Aye but if you intro full attacks as a standard action, then monsters and NPC's should get the same thing, right?
Which REALLY yanks up the offensive power of a lot of monsters. I mean, lethally! You'd definitely be getting back to 1E feel!
==Aelryinth
Oh? Its the GMs job to balance the game? I don't know what I should think about that...
Yeah, pounce for all characters can be over the top.
|
Resilient Sphere is stationary, I thought? O.oWhat disparity? If it were not for the melees, who would carry my treasure out of the dungeon? =)One reason why most of my casters have a "Floating Disk" spell memorized or readied. Carry a large amount of sacks, and then float them out of there.
The OTHER spell I have used is Resilient Sphere. Create the sphere around your target treasure, and float it the heck out of there.
Weird, in every game I've ever played in, its always been ruled that the wizard who cast the sphere can move it.
I haven't played a wizard in PF yet who could cast this spell. I have been taking it off of Otiluke's version from AD&D 2E, which was the last I played.
O well, nvm.
"Q: What do you think of caster/martial disparity at higher levels?
A: I think it's a myth propagated by people with agendas."
-- James Jacobs, 2013
A more nuanced reply from him:
I think the martial/caster disparity is mostly present in the view of folks who favor martial characters who are jealous of casters, or from the point of view of folks who favor caster characters who are jealous of martial characters.
AKA: I don't think its as big a deal as the internet makes it out to be. In my games, casters and non-casters tend to be equally valuable to the party, and equally dangerous in various situations as enemies. I've seen parties get into big trouble when their only strong spellcaster wasn't at the game, and I've seen them get into big trouble when their only strong non-spellcaster wasn't at the game.
To a large extent as well the responsibility to keep things fair and fun for all involved lands on the GM's shoulders. If every single fight is against flying creatures that use ranged attacks, the characters who focused on melee stuff are going to be cranky. Likewise, if every single fight is against golems or high SR foes, the spellcasters are going to be cranky.
It's a balancing act.
I'm a big fan of JJ, but in this case, he sounds like he's saying everyone who complains about balance issues simply doesn't know how to play the game.
While I agree that the caster/martial disparity is not as much of a problem as it was in 3.X and that it's often exaggerated, saying it's non-existant or negligible is simply denying an unfortunate reality of the game, one that has been present ever since 3.0.
"All classes are equal because the GM can make it so" is not a very good argument either. It's a fact that some classes have many more viable options and usefulness in a greater number of situations than others. It's much easier to stop a Fighter than a Druid. A GM shouldn't have to actively target/spare a particular character's strengths/weaknesses more than those of other characters just so said character seems more useful/balanced.
As a GM, I can always favor the Rogue character, it doesn't change the fact that the class is much less effective than Wizards, Bards, Inqusitors and Ninjas.
From mobility to out-of-combat options, including item crafting and gear dependency, casters most often have a large advantage on anything other than direct HP damage.
Then again, said disparity is very often exaggerated, and with the exception of a few cases, not that noticeable. Rangers and Clerics can adventure side by side without the fear of overshadowing/being overshadowed by each other unless the full-caster player puts a lot of effort into stealing the martial's thunder. In which case, the Cleric player is most likely being a dick.
While I agree that the caster/martial disparity is not as much of a problem as it was in 3.X and that it's often exaggerated, saying it's non-existant or negligible ...
He doesn't say it's "non-existant or negligible ", he sez "I don't think its as big a deal as the internet makes it out to be", which is more or less what you are saying.
Like I said earlier, it’s not a problem. The fact that a very high level wizard outpowers a Fighter of the same level is not a problem as a low level fighter out does a low level wizard, and most games are played at low levels.
And there’s the fact that D&D is supposed to be a cooperative game, not a contest between Pc’s. In my 3.5 game, I am playing a OA Samurai, two of the others are full spellcasters. A decent portion of their resources are spent on buffing me (and the party as a whole). Meanwhile they know I’ll be there, acting as their meat shield and also doing amazing damage on a Full Attack, so they can do battlefield control rather than blasting. As a team, we are very powerful. More powerful than just three spellcasters alone would be.
True, in 3.5 the disparity was worse than it was before or after, and yes, then you could call it a "problem".
But PF has fixed most of the worst stuff, and yes, JJ is right in that " casters and non-casters tend to be equally valuable to the party, and equally dangerous in various situations as enemies".
I don't think it fixed things entirely. Nerfed some of the spells that really stole thunder, druid wild shape, and made the classes more attractive is what I think they did. I prefer ToB classes to the PF martials still, and I think they could have done more to help the classes in need. Throwing more feats and damage at fighter won't fix them for example. Opinions vary I'm sure.
Actually what I stated was very relevant.
I don't see how completely changing the premise of the discussion to make a point that was completely at odds with said premise is in any way more than peripherally relevant. I'm not saying you were wrong, just that we weren't discussing MAD, just class features. I agree, the paladin is not likely to be able to afford as good a dexterity as the fighter because he can't dump charisma - but then again he doesn't need it, he can still close the gap with the fighter somewhat with just a belt (which the fighter also buys) and the armour.
Saying that something can just be applied elsewhere is such a cheap ass cop out that it isn't even funny. Well that 9k you spend on that mithral could be used somewhere else, or does this only apply to fighter related bashing?
Attribute points are important, you only get to spend them once. At the level we are discussing, 9Kgp is loose change. Sure it could be used elsewhere, but the point being raised was that the paladin gets a fair chunk of a fighter class feature for a relatively small expenditure. It's not about fighter bashing, it's a realistic summary of the value of Armour Training as a class feature, that's all.
The fact of the matter is the other classes would have to spend money where it could be spent elsewhere on something the fighter gets for free so the argument holds no water.
I disagree, it detracts from the uniqueness of a class thematically, and if class A can do everything that class B can do along with some other stuff for a relatively small outlay or resources, it really makes you wonder why anyone would choose class A.
Are we seriously going to go round and round to the same old tune?
You appear determined to do so.
There are just some of you that will not accept the usefulness of the fighter and will dismiss anything you can.
Like who? I champion the fighter as being ABLE to do his job. He IS useful as party damage dealer, I do not deny it. The issue being discussed is not "is the fighter useful?" but "what is unique about the fighter? What makes him a better/different option than any of the other full-BAB classes?"
I like the fighter for the flexibility to make the warrior I want with his feats, but I'm frustrated by his lack of saves and skills that limit this. He can do his job, but I understand the frustrations of those that want him to stand out as the other full-BAB classes do.
A simple trait that gives you UMD can enable and class to benefit from a bit of spell casting but that seems to be ignored.
No, it's a very good trait, no arguments there. Of course with only two skill ranks, and with charisma a dump stat (according to yourself), the fighter's going to have a tough time making the most of it, though.
While I agree that the caster/martial disparity is not as much of a problem as it was in 3.X and that it's often exaggerated, saying it's non-existant or negligible ...He doesn't say it's "non-existant or negligible ", he sez "I don't think its as big a deal as the internet makes it out to be", which is more or less what you are saying.
Yet, I feel he downplays the issue a bit too much.
Like I said earlier, it’s not a problem. The fact that a very high level wizard outpowers a Fighter of the same level is not a problem as a low level fighter out does a low level wizard, and most games are played at low levels.
Mosdt games are played at low level precisely because spell-casting bcomes insane at mid-high levels. Were magic not as powerful and world-changing as it currently is, we'd see a lot more of high-level gameplay.
And there’s the fact that D&D is supposed to be a cooperative game, not a contest between Pc’s. In my 3.5 game, I am playing a OA Samurai, two of the others are full spellcasters. A decent portion of their resources are spent on buffing me (and the party as a whole). Meanwhile they know I’ll be there, acting as their meat shield and also doing amazing damage on a Full Attack, so they can do battlefield control rather than blasting. As a team, we are very powerful. More powerful than just three spellcasters alone would be.
I disagree on this. Being a cooperative game doesn't reduce the need for balance, IMO. If anything, it makes it even more important that each player contributes about as much as the other, so noone is overshadowed by someone else.
I know pefect balance is impossible, but good balance is not. As it's, I think magic is too powerful. Way more powerful than pretty much anything martials can do.I'd like to play whatever class I want just based on preference, without fear of being redundant.
But PF has fixed most of the worst stuff, and yes, JJ is right in that " casters and non-casters tend to be equally valuable to the party, and equally dangerous in various situations as enemies".
It did fix some of the worst stuff. But Most of it? I'm not so sure about that...
- Martials still can't move 10ft without losing most of their efficiency, while caster can move all they want and still cast twice in the same round.- Casters can still break campaigns at higher levels (which is why not many of us play at those levels).
- Martials are still highly dependent on gear they can't even craft. Casters not only need much less gold, they can also easily afford magic item crafting feats.
- Martials still need to go through long feat chains, often full of useless/boring prerequisites to get to the cool/useful stuff, while nearly every feat a caster will ever want has no prerequisites other than being a caster.
- Martials are still punished for trying to do anything other than stand still and attack. Move and attack? Huge loss of damage. Combat Maneuver? Either grab those 3 feats (including the deplorable Combat Expertise) and a 13 on a tertiary stat or suck at doing it. And even if you pick those feats, maneuvers are still not that good.
Not to mention casters' weaknesses are considerably easier to overcome. Low HP and AC? There are ton of feats, gear and spells for that. Now, how do you increase a martial character's gear dependency? Or mobility? (and I don't mean movement speed, I mean the ability to move and still be effective)
IMHO, these are the main causes of the caster/martial disparity in the game. And the main reason so many feel "martials can't have nice things".
PF did a great job at balancing the classes. Paladins and Barbarians may not be as powerful as Clerics or Wizards, or even Oracles and Sorcerers, but they bring lots of unique stuff to the team and are good enough at their job to make sure it's really difficult to steal their thunder, even with full spell-casting.
Now, JJ can think that I and those with similar opinions are martial players who are jealous of casters, or caster players who are jealous of martials, but a better idea would be looking at these problems and assessing how serious each one is and what can be done about it.
I can garantee I have no "hidden agenda" about the game. I don't even have a favorite type of character, as my favorite classes vary a lot in tier and overall power and versatility.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
- Martials still can't move 10ft without losing most of their efficiency, while caster can move all they want and still cast twice in the same round.They mitigated this with quickrunner shirts (there are the pigeon hole semi-pouncer archetypes as well of course, but having two out of all the archetypes work well is not a fix). Of course changing shirts after each combat stinks of limburger.
The fact that a 1/day extra move action is considered e such a great deal only shows how much of a issue the lack of mobility really is.
And to add insult to the injury... Let's check the classes who can easily get Pounce.
- Barbarians: Pounce after 10 levels, but has to spend 3 Rage Powers, one of which is rather weak. Even so, Pouce is such a big deal, most Barbarians take this option.
- Druids: Pounce at 6th level. For free. No investment required. However, they do lose access to their spell casting. Unless they take a single feat with no prerequisite other than being a druid.
- Synthesist Summoner: Pounce at 1st level. Investment: 1 evolution point. One.
- Fighter: Errr... Grab an archetype who lets you do it at 15th level in exchange for your 1st (and most useful) attack. That's just depressing...
Yeah, that seems fair...
Of all the problems I listed, mobility is the one that annoys me the most.
Got to admit, if there is one thing I would change about the system as a whole, it's the lack of any extra attacks on a standard action. Not necessarily all of the attacks, but I think you should get a few of them...like every other attack you'd get in a full attack, maybe.
- Martials still can't move 10ft without losing most of their efficiency, while caster can move all they want and still cast twice in the same round.They mitigated this with quickrunner shirts (there are the pigeon hole semi-pouncer archetypes as well of course, but having two out of all the archetypes work well is not a fix). Of course changing shirts after each combat stinks of limburger.
Actualy that shirt is banned in most games I've been in and I'm pretty sure its banned in PFS last I checked becuase they think its questionable balance or something like that. Kinda sad.
A Quickrunner's shirt doesn't have to be changed out after every combat. Just double the price, double the uses, triple the price, triple the uses, etc. It's just a x/day item, after all.
And yes, it's PFS banned.
Aaaand...I see no justification for giving just weapon attacks full attacks with a move and not giving it to natural attacks...especially since there are martial and half-martial classes that use natural attacks.
The problem with melee isn't the raw damage output, it's the move and do damage output. But if you allow full attack on moves, you have to give it to everyone...and that could be bad.
===Aelryinth
True enough, but it's logical all the same! The main difference is that you could not use a second shirt in the same fight.
==Aelryinth
Got to admit, if there is one thing I would change about the system as a whole, it's the lack of any extra attacks on a standard action. Not necessarily all of the attacks, but I think you should get a few of them...like every other attack you'd get in a full attack, maybe.
This is something I've been thinking about lately... What if you could make more than 1 attack as standard action, but not your full attack.
My idea is something like this:
BAB 6: If for some reason you have an extra attack that doesn't come from your BAB (such as TWF, natural weapons or the extra attack from Haste) you can use it to make a 2nd attack as part of your standard action attack, apllying any bonus or penalty they'd have on a full attack.
BAB 11: You can make your 2 first iterative attacks. That is, one at full BAB and another at BAB-5. If you have an extra attack that doesn't come from your BAB (such as TWF, natural weapons or the extra attack from Haste), you can also use it to make a 3rd attack.
Now moving and attacking is viable, but full attacks and pounce still get you some extra damage, so you might want them anyway.
It's a real choice now.
How about we do something simple and allow Full Attacks as a standard action at some penalty (somewhere between 2 and 4 I'd say, I'm ballparking 3 right now), whereas a normal Full Attack has no penalty and Pounce has +2.
I thought about that as well, kyrt. The main problem is that there are many creatures with a incredibly high number of natural attacks. A dragon's full attack is scary enough as it's.
And that -2 is not that much of a problem anyway, since most of the time you can move, you can charge as well (especially after flight becomes easily accessible).
Honestly, I'd rather the game had fewer attacks at higher bonus and with better damage than 4~8 attacks... But that's a different story...
It does not sound bad, you ould write it and post it in the suggestion forum. Also what happens with multiple natural attacks?Got to admit, if there is one thing I would change about the system as a whole, it's the lack of any extra attacks on a standard action. Not necessarily all of the attacks, but I think you should get a few of them...like every other attack you'd get in a full attack, maybe.This is something I've been thinking about lately... What if you could make more than 1 attack as standard action, but not your full attack.
My idea is something like this:
BAB 6: If for some reason you have an extra attack that doesn't come from your BAB (such as TWF, natural weapons or the extra attack from Haste) you can use it to make a 2nd attack as part of your standard action attack, apllying any bonus or penalty they'd have on a full attack.
BAB 11: You can make your 2 first iterative attacks. That is, one at full BAB and another at BAB-5. If you have an extra attack that doesn't come from your BAB (such as TWF, natural weapons or the extra attack from Haste), you can also use it to make a 3rd attack.
Now moving and attacking is viable, but full attacks and pounce still get you some extra damage, so you might want them anyway.
It's a real choice now.
I have to word it better... But basically, you can make up to 2 attacks at BAB+6, if, and only if, one of those doesn't come from BAB, and up to 3 attacks at BAB+11, again, if at least one of those doesn't come from BAB.
So a dragon with BAB+11 could land and attack with Bite/Claw/Claw all at full BAB.
Or it could stand still and full attack with Bite/Claw/Claw/Wing/Wing/Tail the Paladin who decided to get into melee range.
I'm still messing around with the idea.
If you want a boost to martials then ask Jason to allow Vital Strike and Spring Attack to stack.
They don't?
Vital strike is a trap anyway. Its a chain and it doesn't give much in return. Unless you wield a ridiculous weapon its pretty meh. Takes like 6 feats to have it and spring attack anyway.
Lets not get into a long talk about vital strike and its merits though. Its got its moments if your constantly moving and can't get full attacks.
In my humble opinion I think that the game is leaps and bounds over 3.x in terms of game balance. Most of the core martials have been given a very big leg up. Barbarians are currently THE mundane warrior. Paladins and Rangers are both very well balanced and play comfortably alongside spellcasters throughout most levels. Casters have been heavily Stealth-nerfed while having more options built into their classes.
As someone who was very familiar with a lot of the nonsense from 3.x, Pathfinder is a much, much more balanced game with far less troubles overall. I disagree with some of the splat material and Fighters, Rogues, and Monks are still lagging (though monks have gotten a lot of splat-book love which has helped them out from core).
Honestly, I talk with one of my friends (who has only played Pathfinder and is very familiar with its mechanics) about the differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder and we laugh about the idea that the game isn't leaps and bounds more balanced than it was in 3.5.
Is it perfect? No. But it is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better.
Great post Ashiel!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great post Ashiel!In my humble opinion I think that the game is leaps and bounds over 3.x in terms of game balance. Most of the core martials have been given a very big leg up. Barbarians are currently THE mundane warrior. Paladins and Rangers are both very well balanced and play comfortably alongside spellcasters throughout most levels. Casters have been heavily Stealth-nerfed while having more options built into their classes.
As someone who was very familiar with a lot of the nonsense from 3.x, Pathfinder is a much, much more balanced game with far less troubles overall. I disagree with some of the splat material and Fighters, Rogues, and Monks are still lagging (though monks have gotten a lot of splat-book love which has helped them out from core).
Honestly, I talk with one of my friends (who has only played Pathfinder and is very familiar with its mechanics) about the differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder and we laugh about the idea that the game isn't leaps and bounds more balanced than it was in 3.5.
Is it perfect? No. But it is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better.
Thank you Zark. :)
I'm working on a d20 Star Wars homebrew at the moment and one of the things I've been playing around with is scaling base dice as a primary source of damage. This then combines with Vital Strike feats, or dual-wielding, flavor to taste.
If I was to mod Pathfinder in this way, it might look sort of like this. At 6th, 11th, and 16th your base weapon damage would increase by +1 die. So a longsword becomes 2d8, 3d8, 4d8 as you gain levels. The Vital Strike line can then push you to 4d8, 9d8, or 16d8 respectively.
Another thing I did was create a "dual-wield" special attack (similar to the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack in D&D/PF). As a standard action you can swing both weapons at your full BAB-2. Improved and Greater Dual-Wield grant additional attacks.
The conversion would require some attention throughout the system, but it has some interesting applications. Firstly while being very simple it also provides a pretty solid method of dealing damage with a standard attack. So much in fact that I've considered revising the combat system based around it as an assumption.
This is something I've been thinking about lately... What if you could make more than 1 attack as standard action, but not your full attack.
My idea is something like this:
BAB 6: If for some reason you have an extra attack that doesn't come from your BAB (such as TWF, natural weapons or the extra attack from Haste) you can use it to make a 2nd attack as part of your standard action attack, apllying any bonus or penalty they'd have on a full attack.
BAB 11: You can make your 2 first iterative attacks. That is, one at full BAB and another at BAB-5. If you have an extra attack that doesn't come from your BAB (such as TWF, natural weapons or the extra attack from Haste), you can also use it to make a 3rd attack.
Now moving and attacking is viable, but full attacks and pounce still get you some extra damage, so you might want them anyway.
It's a real choice now.
I'd go simpler with just every other attack that you would normally get.
Hence +6/+1 just gets one attack at +6, and +11/+6/+1 gets +11/+1. If you TWF, you attack with alternate weapons in the same way, only +6/+6/+1/+1 becomes +6/+1.
This is on a standard action - full round actions like Spring Attack and charge would still be one attack only.
Ash, as a recommendation, you could then introduce the 'full attack' as an option where you sacrifice move to gain other benefits.
For instance, a +1, +1 per 'Vital Strike level', to AC, a specific save, or to damage. Thus, you swap move for a bonus equal to what you give up, not so you can actually do some damage.
===Aelryinth
The problem with the idea of allowing some sort of limited Full attack after a move is that the Monsters will also get it. Thus a lot of party tactics will become obsolete, and a lot of ‘squishies’ dead.
Better is allowing the Fighter to get Pounce as a feat. Make it say available @ F11, with some other feat as a pre-req. Other choice would be giving Fighter the Vital Strike chain for free. It’s kinda “meh” anyway. But for free? Darn right.
However, to restate- some degree of power difference at some levels is not a BAD THING. It’s part of D&D to have the Wizard be more powerful than the fighter at the highest levels, and the reverse at the lower levels. What goes wrong is when the disparity is too great or too early.
However, to restate- some degree of power difference at some levels is not a BAD THING. It’s part of D&D to have the Wizard be more powerful than the fighter at the highest levels, and the reverse at the lower levels. What goes wrong is when the disparity is too great or too early.
This is where our experiences differ Doc.
In my experience, at levels 1 and 2 Wizards are roughly equal to martials, and continue to pull ahead from there.
Dd you have four encounter days, and also balance the encounters?
I find if you do both, the wiz kicks butt for one or maybe two encounters, then falls back on acid splash or a crossbow. Indeed that's a running meme here on these boards, players wanting to know what they should do when they run out of spells. A wiz has what, maybe three spells at that level? And after burning one on Mage armor, that doesn't leave them much to do.
Sure, Sleep can really do a number on a Orc encounter, but what does the wiz do then?
Four encounters, each of five rounds, how many 1 st level spells do you have?
Early on the wizard might fall back after a few encounters, but later on he doesn't. He can expedite this by purchasing pearls of power or using spells that last a longer period, such as a conjuration spell to get something else to do the work for him.
However, to restate- some degree of power difference at some levels is not a BAD THING. It’s part of D&D to have the Wizard be more powerful than the fighter at the highest levels, and the reverse at the lower levels. What goes wrong is when the disparity is too great or too early.
This is where our experiences differ Doc.
In my experience, at levels 1 and 2 Wizards are roughly equal to martials, and continue to pull ahead from there.
Interesting. I have a somewhat different experience.
In my personal experience, from 1st to 4th level, martials do have an advantage, sincespells are quite limited and not all that powerful.
From 5th to about 10th level, the game is very well balanced. Casters and Martials can walk side by side without too much problem. But then, casters start to pull ahead... And once they reach 15~16th level, they get to do all sorts of world-chaging crazy stuff, and martials are mostly the clean-up crew.
How much of a disparity there is depends not only on class choice, but also on system mastery of each player, especially the caster player.
How many first level spells do you need?
Four Encounter day, 20 Int (achievable even on 10 point buy) with a Bonded Object.
Grease, Sleep, Color Spray, Enlarge Person
One spell per encounter. Once I've cast my spell I'll typically pull out a book in character and leave cleanup to the minions, although I know people who like to plink with cantrips/crossbow/school powers.
Please. Even Treatmonk doesn't give a 20 in INT to his Wiz build, even on 25 pts (and his builds usually have no less than two "7s".) And you forget you have to cast Mage armor, every Wiz does (if not Mage armor and Shield). So, that brings you back down to two spells.
Two. One spell every other encounter. Yawn.
However, to restate- some degree of power difference at some levels is not a BAD THING. It’s part of D&D to have the Wizard be more powerful than the fighter at the highest levels, and the reverse at the lower levels. What goes wrong is when the disparity is too great or too early.
It's rather a myth that Wizards were more powerful in pre-3E D&D. They are "differently powered". Remember, if a Magic Users casts Power Word Kill against a 20th level fighter, the fighter has a save vs Death Magic of ... 3. That means the fighter saves on a 3 or higher, not including protection magic items or anything of that sort.
Caster/Martial disparity is largely a thing of post-2E D&D.
Well, yes and no. I played even back in the Original 3 Vol set days. Wizard beat out fighter after around 11th (Name) level or so. But yes, the disparity wasn't huge like in 3.5. 3.5 with it's huge number of Splatbooks is what made the difference so huge- altho mind you a Core 18 Wiz was like a gawd compared to a Core 18 Fighter still, even without splatbooks.
Back in the old days, we were fine with fighters being able to move and make their full allotment of attacks. In fact, weapon specialization gave you more attacks- it was the fighters thing. My fix is to allow all characters to move and do iterative attacks- fighters only can move and attack at full BAB. And weapon specialization should give another attack.
Of course that doesn't fix the problem with the saves being too damned low, but that requires a general fix.
Better is allowing the Fighter to get Pounce as a feat. Make it say available @ F11, with some other feat as a pre-req. Other choice would be giving Fighter the Vital Strike chain for free. It’s kinda “meh” anyway. But for free? Darn right.
Problem is that this must be available to other Martial classes, or they get left out, and then it becomes a 'must have' feat for every martial - and every monster.
|
Better is allowing the Fighter to get Pounce as a feat. Make it say available @ F11, with some other feat as a pre-req. Other choice would be giving Fighter the Vital Strike chain for free. It’s kinda “meh” anyway. But for free? Darn right.Problem is that this must be available to other Martial classes, or they get left out, and then it becomes a 'must have' feat for every martial - and every monster.
Why is it a problem?
Barbarians get Pounce with their rage so why can't fighter's get it as a fighter only feat?
Becuase obviously the feat would require a bunch of unneeeded prereqs. To get that your going to need dodge, mobility, spring attack, combat expertise, 12 levels in fighter, 13 int, 13 wisdom, 16 dex, two weapon fighting, acrobatics...
The problem was already stated. It becomes a must have feat. Things that are must have should probably already be integrated into a class. Probably so a seemingly great archetype can take it away and become another pointless npc archetype.
Also pounce, if everyone has it, quickly turns the game into rocket tag. Which is not fun for everyone.
I'm in a Kingmaker campaign and one of the cities my group claimed just got conquered by an army from another nation. My group is very concerned this army is just going to keep on rolling toward our capital city, considering their army will steamroll ours.
Then I remembered that my character is a 14th level sorcerer. When we have our session tonight, I'm going to teleport over to where this invading army is, get an assessment on their numbers, and determine if I can simply destroy the army myself. Between a variety of blasting spells and spec-focused enchantment spells, I can potentially wreak enough havoc to at least consider the possibility. Even the paladin in our group, who is our best damage dealer, can't approach the situation from my perspective.
So yeah, I'd say the disparity between casters and martials is still there.
Better is allowing the Fighter to get Pounce as a feat. Make it say available @ F11, with some other feat as a pre-req. Other choice would be giving Fighter the Vital Strike chain for free. It’s kinda “meh” anyway. But for free? Darn right.Problem is that this must be available to other Martial classes, or they get left out, and then it becomes a 'must have' feat for every martial - and every monster.Why is it a problem?
Barbarians get Pounce with their rage so why can't fighter's get it as a fighter only feat?
You know, if mobility wasn't such an issue for martial characters, having Pouce be a feat would be okay, IMO.
What I mean by that is, if you could move and make, let's say, your first 2 attacks or something similar, like I suggested, I'd not mind Fighters having access to full Pounce.
Paladin moves and makes 2~3 attacks, but a Fighter moves and makes 4~6 of them. That's okay for me.
The problem is the All-or-nothing situation we have now. Either have Pounce, so you can charge and full attack, or you don't have pounce, so you can move and suck.
It may be because my players don't optimize, but the martials keep up with the casters quite well. Currently lvl7 in Kingmaker with fighter, druid, monk, bard. Recently added a wizard as well.
Based on all the smoke, I'd imagine there is a disparity, but it hasn't been an issue in any of our games. Every class has sessions where it shines, and others where it takes a backseat.
|
Becuase obviously the feat would require a bunch of unneeeded prereqs. To get that your going to need dodge, mobility, spring attack, combat expertise, 12 levels in fighter, 13 int, 13 wisdom, 16 dex, two weapon fighting, acrobatics...
The problem was already stated. It becomes a must have feat. Things that are must have should probably already be integrated into a class. Probably so a seemingly great archetype can take it away and become another pointless npc archetype.
Also pounce, if everyone has it, quickly turns the game into rocket tag. Which is not fun for everyone.
Dude, I would love this. I want spring attack and whirlwind strike anyway on my fighter. The stats are not to hard either.