The Main Problem with Fighters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

3,301 to 3,350 of 3,805 << first < prev | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | next > last >>

Anzyr wrote:
SiuoL wrote:
Then play Thieves' World! Far better than Pathfinder, Caster is still powerful but takes reasonable amount of time to cast spells. Fighter are strong but can't do much. Thief is good in thieves' world! I'm quiting pathfinder.
Have you tried Legend yet?

Just updated to 1.1 a bit ago, and it used to be pay what you want and now free.

Marthkus wrote:

I'd rather like this game.

All the classes still do things even the rogue.

Yeah, even the commoner does things! He does about as much as some PC classes really.


MrSin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

I'd rather like this game.

All the classes still do things even the rogue.

Yeah, even the commoner does things! He does about as much as some PC classes really.

Yes, building a rogue is difficult.


Marthkus wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

I'd rather like this game.

All the classes still do things even the rogue.

Yeah, even the commoner does things! He does about as much as some PC classes really.
Yes, building a rogue is difficult.

And... what's the point of saying that? Did I say it wasn't?


Marthkus wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

I'd rather like this game.

All the classes still do things even the rogue.

Yeah, even the commoner does things! He does about as much as some PC classes really.

Yes, building a rogue is difficult.

Not in Legend. Oh man beta Fortune's Friend track... remove all the conditions.


MrSin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

I'd rather like this game.

All the classes still do things even the rogue.

Yeah, even the commoner does things! He does about as much as some PC classes really.
Yes, building a rogue is difficult.
And... what's the point of saying that? Did I say it wasn't?

Rogues the only class I've ran into to that basically is a commoner during parts of the game if you build them wrong.

Even fighters don't feel like commoners during out of combat.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
strayshift wrote:

Read your Fighter ideas Aelryinth, and can see a lot that would make the fighter more attractive, I'm curious also though about the possibilities of trading feats for an increase in a stat, for a fighter this could possibly give skill bonuses, save bonuses, hit points, as well as improving combat and hit points, etc.

I accept this is not 'feats' as such, and I like your idea of massively increasing a fighter's 'flexibility' in design, this would also seem to supplement 'smart' fighters, 'fast' fighters, etc.

Yes, when I was making the build, the whole idea was that the fighter could pick what HE wanted his key ability scores to be, and not be penalized for that.

So, Focused Fighters have a good Will save...and use their best mental stat for the bonus. Swift fighters get the good Reflex save...and use their best stat for that, as well.

I give them extra stat points...to their lowest stats. Why? Because they train ALL THE TIME. That's the fighter's shtick. The barb does wine, women, song, and brawl. The paladin prays and practices and is a pious penitent. The ranger hunts and wanders around solo, getting the lay of the land. So they cover their weaknesses with extra training to compensate. Everyone else just tacks on that stat point to their key score.
The fighter, does more.

The fighter trains.

He goes looking for famous masters, crazy techniques no other class can use. He takes students, he is a student. He loves his weapon so much he gives it a name and it becomes magical because that's just how awesome he is. When people come onto a battlefield, they look to him to lead them...and he will lead them most awesomely, yes, indeed.

His career, his job, is to FIGHT. And he can be good at all those roles, if he chooses to be. He can differentiate between skills needed in uptime and downtime, and bring an almost totally different set of capabilities to the fight if he has time to prepare.

He gives up simplicity to do this. To have flexibility, you have to have other things tacked on so you can swap in and out. Happily, this takes away much of the danger of failure, because you will have multiple effective options, and enough room to make errors and still be able to recover.

And, yeah, you can train out those dumb things more often then 1/4 levels, too.

==Aelryinth


Marthkus wrote:
Cramped spaces do a lot to balance things.

So true.


Maerimydra wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Cramped spaces do a lot to balance things.
So true.

Not necessarily. If the space is cramped then the that means the wizard can hit more people at once with his spells (as opposed to them being spread out everywhere). And if you shapechange into a medium Dragon, you can use a line breath weapon to great effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Me thinking: "i need to limit the available feats so people dont do too much dps and finish encounters in two rounds."

Everybody else: "we need more dps in the game."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shadowkras wrote:

Me thinking: "i need to limit the available feats so people dont do too much dps and finish encounters in two rounds."

Everybody else: "we need more dps in the game."

I think you need to reread the thread. Because you have almost completely missed the point. The call in this thread is for martials to have more options. Not more DPS.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
shadowkras wrote:

Me thinking: "i need to limit the available feats so people dont do too much dps and finish encounters in two rounds."

Everybody else: "we need more dps in the game."

As regards the Fighter-

I think his DPR is great. It's his saves, skills, and narrative power that's lacking.

Why does every Fighter feat have to be some version of "Add a static bonus to this combat check" or "Get an additional attack under this circumstance"?

Why don't Fighters get stuff like:

Fearsome Reputation
Prerequisites: Fighter level 3, Bravery class feature, Charisma 11+
The Fighter's fearsome reputation goes before him, lending him added powers of persuasion.
Benefit:You may pick a region where you are well known; this region must be a settlement or settlements with a total population of 1,000 or fewer people, and you gain a +2 competence bonus on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to influence people in that area. As your reputation grows, additional areas learn of you (typically places where you have lived or traveled, or settlements adjacent to those where you are known) and your bonuses apply to even more people. At 6th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of 5,000 or fewer people, and the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +4. At 10th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 25,000 people, and the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +6. At 14th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 100,000 people, and the bonus to Diplomacy and Intimidate is +8. At 18th level and above, your renown has spread far, and most civilized folk know of you (GM's discretion); the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +10.


Ssalarn wrote:


Why don't Fighters get stuff like:

Fearsome Reputation
Prerequisites: Fighter level 3, Bravery class feature, Charisma 11+
The Fighter's fearsome reputation goes before him, lending him added powers of persuasion.
Benefit:You may pick a region where you are well known; this region must be a settlement or settlements with a total population of 1,000 or fewer people, and you gain a +2 competence bonus on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to influence people in that area. As your reputation grows, additional areas learn of you (typically places where you have lived or traveled, or settlements adjacent to those where you are known) and your bonuses apply to even more people. At 6th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of 5,000 or fewer people, and the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +4. At 10th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 25,000 people, and the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +6. At 14th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 100,000 people, and the bonus to Diplomacy and Intimidate is +8. At 18th level and above, your renown has spread far, and most civilized folk know of you (GM's discretion); the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +10.

Some people would dislike mechanics for this kind of thing, I do.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
Some people would dislike mechanics for this kind of thing, I do.

Well, yeah, that's really what's underneath all these threads. Do we play the game as a Magical Story Hour where the DM makes up a story and the players go with it? Or do we play it as a tactical game in which the DM plays the "bad guys"? Can we do both?

The "fighters are fine" people are strongly in the former camp; the "fighters need narrative power" people in the latter. It doesn't help that some classes (casters) can be played in both sorts of games, but fighters, rogues, and monks really only shine in the former, after low levels.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Nicos wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:


Why don't Fighters get stuff like:

Fearsome Reputation
Prerequisites: Fighter level 3, Bravery class feature, Charisma 11+
The Fighter's fearsome reputation goes before him, lending him added powers of persuasion.
Benefit:You may pick a region where you are well known; this region must be a settlement or settlements with a total population of 1,000 or fewer people, and you gain a +2 competence bonus on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to influence people in that area. As your reputation grows, additional areas learn of you (typically places where you have lived or traveled, or settlements adjacent to those where you are known) and your bonuses apply to even more people. At 6th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of 5,000 or fewer people, and the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +4. At 10th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 25,000 people, and the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +6. At 14th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 100,000 people, and the bonus to Diplomacy and Intimidate is +8. At 18th level and above, your renown has spread far, and most civilized folk know of you (GM's discretion); the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +10.

Some people would dislike mechanics for this kind of thing, I do.

Why? I didn't create any new mechanics, I introduced a set of scaling and thematically appropriate bonuses (which also serve to shore up the Fighter's low skill points). I didn't do something stupid like Rumormonger and create an ability that does nothing other than give you permission to do something everyone would have assumed you could do without it.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Some people would dislike mechanics for this kind of thing, I do.

Well, yeah, that's really what's underneath all these threads. Do we play the game as a Magical Story Hour where the DM makes up a story and the players go with it? Or do we play it as a tactical game in which the DM plays the "bad guys"? Can we do both?

The "fighters are fine" people are strongly in the former camp; the "fighters need narrative power" people in the latter. It doesn't help that some classes (casters) can be played in both sorts of games, but fighters, rogues, and monks really only shine in the former, after low levels.

THat is misleading. If hte spellcaster can impact the game more is because the power and option they have. They can teleport here create a golem to protect the artifact there or whatever, but they have to do something in order to enforce their narrative power.

Instead all the proposed solution for fighter do not involve this kind of proactivity. They are like "you leveled up? fine, you now have an army", or like the Ssalarn feat "people now know you". There is no fighter involvement, there is no actions just you are a fighter you have the feat now people know you.


Ssalarn wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:


Why don't Fighters get stuff like:

Fearsome Reputation
Prerequisites: Fighter level 3, Bravery class feature, Charisma 11+
The Fighter's fearsome reputation goes before him, lending him added powers of persuasion.
Benefit:You may pick a region where you are well known; this region must be a settlement or settlements with a total population of 1,000 or fewer people, and you gain a +2 competence bonus on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to influence people in that area. As your reputation grows, additional areas learn of you (typically places where you have lived or traveled, or settlements adjacent to those where you are known) and your bonuses apply to even more people. At 6th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of 5,000 or fewer people, and the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +4. At 10th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 25,000 people, and the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +6. At 14th level, the region may be a settlement or settlements with a total population of up to 100,000 people, and the bonus to Diplomacy and Intimidate is +8. At 18th level and above, your renown has spread far, and most civilized folk know of you (GM's discretion); the modifier on Diplomacy and Intimidate checks is +10.

Some people would dislike mechanics for this kind of thing, I do.
Why? I didn't create any new mechanics, I introduced a set of scaling and thematically appropriate bonuses (which also serve to shore up the Fighter's low skill points). I didn't do something stupid like Rumormonger and create an ability that does nothing other than give you permission to do something everyone would have assumed you could do without it.

If you want to give the fighter a +10 to diplomacy and intimidate then just say "this feat make you good at diplomacy and intimidate, take these bonuses".

Instead you are attaching the bonuses to the story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
THat is misleading. If hte spellcaster can impact the game more is because the power and option they have. They can teleport here create a golem to protect the artifact there or whatever, but they have to do something in order to enforce their narrative power. Instead all the proposed solution for fighter do not involve this kind of proactivity. They are like "you leveled up? fine, you now have an army", or like the Ssalarn feat "people now know you". There is no fighter involvement, there is no actions just you are a fighter you have the feat now people know you.

While true on one level, that's also slightly misleading, I think. The passive bonuses, while boring, aren't doing much for Ssalarn's fighter if he just "goes with the flow" and hopes to get in a check now and then. He's still got to go out and make opportunities to use those bonuses to their best advantage.

Granted, the ability (or maybe the game in general) might be better if it gave him a means of doing that other than asking the DM "can I?"

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Alexandros Satorum wrote:

If you want to give the fighter a +10 to diplomacy and intimidate then just say "this feat make you good at diplomacy and intimidate, take these bonuses".

Instead you are attaching the bonuses to the story.

I like to try and work within the bounds of something that might actually see the light of day in a printed product. A thematic scaling bonus to relevant skill checks that matches the Fighter's fluff but isn't just flat bonuses is the kind of thing that can actually be implemented. I can't just give them +10 to Intimidate, because no one would ever take Skill Focus(Intimidate), and nothing that invalidates core options will ever make it into the Paizo product line, nor will anyone take a 3pp product that straight up gives you "X but better" seriously, as they'll assume you don't care about balance.

When I propose something, I try to propose something that I think could actually be printed in a future Paizo supplement, and Fearsome Reputation would fall into that category.

The Fighter has a few problems, but the ones most commonly agreed on are:

1) Lack of skills, and thus lack of even mundane narrative power.
2) Poor saves that make him bad at his job.
3) No way to bring away from the "I hit him. I hit him harder. I hit him in the shins...?" dynamic

Fighters gaining access to feats like the one suggested would help reduce the impact of numbers 1 and 3.

Further feats to expand upon the Bravery ability could potentially help with number 3.

Yes, a feat like Fearsome Reputation does mean that his abilities are dictating certain conditions upon the game world, but frankly, I think altering the freaking cosmos to create your own personal amusement park, and for the cost of a single spell slot, far less than a feat, does so to a much higher degree. My feat means that people in the game world are now assumed to have heard of the character and can't help but be impressed or respectful as a result. [i]Create demiplane[/url] means the caster has just altered the cosmology of my entire campaign world.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Nicos wrote:
THat is misleading. If hte spellcaster can impact the game more is because the power and option they have. They can teleport here create a golem to protect the artifact there or whatever, but they have to do something in order to enforce their narrative power. Instead all the proposed solution for fighter do not involve this kind of proactivity. They are like "you leveled up? fine, you now have an army", or like the Ssalarn feat "people now know you". There is no fighter involvement, there is no actions just you are a fighter you have the feat now people know you.

While true on one level, that's also slightly misleading, I think. The passive bonuses, while boring, aren't doing much for Ssalarn's fighter if he just "goes with the flow" and hopes to get in a check now and then. He's still got to go out and make opportunities to use those bonuses to their best advantage.

Granted, the ability (or maybe the game in general) might be better if it gave him a means of doing that other than asking the DM "can I?"

I think we agreed on that like 10 pages and a year ago in this thread. I am just saying that I have yet to see a solution that I like.

EDIT: Note that I am not arguing the bonuses, I am arguing the free attachment it have to the story.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Nicos wrote:
THat is misleading. If hte spellcaster can impact the game more is because the power and option they have. They can teleport here create a golem to protect the artifact there or whatever, but they have to do something in order to enforce their narrative power. Instead all the proposed solution for fighter do not involve this kind of proactivity. They are like "you leveled up? fine, you now have an army", or like the Ssalarn feat "people now know you". There is no fighter involvement, there is no actions just you are a fighter you have the feat now people know you.

While true on one level, that's also slightly misleading, I think. The passive bonuses, while boring, aren't doing much for Ssalarn's fighter if he just "goes with the flow" and hopes to get in a check now and then. He's still got to go out and make opportunities to use those bonuses to their best advantage.

***

Word. The feat assumes you

1) Have done enough that you've actually accrued the experience necessary to reach level 3

and

2) Are actually going to go use those bonuses productively.

I can have a +100 to Diplomacy checks and it doesn't matter why or how I got it if I never actually use it.

The Fighter needs tools, and at this point they need to be tools that fit within the existing framework of the game. I, personally, would also prefer they be tools that are logically consistent within themselves, thus things like the "Bravery" requirement, which both shows that the Fighter, mechanically, has the components necessary to qualify and which helps prevent the "Anything good for the Fighter is power creep for everyone else" issue that comes about as a result of the Fighter's primary class ability being more of something everyone has in relative abundance.


Ssalarn wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:

If you want to give the fighter a +10 to diplomacy and intimidate then just say "this feat make you good at diplomacy and intimidate, take these bonuses".

Instead you are attaching the bonuses to the story.

I like to try and work within the bounds of something that might actually see the light of day in a printed product. A thematic scaling bonus to relevant skill checks that matches the Fighter's fluff but isn't just flat bonuses is the kind of thing that can actually be implemented. I can't just give them +10 to Intimidate, because no one would ever take Skill Focus(Intimidate), and nothing that invalidates core options will ever make it into the Paizo product line, nor will anyone take a 3pp product that straight up gives you "X but better" seriously, as they'll assume you don't care about balance.

When I propose something, I try to propose something that I think could actually be printed in a future Paizo supplement, and Fearsome Reputation would fall into that category.

The Fighter has a few problems, but the ones most commonly agreed on are:

1) Lack of skills, and thus lack of even mundane narrative power.
2) Poor saves that make him bad at his job.
3) No way to bring away from the "I hit him. I hit him harder. I hit him in the shins...?" dynamic

Fighters gaining access to feats like the one suggested would help reduce the impact of numbers 1 and 3.

Further feats to expand upon the Bravery ability could potentially help with number 3.

Yes, a feat like Fearsome Reputation does mean that his abilities are dictating certain conditions upon the game world, but frankly, I think altering the freaking cosmos to create your own personal amusement park, and for the cost of a single spell slot, far less than a feat, does so to a much higher degree. My feat means that people in the game world are now assumed to have heard of the...

I am of the opinion than crazyness should not be figthed with crazyness. I dislike create demiplane. Instead of making a quest in order to obtain the ancient knowledge of demiplanes, then questing to acquire the required material or whatever the game just ask you to be a wizard, to have the spell and the money...it is awful IMHO. Your proposed feat make me feel the same way, instead of saving towns or winning wars or whatever the only thing the fighter need to be known is to have a feat.

On the other hand, paizo will not publish anything to solve fighter problem, they have decided to leave thing the way they are.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Q: The Main Problem with Fighters.....

A: 3rd Edition/D20


I like the Fearsome Reputation feat. I'd take it if I knew I was going to be in a very heroic or very villainous campaign because I know I'd actually be the guy doing epic enough deeds to deserve the recognition the feat grants.

Ssalarn, are you going to try to get that feat printed somewhere? That'd be cool.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Nicos wrote:

I am of the opinion than crazyness should not be figthed with crazyness. I dislike create demiplane. Instead of making a quest in order to obtain the ancient knowledge of demiplanes, then questing to acquire the required material or whatever the game just ask you to be a wizard, to have the spell and the money...it is awful IMHO. Your proposed feat make me feel the same way, instead of saving towns or winning wars or whatever the only thing the fighter need to be known is to have a feat.

On the other hand, paizo will not publish anything to solve fighter problem, they have decided to leave thing the way they are.

Completely different. My feat requires that the Fighter has been doing stuff, and creates the assumption that his doing stuff actually matters to the game world.

You can't level up and take the feat, or gain the scaling benefits, without doing stuff. The feat gives the Fighter a better return on investment for the stuff he does. Your bad-assery is such that other people are talking about it, and you know how to parlay that fame into tangible benefits.

Would it make you feel better if I adjusted the fluff so it said "You have built a fearsome reputation and you know how to use it to your benefit"?


Ssalarn wrote:
Nicos wrote:

I am of the opinion than crazyness should not be figthed with crazyness. I dislike create demiplane. Instead of making a quest in order to obtain the ancient knowledge of demiplanes, then questing to acquire the required material or whatever the game just ask you to be a wizard, to have the spell and the money...it is awful IMHO. Your proposed feat make me feel the same way, instead of saving towns or winning wars or whatever the only thing the fighter need to be known is to have a feat.

On the other hand, paizo will not publish anything to solve fighter problem, they have decided to leave thing the way they are.

Completely different. My feat requires that the Fighter has been doing stuff, and creates the assumption that his doing stuff actually matters to the game world.

You can't level up and take the feat, or gain the scaling benefits, without doing stuff. The feat gives the Fighter a better return on investment for the stuff he does. Your bad-assery is such that other people are talking about it, and you know how to parlay that fame into tangible benefits.

Would it make you feel better if I adjusted the fluff so it said "You have built a fearsome reputation and you know how to use it to your benefit"?

If the fighter have already done the things to make him famous then the feat have no reason to exist, IMHO. If I were the DM then the fighter actions would have consequences. If he have become a great heroe then people will talk about him without him to take a feat.

Note that I would not do it because "story time" or whatever but because the fighter would have earned it trough his actions.


In essence, Nico, you're arguing for an adjustment to the rules of the Social Skills (explicitly calling out bonuses for earned notoriety) as opposed to paying for those bonuses with a feat?


Ssalarn wrote:


Would it make you feel better if I adjusted the fluff so it said "You have built a fearsome reputation and you know how to use it to your benefit"?

Perhaps, but just not the fluff but the mechanics. If it were something like "if you talk to people who Already know of your deeds then you know how to influentiate them more"

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Adam B. 135 wrote:

I like the Fearsome Reputation feat. I'd take it if I knew I was going to be in a very heroic or very villainous campaign because I know I'd actually be the guy doing epic enough deeds to deserve the recognition the feat grants.

Ssalarn, are you going to try to get that feat printed somewhere? That'd be cool.

I've got like 20 of those, I just haven't had the venue for them.

I'm writing a class called the Iron Lord for Amora Games' "Libris Influxis" that has some overlap with the Fighter, maybe I'll see if I can't get Greg to let me do a couple archetypes and throw some feats like this in there as well, or do a follow up .pdf with that material in there if people like the materials I'm doing for the book.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Companion, Lost Omens Subscriber

When I hear people claim that 3rd edition is the problem for fighters I know right away that they never played 1st or 2nd Ed.

Let me sum up every thing a fighter could do mechanically in early editions of the game.

Fighter "I attack"

DM "you hit"

Fighter "I do 9 points of damage"

DM "next"

I loved 1st Ed but 3rd Ed vastly opened up the options for fighters. The very idea that you can use feats to create different kinds of fighters (two handed, two weapon, bow specialist, pole arm). You can say that 3rd Ed gave even more options to other classes but not that it did not improve the fighter.

Frankly, because I am an old time gamer, I don't expect every class to be able to do everything. I'm perfectly fine with Fighters fighting and bards singing and clerics healing and wizards being awesome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pyrrhic Victory wrote:
When I hear people claim that 3rd edition is the problem for fighters I know right away that they never played 1st or 2nd Ed.

Your memory is flawed, and your assumption incorrect.

I grew up on AD&D, and didn't switch from 2e to 3e until 3.5 was already out. There are a few people around with more older edition experience -- Chris Mortica and Dr Deth to name two -- but not that many.

In earlier editions, the fighter got a free army and a noble title as a class feature. He could move and full attack. He could take advantage of high physical attributes in ways other classes couldn't. He could reliably disrupt spellcasting by chucking a dagger. He could eventually make just about any saving throw in the game with a 90% success rate.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
In essence, Nico, you're arguing for an adjustment to the rules of the Social Skills (explicitly calling out bonuses for earned notoriety) as opposed to paying for those bonuses with a feat?

Actually no.

I'm just prefer to not tie with mechanics things that have to be earned by the actions of the character. The wizard will not be king just because he is a high level wizard, he have to use his resources in order to achieve it. Perhaps by using his magic to kill the old king and modify the memory of everyone so they thing the wizard is the real king or whatever.

I am not opposed to a fighter with an army, but I do not wan him to have it just because he is high level fighter.

Now that I think about it, perhaps what I would like are narrative options that allow the fighter to earn the army (or whatever) instead of just having it because a class feature. the class feature should allow (if the fighter so desire it and it fit the campaign) not just give, IMHO, of course.

EDIT: ANd I think I missed your point. Social skills leave the door open for circumstance bonus, as a DM i will allow big circumstance bonus if the circumstances are good enough.


Now get this.. what if.... paizo made feats requiring fighter levels.... That weren't combat feats... BOOOOOOOMMM!


Ssalarn wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:

I like the Fearsome Reputation feat. I'd take it if I knew I was going to be in a very heroic or very villainous campaign because I know I'd actually be the guy doing epic enough deeds to deserve the recognition the feat grants.

Ssalarn, are you going to try to get that feat printed somewhere? That'd be cool.

I've got like 20 of those, I just haven't had the venue for them.

I'm writing a class called the Iron Lord for Amora Games' "Libris Influxis" that has some overlap with the Fighter, maybe I'll see if I can't get Greg to let me do a couple archetypes and throw some feats like this in there as well, or do a follow up .pdf with that material in there if people like the materials I'm doing for the book.

Sounds pretty interesting. I am trying to find more info on this book now, but its hard to navigate the facebook to find it. Do you have any helpful links to provide?

Nicos wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:


Would it make you feel better if I adjusted the fluff so it said "You have built a fearsome reputation and you know how to use it to your benefit"?
Perhaps, but just not the fluff but the mechanics. If it were something like "if you talk to people who Already know of your deeds then you know how to influentiate them more"

Considering that this is currently not even a printed feat, nothing is stopping you from modifying it so that the Diplomacy and Intimidate bonuses scale as they already do in the feat, but only apply to people who already know of the deeds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adam B. 135 wrote:
nothing is stopping you from modifying it so that the Diplomacy and Intimidate bonuses scale as they already do in the feat, but only apply to people who already know of the deeds.

My issue with that is that DM #1 says, "I don't remember you ever encountering this exact guy before, so it doesn't apply!" and later: "Well, he saw you, but not doing anything too impressive, so no." Meanwhile, DM #2 (me) says, "You're 17th level. By now everyone on the planet has heard of you! It applies!"

An ability that says "DM decides" isn't really an ability; it's an appeal to Rule 0 and Magical Story Hour.


Quote:
I think you need to reread the thread. Because you have almost completely missed the point. The call in this thread is for martials to have more options. Not more DPS.

They would get more tools if they did stop stacking DPS feats and abilities.

Quote:


When I hear people claim that 3rd edition is the problem for fighters I know right away that they never played 1st or 2nd Ed.

Let me sum up every thing a fighter could do mechanically in early editions of the game.

No, it went like this:

DM: Okay, everybody died... Except the fighter. Why wont you die?

Dark Archive

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
nothing is stopping you from modifying it so that the Diplomacy and Intimidate bonuses scale as they already do in the feat, but only apply to people who already know of the deeds.

My issue with that is that DM #1 says, "I don't remember you ever encountering this exact guy before, so it doesn't apply!" and later: "Well, he saw you, but not doing anything too impressive, so no." Meanwhile, DM #2 (me) says, "You're 17th level. By now everyone on the planet has heard of you! It applies!"

An ability that says "DM decides" isn't really an ability; it's an appeal to Rule 0 and Magical Story Hour.

Unless the DM or game supported strong Region/City state rules and benefits Kirth is right, it becomes very subjective.

Gamma World 2 had a Status Rank system (there were no levels in that game), in fixed areas and communities (and in your Secret Society, if you were part of one) you actually get a bonus to your CHA for checks and could get loaner gear based on your rep - thousands of Domars or Gold worth of stuff just based on how much you helped out in the past. Gamma by default is a "Points of Light" game, so you didn't frequently jump from town to town - plus you always had your Status with your cryptic alliance than went with you wherever you went and the group existed.

Again though - without some solid concrete work (Re: mechanics or solid guidelines) on how it's implemented, societies and extensions of a given society it does become MTP (magic tea party)/"let's give something ambiguous to the Fighters" sort of thing.

The Exchange

Y'know, if I'd noticed this thread back in February, I coulda bought it a cake. It's not every thread that has a birthday.

(Not as off-topic as it seems: if nothing's been settled in the first 3337 posts, do we expect any progress in the next 3337?)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
nothing is stopping you from modifying it so that the Diplomacy and Intimidate bonuses scale as they already do in the feat, but only apply to people who already know of the deeds.

My issue with that is that DM #1 says, "I don't remember you ever encountering this exact guy before, so it doesn't apply!" and later: "Well, he saw you, but not doing anything too impressive, so no." Meanwhile, DM #2 (me) says, "You're 17th level. By now everyone on the planet has heard of you! It applies!"

An ability that says "DM decides" isn't really an ability; it's an appeal to Rule 0 and Magical Story Hour.

This is a story game so I do not see hte problem. You play the char the GM play the world.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
nothing is stopping you from modifying it so that the Diplomacy and Intimidate bonuses scale as they already do in the feat, but only apply to people who already know of the deeds.

My issue with that is that DM #1 says, "I don't remember you ever encountering this exact guy before, so it doesn't apply!" and later: "Well, he saw you, but not doing anything too impressive, so no." Meanwhile, DM #2 (me) says, "You're 17th level. By now everyone on the planet has heard of you! It applies!"

An ability that says "DM decides" isn't really an ability; it's an appeal to Rule 0 and Magical Story Hour.

This is a story game so I do not see hte problem. You play the char the GM play the world.

Well, you can't really balance mechanics with roleplaying. Roleplay only abilities like rumormonger end up being pretty questionable. The game itself is a pile of mechanics and flavor can add a lot to the story, but mechanics that add directly to the story can be... questionable at times.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
nothing is stopping you from modifying it so that the Diplomacy and Intimidate bonuses scale as they already do in the feat, but only apply to people who already know of the deeds.

My issue with that is that DM #1 says, "I don't remember you ever encountering this exact guy before, so it doesn't apply!" and later: "Well, he saw you, but not doing anything too impressive, so no." Meanwhile, DM #2 (me) says, "You're 17th level. By now everyone on the planet has heard of you! It applies!"

An ability that says "DM decides" isn't really an ability; it's an appeal to Rule 0 and Magical Story Hour.

This is a story game so I do not see hte problem. You play the char the GM play the world.

But both play by the rules, or at least that's how I prefer to GM and the type of GM I tend to prefer to play with.


MrSin wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
nothing is stopping you from modifying it so that the Diplomacy and Intimidate bonuses scale as they already do in the feat, but only apply to people who already know of the deeds.

My issue with that is that DM #1 says, "I don't remember you ever encountering this exact guy before, so it doesn't apply!" and later: "Well, he saw you, but not doing anything too impressive, so no." Meanwhile, DM #2 (me) says, "You're 17th level. By now everyone on the planet has heard of you! It applies!"

An ability that says "DM decides" isn't really an ability; it's an appeal to Rule 0 and Magical Story Hour.

This is a story game so I do not see hte problem. You play the char the GM play the world.
Well, you can't really balance mechanics with roleplaying. Roleplay only abilities like rumormonger end up being pretty questionable. The game itself is a pile of mechanics and flavor can add a lot to the story, but mechanics that add directly to the story can be... questionable at times.

THat is what I'm trying to say. Rumormonger is awful, no mechanic like that should exist.

And I am not seeing how those narrative solution are comparable to what wizard have. Wizard abilities let him do or try to do things, the solutions to narrative unbalance I have seen impose restriction on the story not because the fighter can now do this or do that but because the world now conspire to help the fighter.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
nothing is stopping you from modifying it so that the Diplomacy and Intimidate bonuses scale as they already do in the feat, but only apply to people who already know of the deeds.

My issue with that is that DM #1 says, "I don't remember you ever encountering this exact guy before, so it doesn't apply!" and later: "Well, he saw you, but not doing anything too impressive, so no." Meanwhile, DM #2 (me) says, "You're 17th level. By now everyone on the planet has heard of you! It applies!"

An ability that says "DM decides" isn't really an ability; it's an appeal to Rule 0 and Magical Story Hour.

This is a story game so I do not see hte problem. You play the char the GM play the world.

Except that's not the dynamic casters play by.

GM: "The townsfolk approach you with hostility in their eyes"
Caster: "I cast overwhelming presence"
GM: "Damn it all man!!! Fine the nearest townfolk bow down worshipping you like a god. Can we get back to the freaking dungeon where this is still my game please?"

Since Fighters have been placed into this role where their abilities need to be non-magical, you need to be able to emulate effects through other means. So you take a feat that reflects the fact that you do cool stuff and aren't ashamed to make sure people know about it. It's your non-magical way of ensuring you can gain a small portion of the kind of traction in the game world that every caster gets.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
nothing is stopping you from modifying it so that the Diplomacy and Intimidate bonuses scale as they already do in the feat, but only apply to people who already know of the deeds.

My issue with that is that DM #1 says, "I don't remember you ever encountering this exact guy before, so it doesn't apply!" and later: "Well, he saw you, but not doing anything too impressive, so no." Meanwhile, DM #2 (me) says, "You're 17th level. By now everyone on the planet has heard of you! It applies!"

An ability that says "DM decides" isn't really an ability; it's an appeal to Rule 0 and Magical Story Hour.

This is a story game so I do not see hte problem. You play the char the GM play the world.
But both play by the rules, or at least that's how I prefer to GM and the type of GM I tend to prefer to play with.

And nothing in Kirth's example break any rules that I'm aware of.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Magical Tea Party isn't rules. It's the GM going by his 'feelings' about what should happen under what circumstances.

See Ssalarn's last post. Casters get to use the rules, Fighters have to hope the GM is having a good day (or buy Pizza that night.)

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:


THat is what I'm trying to say. Rumormonger is awful, no mechanic like that should exist.

And I am not seeing how those narrative solution are comparable to what wizard have. Wizard abilities let him do or try to do things, the solutions to narrative unbalance I have seen impose restriction on the story not because the fighter can now do this or do that but because the world now confabulates to help the fighter.

First of all; Rumormonger isn't terrible because of what it's trying to do mechanically, it's terrible because for most people, it now means you have to have the Rumormonger ability to do something that everyone would have assumed you could do otherwise. What Rumormonger should have done was give you bonuses to your Bluff checks under the described circumstances to make it happen.

The Wizard gets to make the game world follow his rules. That's what spells do. He gets instant gratification "People hate me? Now they don't. Those guys are my enemies? Now they're my friends".

Since non-magic using classes can't bend the game world with a snap of their fingers, there has to be an assumption that they are creating, by their actions, a framework within the game world that allows them to exercise similar power.


The existence of rumormonger does not mean you can't start rumors.

It does mean you can spread rumors without the "telephone game" problem and many other possible effects.

You also don't really spread rumors with that talent you spread things that are practically excepted as fact. All with a single fixed DC bluff check.

IMHO fairly useful. Not that out of combat support is what the rogue needed...


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Magical Tea Party isn't rules. It's the GM going by his 'feelings' about what should happen under what circumstances.

See Ssalarn's last post. Casters get to use the rules, Fighters have to hope the GM is having a good day (or buy Pizza that night.)

THAT is the gm role in the game, to play the NPc, to play the world. There should not be a rule to tell him what to do

In Ssalarn´s example the wizard is using his class features to achieve a goal, and that is good, it could have some consequences up to the DM. IN the fighter case is totally different. He is not using x ability that HE posses but is the world happily agreeing with him.

3,301 to 3,350 of 3,805 << first < prev | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Main Problem with Fighters All Messageboards