|
A 1E Fighter didn't have that great of saves (look at the Cleric, Paladin, and Dwarf), but rather pretty average ones, and antimagic was not their strong area. As "master of all weapons" where actually only proficient with a few (not All Simple and Martial weapons) and almost all classes got followers and used the same movement/attack rules, (but a turn was also 1 minute, not 6 seconds), but without the AoOs or better weapon crits or anything along those lines.
:)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe, off the top of my head, all classes minus the Paladin (whose moral code actualy prohibite them from keeping too much wealth), Ranger (in a limited fashion do to animal companon, ort of), and Druid (can't recall honestly) recieved followers, IF they baught a keep/church/mage tower. They did not get the equialent of a Cohort, just level 1-4ish followers. So that's not a bad idea. However, it was also heavily implied that they where settling down at that point, and would actually lose them if they didn't stay in the area.
A Cleric (High Priest) for example that didn't actually stay at their temple much basically lost their position and rank to another clergy member, and the Fighter that didn't dwell in their keep/barony and instead went out adventuring likewise had a mutiny coming his way quickly. Once gone, they where gone.
Well if you tamed the lands and only hired LG fighting men, you would not get a mutiny.
|
I strongly disagree that the more powerful classes should be weakened, instead of strengthening the weaker classes. That really just sounds like "I'm not having fun, so no one else should have fun, either."
The way for everything to get better is to bring the weakest classes up without hampering the strongest classes. Enough of that and hopefully we'll eventually reach a point where everyone has caught up.
the thing is, classes aren't being weakened or strengthened in a void, they are being weakened or strengthened in a world that is also being weakened or strengthened at the same time.
There's also an indirect correlation between "fun" and "power" - playing a monk or rogue might be less fun than playing a wizard simply because you are frustrated that the wizard gets to "win" most of the encounters by himself. The lack of fun is caused by the discrepancy in power, not by a certain level of power being more fun than another.
I partly agree with this. There is such thing as too much power, IMO. full casters (especially the prepared ones) have way too many options, and that makes the GM's job a lot harder. Spell-casting in general could receive a nerf, but that's because it can do pretty much anything.
Your example about hit points is not completely true. If a class has 5hp, and the other has 10hp, but the game is balanced around having 10hp, nerfing everyone to 5hp because "some classes have 5hp" is a terrible idea.
But there is also something as not being powerful enough. I don't want to see Paladins or Bards nerfed so Fighters and Rogues feel good about themselves.
Paladins (and Bards, and Inquisitors) are great examples of classes done right, IMHO. They shouldn't be nerfed so they become nearly useless is a lot of situations like Fighters and Rogues do. That would just make the Paladin & Bard player frustrated, and the Fighter/Rogue/Monk player would still suffer the same frustration.
Instead, if Fighters/Rogue/Monks were buffed so they reach Paladin-level of efficiency and versatility (useful all the time, amazing at their specialty), everyone would have fun.
Back to your HP comparisson, IMHO, it's as if PF was balanced around 10hp, but Fighters/Rogue/Monks had only 5, Paladins/Bards/Inquisitors have 10 and full casters had something like 20~25.
All that nerfing Paladins to Fighter/Rogue levels is making sure 3 players get frustrated instead of 2. In fact, IMHO, Paladins could get 4 skill points per level and have Intimidate and Knowledge(Planes) as class skills (in order to better terrify villains and identify the weaknesses of demons/devils/etc) and they'd be perfectly balanced.~
Everyone should have enough options to contribute in pretty much every situation (even if just a little) and enough power to be awesome at their main role.
Actually, if you look back to 1e, fighters have lost quite a bit historically. Nowadays they need to specialize in a single group of weapons (and to get the most out of their damage they need to specialize further in a single weapon), whereas they used to be masters of all weapons.The modern fighter class has lost all of that, to the point of boasting the worst skills and saves in the game, and what it has gained in exchange is... when it stands still and attacks with its specialized weapon, its damage per round is greater. Woohoo.
Yeah, but at least since 2E they had specialize in a single weapon not a group. And they didn't know all weapons just a small number per level.
I believe, off the top of my head, all classes minus the Paladin (whose moral code actualy prohibite them from keeping too much wealth), Ranger (in a limited fashion do to animal companon, ort of), and Druid (can't recall honestly) recieved followers, IF they baught a keep/church/mage tower. They did not get the equialent of a Cohort, just level 1-4ish followers. So that's not a bad idea. However, it was also heavily implied that they where settling down at that point, and would actually lose them if they didn't stay in the area.
1E Rangers were awesome: To me my bear army.
Rememnber they followed him and came instantly when he called (out of hammer space).
IMO, Rogues have 3 main problems: terrible saves (the worst in the whole game), lack of ways to boost their to-hit (every other class can do this somehow) and very few Rogue Talents that are actually useful.
Fix that and they are good to go. I feel Fighters and Rogues are two opposites who suffer from the same problem: lack of (good) options. The only difference is in which area they suffer the most.
You said it yourself:
The key is, as you said, having a system where everyone contributes to every situation in some fashion, but various classes (and builds) really shine in different types of encounters.
But if Fighters and Rogues already suffer from a serious lack of options, what does nerfing Paladins (or Bards) accomplish other than making more players frustrated?
IMHO, buffing the weaker classes to a point where they can contribute in every situation and shine at their main role would go a long way to make the game more balanced and entertaining.I'm not saying everyone should have the same strengths and weaknesses, au contraire, they should be varied and shine in different moments, but they should never be unable to contribute. (of course, classes made to fill similar roles will have similar strengths/weaknesses, but they shoould be able to accomplish the same objectives using different means)
Just like a Paladin and a Bard are both awesome at what they do best, but can contribute outside of that. A Bard will not be as good as a Paladin at healing or frontline combat, but they can pull their weight and help the party. A Paladin will also not be as good as Bards at party buffing or social encounters, even with his high-charisma, but he can do it if needed be.
That's what I think every class should allow the player to do: be amazing at whatever they are supposed to be amazing, but still being capable of contributing in other areas, although not as much as someone who specializes in said areas.
Skill Points are an interesting subject, actually.
IMHO, 2 skill points per level is too little to any class who is not an Int-based caster, but OTOH, 8 skill points is not that much of an advantage.
The difference between having 2 or 4 skills points is much greater than the difference between having 6 or 8. Hell, a Bard ends up having more skill ranks than Rogues and using his best (or second-best) attribute to skills based on his dump stats. And they still have spells and good will save progression. And let's not forget Wizards, who by 8th level already have probably as many skill points as rogues, with the added benefit of being f#%@ing wizards!
I like PF's skill system because it not only provides a bunch of options for every character, but it's also very simple and intuitive, which is usually a good thing.
The problem with Rogues is that even with those 2~4 skill points advantage over everyone else, they still have less options because:
1- Skill points are useful, but not too powerful.
2- In a 4-men party, there's a big chance that the most important/useful skills are already covered by the other 3 guys.
So one of the Rogue's selling points (more skill points) wasn't really that good even in 3.X, and it just became even less significant in PF. Paizo had the right idea of compensating for that with Rogue Talents, but they didn't make a very good job with those, as most of them provide little to no benefit.
It should probably be noted that fighters suffer from a 30% reduction in their overall feat advantage. Combine that with what appears to be an overall design intent that includes increasing feat chains and adding feat taxes so as to eat up those extra feats and the fighters plight becomes more apparent. Skills would definitely help round out the character, but if they wanted to keep the fighter at a parity with its 3.5 equivalent, then they would need to further increase his feats to compensate. Either that, or make feats mean something as opposed to an exercise in boredom.
"sooo... power attack and weapon focus for everybody! again... yay."
All of that said, I actually think the difference between poor saves and good saves is too significant. At higher levels, a character with a good save has difficulty, a poor save is just a joke. I did the math a while back to see how likely it was that a high level fighter with a reasonably good wisdom score(14 to start), all of the will save feats, and a maxed out resistance cape would fair against a similar level caster. I think the save chance against a high level spell was something like 15%.
P.P.S. Also, two skill points a level makes starting characters seem like they spent their formative years in a box.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see it for people ho have to spend a lot of time studing magic,
Don't be ridiculous. If you spend all your time studying magic, you can still learn to become an amazing swimmer, climber, acrobat, diplomat, liar, and dancer because you're just that smart. Everyone knows it's those silly people who swing swords that never have any time to interact with the outside world.
Rogues would be helped by importing the Skill Tricks from the 3.5 Complete Adventurer.
They would be able to spend their excess skill points on Skill Tricks, actually gaining useful abilities.
You know, I actually don't like skill tricks... I think they are restrictions disguised as options. You shouldn't have to invest more skill points to be able to use your skills. Having enough skill ranks should be enough!
You shouldn't need, let's say... "Skill Trick: Don't Hurt Me" to be able to convince an enemy you're not worth the effort. You should have to succed at a Bluff or Diplomacy check.
Samething goes for equipment trick. You have the equipment, you have the skill, you have the feats... You don't need another freaking feat just to use them! You should only need your creativity.
Rogues would be helped by importing the Skill Tricks from the 3.5 Complete Adventurer.
They would be able to spend their excess skill points on Skill Tricks, actually gaining useful abilities.
You know, I actually don't like skill tricks... I think they are restrictions disguised as options. You shouldn't have to invest more skill points to be able to use your skills. Having enough skill ranks should be enough!
You shouldn't need, let's say... "Skill Trick: Don't Hurt Me" to be able to convince an enemy you're not worth the effort. You should have to succed at a Bluff or Diplomacy check.
Maybe Those skill tricks are not the best designed. That do not means the idea of skill trikcs is a bad one.
But rogue really needs to do something better with skills. like that rogue talent that let you disarm using a sleight of hand check instead of a CMB check. That is something almost unique.
You have a point. Rogues should be able to use their skills in creative ways. Use Acrobatics to avoid an attack (kinda like a monk with Snake Style uses Sense Motive), Sleight of Hand instead of CMB for combat maneuvers such as Steal or Disarm...
I with they could have easy access to iconic strategies, such as Feint, Dirty Trick and Steal, maybe get the Improved/Greater feat for those maneuvers as a scaling Rogue Talent, and use their rogue level instead of BAB for the CMB check, kinda like Oracles of Battle can do with their chosen maneuver.Maybe use a Heal check to increase Sneak Attack damage and/or allow Sneak Attack in situations where it wouldn't be possible.
Those could be fun, and would surely help Rogues to be more effective and feel more unique.
|
Rogues would be helped by importing the Skill Tricks from the 3.5 Complete Adventurer.
They would be able to spend their excess skill points on Skill Tricks, actually gaining useful abilities.
You know, I actually don't like skill tricks... I think they are restrictions disguised as options. You shouldn't have to invest more skill points to be able to use your skills. Having enough skill ranks should be enough!
You shouldn't need, let's say... "Skill Trick: Don't Hurt Me" to be able to convince an enemy you're not worth the effort. You should have to succed at a Bluff or Diplomacy check.
Samething goes for equipment trick. You have the equipment, you have the skill, you have the feats... You don't need another freaking feat just to use them! You should only need your creativity.
Your caution is well founded. However, things like:-
• Standing up as a swift action without provoking
• Standing up as an immediate action without provoking
• Adding +10-feet to a high or long jump
• Spotting an invisible creature
• Getting a second chance on a failed disguise check
• Healing 1d6 damage when stabilising a creature using First Aid
• Moving upstairs without costing double movement
....and others; we should guard against them limiting what skills can do, but in my experience these abilities don't hamper normal skill use or creativity.
The pre-requisites, limit to the number one PC can have, and being only useable once per combat all prevent them getting out of hand, and encourage good planning when deciding how to spend your skill points.
In short, I think they are a good thing!
You know, I actually don't like skill tricks... I think they are restrictions disguised as options. You shouldn't have to invest more skill points to be able to use your skills. Having enough skill ranks should be enough!You shouldn't need, let's say... "Skill Trick: Don't Hurt Me" to be able to convince an enemy you're not worth the effort. You should have to succed at a Bluff or Diplomacy check.
Samething goes for equipment trick. You have the equipment, you have the skill, you have the feats... You don't need another freaking feat just to use them! You should only need your creativity.
I am unfamiliar with 'skill tricks'. However I REALLY agree with this statement.
I REALLY hate how the 'whip' is run in Pathfinder. You need a feat to snatch small items with it... you need a feat to swing with it.. Basically ever single 'trope' that makes whips cool requires yet ANOTHER Feat.
If I have whip MASTERY. Then I am a MASTER at using a WHIP! What the HECK is Improved mastery and GREATER Mastery?!?!? Apparently mastery is NOT master of ANYthing >.<
The more options you add to a game as rule heavy as Pathfinder... the LESS options you can do WITHOUT spending feats and such on those options.
I don't want Climb to be a skill...and then 'swing from rope while climbing' to be ANTOHER skill... It doesn't give me more options. It has the DM saying "ohhh no, you can't even try that without the correct feat!' Maybe you can try that in 4 levels :-/
Step one: Come up with great idea.
Step Two: Tell DM what I want to do.
Step Three: Dm looks at skill list and assigns a DC
That's all we need :)
I agree with you, Phantom. We have more than a few cases where a feat takes away an option everyone should have and lock it away, bery often not being good enough to warrant a feat, which means everyone effectively lost that ability.
The redeeming feature of [Improved] Whip Mastery is that it does give you a mechanical advantage that you can't get with skills: The ability to threaten adjacent squares (+5ft beyond that).
Really, the feat description could have ended at "While wielding a whip, you threaten the area of your natural reach plus 5 feet", and the rest should just be at the whip's weapon descriptions.
Greater Whip Mastery also gives a series of small mechanical benefits that couldn't be obtained simply by holding a whip or making skill checks (like grappling enemies from distance and dealing your whip's damage instead of your unarmed strike's to them).
I would just remove "Weapon Focus" as a prerequisite, mostly because I find that feat rather bland...
|
|
I kind of liked Skill Tricks (as a concept), but agree that the where poorly implimented. I didn't like how they (amongst other things did sort of take away options from everyone else) but also don't think they should have been a mainly Rogue thing. If anything, I feel that Skill Tricks should have been more spread out across the skills, with the exceptions of a few really good skills already (Perception, Stealth, Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and UMC). Maybe not Diplomacy, just because it seems like a really good way to sort of form some middle ground on that skill.
Rogues are a great class. Don't buy into the hype. They took a small hit, but at the same time did recieve a lot of extras and boosts. It's still one of the more common classes to play and enjoy. Over all, the Skill reduction boosted them more than other classes, because a lot of their either/or choices became one skill, and in a few cases skills where actually combined allowing them to do new things they coulnd't really before hand. Extra HP helped for a class that wasn't really needing it, but helped to add another role the class could handle, and Rogues are more on the SAD side than the MAD, so again that's sort of a double boost.
I fully agree, 4+Int should be the min, with exceptions of the Int based Classes, (Wizard, Witch, Summoner, and maybe one or two more).
Actually, Summoners are Charisma based...
Personally, I'd have everyone except Wizards and Witches get at least 4 skill points/level.
Well, Rogues did get a lot of things in PF... It's just that one of those things was also given to everyone else (simplified skill list) and the other one w=is not very good (Rogue Talents). OTOH, They still lack a way to boost their attack, which is something everyone can do to some extent.
So, while they did become better, they also became obsolete. I think Ninjas are better than Rogues because their Ki-based abilities give them a much greater array of options.
That said, Ninjas are still not very good.
It should probably be noted that fighters suffer from a 30% reduction in their overall feat advantage. Combine that with what appears to be an overall design intent that includes increasing feat chains and adding feat taxes so as to eat up those extra feats and the fighters plight becomes more apparent. Skills would definitely help round out the character, but if they wanted to keep the fighter at a parity with its 3.5 equivalent, then they would need to further increase his feats to compensate. Either that, or make feats mean something as opposed to an exercise in boredom.
"sooo... power attack and weapon focus for everybody! again... yay."
All of that said, I actually think the difference between poor saves and good saves is too significant. At higher levels, a character with a good save has difficulty, a poor save is just a joke. I did the math a while back to see how likely it was that a high level fighter with a reasonably good wisdom score(14 to start), all of the will save feats, and a maxed out resistance cape would fair against a similar level caster. I think the save chance against a high level spell was something like 15%.
P.P.S. Also, two skill points a level makes starting characters seem like they spent their formative years in a box.
Power attack being over-used? Is it making bland and similar characters or enemies? Well...
There was a feat I came across, truly interesting, balanced and suitable to a high power attack world (how do we counter the trolls, ogres, and two hander fighters?). It was called mighty are fallen, it did nothing except when someone used power attack upon you, then they were on -4 to hit. Quite nifty, a feat covering the tactics and training to truly avoid power attacks. -4 to their hit is huge, especially when they are already power attacking.
Requirements: dex and int 13, dodge, mobility, combat expertise.
Funny, I thought this thread had died out...
Actually, Summoners are Charisma based...
Personally, I'd have everyone except Wizards and Witches get at least 4 skill points/level.You are right, my mistake. I could have sworn there was one more, but I was going off the tp of my head.
<edit> Alchi does.
Magus too... But bothe Alchemists and Magi are balanced enough to get at least 4 skill points/level.
Unlike Wizards and Witches, they can't afford to put every attribute point in Intelligence.
Power attack being over-used? Is it making bland and similar characters or enemies? Well...
There was a feat I came across, truly interesting, balanced and suitable to a high power attack world (how do we counter the trolls, ogres, and two hander fighters?). It was called mighty are fallen, it did nothing except when someone used power attack upon you, then they were on -4 to hit. Quite nifty, a feat covering the tactics and training to truly avoid power attacks. -4 to their hit is huge, especially when they are already power attacking.
Requirements: dex and int 13, dodge, mobility, combat expertise.
You know, I have a different take on Power Attack. I believe it should merely be a combat option, rather than a feat. I have two main reasons to think so:
- It's so good pretyy much everyone is gonna take it anyway. There is no reason not to. Might as well save martials the feat. I don't like false choices. It's kinda like Natural Spell. I have yet to see a single druid who doesn't pick this feat, it's basically a class feature for a class that gets one less feat.
But we don't want everyone to get the powerful options just becuse they're powerful, right? That's why I have yet another reason to believe Power Attack (and Deadly Aim... And Combat Expertise) could simply be a combat option:
- It's not a free bonus. You pay for it by reducing your to-hit chance. Admitedly, this is a better trade for some classes than others, but the same can be said about every other feat in the game. (e.g.: Everyone benefits from Iron Will, but a Fighter will enjoy its boons much more than a Paladin or Druid).
It's like that feat that lets you spend a move action to get a +4 to your next shot. Why is that feat? Couldn't it simply be a Aiming mechanic? You are giving up your full attack for a higher to-hit. That's actually a bad trade, why does it need a feat?
You make a good point about "aiming options", but overstate the other half of the argument, I've seen plenty of fighters and druids with neither Power Attack or Natural Spell (presume you meant that rather than Wild Shape) respectively.
Yeah, I meant Natural Spell (just corrected my previous post).
Well, you can survive without Natural Spell... And you can survive without Power Attack... But you'll be so much less effective without them that there is no reason not to grab them.
There is no feat that's good enough to justify a Druid taking it instead of Natural Spell. Unless, of course, you're using an archetype that trades Wild Shape (or spell casting) for something else.
Power Attack is another feat that is present in every melee build who is even slightly optimizaed... Hell, even if you're TWFing, you'll want Power Attack sooner or later. You might not want it at 1st level (in fact, I usually wait 'til 3rd or 5th level to grab it), but you'll want it.
That said, many classes do not really benefit from Power Attack, like Rogues and most Arcane casters, because their to-hit and/or damage output is not that good anyway, so even if PA becomes a standard options, it's not a free bonus. You pay for it with a increasing penalty to your to-hit roll. That's a good trade for a some classes and not so good for others. You'd still have to decide wheter or not use it (maybe the opponent has high AC and/or not so high HP).
My point is, picking up Power Attack is pretty much a false choice, but using it is not. That's why I feel it could be a combat option instead of a feat.
I think fighters will pretty much end up with PA, just from weight of feats, but I've still seen plenty of fighters without it (and played a couple) - reason not to take it, other feats needed more urgently... seen a decent number of druids without it, not queried why not, but seen them played...
Well, yeah, you may have other priorities, but sooner or later, you grab PA... A TWFer may take a while... But he should take PA anyway, as he'll need every bit of extra damage he gets.
And did you mean a Druid without PA or without Natural Spell? My own Druid won't bother taking PA 'til at least 7th level, but Natural Spell? I grab it ASAP, because there is no reason not to. A druid's power and versatility increases so much with that feat...
Truth be told, Natural Spell doesn't botter me much because Druids are already very powerful, they can do with 1 less feat... But I really feel PA could be a standard option. You'd still have feats like Furious Focus to use if better, but PA itself is already a trade.
@Lemmy (that couldn't really be you, could it?)
Druids without Natural Spell.
I do like the attack options idea, though. Would need to take some feats away from fighters to keep the same power level though...
Again, fighters have had a 30% reduction in their feat advantage in pathfinder. They also have the worst saves in the game, and 2 skills oer level. 2 feats isn't going to break them.
@Lemmy (that couldn't really be you, could it?)
Druids without Natural Spell.
I do like the attack options idea, though. Would need to take some feats away from fighters to keep the same power level though...
Really be me? As in... Am I the legendary vocalist from Motorhead? No, I'm not him... I don't think he plays RPGs. Between making great music and getting laid, I don't think he has the time... lol.
There is no need to nerf Fighters... They are pretty underpowered as they are. They won't suddenly become OP because of what's essentially getting an extra feat, even if they were the only ones to get it. (My idea is that everyone gets PA and its clones)
I assure you that you can implement this idea and even buff Fighters a little without fear of unbalacing anything.
Paladins have several swift action spells they can cast offensively.Weapon bond or mount , spells, Aura of faith.but offensively they only have Smite Evil, which is actually very limited in uses.
Mount - not specifically offensive, limited uses in some campaigns.
Weapon Bond - about as handy as a decent buff.
Spells - few really dangerous offensive spells in that list, most are buffs, cures, etc. and how much time does a paladin have to cast in combat?
Aura of Faith - tied to Smite Evil, has the same limitations.
That depends on how you define "offensively" - usable in combat, yes. Actually offensive, no. Have they many of them, no. Spells for a paladin are garnish, not meat. They are handy (I've used grace and hero's defiance a lot) but they are not really that essential. In the case of the two examples, they basically allow the paladin to overcome a few of their weaknesses (mobility, and MADness) more than anything else.