either Sandman or Urban Ranger instead?"
Sandman has same BAB and HD, better saves, bonuses to all essential rogue-ish skills, six levels of spells, trapfinding, ton of bardic performances (although he loses out on the ever awesome Inspire Courage), the absolutely amazing ability to screw with spellcasters by stealing their spells. The trade-off is Evasion (this one admittedly hurts) less sneak attack damage and two skill points less per level (though he easily compensates for the latter with Jack of All Trades). Now that's what I call a rogue!
Urban Ranger has full BAB and better HD, better saves, only slightly less skill points, trapfinding, four levels of spells, animal companion, favored enemy, greater invisibility... not as good at social stuff as either rogue or bard, but definitely good enough at infiltration and trapfinding, and can pull his weight in a fight much better.
Rogues definitely deserve better.
Heh... Inquisitors also make great Rogues, and they can even be awesome at social skills thanks to the Conversion inquisition, Detect Allignment, Discern Lies and Stern Gaze.
Ninjas are the most obvious class to obsolete Rogues, but Vivisectionist Alchemists were definitely the last nail in the coffin.
Heh... Inquisitors also make great Rogues, and they can even be awesome at social skills thanks to the Conversion inquisition, Detect Allignment, Discern Lies and Stern Gaze.
Ninjas are the most obvious class to obsolete Rogues, but Vivisectionist Alchemists were definitely the last nail in the coffin.
first came the wizard, then the inquisitor, the sandman, and the urban ranger, then came the vivisectionist and sage bloodline sorcerer, then the ninja came last of that set.
but even in core, a wizard could invest ranks in the appropriate skills, and only lose out on the class skill bonus. wizards, due to their sheer intellect, would get nearly as many skill points as the rogue, and eventually more over time. and they don't really need UMD, so that is 1 less skill they need to max. plus they had spells that stepped heavily on the rogue's toes. the wizard has always been the superior rogue.