The Main Problem with Fighters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

3,351 to 3,400 of 3,805 << first < prev | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | next > last >>

Feats are abilities.


Marthkus wrote:

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.

There wasn't a telephone game problem to begin with. In fact there were nor explicit rules for starting rumors. Rumormonger has the only rules for it at all! It has the power you give it, which means it could be insanely overpowered, insanely underpowered, or it could just do nothing, or it could even take away peoples abilities to spread rumors without it. That's sort of the awkward place you put roleplay rules in. They're as powerful as you make them.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:

THAT is the gm role in the game, to play the NPc, to play the world. There should not eb 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.

No. The Fighter has earned a reputation through deeds. He now has a set mechanical framework to parlay those deeds into social clout by saying "Yeah, I'm that Ssalarn, the one who slew Czhagorrath the Black. Now I believe you were about to let my friends and I into the party?"

*successfully rolls Intimidate check with +6 bonus from Fearsome Reputation*

"Holy crap, you're that guy! Let me get that for you!"

The Fighter is still making rolls to execute his actions, but instead of those rolls being enhanced by his ability to make the forces of creation his b$$%& or godly intervention, they're enhanced by his own bad-assery.

The Fighter just accomplished the same thing a Wizard casting charm person or a similar spell would have, but he did it a way that's non-magical and makes sense for the character.


Ssalarn wrote:
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 given 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.

First of all: Yeah I agree with you, that is what I tried (perhaps unsuccessfully) to say. It should just give a bonus, not to encompass the whole thing in a rigid mechanics.

======================================
Now, the wizard can TRY to make the game world follow his rule. BUt his spellcasting can have consequences, not sure If I am the only gm like that, but the wizard will not have all the things just because he is a wizard (I also ban/nerf the most problematic spells), a lot of things an go wrong.

In order to achieve his goals the wizard have to play the game. He will not be the king just because he is a wizard. He have to actually succeed by his own. He could fail, he could die trying, that is what playing is about, IMHO.

Now, if the fighter wants to be a king he will need tools that let him TRY to achieve that goal, by playing the game. They lack that. What they do not need is a feat that let them be king just because they are 15th level fighters.

Dark Archive

3 people 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.

......................................

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.

Sigh...

Yes, fighters did get more options –all at a price that doesn’t even out.

Under the New Rules (d20):
- Loss of multiple attacks per round at no penalty
- Loss of battlefield mobility (now full attack)
- Declared Speed based initiative replaced by cyclical initiative and AoO . AoO which btw hurt the martial classes the most.
- Increased hit points across the board. Your Fighter now does more damage; too bad everything else has 50-75% more hit points.
- Poor save paradigm. Terrible really.

AoO - They lost much of their ability to fight and control the battlefield in 3rd ed games – AoO did that, as well as tying their attach scheme to their BAB (+6/+1 vs 3 attacks every 2 rounds at level 1).
History lesson (pay attention here Pyrrhic Victory) – AoO were created as a stop gap after they removed the Speed Based Declared Initiative system. So in Kirth’s dagger example at the end of the round we have a Fighter who is a distance away from his party wizard (already wounded) who is being attacked by a Goblin. Under the current rules the fighter is locked in a cyclical initiative style round to round. In a declared speed based system, the Fighter can chuck one of his daggers at the Goblin and possibly kill it before it kills his friend – if he beats it on initiative next round.

I understand the need for AoO to control battlefield movement and to protect casters, but it should have been implemented in a better way and as it stands the system crushes martial based characters.

Skills – As much as people balk at the old NWP, they were at least protected. If your character had a skill, it couldn’t be gamed via stat manipulation (since none really existed) unlike the current system. In 3rd ed/D20 games there is no skill protection – you have a rank, then if you are a caster you can wildly manipulate the final score since it is a binary and purely numeric system. This is bad for martials and skill monkey characters and really is unforgivable game design.

Skills should have protection and should not be tied to a number - at least not a number that can be artificially pumped up via spell, potion, etc. Skills should have tiers (novice, trained, experienced, master) and those tiers should have best results tied to them, thus making them usefull from level 1 to level 20 (besides protecting their math values).

Fighters could use a bump or fix here or there, but the source problem is casters, magic and magic item creation. There are a few other issues (which I will go into) but those are the biggest.

The Main Problem with Fighters is the Casters and Magic system of D20 games.

No one wants to address this because it would mean a roll-back on power, players who love casters (seems like the game designers also loved casters) would throw a fit and revolt.

So, some of the problems:
There are several aspects to this problem; most are not repairable without a major game re-write.

Under the New Rules (d20):
- Casters can now cast in combat or after being hit. Horribly unbalanced. Spell casting = risk, have some in your game and give your martials a defender role.
- Casters can manipulate the difficulty of their save DCs. No other classes can do this on a regular basis – casters can easily increase the save DCs for all their spells, spells use a binary mechanic (save or fail). This is bad game design.
- Casters can create their own items at no risk or great personal cost.
- Casters can create their own items that break the meta game and no risk or great personal cost – stat enhancers, which in turn increase their DCs saves which in turn…well, you get the idea. Stupid, unforgivable game design consideration. This is "asleep at the wheel" level of irresponsibility.
- Spells break the skill system. Spells that give you +X to climb take a huge steaming pile on classes designed around climbing.
- Spell casting as a whole has no downside or risks (no aging, system shock, risk of damage is minimal, etc). Now some of these were a bit harsh in 2nd ed, but they are softball in 3rd ed – too much so. Just like a fighter taking risks running into a crowd of creatures, casting powerful magic should also have its own risks and complexity beyond thinking about your "daily optimal loadout".

Fighters can use a fix, maybe something that can make them more interesting - but the source problem is what people are comparing fighters to - namely casters.


Ssalarn wrote:
Nicos wrote:

THAT is the gm role in the game, to play the NPc, to play the world. There should not eb 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.

No. The Fighter has earned a reputation through deeds. He now has a set mechanical framework to parlay those deeds into social clout by saying "Yeah, I'm that Ssalarn, the one who slew Czhagorrath the Black. Now I believe you were about to let my friends and I into the party?"

*successfully rolls Intimidate check with +6 bonus from Fearsome Reputation*

"Holy crap, you're that guy! Let me get that for you!"

The Fighter is still making rolls to execute his actions, but instead of those rolls being enhanced by his ability to make the forces of creation his b~$&~ or godly intervention, they're enhanced by his own bad-assery.

The Fighter just accomplished the same thing a Wizard casting charm person or a similar spell would have, but he did it a way that's non-magical and makes sense for the character.

Well, I already said that I am good with feat that let the fighter exploit his (Already obtained by actually gaming) fame for a +x to diplomacy or intimidate. The feat would mean he is good manipulating people by his own.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

Alexandros Satorum wrote:

Now, if the fighter wants to be a king he will need tools that let him TRY to achieve that goal, by playing the game. They lack that. What they do not need is a feat that let them be king just because they are 15th level fighters.

And I didn't suggest that they should, but I certainly suggested that they should be given the tools to follow that role if they wanted.

A wizard can, with very little difficulty, use his magic to effectively take people's existence hostage, making them sign over their livelihoods, their kingdoms, etc. The rules facilitate him doing this.

The Fighter has no framework to even begin with something like that short of murdering everyone who disagrees with him.

I think you're attributing far too much to the suggested feat. I'm saying people should know him,, they've heard about what he does, and he knows how to spin that knowledge to his own advantage.

The Fighter still has to make the rolls and do the activities to turn the feat into something useful.

Nicos wrote:


Well, I already said that I am good with feat that let the fighter exploit his (Already obtained by actually gaming) fame for a +x to diplomacy or intimidate. The feat would mean he is good manipulating people by his own.

It's a 3rd level feat specific to a particular region Nicos. Either the Fighter already has been adventuring and accrued those deeds, or you've handwaved it and jumped in at 3rd level, meaning the appropriate deeds have already been accomplished as part of his backstory. Unless you're using the 20,000 drowned kittens method of leveling up, you've earned your reputation and the mechanical benefits of the feat (and even then, that sounds like the kind of thing that would probably boost your Intimidate checks).


Ssalarn wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:

Now, if the fighter wants to be a king he will need tools that let him TRY to achieve that goal, by playing the game. They lack that. What they do not need is a feat that let them be king just because they are 15th level fighters.

And I didn't suggest that they should, but I certainly suggested that they should be given the tools to follow that role if they wanted.

A wizard can, with very little difficulty, use his magic to effectively take people's existence hostage, making them sign over their livelihoods, their kingdoms, etc. The rules facilitate him doing this.

The Fighter has no framework to even begin with something like that short of murdering everyone who disagrees with him.

I think you're attributing far too much to the suggested feat. I'm saying people should know him,, they've heard about what he does, and he knows how to spin that knowledge to his own advantage.

The Fighter still has to make the rolls and do the activities to turn the feat into something useful.

Well, then we have little to disagree.


MrSin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:

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.

There wasn't a telephone game problem to begin with. In fact there were nor explicit rules for starting rumors. Rumormonger has the only rules for it at all! It has the power you give it, which means it could be insanely overpowered, insanely underpowered, or it could just do nothing, or it could even take away peoples abilities to spread rumors without it. That's sort of the awkward place you put roleplay rules in. They're as powerful as you make them.

I would say fair point, but the likelyhood that a GM would let you convince everyone in a town that something was true with a single bluff check that never exceeded 35 is pretty small.

The rules for rumors are pretty undefined and up to GM RP, but this particular method (which could easily be an 8th level spell) is done with an advance talent and has fixed mechanics.

Picture a spell that was no-save(cause my feint rogue can't fail that check) implant a belief in a whole community.

That would be like alter memories mass or lesser geas mass, and a rogue can get it!


Marthkus wrote:
That would be like alter memories mass or lesser geas mass, and a rogue can get it!

Which is the other extreme, extremely overpowered. "Rabbits are dragons!" or "Your all jackolopes!" is suddenly a thing.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:

I would say fair point, but the likelyhood that a GM would let you convince everyone in a town that something was true with a single bluff check that never exceeded 35 is pretty small.

The rules for rumors are pretty undefined and up to GM RP, but this particular method (which could easily be an 8th level spell) is done with an advance talent and has fixed mechanics.

Picture a spell that was no-save(cause my feint rogue can't fail that check) implant a belief in a whole community.

That would be like alter memories mass or lesser geas mass, and a rogue can get it!

You're crediting Rumormonger with way more power than it deserves. Thousands of people bought in to the rumor that Obama wasn't a US citizen and accepted it as fact, but he still got elected president.

As to the framework of the ability itself; if I lie to you, and you fall for the lie, that means you have accepted what I said as fact. At the very outside, most powerful interpretation, Rumormonger saves you some footwork on spreading your lie. Not time, because a determined Rogue could easily spread a lie in the same amount of time as the ability, just footwork. It is not even remotely close to the power of an 8th level spell.

MrSin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
That would be like alter memories mass or lesser geas mass, and a rogue can get it!
Which is the other extreme, extremely overpowered. "Rabbits are dragons!" or "Your all jackolopes!" is suddenly a thing.

Which still doesn't mean it's OP. They don't suddenly gain the physical form of a jackalope and the bunnies don't grow scales and wings. People are just going to go "Well I'll be durned, I allus thought I were a human. And those little fuzzy things wit the big ears is what we been a feared of all this time? I'll be darned. Learn something new every day!"


Nicos wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Nicos wrote:

THAT is the gm role in the game, to play the NPc, to play the world. There should not eb 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.

No. The Fighter has earned a reputation through deeds. He now has a set mechanical framework to parlay those deeds into social clout by saying "Yeah, I'm that Ssalarn, the one who slew Czhagorrath the Black. Now I believe you were about to let my friends and I into the party?"

*successfully rolls Intimidate check with +6 bonus from Fearsome Reputation*

"Holy crap, you're that guy! Let me get that for you!"

The Fighter is still making rolls to execute his actions, but instead of those rolls being enhanced by his ability to make the forces of creation his b~$&~ or godly intervention, they're enhanced by his own bad-assery.

The Fighter just accomplished the same thing a Wizard casting charm person or a similar spell would have, but he did it a way that's non-magical and makes sense for the character.

Well, I already said that I am good with feat that let the fighter exploit his (Already obtained by actually gaming) fame for a +x to diplomacy or intimidate. The feat would mean he is good manipulating people by his own.

Here's the problem with that. Making something a feat doesn't ever add to a fighter's narrative power, unless you restrict the feat to fighters only (and by BAB). Any non-fighter-exclusive feat simply adds to the power of casters. A feat can be taken by anyone, and, while fighters have many more feats than other classes (though through bonus combat feats), many casters don't have much to spend their feats on. So you'll get a fighter that loses combat power for narrative power, but you'll get optimized caster builds that incorporate the feat to widen the narrative gap further.

So you could restrict the feat to fighters... but why? If the ability is restricted to only fighters, why not make it a class feature. Making it a feat simply forces the fighter to get weaker in some other area in order to increase his already weak narrative power (do his saves need to get even worse?). If this is a power that not every fighter should have, you make it an archetype. But making it a feat doesn't help the fighter very much at all...


@Eirikrautha:
a) That feat does require Fighter levels (three in fact), so no worries about casters getting it too.
b) Not every Fighter might be interested in it (some might want to keep a low profile, and the less people who know about them, the better), so it wouldn't make much sense as a class feature (plus, aren't feats the Fighter's class feature?).


Only as much as they are a class feature of rangers, monks, rogues, etc. All of those classes get bonus feats. In fact, most of them actually get them more like class features (because they can pick up some feats without even qualifying for them).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Many classes have a list of what amount to class-specific bonus feats: Rage Powers, Rogue Talents, Magus Arcana, Oracle Revelations, Alchemist Discoveries, and Wizard Discoveries.


"When picking Fighter Bonus Feats you can ignore the feat requirements"
How much would that help the Fighter? Alternatively if that's too much, just let them ignore BaB, level and skill rank reqs, allowing them to get the better feats much sooner than others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quite a bit in terms of combat, yes. If the only requirement Fighters had to meet was BAB then the way feats are structured wouldn't be so abysmally painful.

That really doesn't help anything with the Fighter's terrible magical defenses and lack of utility outside of whackin' stuff, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some of the BAB prereqs ARE a problem though, because there's this messed up paradigm where good stuff that should be available by level 5-ish is kept locked behind BAB 12-15ish requirements.


Alternatively if that's too much, just let them ignore BaB, level and skill rank reqs, allowing them to get the better feats much sooner than others.


I think ignoring all feat prerequisites is too much, but I do agree that they shoudl be able to ignore prereq from time to time.

Dark Archive

Or feats to benefit fighters + other martial can be written -
PQ: Fighter Level 4 or BAB +8.
Thus leaving the option for non-fighter/High BAB classes for later.

Still don't think this band-aid approach will really fix what amounts to a total overhaul of the game (casting, skills, etc).


Athaleon wrote:
Many classes have a list of what amount to class-specific bonus feats: Rage Powers, Rogue Talents, Magus Arcana, Oracle Revelations, Alchemist Discoveries, and Wizard Discoveries.

Pretty much this, really. There's not really any real difference between feats and *insert other ability here* other than feats are things that you can acquire by meeting certain prerequisites. For example, there is functionally no difference between the Improved Trip feat and a class feature that gives +2 to Tripping maneuvers and makes you not provoke, other than the feat can be taken by everyone, requires stupid prerequisites, and you lose access to it if your ability scores fall below a certain threshold (which since Paizo can't figure out how Ability Damage works, means that Fighters lose most of their class features the moment that they eat some ability damage).


Nicos wrote:


Well, I already said that I am good with feat that let the fighter exploit his (Already obtained by actually gaming) fame for a +x to diplomacy or intimidate. The feat would mean he is good manipulating people by his own.

Why would you need a feat for that? Use reputation, apply circumstance modifier appropriately.

Honestly one of my least favorite things about skill use in Pathfinder is the way Paizo creates these feats and talents that essentially just replace roleplaying.

I don't hate rumormonger because spreading lies as fact is lame, I hate rumormonger because you should be able to do that with bluff anyways.


swoosh wrote:
Nicos wrote:


Well, I already said that I am good with feat that let the fighter exploit his (Already obtained by actually gaming) fame for a +x to diplomacy or intimidate. The feat would mean he is good manipulating people by his own.

Why would you need a feat for that? Use reputation, apply circumstance modifier appropriately.

Honestly one of my least favorite things about skill use in Pathfinder is the way Paizo creates these feats and talents that essentially just replace roleplaying.

I don't hate rumormonger because spreading lies as fact is lame, I hate rumormonger because you should be able to do that with bluff anyways.

I also said before that I would just apply circumstance modifiers, bu apparently that is not too popular around here.


Nicos wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Nicos wrote:


Well, I already said that I am good with feat that let the fighter exploit his (Already obtained by actually gaming) fame for a +x to diplomacy or intimidate. The feat would mean he is good manipulating people by his own.

Why would you need a feat for that? Use reputation, apply circumstance modifier appropriately.

Honestly one of my least favorite things about skill use in Pathfinder is the way Paizo creates these feats and talents that essentially just replace roleplaying.

I don't hate rumormonger because spreading lies as fact is lame, I hate rumormonger because you should be able to do that with bluff anyways.

I also said before that I would just apply circumstance modifiers, bu apparently that is not too popular around here.

I think the issue with that is that people want something that's built into the system, rather than falling back on "the GM might do this if he thinks its a good idea."


It's fine if it's built into the system, say, at the description of the Bluff skill, or in some Advanced Skill Guide book, what is not fine is locking it away as a rogue exclusive thing (and a high level rogue at that).


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Nicos wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Nicos wrote:


Well, I already said that I am good with feat that let the fighter exploit his (Already obtained by actually gaming) fame for a +x to diplomacy or intimidate. The feat would mean he is good manipulating people by his own.

Why would you need a feat for that? Use reputation, apply circumstance modifier appropriately.

Honestly one of my least favorite things about skill use in Pathfinder is the way Paizo creates these feats and talents that essentially just replace roleplaying.

I don't hate rumormonger because spreading lies as fact is lame, I hate rumormonger because you should be able to do that with bluff anyways.

I also said before that I would just apply circumstance modifiers, bu apparently that is not too popular around here.
I think the issue with that is that people want something that's built into the system, rather than falling back on "the GM might do this if he thinks its a good idea."

It is as you say. I believe that that kind of thing should not exist, like the settlement "rules" about buying magic items. But that is just me.


I want my level 20 fighter to be able to jump higher.

Can we make that priority 1?

I want all this massive strength and martial ability to translate across to other mechanics.


Marthkus wrote:

I want my level 20 fighter to be able to jump higher.

Can we make that priority 1?

I want all this massive strength and martial ability to translate across to other mechanics.

without any magic items SLA or racial magic just high att and skill before anyone says just (insert the above) to gain access to the jump spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
I think the issue with that is that people want something that's built into the system, rather than falling back on "the GM might do this if he thinks its a good idea."

The problem is even with a feat the DM can fiat it (Oh he's never heard of the monster you killed so the reputation doesn't apply), it's built right into the idea's concept. Hell, knowing Paizo's other feats that allow you to roleplay, they'll have DM adjudication mentioned in it already.

And you're still ending up creating de-facto restrictions on your ability to roleplay and exacerbating "feat tax" issues by turning what should be logical uses of a skill into a specialized trick... Honestly I just don't think skills need any more nerfings.

Quote:
I want all this massive strength and martial ability to translate across to other mechanics.

Sort of funny that in its current state strength doesn't actually even do anything for the skill.


I treat such feats and abilities not as allowing me to do those things, but as making me do it better. Just as a character not proficient in longswords can use them but with a -4 penalty, so can a character do something without an appropriate feat, he's just gonna be worse at it. The only difference here is that the proficiency rules exist already, while the other stuff is up to the DM to adjudicate, simply because the devs can't make a rule for everything.


The problem is that those feats have no "normal" entry and there's no rules for "nonproficiency" so it does create the impression that you can't do it unless you have the appropriate feat. It's a good idea, but nothing in the rules supports it, which leans more toward the idea that you somehow can't do it without it.

Moreover I just don't understand the need for the feat anyways. They only kinda-sorta firm up the rules there, but at the cost of roleplaying ability for groups that don't run with a ruling like yours.

It reminds me of 3.5's Forgotten Realm's feat Spell Thematics, which sort of reads like a feat tax on refluffing.


swoosh wrote:
It reminds me of 3.5's Forgotten Realm's feat Spell Thematics, which sort of reads like a feat tax on refluffing.

Big difference is that feat gives a pretty big buff with it. I thought spell thematics fluff effect was something you could already do too...


MrSin wrote:
swoosh wrote:
It reminds me of 3.5's Forgotten Realm's feat Spell Thematics, which sort of reads like a feat tax on refluffing.
Big difference is that feat gives a pretty big buff with it. I thought spell thematics fluff effect was something you could already do too...

The +1 caster level is nice, but that's a matter of degree more than anything else. If caustic slur was amazing I'd still hate it for the same reason.

And that probably was the intent, I've just seen many people interpret that in such a way: Spell thematics lets you turn you fireball into a flaming skull, so that means without it no one can do that. It's why I don't like feats like this, because they're often interpreted (or are since the devs don't like talking about these feats so we don't know intent) as mechanics that constrain roleplay.


swoosh wrote:
The problem is that those feats have no "normal" entry and there's no rules for "nonproficiency" so it does create the impression that you can't do it unless you have the appropriate feat.

Uhm, yeah, I know. That's why I said it's up to the DM.

Quote:
It's a good idea, but nothing in the rules supports it, which leans more toward the idea that you somehow can't do it without it.

It's an RPG, not a cRPG. You can do whatever you want. Succeeding is another matter.


swoosh wrote:


If caustic slur was amazing I'd still hate it for the same reason.

+1.


Besides the 4+int skill points, perhaps other good idea to improve fighter out of combat utility is to give them something like the ranger favored terrain. A situational ability that let then choose in what kind of situation they are better with certain skills.


Anarchy_Kanya wrote:


Uhm, yeah, I know. That's why I said it's up to the DM.

Oh I know, but if you're then relying on the dm you're right back where you started.

Quote:


It's an RPG, not a cRPG. You can do whatever you want. Succeeding is another matter.

It isn't a cRPG, sure, but it's also a structured RPG, not a freeform one like FATE, and if the rules say you need to be a gnome with a feat to trick prison guards into thinking you're harmless? Then that means every other race in the game (and gnomes without the feat) can't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Quote:
It's an RPG, not a cRPG. You can do whatever you want. Succeeding is another matter.
It isn't a cRPG, sure, but it's also a structured RPG, not a freeform one like FATE, and if the rules say you need to be a gnome with a feat to trick prison guards into thinking you're harmless? Then that means every other race in the game (and gnomes without the feat) can't.

Oh your fighter wants to take butterfly sting? Hope you like Desna! Did you want that cool thing that lets you cleave with awesomeness? Hope you were born a dwarf. Did you want some sort of super endurance line of feats? Half-orcs only. Haha, aww... poor fightbro.

Its the mundane ones that look really silly imo.


MrSin wrote:


Oh your fighter wants to take butterfly sting? Hope you like Desna! Did you want that cool thing that lets you cleave with awesomeness? Hope you were born a dwarf. Did you want some sort of super endurance line of feats? Half-orcs only. Haha, aww... poor fightbro.

Its the mundane ones that look really silly imo.

Yep. A lot of that stuff is dumb.

My favorite here though is the bit about bolstering your courage or numbing pain by imbibing mass quantities of alcohol apparently being divinely inspired.

Those are slightly different though in that it's more the prereqs that are dumb than what the feat does, still awful, just not quite the same.


swoosh wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:


Uhm, yeah, I know. That's why I said it's up to the DM.

Oh I know, but if you're then relying on the dm you're right back where you started.

Quote:


It's an RPG, not a cRPG. You can do whatever you want. Succeeding is another matter.
It isn't a cRPG, sure, but it's also a structured RPG, not a freeform one like FATE, and if the rules say you need to be a gnome with a feat to trick prison guards into thinking you're harmless? Then that means every other race in the game (and gnomes without the feat) can't.

That's a very unimaginative and limited way of playing this game.

Also Rule 0.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:


Uhm, yeah, I know. That's why I said it's up to the DM.

Oh I know, but if you're then relying on the dm you're right back where you started.

Quote:


It's an RPG, not a cRPG. You can do whatever you want. Succeeding is another matter.
It isn't a cRPG, sure, but it's also a structured RPG, not a freeform one like FATE, and if the rules say you need to be a gnome with a feat to trick prison guards into thinking you're harmless? Then that means every other race in the game (and gnomes without the feat) can't.

That's a very unimaginative and limited way of playing this game.

Also Rule 0.

Rule 0 is never a viable defense argument imo.

Its not unimaginative, its just that the game really is written that way. No one said it was a good thing or that you shouldn't or couldn't rule 0, but the baseline is no rule 0, since we can't garuntee it no matter how stupid or inane. That make sense?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:


That's a very unimaginative and limited way of playing this game.

I'm not talking about how to play the game though, I'm talking about what the rules say.

Quote:
Also Rule 0.

Hello Oberoni! ... Rule 0 is nice, but saying "The DM can just fix it" isn't a compelling argument for there not being problem, if anything it's the opposite.


MrSin wrote:
Rule 0 is never a viable defense argument imo.

It's part of the rules that a DM can change or make up rules if he wants.

Quote:
Its not unimaginative, its just that the game really is written that way. No one said it was a good thing or that you shouldn't or couldn't rule 0, but the baseline is no rule 0, since we can't garuntee it no matter how stupid or inane. That make sense?

No, it's pretty unimaginative. A DM has the power, no, a duty to provide rules for parts of the game that don't have them. It's on him if he doesn't use it.

swoosh wrote:
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:


That's a very unimaginative and limited way of playing this game.
I'm not talking about how to play the game though, I'm talking about what the rules say.

And the rules say a DM can/should make new rules in absence of them.

Quote:
Quote:
Also Rule 0.
Hello Oberoni! ... Rule 0 is nice, but saying "The DM can just fix it" isn't a compelling argument for there not being problem, if anything it's the opposite.

Yeah, except I didn't say there's a problem and I'm not saying the DM can fix it. I'm saying it's part of the rules and of being a DM.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also Rule 0.
Hello Oberoni! ... Rule 0 is nice, but saying "The DM can just fix it" isn't a compelling argument for there not being problem, if anything it's the opposite.
Yeah, except I didn't say there's a problem and I'm not saying the DM can fix it. I'm saying it's part of the rules and of being a DM.

No one said it wasn't. Its not a great common ground though, and houserules are never a great excuse for bad design.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a small list of what fighters lost going from 2e to 3e.

1) Exclusive access to high Str score bonuses.
Everyone can get as strong as a fighter.

2) Exclusive access to high Con score bonuses.
Now everyone gets the same bonuses.

3) Stat bonuses start at 12.
Before, it took MAJOR investment in a stat to be good at it. A 15/14/31/12/10/8 character literally had NO bonuses if that 15 was in Str. To be a fighter or ANY kind of melee, you had to have serious investment in the appropriate stats.

4) Stats were limited, and stat boosters were rare.
Seriously, when you're limited to 18, and +Stat items aren't everywhere, hit die and what bonuses you DO have become very important.

5) Everyone else's BAB improved.
Wizards went for 1/3 to 1/2. Rogues went from 1/2 to 3/4, and clerics went from 2/3 to 3/4.

6) Saves crashed and burned.
Everyone knows this one. They didn't have the best starting out, but were neck and neck at 'Name' level, and the best at the end.

7) Got to move and full attack.
Not anymore, they can't.

8) Exclusive access to multiple attacks.
Only TWF allowed other classes to do the same.

9) The only class to get reliable damage bonuses via Weapon Spec

10) 'Unlimited' Dex in armor. ACP? What's that?

11) Monsters have more hit points. Hugely more. Devastatingly more. Which makes fighters that much less effective against them.

12) Stats are Uncapped.
Similar to 1, but not only can other classes be as strong as fighters, they can be HUGELY MORESO, via magic. +3/+3 Double weapon spec was awesome, back in the day. ++16 Str from turning into a grizzly bear is moreso.

13) Loss of class abilities.
Main one for a fighter, the ability to found a keep and gather followers.

14) The most weapon proficiencies.
Back in the day, you actually had to choose what you were proficient in. Now everybody and their brother gets access to martial weapons.

15) Weapons were relatively stronger.
d8/d12 longswords. d10/3d6 Greatswords. Combined with lower monster hit points, weapons were simply stronger.

16) Spellcasting got sped up.
used to be, you could interrupt a caster anytime during the period his spell was being cast. Now, you have to hit him ON HIS ACTION to stop it, unless it's a rare full-round casting.

17) You hit a caster, he lost the spell.
One hit. No concentration checks, thanks.

18) Just as many skills as everyone else.
Class skills, what? Major shafting here.

19) Fighter only magic items.
Tellingly, Girdles of Giant Str.

20) Less Healing magic.
If there's less healing magic around, the guys with the most hit points are the best to have. With healing magic, the main difference is how well you recover between fights, not how many you have in this one.
Basically, Wands of CLW made it easy to ignore having 20 less hit points then the guy next to you, if you all just got healed back up by the next fight.

21) Everyone got hit dice for all levels.
Like monsters getting more hit dice, and everyone getting the high Con bonuses, getting more Hit Die just made the HP advantage fighters used to have get sucked away.

22) The best with hit die.
Wizards and rogues both got HD improvements in PF. Instead of making fighters better, they intro'd barbarians.

23) Potion miscibility.
Yeah, this. You were very careful of taking potion buffs, because you couldn't suck down a potion of healing while under a potion of giant strength, you know?

24) Magical armor had no move restrictions and was half weight.
Now? Unless it's made of mithral, suck it for some levels.

25) Bastard swords were awesome.
Bastard swords now suck.

26) Haste aged you a year.
When other classes get easy access to multiple attacks, it devalues the fighter types having them. Haste is everywhere now. Everyone gets multiple attacks at full BAB!

27) Only fighter types got multiple attacks.
Everyone gets multiple attacks based on BAB.

28) Multiple attacks were all at the same hit rate.
Now, multiple attacks are less and less likely to hit.

29) Varying xp advance tables. Weak classes tended to advance faster.
Everyone advances the same in level, but not the same in power now.

30)Spell Resistance worked!
Spell resistance is now a small impediment with the right build, or not at all.

31) Save or suck spells got less and less effective with level.
Save and suck now gets more effective with level.

32) Spells took a LONG time to get back.
Spells take an hour to get back...or less, with the right feats. This removes another limitation on casters.

I'm sure there are others, but that's all I could come up with in 15 minutes.

==Aelryinth


2e was also a fundamentally different game where kobolds can be threatening to level 12 PCs.

I don't think the two systems are all that comparable. It's like trying to compare fighters in 4th ed with 3.5 fighters

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, they are indeed fundamentally different.

One of those main differences is that fighters were immensely stronger within the rules of the game.

And Tucker's Kobolds weren't dangerous if you knew how to play. I continually goggle at the idea that 10th level characters couldn't take them apart. A simple summoned elemental of ANY of the elements would have destroyed them right inside their tunnels. A fireball detonating in their tunnels under 1e Rules would likely have filled every little crawlspace with 10d6 of flame and cooked them all. A Reduced mage surrounded in a Wall of Fire in sphere form guided by wizard eye and flying could have hurtled through their little tunnels and hunted them down like rats.

==Aelryinth


MrSin wrote:
No one said it wasn't. Its not a great common ground though, and houserules are never a great excuse for bad design.

Homebrew, not houserules.

Oh, so it's bad design to not have a rule for every little detail in the game? Then I guess every system ever is badly designed. But notice I'm not excusing anything. I'm just showing you how I do it.
What do you mean "common ground"? Any DM can homebrew stuff if he needs to. And he should. "There's no rule for that" should never be an answer when a player wants to do something he should be able to do. But as I said already, succeeding at it is a different matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
Oh, so it's bad design to not have a rule for every little detail in the game?

No one said that either. Cut it out!

3,351 to 3,400 of 3,805 << first < prev | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Main Problem with Fighters All Messageboards