1. 2nd level immune to fear and fear effects on a base class? maybe by 8th level....
2. i think perception would be a better check logistically then sense motive for assess prowess.
3. leadership is already banned by so many people, cool, but potentially gamebreaking (maybe?)
1. I'd rather it scaled, honestly. Maybe 2nd - reduce by 1 step (frightened to shaken; shaken to normal; etc.); 6th - reduce 2 steps; 10th - immune.
2. Perception is already a super-skill that everyone always keeps maxed. It's absurd, IMHO, to keep piling more uses on it. In contrast, Sense Motive should probably have been combined with Bluff.
3. Gamebreaking? Hardly, unless it's already a game without casters. If the casters can teleport, fly across the country, and communicate instantaneously across the world, the fighter NEEDS some means of influencing a larger area than his immediate reach, or he becomes irrelevant to the campaign world as a whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2nd level immune to fear and fear effects on a base class? maybe by 8th level....
Paladins get it at 3rd.
Just pointing that out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
honestly id say playtest that Kirth, i could easily see it being overpowered. blatantly unbalancing even. but i may just be a worry wart.
Do you allow clerics in your game? Lesser planar ally comes on line at 7th level -- two levels earlier. Given its stats and DR, one barghest could eat that whole army of low-level warriors by itself, becoming stronger in the process (and making you that much stronger by extension), and then eat the fighter's cohort, too. If it is killed, Papa Cleric can summon another one just as strong, but Mr Fighter gets penalties to leadership due to having previous followers who were killed.
Better to ban all conjuration spells first, before we demand more playtesting of an existing feat that has already been thoroughly playtested for over 13 years, and that is less powerful than a single 4th level spell.
Or is your argument that a 7th level cleric should be more powerful than a 9th level fighter? That's what makes these "discussions" so endlessly frustrating -- many people have no inherent grasp of the idea that character level as a measure of personal power should be independent of class. We don't have a different scale for each class and then a conversion chart anymore ("Oh, I see your fighter is 15th level, that makes him just as powerful as a 7th level wizard or 8th level cleric or 17th level rogue!"). If a 9th fighter having as much effect on the game world as a 7th level cleric is "blatantly unbalancing," then there's nothing more to discuss.
|
If I were making new feats I'd actually make them more akin to a Monk's style feats only for weapon groups, although my point was that having Weapon Styles always irked me in regards to the forest having them and not the Weapon Training guy. I'd argue that Fighter should have weapon styles and Ranger should have something else but as a patch as opposed to a rewrite, I think that since some classes share features like Uncanny Dodge, Evasion and domains it doesn't hurt for Fighter and Ranger to share weapon style feats [rage] especially since the g$@&+& ranger shouldn't have that in the first place! What the f$@% is the hunter in the woods going to do with a f~@~ing sword and shield. Using weapons better is the Fighter's turf not his, the Ranger is just being an a@&@~!~. Stupid b@@!#!#+ Ranger is just a hunter of beast, men or whatever. He's either a bounty hunger or a monster hunter, but no, being the cast of Cowboy Bebop wasn't cool enough for him, he needed some druid powers, some abilities the fighter should have, plus he gets evasion and hide in plain sight!!! Why doesn't the Rogue have that. Ranger needs to stop riding every other class' dick! I don't even know what he is anymore, just an amalgamation of abilities that should have gone somewhere else! I HATE HIM! I HATE HIM! STATS-WISE ARAGORN WAS A FIGHTER! ONLY THAT ELF WAS A RANGER! ARAGORN WAS A FIGHTER![/rage]
The...
Wow dude, you need to relax there before you stroke out thinking about rangers....lol
Less concerned with feats just now, and wanting to focus on narrative power, which would require actual class features. Just off the top of my head:
Bravery (Ex): At 2nd level, you are immune to fear and fear effects.
Assess Prowess (Ex): By 5th level, you have seen enough combat to guess at the skill of those you meet. On a successful Sense Motive check made as a full-round action, you can determine one creature's base attack bonus and preferred mode of combat (melee, ranged weapon, spells, etc.). If you actually see the creature in combat, you can make this check as a free action.
Leader of Men (Ex): At 9th level, you gain Leadership as a bonus feat. If you have a keep or stronghold, you are seen as the protector of the surrounding lands, and gain a noble title.
Commanding Presence (Ex): At 13th level, your command in battle is so sure that your every order is treated as a command spell. Once they have seen you fight, intelligent NPC combatants of CR equal to your level -3 or less refuse to fight you in melee under any circumstances, even if commanded to (magical control will still work), and must save vs. Will (DC 10 + half your fighter level + your Charisma bonus) or throw their weapons at your feat and join your service on the spot (they can save again when not in your presence, and once per day thereafter, in an effort to shake off the effect).
Supreme Warlord (Ex): By 17th level, nearly all of the soldiers and warriors in the places you've...
This is definitely a much more interesting way to go. I would probably have the save DC's a function of base attack rather than the standard as they are much more likely to inspire obedience through prowess then by presence. In fact, I may even have their diplomacy ranks for the purposes of leadership be the same as their base attack bonus.
Wow dude, you need to relax there before you stroke out thinking about rangers....lolIf I were making new feats I'd actually make them more akin to a Monk's style feats only for weapon groups, although my point was that having Weapon Styles always irked me in regards to the forest having them and not the Weapon Training guy. I'd argue that Fighter should have weapon styles and Ranger should have something else but as a patch as opposed to a rewrite, I think that since some classes share features like Uncanny Dodge, Evasion and domains it doesn't hurt for Fighter and Ranger to share weapon style feats [rage] especially since the g$@&+& ranger shouldn't have that in the first place! What the f$@% is the hunter in the woods going to do with a f~@~ing sword and shield. Using weapons better is the Fighter's turf not his, the Ranger is just being an a@&@~!~. Stupid b@@!#!#+ Ranger is just a hunter of beast, men or whatever. He's either a bounty hunger or a monster hunter, but no, being the cast of Cowboy Bebop wasn't cool enough for him, he needed some druid powers, some abilities the fighter should have, plus he gets evasion and hide in plain sight!!! Why doesn't the Rogue have that. Ranger needs to stop riding every other class' dick! I don't even know what he is anymore, just an amalgamation of abilities that should have gone somewhere else! I HATE HIM! I HATE HIM! STATS-WISE ARAGORN WAS A FIGHTER! ONLY THAT ELF WAS A RANGER! ARAGORN WAS A FIGHTER![/rage]
The...
Sorry I just don't like Rangers. I feel like they don't have a functional identity, just a list of abilities where only a few of them truly bind their flavor. Not only that but they come loaded with abilities that seem seriously misplaced. Not to mention the "Ranger" fictional characters that it seems to try to live up to makes very frustrating PCs making it feel insulting when they 'steal' other Classes' class features, although the 'nature' subtheme does it's share of convincing players to make annoying Rangers. That and Drizzt... the last game I joined had a ranger named Drizt... I was so disappointed...
Its one reason why I liked Inquisitor so much, someone finally stole the Ranger's abilities. Although if I were to rewrite Pathfinder Inquisitor and Ranger would be merged to form a new class. I mean, why does Ranger NOT have Monster Lore.
I wanted to make a Lumberjack Fighter recently. The concept didn't allow me to work without gimping some stats as a Fighter So I went Ranger purely to get TWF without prereqs. Now I have a character where most of his abilities I care nothing about.
Why is a Lumberjack TWFing
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leader of Men (Ex): At 9th level, you gain Leadership as a bonus feat. If you have a keep or stronghold, you are seen as the protector of the surrounding lands, and gain a noble title.
I'll have to ponder these; I think they're intriguing steps in the right direction, certainly thematic to old-school fighters, but they might need refinement.
I left in the Leadership feat-gain because a lot of people have a problem with that feat. I don't really think it's objectionable (and a fair number of the people who have a problem with the feat - by no means all, but a fair number - have no problem with summoning, with calling/binding, which gives yes temporary, but precisely because temporary versatile subordinates).
Leadership is a good call-back to old-school henchies, and a high-level fighter with a retinue of followers also has thematic appeal.
Naturally Archetypes could trade out these features for players who don't want to manage that stuff.
I also like the idea that a high-level fighter becomes seen as/renowned as an inspiring leader to soldiers & warriors. I'm not sure Command is the best way to model that, but it's certainly an interesting direction to go.
Why is a Lumberjack TWFing
Because he's Okay?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If that were true he'd be sleeping all night and working all day, not learning how to dual wield tree saws.
Why is a Lumberjack TWFing
Why is a Lumberjack TWFing
TWFing with axes. I wanted to be so manly that I started chopping down trees two at a time to be efficient.
His name's Andre, speaks with a french accent, personality like Gaston, into guys.
Leader of Men (Ex): At 9th level, you gain Leadership as a bonus feat. If you have a keep or stronghold, you are seen as the protector of the surrounding lands, and gain a noble title.I'll have to ponder these; I think they're intriguing steps in the right direction, certainly thematic to old-school fighters, but they might need refinement.
I left in the Leadership feat-gain because a lot of people have a problem with that feat. I don't really think it's objectionable (and a fair number of the people who have a problem with the feat - by no means all, but a fair number - have no problem with summoning, with calling/binding, which gives yes temporary, but precisely because temporary versatile subordinates).
Leadership is a good call-back to old-school henchies, and a high-level fighter with a retinue of followers also has thematic appeal.
Naturally Archetypes could trade out these features for players who don't want to manage that stuff.
I also like the idea that a high-level fighter becomes seen as/renowned as an inspiring leader to soldiers & warriors. I'm not sure Command is the best way to model that, but it's certainly an interesting direction to go.
I agree with Kirth's direction, more power and renown to the Fighters!!
Isn't the GM responsible for renown?
Also can't the GM just hand the fighter a plot relevant artifact sword?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the GM responsible for renown?
Also can't the GM just hand the fighter a plot relevant artifact sword?
GM favoritism is a terrible to balance classes. Quite possibly the worst way.
Yeah .. . if your GM is fair, your Fighter will be gaining the renown he deserves; If not. . . .
But there's a need for more of the renown coming back to Fighters, as well as Rogues. As for Wizards and Sorcerors, they get them with abilities.
|
Malith wrote:
Malwing wrote:
w01fe01 wrote:
If I were making new feats I'd actually make them more akin to a Monk's style feats only for weapon groups, although my point was that having Weapon Styles always irked me in regards to the forest having them and not the Weapon Training guy. I'd argue that Fighter should have weapon styles and Ranger should have something else but as a patch as opposed to a rewrite, I think that since some classes share features like Uncanny Dodge, Evasion and domains it doesn't hurt for Fighter and Ranger to share weapon style feats [rage] especially since the g$@&+& ranger shouldn't have that in the first place! What the f$@% is the hunter in the woods going to do with a f~@~ing sword and shield. Using weapons better is the Fighter's turf not his, the Ranger is just being an a@&@~!~. Stupid b@@!#!#+ Ranger is just a hunter of beast, men or whatever. He's either a bounty hunger or a monster hunter, but no, being the cast of Cowboy Bebop wasn't cool enough for him, he needed some druid powers, some abilities the fighter should have, plus he gets evasion and hide in plain sight!!! Why doesn't the Rogue have that. Ranger needs to stop riding every other class' dick! I don't even know what he is anymore, just an amalgamation of abilities that should have gone somewhere else! I HATE HIM! I HATE HIM! STATS-WISE ARAGORN WAS A FIGHTER! ONLY THAT ELF WAS A RANGER! ARAGORN WAS A FIGHTER![/rage]
The...
Wow dude, you need to relax there before you stroke out thinking about rangers....lol
Sorry I just don't like Rangers. I feel like they don't have a functional identity, just a list of abilities where only a few of them truly bind their flavor. Not only that but they come loaded with abilities that seem seriously misplaced. Not to mention the "Ranger" fictional characters that it seems to try to live up to makes very frustrating PCs making it feel insulting when they 'steal' other Classes' class features, although the 'nature' subtheme does it's share of convincing players to make annoying Rangers. That and Drizzt... the last game I joined had a ranger named Drizt... I was so disappointed...
Its one reason why I liked Inquisitor so much, someone finally stole the Ranger's abilities. Although if I were to rewrite Pathfinder Inquisitor and Ranger would be merged to form a new class. I mean, why does Ranger NOT have Monster Lore.
I wanted to make a Lumberjack Fighter recently. The concept didn't allow me to work without gimping some stats as a Fighter So I went Ranger purely to get TWF without prereqs. Now I have a character where most of his abilities I care nothing about.
I totally agree with rangers being class stealing jack@$$'s. also, I think TWFing lumberjacks are reasonable enough. This makes them more effective if they can fell tree's in one swing. Also, if you use enlarge person & permanency then you have a more effective paul bunyun.
As for leadership, people overestimate it, in my opinion. People say that having multiple people of different levels being played by one dude is to powerful, I argue that having a Demon, Eidolon, Or summoned monsters equal to or greater than your relative "CR" is way worse than people that have less "CR"
GM favoritism is a terrible to balance classes. Quite possibly the worst way.Yeah, but forcing plots to the DM via class features is terrible too IMHO.
Is it?
Being able to greatly affect the world in many ways is not necessarily bad. Pretty much every decision a player makes is forcing a plot on the GM, what changes is how prepared the GM is to deal with it, and how much freedom he gives to the PCs.
I do agree that full casters, or more precisely, their spell lists, should be made less powerful, but the character being able to do great things is not a problem per se. The character being able to do pretty much anything is.
Even though I think full caster are more powerful than they should be, I'm more worried about buffing Fighters, Rogues and Monks... (and Cavaliers, I suppose) than nerfing Clerics, Wizards and Druids.
Naturally not every Fighter of a sufficiently high level is going to want a stronghold, but there's something to be said for prestige and fame, making for powerful allies and powerful enemies. . .
Yes, players actions force plots to the DM, not class features, there is a really big difference.
For me If a fighter (or barbarian or wahtever) wants a stronghold he have to earn that In game.
Not like "look I earned enoguh Xp to make trhough the next level, now, were is my castle and my army?"
At least that is what I think about the game.
To be fair, players' actions are limited and expanded by their class features.
I agree with your point, Nicos, but how do you give Fighters and other mundane character the ability to affect the world in the same way a caster can? You have to give them extraordinary abilities as well.
Unfortunately, many players a Fighter doing anything remotely unrealistic and scream "take this anime-wuxia shit from my PF!". So Fighter can't do anything a real person wouldn't be able to, despite the fact that they're often (supposedly) just as powerful (i.e.: same CR) as demons, angels and dragons.
Give fantastic abilities to mundane characters, and suddenly, they'll be able to do fantastic stuff without the need of the GM picking favorites. "Mundane" shouldn't mean "ordinary".
Hey I have an idea lets give the fighter things he can personally do instead of making it a rule that the GM has to had him fame and success.
What is the difference between "legions at your beck and call" and "here's a really nice sword".
Might as well give the fighter the ability to attract magical weapons. Because he is just that awesome.
How about making a fighter tougher and stronger with jump checks using strength.
I know that would ruin the monks day, but its full casters we are worried about having pissing contest with.
Better at saving against threats, more health, more AC, and more mobility. Oh and cheaper flying gear would be nice too. Especially around the time casters get their hour/lvl flight spells. Maybe a cool mount option aside from leadership that doesn't require an archetype.
Enough mobility to keep them in range for indoor fights and cool flying mounts that wizards couldn't handle for outdoor missions.
I agree taht mundane o not means ordinary. But something is terribly wrong at the moment the fighter is teleporting or plane traveling by force of will alone.
Sure, no teleport or plane shift, but they could run extremely fast, or use Acrobatics to perform Matrix style stunts. No Fireball, but Fighters could move fast enough to attack many enemies seemingly at the same time. No force field, but why not give them the ability to use their sword and/or shields to deflect rays? Fighter can't summon, but why not be able to instruct their allies in combat, granting them actions or bonuses? That would be really cool.
I do not know how to give fighter (and all martial for the matter) the same plot impact the full caster can have, but certainly I do prefer the game at it is right now and not with the old stronghold rules from 2e.
I agree. Although I'd give them an ability to make acquiring a stronghold easier. Fighters should make good generals, after all. Give them something to increase morale of the troops, and they can get that stronghold a lot easier.
Let's take Paladins. Their abilities are fueled by charisma, so they have great social skills. They can heal wounds. And not only they eventually become immune to fear, charm and compulsion effects, their mere presence greatly aids their allies to resist such things.Paladins are not casters, not really, but they get class features that give them great influence on those around them. Not as world-changing as a Wizard, of course, but still capable of truly affecting the world. And they still make awesome warriors!
Fighters, OTOH, make good grunts. And that's it.
As for leadership, people overestimate it, in my opinion. People say that having multiple people of different levels being played by one dude is to powerful, I argue that having a Demon, Eidolon, Or summoned monsters equal to or greater than your relative "CR" is way worse than people that have less "CR"
Actually the part where leadership gets broken is not the physical power of the cohort but the things that a PC class gets. Like for example if you work your cohort right you effectively used one feat to gain access to a number of crafting feats freeing up any feats you want to use for combat, or have an alchemist cohort that makes a bunch of clones or potions or something like that. The bonus is that it doesn't have to optimized and go into combat so you can pump it up with absurd features that would normally be useless but form broken combinations.
Its not very broken if you make the cohorts Cohort archetypes or NPC classes but it is at the least unbalanced in that one feat gives you access to several other feats.
|
|
Ranger, paladin and barbarian have the same plot impact as fighters.
I disagre because paladins get influence with the law in a primarily good trumps evil country, making him great at worming you out of legal troubles (assuming he doesn't fall from grace getting in) and barbarians can take certain things to be better with barbarian tribes if they abduct you or have a problem. Rangers seem like class stealers to me and don't have connections to help, though if he is a bounty hunter, you could justify him having some useful info sources though. Fighters have no option to influence the non-combat areas of the game, and Leadership built in to the class could change that because you have a certain amount of fame.
The point of this feature is to allow fighters to have a narrative power on the game and the feat is in no way more powerful than summon monster spells or planar ally/binding.
How about making a fighter tougher and stronger with jump checks using strength.
I know that would ruin the monks day, but its full casters we are worried about having pissing contest with.
Is there any reason a monk couldn't use Strength to make better jumps? Seems like both would benefit...
Better at saving against threats, more health, more AC, and more mobility. Oh and cheaper flying gear would be nice too. Especially around the time casters get their hour/lvl flight spells. Maybe a cool mount option aside from leadership that doesn't require an archetype.Enough mobility to keep them in range for indoor fights and cool flying mounts that wizards couldn't handle for outdoor missions.
But this have nothing to do with Kirth proposition.
I know. Note that I agreed with your position about strongholds. Then I used the Paladin as an example of a martial class that gets to influence the world without spells.
Lots of charisma + social skills + auras + healing = A really influential person. Paladins don't change the world by scrying the villains base and then teleporting inside it. They do it the old fashioned way, they make people listen to what they have to say. They convince others to join their cause. That means a Paladin can, let's say, create a church in the name of her God and use the resources of said church to find out where the BBEG is hiding, then lead a siege against it, or at least get some military support.
Fighters can't do that. They get Intimidate, I suppose, but it turns out most people don't like being intimidated, so if that's your only leadership skill, chances are you won't make a very good leader. Even those who lead through fear need to be good at some aspect of leadership, be it military strategy, economics, gathering information, etc... Fighters are not good at any of that.
|
|
@nicos: True enough I suppose, but a paladin will have a much stronger hold for being a beacon of hope and a symbol of their deity's power ( a deity that will probably be respected in an LG or even just NG society. Barbarians will have a stronger hold on tribes by being similar and knowing their mind set. By a role playing perspective, I see paladins and fighters both having a justifiable leadership feature, If paizo re-writes the class in 1.5 then they will probably fix the problems with leadership.
I still think that fighters should have this feature for fact of having low-influence when role playing encounters with law because their skills are limited and they aren't Cha based like paladins. Barbarians are typically low charisma (not that they should have to be) so anyone can influence them because the DC will be low. I do see your point though, this is just my opinion.
No force field, but why not give them the ability to use their sword and/or shields to deflect rays?
Well, not to nit pick but....
|
|
All the things you mention can be done by a fighter. If said fighter is LG follower of Iomedae, go to mendev and kills dozens of demons saving a lo of people an acting like true LG person, would he not be a beacon of hope for those people?
The same with the barbarian example, there is no reason for a barbarian (the tribesmen) to be a barbarian (the class) instead of a fighter (the class) other that the players preferences.
I respectfully disagree with the Role Playing being relatively unrelated to class.( personal opinion)
Palains do not change the world with diplomacy and a high Cha. They can change the attitude of certain people with the use o th skill and that it is. If they get more is because the DM allowed/supported that.
Diplomacy does a lot more than change attitude, actually... RAW, you can make all sorts of requests.
And if a player of yours decide to, let's say, convince the king to negotiate for peace, what skill would you say is best suited for the player to roll during his conversation with the king? Ride? Knowledge(Arcana)?
And they can get Diplomacy as a class skill by traits.
Or pick the "Cosmopolitan" feat and get perception as class skill as well. Class skills isn't the problem.
Cosmopolitan
Benefit: You can speak and read two additional languages of your choice. In addition, choose two Intelligence-, Wisdom-, or Charisma-based skills. Those skills always count as class skills for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No force field, but why not give them the ability to use their sword and/or shields to deflect rays?Well, not to nit pick but....
Nice feat. If only it wasn't locked behind a wall of terrible prerequisites...
Nothing stop a fighter to have a decent enough Diplomacy score(..)
None of his class features help him to do that, though... Fighters have very few skill points and no real reason to invest in Cha.
Nothing stops a Paladin from having a great Disable Device score... But I'd not say they are good at unlocking doors...(You know what I think about the social skills and the roleplay, there is no point to make the same arguements here, there was a reason we agreed to disagree in the last thread about this topic
Actually, I don't really remember this discussion... Sorry -.-'
Are you of the opinion that social skills shouldn't exist and everything should be made through role playing?
Well, it doesn't really matter, anyway, since we're discussing RAW. I have no complaints about Fighters in my home game, since I don't use RAW for them. But that argument doesn't really matter in this discussion either.
|
|
(You know what I think about the social skills and the roleplay, there is no point to make the same arguements here, there was a reason we agreed to disagree in the last thread about this topic)
Nailed it. There is no right or wrong here and our opinions differ.
Also, to make fighters more effective in combat with spell casters, why not give them low power SR like the stuff dwarfs can get for being dwarfs. If fighters can resist magical attacks made against them then they can attack evil Mages without getting slaughtered on the way. Any thoughts or feelings on this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, to make fighters more effective in combat with spell casters, why not give them low power SR like the stuff dwarfs can get for being dwarfs. If fighters can resist magical attacks made against them then they can attack evil Mages without getting slaughtered on the way. Any thoughts or feelings on this?
I'd not like SR specifically, since SR... well... SR sucks.
But, yeah, I'd like Fighters to have better defenses against magic... Or you, know... ANY defense. Poor will + poor reflex + low touch AC = A wizard's b&$+&.
I am of the opinion that the skill should supplement the roleplay not otherwise.
I agree, but I don't see role playing as "your character's social skills". IMO, role play is the choices you character make. You can spend the entire campaign without ever getting involved in a social encounter and still role play very well.
Or you can be the Bard with +500 in Diplomacy and roll-play it as well as a cardboard box would.If i recall correctly you and your group first roll and the roleplay the results,something that I do not like.
I see. Well, if it makes you feel better, I often give my players all sorts of bonuses for good role play. I never give them penalties, though... Unless they say something really, really stupid, and I don't mean "making a bad argument" stupid, I mean "say something that would make the other person instantly hate you" stupid (e.g.:"How much is that wand of Fireball? I'd like to burn your house to the ground and then set your family on fire.")
I also don't request rolls unless there is some serious difficulty involved. You don't need Diplomacy to get a random pedestrian to tell you what time is it.
EDIT: Also, I never use Diplomacy or Intimidate to decide how a PC reacts ("This NPC got a 73 on his Diplomacy check, you agree with him and do whatever he told you to). Nor do I let players do it to each other. Nope, PCs are pretty much immune to skill-based coercion. (Though they can still be affected by these skills in other ways, such as an opponent using it to cause a PC to be Shaken.)
Still, those are houserules, and have no bearing in how effective any class is.
By the other hand, this may be the most prolific fighter thread, an intersting fact giving that the last two were 1500+ post long.
Well... to be fair, I think this is the 2nd time it has been brought back from the dead, so it's more like we had 2 or 3 different threads with the same name...