WHERE'S MAH DOUBLE KATANA?!?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Wazat here. The unwillingness of those that like casters as they are to considers nerfs such as increased casting time or more difficulty casting in combat / nerfed defensive casting, combined with a strange desire that mundanes shouldn't have blatanly supernatural abilities at high level means there can't be anything resembling balance that doesn't get a significant portion of the player base up in arms.
To move those portions of the conversation along where there's not a lot of controversy (though, honestly, the best way to avoid ugliness like what has come before is to determine when people are not conversing but are just ranting, and let them rant on without replies or attention from you), here are some lists that might be helpful:
- List feat chains that could be combined into one feat. Why?
- List feats that you think should be removed and replaced as default options. Why?
- List feats that aren't interesting (no additonal actions, no new abilities, etc.) and suggest more interesting alternatives for them.
- List abilities or ideas for adding narrative power to mundane characters
- List skill changes that will add to the importance of skills as a relevent subsystem of game past level 5, explain how it improves the lot of mundanes over the lot of casters, and how it remains relevent at high level.
WHERE'S MAH DOUBLE KATANA?!?
IN MY HANDY HAVERSACK
GUESS YOU NEED TO WORK ON YOUR PERCEPTION SCORE
P.S I STOLE YOUR WALLET WHILE NOT SEEING THE PROBLEM IN THIS THREAD
TRICK QUESTION! I ONLY HAVE A TORCH AND PITCHFORK!
|
TRICK QUESTION! I ONLY HAVE A TORCH AND PITCHFORK!WHERE'S MAH DOUBLE KATANA?!?
IN MY HANDY HAVERSACK
GUESS YOU NEED TO WORK ON YOUR PERCEPTION SCORE
P.S I STOLE YOUR WALLET WHILE NOT SEEING THE PROBLEM IN THIS THREAD
WHAT THE-
THEN THAT WOULD MEAN-AGGGGGGGGHHHHH MY SACK IS ON FIRE!
P.S PLEASE TELL ME THERE ARE INSTRUCTIONS FOR STOPPING DROPPING AND ROLLING IN YOUR WALLET
I think a lot of it is dependant on feat design overall and it's relation to classes.
When it comes to casters, they're generally packed and ready, being extremely powerful even not considering the feats. Feats are just icing on the cake, and generally provide quite small bonuses (generally).
Martials, on the other hand, are extremely reliant on feats - to function properly they NEED the feats.
This makes me ambivalent about feat consolidation/making feats for martials more powerful. On one hand, yes, it could change the combat balance in favor of the martials but on the other hand, it even more forces them to rely on feats rather than their class abilities.
Take a fighter and remove her Power Attack and he'll lose like 20% of his power.
Take a wizard and remove her Spell Focus and she'll lose like 5% of her power - on a small subset of her spells.
This means for a caster, feats are kind of optional, and spending a feat for flavor purposes, getting say Profession (sailer) because it fits your background, is "no biggie". For a fighter, it is very much a biggie. And thus the classes with least freedom in class features (ie no spells) also get the least freedom in feat choices.
That's why I feel ambivalent about feat consolidation, and more in favor of class empowerment. Rather than making Vital Strike and Improved Sunder chains into a single feat each, let a fighter choose one or the other to get for free.
Each class, I feel, should be able to stand on it's own, and removing their feats should drop them no more than say about 20% in power.
Now, it's even more problematic because many of the martial classes (fighter, monk, ranger, cavalier) get bonus feats as part of their class powers, so making feats less powerful or important will weaken these classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Wazat here. The unwillingness of those that like casters as they are to considers nerfs such as increased casting time or more difficulty casting in combat / nerfed defensive casting, combined with a strange desire that mundanes shouldn't have blatanly supernatural abilities at high level means there can't be anything resembling balance that doesn't get a significant portion of the player base up in arms.
To move those portions of the conversation along where there's not a lot of controversy (though, honestly, the best way to avoid ugliness like what has come before is to determine when people are not conversing but are just ranting, and let them rant on without replies or attention from you), here are some lists that might be helpful:
- List feat chains that could be combined into one feat. Why?
- List feats that you think should be removed and replaced as default options. Why?
- List feats that aren't interesting (no additonal actions, no new abilities, etc.) and suggest more interesting alternatives for them.
- List abilities or ideas for adding narrative power to mundane characters
- List skill changes that will add to the importance of skills as a relevent subsystem of game past level 5, explain how it improves the lot of mundanes over the lot of casters, and how it remains relevent at high level.
Hey now! Those of thus don't want casters nerfed (well not completely anyway, some stuff needs to go), should be able to submit blatantly supernatural fixes to the fighter. Why? Because those who want a "realistic" fighter have the option to play P6, so they are already being catered to.
So lets hit that list some:
Virtually all of them. Why? Many of these feats could be rewritten as one feat with scaling benefits. It's completely absurd that a fighter needs to set three feats on fire to properly Blind-Fight, while a Wizard drops one feat on Dazing Spell. The Fix? Make Blind-Fight give all the benefits of Improved and Greater at the appropriate levels. To make this benefit people who get more feats make the feat chain that comes off that all one feat as well, ex. Moonlight Stalker line. Combat Expertise needs to be something you can just *do* or significantly reworked to be a valuable scaling feat. If there is still concern that consolidating feats benefits Casters to much (even though there would still be feat trees ala Blind-Fight - Moonlight Stalker), tie some effects to BAB.
Skill Focus (X) and Acrobatic Style Feats need removed in favor new options. These new options should still grant a benefit to 1 or more skills, but should also add options to their use. Acrobatic for example would be much nicer.
Acrobatic
You are skilled at leaping, jumping, and flying, even in combat.
Prerequisites: Dex 13
Benefit: You get a +2 bonus on all Acrobatics and Fly skill checks. If you have 10 or more ranks in one of these skills, the bonus increases to +4 for that skill.
If you have 4 Ranks in Acrobatics or Fly, you gain the following benefit: Whenever you move, you may move through 5 feet of difficult terrain each round as if it were normal terrain. This feat allows you to take a 5-foot step into difficult terrain. When you have 8 ranks in Acrobatics or Fly, you may instead move through up to 15 feet of difficult terrain instead.
If you have 8 Ranks in Acrobatics or Fly, you gain the following benefit: You may stand up from prone as a swift action.
If you have 12 Ranks in Acrobatics or Fly, you gain the following Benefit: As an immediate action, you may make an Acrobatics Check and use the result in place of a Reflex Save. You can take this action after you make a Reflex Save and know the result.
Most feats should incorporate some level scaling similar to the above, be it based on level (like I think Blind-Fight should) or BAB - Power Attack could offer options in exchange for certain amount of penalty not going to damage, maybe some like trade -2 points for to deal full damage to objects, -3 to deal a status condition, etc.
Look at some the old 3.5 epic level handbook uses of skills and incorporate them directly into the skill. Bluff for example could be used to disguise your alignment with a DC 70 check. Bring this down to a realistic number like 25 or so and make it part of the skill uses. Let Escape Artists pass through Walls of Force with a similar lower check (120 really ELH?). Abilities along these lines should be incorporated into skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ilja:
Agreed. Feats need to be more condensed, and core class powers need to be less dilute and more defining.
I've always balked at things like the ranger's Favored Enemy, because I feel it's a minor bonus that will affect him a small fraction of the time (unless he knows it's going to be an undead or kobold-centered campaign). The fighter's weapon focus is flat-out better, because the fighter can control his weapon choice better than the ranger can control which enemies he fights.
But the fighter is as bare-bones as classes come, relying totally on feats. The other martials aren't too far behind. Even the ranger relies on selecting several feats for his combat style. Those feats need to be potent, meaningful. Or they should be replaced by (or paired with) class features that do better.
Where and how we draw those lines is tricky though. :(
Jess Door:
Sounds like a good start.
Feat chains I want combined:
*Step Up: This should auto-scale with level instead of taking 3 feats to get the effect.
*Disruptive: The Spellbreaker etc feats in the chain might be appropriate to pull into one feat.
*Combat Maneuvers: The Improved and Greater for each combat maneuver shouldn't have the feat tax of Combat Expertise. Improved and greater should merge into a single scaling feat, but I'm okay keeping them as separate feats for each maneuver for specialization. A more generic feat should make the player better overall at combat maneuvers (+2 to all), while the Improved-Greater feat for each type gives special bonuses when you trip or grapple a foe. Right now a player is crazy to invest in multiple maneuvers, since the feat count is large and the usefulness is low. Too many enemies are effectively immune to maneuvers because of broken-high CMD. The foe doesn't even have to be large or multi-legged.
*Weapon Focus: The Greater Weapon Focus is supposed to make fighter feel special; it doesn't. It should auto-scale for the fighter, maybe for everyone (and the fighter gets it sooner). We're talking about a feat that gives a +1 to attack for a single weapon only, and many players throw away the equivalent in BAB by multiclassing once or twice in a medium or low BAB class. Why does it require 8 or 12 dedicated fighter levels (I forget) to pick up one more +1 for a single weapon type?
*Weapon Specialization: This is a prereq for a feat or two, but it should at least auto-scale to greater spec at a certain BAB or fighter level.
*Vital Strike: Even making this auto-scaling it won't compete with a full attack most of the time, but it's a start.
Feats that should become class features or default options:
*Auto-scaling Step Up should probably be one of the fighter's default ability options, maybe as a free feat.
*Rogues could stand to start with weapon finesse, so they can spend their talents on their unique abilities instead of making themselves aim right.
Narrative Power and Skills
Fighters need the ability to influence NPCs or make paths. Bashing through doors and walls, intimidating foes (with scaling effects), and being able to accomplish increasingly powerful athletic and acrobatic actions like rapidly climbing walls and leaping pits with an ally tucked under each arm... those might be a good start. Some people will balk at it, but oh well.
I liked some of the ideas from a page or two back for trying to give more narrative options to fighters, rogues, etc.
Frankly, crafting items takes a lot of skill to make something relatively mundane. Even with select feats and traits that imitate caster crafting, the martial character cannot make something nearly as good at high level unless his caster buddy enchants it for him. That Adamintine Greatsword is silly compared to the Hasted Adamantine Greatsword of Flameburst +5. I don't know how to address this reasonably though.
I always avoided craft trap as a... trap. Seemed like a lot of work to make something that doesn't scale so well. Martial characters like rogues being able to craft mechanical constructs to serve them in battle or everyday life would be cool, especially if the constructs didn't outright suck compared to what a caster can assemble already.
The profession skills are severely weakened variants of the knowledge skills, and it takes effort to remember to incorporate them into a campaign. Many players ignore them unless they feel it's important for their own roleplay (or the GM makes them). Having a better defined role for these skills would help a lot.
And getting one or two free skill points per level to spend on the Profession skill would be a good idea. Now the player isn't skipping out on Escape Artist or Ride just to back his claim to being in the military or crafter's guild.
Intimidate's shaking effect on foes needs to scale, both in effect and number of targets (even if those advances are limited in use per day). If a high level fighter can't slice a bad guy in two and let out a roar that makes weaker beings soil themselves and flee on a failed save, then the fighter needs to go sit down and get out of the wizard's way, because magic already does that. :)
Give fighters moar skill points. 4+Int, maybe more. But everyone's beat that one to death.
Knowledge(local) seems to be the streetwise of Pathfinder. Or maybe some situational application of diplomacy/intimidate/disguise? It's your ability to get out into the social environment (for example, a city, pub, sewer full of kobolds, etc) and gather information, procure allies and items... or otherwise navigate a society, foreign or domestic. I found this to be a valuable skill in games that supported it (Battletech, D&D4, others I've since forgotten). It's not so obvious here.
If you want martials with narrative power, this is one way to give it to them. Let them hone this ability to gather allies, raise armies, gather info, locate targets without scrying, and push the knowledge advantage.
In terms of knocking down walls and buildings, Knowledge: Engineering might be the place to start. A fighter wielding a large hammer might be able to bring a castle turret down onto the battlefield as a full-round-action if he knows where to strike its weakened structure. He might be able to get into/out of a prison or dungeon. Looks fairly GM-dependent though. Spells make it a lot easier to cheat your way past physical obstacles than skills do. :D
Edge Points:
I find myself pining for the way we used Edge Points in Battletech (we played it as a roleplaying game instead of a war game). Spending an edge let you reroll a failed roll, add a bonus to a roll, OR (most importantly) change the scene, environment, etc. For example, a foe tosses a grenade through the door at you: you're certainly going to die. You edge in an emergency close switch right next to you and pull it, closing the the emergency blast door just in time to block the grenade. You can't do game-breaking changes (e.g. edge in an armada of allies to blast the enemy ship), nor can you violate anything that's been established already ("I spend an edge to say that Jane suddenly lands her ship nearby and opens the door for us", "Uhh... we already established that Jane is on the other side of the galaxy. She can't suddenly be here").
It made it a lot of fun, and every player had the ability to influence the story in controlled but useful ways. One guy played Inspector Clouseau, solving a case with no inspection skills whatsoever. He spent his few edge points to edge in clues to help him solve the case. But edge is limited, and it's a skill-based game, so he eventually trained himself in inspection. :)
Aren't there "hero points" in Pathfinder? I forget what they do, but if they're similar to Edge, giving martials some that scale with level might let them influence the narrative on par with casters without being spellcasters.
That's what came to mind so far.
Ninja'd by Anzyr.
I like your example for Acrobatics, and passing through walls of force. I'd like to see more of those.
And yea, let's cut out the fat and make most feat chains just scale.
Porphy: The reason people keep drifting to the "Change Casters" line of thinking is because no matter what we do to martials, we probably can't close the gap between them and casters without effectively making them casters. There's probably a lot we can do to somewhat narrow the gap, but it will remain huge all the same.
I don't agree with that. I think it can be accomplished.
In any case, we should, here, work on the "a lot we can do" part, observe, and worry about the rest after that.
I have agreed there are things that need to be done about certain spells and certain broken (usually caster-related) abilities, but those things are irrespective of martials-as-such.
In any case I also disagree with making the perfect the enemy of the good. Reducing the gap would be significant. People don't feel "Tier 3" (for lack of a better way of putting it) classes are lamentable.
Plus, as I keep saying, Kirth and a few others have come up with ideas towards giving martials flavorfully-martial ways of impacting the gameworld on a similar scale. I think creativity can be bent to accomplishing something like that, even if one doesn't like his specific ideas.
In any case - again, empirically - on the rare occasions this thread (and others like it, such as the Fighter-specific thread) focus on that, those are the times when fruitful discussions happen. When they don't, nothing fruitful happens. At best it's lamenting over beers (or coffees), like the old blokes hanging out at the Chestnut Tree. At worst it devolves into the endless bicker-churn.
Therefore I again recommend: lets first do the "a lot we can do" to improve Martials. At least in this thread. Or we can spend another 1K+ posts uselessly. It is the interbutts, after all.
Again, just a recommendation. In general I personally have little of substance to offer to the substantive parts of the discussion except "I like this" or "this sounds good but here's a good tweek" and the like. But the people who do have actual good ideas (better than me) tend to grow silent (or go away) when the thread gets dominated by bickering.
Porphy: If you think I'm trying to bicker, that was not the intent. It's unfortunate that this is all that managed to shine through my post. :(
I think now might be a good time to look at Dragon Ball and DBZ.
Like a level 20 monk should be a super saiyan. Beyond that I feel is epic levels.
Now what do non-monk martials need to mimic that?
Well movement and damage. Damage is already good. Movement can be done several ways. Do martial classes get passive movement increases like the monk? I see no reason for martials not to be able to jump and run at the same speed as a medium range spell. Move and full attack at higher levels would also be good, but perhaps it should be a half-move and full attack that work.
Now utility for martials is trickier. I feel that their strength score should and does provide lots of utility that no skill can match and no caster wants to burn spell on.
More complicated strength check rules would help here.
Aside from that, a rework of the skill system would help martials greatly in the regards of utility.
TL;DR Mobility, Damage, and Skill buffs
I dislike the concept of many double weapons, but mostly because a lot of them are silly, not because they're unrealistic.
Pathfinder's a bit better with it, with the quarterstaff and kusarigama making sense.
But the "double axe"? Seriously?
At least there's no "double club" in Pathfinder.
a double Axe or double Sword isn't much different from a quarterstaff in function. they are merely quarterstaves with sharp ends.
a Quarterstaff is the IRL double weapon
and they actually do have Double Swords and Double Axes in the real world. they were merely weapons wielded by those who had a sufficient amount of time to waste on training. hence the feat tax.
Yea, if you can get a martial character genuinely excited about how his skills can be used, in and out of combat, that's a big step forward. Right now a fighter's most interest-driving features, for example, are his weapon and his combat feats. Those don't really compete with spells and other magical features. Fighters get so few skill points they're basically an afterthought, and many of the skills are underutilized. Give a martial character the ability to put those skills to really good use, and he'll use them.
More skill points, and more support for powerful and creative ways to use those skills. Part of that is on the GM, to reward and allow creative use (within fair reason). Part of it is on the rules developers to help open the door.
I personally can imagine martial characters having more skill points than spellcasters. After all, the spellcaster's time is consumed by learning and developing complex and diverse magical talents. The martial characters like fighter and rogue, and half&halfs like paladin and ranger, should be more skillful than the wizard, sorcerer, witch, priest, etc. I'm not saying "lower caster skill points", I'm saying "add to martial skill points". The rogue is, and should be, the game's skill master. But the fighter shouldn't be relegated to the "dumb fighter who knows how to swing a sword and where to poo, and nothing else". If anything, he should be beating the sorcerer and cleric, not merely match them.
Also, maybe give all martial characters extra feat slots at levels 1, 6, 12, etc for taking "skill feats" of their choice. These give scaling bonuses (+2, or +4 at X ranks of the skill) to a pair of skills. They ALSO give special uses of those skills, similar to what Anzyr suggested.
Another (weaker) option is to give martial characters extra traits. I'm also a fan of granting free traits for good players who roleplay well, accomplish tasks creatively, and/or create new events for themselves and the party. But that's a separate matter, as casters get that too. :D
Edit: note that extra traits tend to matter very little at high levels, so that's probably not as effective for the problem we're solving here. But you could reward players with feats, magic items, and permanent magic tattoos that grant them scaling bonuses along these lines.
I think the stereotype of "dude that fights" as a single class schtick needs to go. There shouldn't be a "dude that fights" _at all_. There can be dudes that fight, but that shouldn't be the whole concept, ever.
Keep in mind that the only martial class that NEEDS feats is the Fighter. The others could probably do remarkably well without any feats at all, their class features are that strong.
And FE isn't as good as Weapon Focus...until you become able to make anything your FE at level 8 and higher. Then +4 vs the foe you want the bonus to apply against blows Weapon Focus out of the water.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"dude that fights" is a fantasy concept that needs to be filled. But I see no reason my fighter can't play like Gatz in Berserk.
I think people forget the narrative power that comes from being able to swing a sword in a medieval setting. Many times, sword play is valued over actual power like lands, gold, or manpower. People could be fear and/or respected because of their mastery of the blade.
Being able to win a tourney could come with titles, lands, and wife. Perhaps even a lordship if prowess was shown on the field of battle.
Keep in mind that the only martial class that NEEDS feats is the Fighter. The others could probably do remarkably well without any feats at all, their class features are that strong.
No, not really. Well, a really well optimized martial could perhaps do reasonably well against opponents adjusted for a non-optimized group, like, a really experienced player with a superoptimized concept might be able to tackle being part of a group in an adventure path.
Meanwhile, any wizard could just go "oh well, I guess I'll go more for the buffing and no save spells" and lose nearly nothing.
"dude that fights" is a fantasy concept that needs to be filled.
No, it isn't, and as long as it's a concept the game tries to fill it leads to single-minded characters that are boring to play. There are of course many concepts that involves the ability to fight, but the concept should not boil down to just "dude that fights". I can't think of a single good (as in, remotely well-written) fantasy character that had only "can fight" going for her; most have either excellent cunning (like Conan) or are leaders of people (like Aragorn).
It would be cool if you could have martial work arounds for certain issues like poor saves. Maybe a feat chain that leverages your combat prowess to sub for a save periodically? I would be interested in seeing a fighter learning about magic users to such a degree that they could parry ray spells or something.
Maybe it would represent minor knowledge of spells by granting a spell like once a day and then moves onto improving saves against arcane spell casting and spell like abilities and then finally it grants the ability to deflect a spell directed at them once a day or something. Key it off of base attack so that it would come in late for three quarter bab types.
You could call it anti magic tactics?
Gimli
What did he do aside from drink, fight, and banter with the elf?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to win a tourney could come with titles, lands, and wife. Perhaps even a lordship if prowess was shown on the field of battle.
Yeah, but in D&D land Nerdsby the Nerd can easily win the tourney with a hold person spell against the fighter's weak Will save, and now he gets the titles, lands, and wife. As long as temporal goodies are tied directly to power, and casters are more powerful than martials... well, martials lose out doubly.
On the flip side, if all of the non-casty people view casters as creepy and untrustworthy (-1/level to Diplomacy and Leadership?) then maybe you reverse that.
Gimli
What did he do aside from drink, fight, and banter with the elf?
(as in, remotely well-written)
Kirth: Having a penalty that increases with level is... Weird. I'm not opposed to social stigma around casters, but I think that implementation is kinda strange.
Having everyone react to you as one step less friendly though...
Porphy: If you think I'm trying to bicker, that was not the intent. It's unfortunate that this is all that managed to shine through my post. :(
Sorry, no I didn't see you as bickering I just really feel the caster stuff has to be minimized in this thread, or it will degenerate into bickering again.
I guess that means I self-appointed myself "Thread Police" which is also terrible (I hate that guy too). But I find the thread illuminating when it stays on topic and pointless (if mildly entertaining) when it degenerates.
I do actually agree with you that if everything was perfect we should talk about all these things in relation to each other. But that simply doesn't work on the internet. Which is unfortunate.
Anyhow, no I didn't see you as bickering; I just wanted to, as reasonably as possible, explain why I think we should just focus on martials (to the greatest extent possible) in this thread.
The thread's gotten interesting again and you're one of the people contributing to that interesting productive idea-stuff.
End of long explanation of why I responded, and apology for leaving the impression I said you were contributing to bickering; I don't see you as a bickerer. Sorry, I should have been clearer.
List abilities or ideas for adding narrative power to mundane characters
List skill changes that will add to the importance of skills as a relevent subsystem of game past level 5, explain how it improves the lot of mundanes over the lot of casters, and how it remains relevent at high level.[/list]
I like the concise list. I'm working on a solution for each of these two, in case anyone cares to try to make sure everything listed has some attention given it. This includes ability checks (strength mostly), for whoever mentioned that earlier.
Look at some the old 3.5 epic level handbook uses of skills and incorporate them directly into the skill. Bluff for example could be used to disguise your alignment with a DC 70 check. Bring this down to a realistic number like 25 or so and make it part of the skill uses. Let Escape Artists pass through Walls of Force with a similar lower check (120 really ELH?). Abilities along these lines should be incorporated into skills.
I'm currently doing that exact thing, including retooling the DCs. Any additional epic-style skill uses come to mind that I can include? Vague ideas work if you don't care to try for mechanics.
Aren't there "hero points" in Pathfinder? I forget what they do, but if they're similar to Edge, giving martials some that scale with level might let them influence the narrative on par with casters without being spellcasters.
There are, and I *highly* recommend using the system. It already suggests some of the amazing physical feats that people are asking for here. That's how my players have been using it at least. It also allows extra move actions, allowing a full-attack afterwards. I'd recommend removing the extra standard action option however, as my wizard could burn down encounters he could tell were important too quickly with what essentially was early-access quickened spells. I've found letting him cast a spell one level higher than he normally could is exciting for him and far less gamebreaking.
I think the stereotype of "dude that fights" as a single class schtick needs to go. There shouldn't be a "dude that fights" _at all_. There can be dudes that fight, but that shouldn't be the whole concept, ever.
I find it best to think of fighters as professional soldiers. It creates some assumptions about their personalities and goals, like paladins, rangers, and monks have built into their class descriptions.
Professional soldier can be a lot. Fighters cannot. They are just jarheads, regardless of level. It works at level 1, not at 15.
Professional soldier can be a lot. Fighters cannot. They are just jarheads, regardless of level. It works at level 1, not at 15.
False. I don't know what fighters you have played with, but by level 15 most fighters are the love child of Goku and Tywin Lannister.
EDIT: This is off topic anyways. The thread is about "improving martials", not "which martial classes should we just remove from the game".
Frankly, crafting items takes a lot of skill to make something relatively mundane. Even with select feats and traits that imitate caster crafting, the martial character cannot make something nearly as good at high level unless his caster buddy enchants it for him. That Adamintine Greatsword is silly compared to the Hasted Adamantine Greatsword of Flameburst +5. I don't know how to address this reasonably though.
I always avoided craft trap as a... trap. Seemed like a lot of work to make something that doesn't scale so well. Martial characters like rogues being able to craft mechanical constructs to serve them in battle or everyday life would be cool, especially if the constructs didn't outright suck compared to what a caster can assemble already.
I liked this post, it had a lot of good ideas in it. Commenting on one: Often forgot is that people can enchant with just the feat, but without the other "pre-requisites" (such as spells), though it's harder.
Plus this is where UMD (which I otherwise dispise as the universal solvent to all non-caster problems) can come into play.
The problem is Martials can't really afford the feats for crafting, the way spellcasters sometimes squeeze them into a build.
This might really be a way in which a ritual catch-all can help all classes. I've never been too fond of the crafting feats (but without ever really coming up with a better solution).
But again going back to the roots of the game: myths and fantasy, it was often non casters who forged the most powerful of items. So there should be a way for non-casters to craft their own 'magical' gear. People's mindsets probably need to be shaken out of the belief that "casters enchant, non-casters do not." Then the rules can be restructured to reflect that any suitably puissant (read = level, aproximately, with approrpiate skillz) person can forge a eldrtich item.
Supposubly (with a 'b') the upcoming Mythic rules will have "legendary" gear in it, which scales as the character goes up in tiers. Something like that could be adapted/adopted for non-mythic characters. I mean in some ways its probably kewler if you keep your own favorite weapon as you level (and, yes, there are ways to do that in the existing rules, but they're often inelegant), rather than discarding it each time you find or buy a better one.
Professional soldier can be a lot. Fighters cannot. They are just jarheads, regardless of level. It works at level 1, not at 15.False. I don't know what fighters you have played with, but by level 15 most fighters are the love child of Goku and Tywin Lannister.
EDIT: This is off topic anyways. The thread is about "improving martials", not "which martial classes should we just remove from the game".
Or "rename." I mean, "Fighter" is iconic to the game, but perhaps it would help shift people's mindset toward the class if it was renamed (even if just in their own minds) something that smacked more of "professional soldier/badass" to them rather than "random peon who smacks things, more or less ably, but is otherwise useless and could easily be replaced with a suitable mindless construct, like a golem which can at least resist most magic while it slams enemies and breaks stuff."
I'd suggest something like "Champion,' but while that is somewhat reflective of a certain role (originally, being a Champion or Peer was to be someone of great renown), but I doubt I'd even get myself to rally around that as a substitute name.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Professional soldier can be a lot. Fighters cannot. They are just jarheads, regardless of level. It works at level 1, not at 15.False. I don't know what fighters you have played with, but by level 15 most fighters are the love child of Goku and Tywin Lannister.
EDIT: This is off topic anyways. The thread is about "improving martials", not "which martial classes should we just remove from the game".
Or "rename." I mean, "Fighter" is iconic to the game, but perhaps it would help shift people's mindset toward the class if it was renamed (even if just in their own minds) something that smacked more of "professional soldier/badass" to them rather than "random peon who smacks things, more or less ably, but is otherwise useless and could easily be replaced with a suitable mindless construct, like a golem which can at least resist most magic while it slams enemies and breaks stuff."
I'd suggest something like "Champion,' but while that is somewhat reflective of a certain role (originally, being a Champion or Peer was to be someone of great renown), but I doubt I'd even get myself to rally around that as a substitute name.
Fighter Name Changes
Warrior; nice and generic, could use some commando skills
Soldier; nice and generic, could use some commando skills
Bearheart; a rewording of the Nordic word 'Berserker' translated to English, referring the one who bears the Spirit of a Bear. heart is a proxy for spirit that rolls better off the tongue
Slayer; another word for murderer, refers to one who kills things, and could have a useful skill set pertaining to hunting or gathering information
Brigand; the word, though associated with bandits, technically refers to all footsoldiers. you could add a handful of rogue/commando skills to the chassis
Knight; a title for heavily armored warriors, whether heavy infantry or heavy cavalry
Champion; good name for one whom follows a cause
Crusader; good name for one whom follows a cause
Martial-Hero/Martial Antihero; nice and generic
Blutengel; german for blood angel, refers to a sadomasochistic crusader to a religious cause with a few supernatural regenerative or quasi-angelic powers. good for a Kenpachi-Zaraki trope
Reaper; good name for a class focused on Cutting, like cutting grass or whatever, gains farming bonuses, and has a high critical chance with slashing weapons, symbolic visuals of a cloaked man with a scythe
Dervish; a name for agile and unarmored fighters focused around moving quickly and making lots of smaller attacks with their great mobility to protect them. gains resistance to grapple and slowing effects, gains bonuses to ignoring difficult terrain and bonuses to speed, as well as pounce like and flurry like talents.
Bearsark is more Barbarian, IMO, and Crusader themes better with Paladin (if imperfectly). Warrior is already taken and personally I'm not keen on it, I associate it with a lesser grade than soldiery.
Slayer seems more assasin themed, and anyhow would be akin to Fighter in people's mindset: it focuses the mind solely on whacking at things with pointy objects.
But otherwise I like your list but would add to it Myrmidon, Scutatus, Spatharios, Stratiotes, but these are more esoteric. :p
Swashbuckler would also be a good addition to your list, and less esoteric. But more of an archetype (which many of your alternative names are as well, so it's not a bad thing).
Rake perhaps, but that's Rogue-ish.
Most of these suggestions come with connotations and are better suited for prestige classes or archetypes, though interesting they may be. If you're going to rename them for your game, call them what they are. Soldiers. Fighters are part of the history of the game, so for better or for worse the name is going to stick.
Most of these suggestions come with connotations and are better suited for prestige classes or archetypes, though interesting they may be. If you're going to rename them for your game, call them what they are. Soldiers. Fighters are part of the history of the game, so for better or for worse the name is going to stick.
Well I don't disagree but then we have people popping into the thread to say "Fighter can't do X, all they can do is hit things, to do X you need [name Y]."
Which is also why I had the parenthetical "renamed (even if just in their own minds)." Then maybe people won't get hung up on the name and use it as an objection to otherwise interesting ideas. Because apparently Fighter comes with connotations of its own that produce this mindset that they're a rabble-in-arms, an inferior sort of golem.
Bearsark is more Barbarian, IMO, and Crusader themes better with Paladin (if imperfectly). Warrior is already taken and personally I'm not keen on it, I associate it with a lesser grade than soldiery.
Slayer seems more assasin themed, and anyhow would be akin to Fighter in people's mindset: it focuses the mind solely on whacking at things with pointy objects.
But otherwise I like your list but would add to it Myrmidon, Scutatus, Spatharios, Stratiotes, but these are more esoteric. :p
Swashbuckler would also be a good addition to your list, and less esoteric. But more of an archetype (which many of your alternative names are as well, so it's not a bad thing).
Rake perhaps, but that's Rogue-ish.
i like those names too, but i had to break it up into Archetypes. i would break up the wizard into Archetypes too
Puppeteer, a wizard who focuses on illusion, enchantment and transmutation magic with the intent to decieve and manipulate., gains a charmed cohort
Spellcloak; a puppeteer based hybrid class whom uses her magic to become a magical assassin.
Bard; a puppeteer whom focuses on mind affecting buffs and gains multiple cohorts and social bonuses in exchange for a delay on certain offensive mind effects
Elemental Binder; a wizard who focuses on Conjuration, Transmutation and Evocation spells, designed to conjure elementals from nothing, your traditional offensive and straightforward wizard. gains unique uses for the 4 elements through talents, gains an elemental familiar
Elemental Gallade; an Elemental Binder Hybrid Class who fights alongside her conjured Elemental minions. gains the ability to invoke better elemental buffs, but is less versatile with the utilitarian aspects of a handful of elements
Elementalist; an Elemental Binder or Elemental Gallade who focuses more on one element to the exclusion of another. gains better resistances to that element, but gains penalties to the penalized element
Necromancer; a wizard who focuses on Necromancy, Transmutation, Abjuration, and Divination spells. ressurects the dead, heals the living, or focuses on life leeching or debuffs. gains an undead familiar. divines by speaking to the spirits of the dead, uses spirits to set up wards
GraveKnight; a Necromancer Hybrid whom focuses on combat, using buffs to become more powerful by mimicking a variety of undead. summons undead hordes to fight, and can do stuff like freeze her own veins to gain saving throw bonuses, or drink a targets blood to heal themselves.
Healer; a Necromancer subclass whom focuses on a healing, buffing, and divination in exchange for a delay on the harmful necromancy effects
I think Bard is taken by the rogue-replacement base class.
How about something like Battle Master or something? It is generic, but implies combat supremacy.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I must admit I did not read all 737 posts in this thread before writing this; however I did read many and have had this same debate over and over with so many folks.
FIRST: It is the GM's responsibility to maintain balance in his campaign. I read it several times throughout this thread and others. If you force a caster to do battle multiple times in a day then they are not nearly as powerful. If your sleep is interrupted or your spell components were destroyed by the enemy you are not as powerful as you think you are. If GMs play their villains intelligently then casters are not nearly as overpowered as people make them out to be. If your villains are smart they will target the casters first which may GMs do not do.
That being said, yes from a purely mechanical standpoint casters power up much faster than any other class and are capable of duplicating almost every other single class feature through magic. I was very happy Pathfinder made low level casters relevant (oh the days of 1 magic missile per day and 4 hit points... sigh).
SECOND: If toughness scales why shouldn't other feats? It is as simple as that for combat feats.
THIRD: If your combat oriented character feels underpowered or useless I am sorry to say but it is either your GM's fault for not maintaining player balance in his game or it is your fault for not making your character relevant to the campaign.
Professional soldier can be a lot. Fighters cannot. They are just jarheads, regardless of level. It works at level 1, not at 15.False. I don't know what fighters you have played with, but by level 15 most fighters are the love child of Goku and Tywin Lannister.
EDIT: This is off topic anyways. The thread is about "improving martials", not "which martial classes should we just remove from the game".
Oh, would you care to stat that up for me? My knowledge of either of those is limited, but would you care to stat up a fighter with about 300 ft movement and a high intelligence score that is still contributing as much in combat as other, more boring characters?
And come ON! Of course this is part of how to improve martials. I didn't say "remove the fighter", I said that the concept of "dude that fights" need to go. It needs to have more so to speak. To mimic Goku you'd need a lot of monk class abilities (and some of the turned up to 11) and to mimic Tywin Lannister you'd need a less stat-reliant system so you be fully effective while having a high int/wis/cha. It feels a bit like every post where you don't agree you say "THIS IS OT!!!".
One fighter is Goury Gaberial from slayers. He's so fricking good at sword play, he can throw someone in the air, swing his sword a few times, and remove every scrap of clothing from their body, while not harming them. Even something bound to their forehead.
But you can't do that in pathfinder as a martial, at least not as far as I know.
I've always balked at things like the ranger's Favored Enemy, because I feel it's a minor bonus that will affect him a small fraction of the time (unless he knows it's going to be an undead or kobold-centered campaign). The fighter's weapon focus is flat-out better, because the fighter can control his weapon choice better than the ranger can control which enemies he fights.
I think the ranger's bonus it by far better because it doesn't limit his equipment choice as much.
If a fighter with weapon focus for greatswords and a masterwork greatsword finds a +2 battleaxe (or other twohanded weapon that is not a greatsword) he has the choice to always use the inferior weapon but get his feat bonus or take the better weapon and lose his feat bonus. It even gets worse with weapon training and weapon specialization. Because if it's only weapon focus he can still retrain it.The ranger might not always get his highest bonus (unless he spends a spell on instant enemy) but it's not a either always or never thing. So he is more versatile.
How about something like Battle Master or something? It is generic, but implies combat supremacy.
That would promise something the class can't deliver. If the only thing you want to change is the name goon would be the way to go. Or henchman.
Okay, for something more concrete. I'm thinking of adding "fields of expertise" to all fighters and rogues. I've also for some time let them have a version of the Chronicler's "deep pockets" ability - this has given them some on the fly versatility, especially at low levels and especially for new players who may not be as gear savvy as us vets.
Here it goes:
All fighters and rogues gain this at level 1.
Well-equipped (Ex)
The world is harsh for those adventuring, even more so for those who lack magic ability. As a result, a fighter or rogue make sure to be well-equipped for any task at hand. As a result, she may carry unspecified equipment worth up to (25*level*level) gp. This can be any kind of gear that can reasonably fit into a backpack, including magical items. As a full-round action, the character may dig through her pack to retrieve an item she specifies at that time, deducting its value from the allocated amount of cost. This item cannot weigh more than 10 pounds. When the total remaining cost reaches 0, the character can retrieve no more items until she refills her pack by spending a few hours and an amount of gold to bring her total up to the limit of 25 times her level squared. If you gain this ability from several classes, the ability is only gained once but the levels stack.
If the character has access to magical or extradimensional storage at least as powerful as a handy haversack or bag of holding, the weight limit is increased to 30 lbs and the size limit changes to any kind of gear that can reasonably fit into a handy haversack.
And I'm considering adding this. (Too large to copy-paste here).
The idea is that each fighter should have a schtick out of "beats things" too. For the rogue the issue is that it's only main power is skills, yet it's not the best at skills. So here it gets a little better at that. I tried to make them so that they don't increase offensive combat power for the fighter (a bit for the rogue is okay) but some grant defensive combat powers - the main abilities are usually non-combat though. I really think that the Affiliation ability is key here - it means an experienced fighter in the king's army will have more say in matters of warfare and be taken more seriously than some random tower wizard.
The fields of expertise written down there is just the basics, there are of course many, many more, like sailor, farmer etc etc. Also, the wordings are a bit... weird, at times. English isn't my native language and writing rules is a lot harder than writing plain text.
So after these changes, the fighter class feature list up to level 8 would look like:
1 - Affiliation, basic training, bonus feat, skill expertise, well-equipped.
2 - Bonus feat, bravery +1.
3 - Armor Training
4 - Bonus feat, expertise ability.
5 - Weapon training
6 - Bonus feat, bravery +2
7 - Armor Training
8 - Bonus feat, expertise ability.
Above level 8 the progression is the same, though most abilities increase in power over the levels. Because well-equipped increases exponentially it should be able to keep being useful even to the higher levels (we usually top out at level 8 1/2, using E8 rules, so haven't seen it in action at higher levels).
Porphy:
No worries then. I like this thread when it stays on-topic too. I just like to know the risks & limits diving into a project. 4th Edition was very ambitious and clever with the things it tried, and equally hated for it. :D So I worry about such things.
As for focusing on solutions for martial characters, I wonder if we could start compiling the list of suggestions into a single location, like a google doc or a wiki (consisting of summaries of ideas, and links to specific threads or posts when relevant). That way they don't get buried so easily under the pages of discussion. We would have a central location for all the ideas so we don't keep repeating the same concepts, AND we can build off of those ideas more easily, compare and contrast, and even start producing prototypes for playtesting and peer review.
A wiki that everyone could edit (or at least a select few leaders, if we're worried about anti-mage trolling) would go a long way toward consolidating our progress and meting out dividends.
Espy Kismet:
Hide yo girlfriend, hide yo wife... they stripp'n everybody out here.
Ilja:
I like your "well-equipped" ability. I'll have to see how abusable it is, but I like the idea. I'm sure there's already a spell that does this trivially at level 1 (or there will be in the next book), so maybe martials won't gain insane advantages with it.
Question about enchanting items:
How hard is it to graft the enchantment from one item to the other? If I find a +3 Greataxe, but I'm emotionally attached to my father's Greatsword +1 (and/or tied to greatswords thanks to feats/features), then how easily can I graft the enchantment over? It would be neat if there were a ritual for that, ala 4th Edition's, which even martials could learn with a Ritual Caster feat.
Other:
I also have an idea for how to make Vital Strike and other single attacks more useful in contrast to full attacks (so they're both important at different times), but I suspect it's not necessarily relevant to this thread (it's more of a monster- and campaign-related change). It's a fairly invasive change to the system, and I worry about complexity and book keeping. It's based on a board game I was making (and haven't gotten back to), and bookkeeping was the issue that worried me the most for that game too. No one likes more of that. :/
And I'm considering adding this.
Oh and I like this too, though I haven't had time to go over it in depth yet.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your combat oriented character feels underpowered or useless I am sorry to say but it is either your GM's fault for not maintaining player balance in his game or it is your fault for not making your character relevant to the campaign.
"The rules are perfect because the DM's job is to work against them in order to get them to work" has got to be the most absurd game design philosophy I have ever encountered.
If the rules are well-balanced to begin with, your DM can spend his time and effort running encounters, instead of trying to make the game work. The end result is that the players may not notice the difference, but the DM sure as hell has an easier and more enjoyable job. That's a verybadterriblehorrible thing why, exactly?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gimli
What did he do aside from drink, fight, and banter with the elf?
Being level 3.
That's the problem with the martial/caster disparity. Gygax took his martials from Lord of the Rings (Aragorn=ranger). But he took his casters from Dying Earth. In Lord of the Rings, the casters do very little stuff. Look at Gandalf, he spend half the fights swinging a sword, he couldn't teleport from Saruman's tower, and he barely cast spells at all.
Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Boromir, the hobbits... are PC of an adventure from level 1 to level 4. They fight orcs, goblins, worgs, a Cave troll with the young template (which almost TPK them), and run from CR 4 wights and CR5 wraiths on horses. A Giant Spider almost kill Frodo. They have ZERO chances against any Dragon, Demon, or any high level creature that could do the kind of stuff a high CR creature does in Pathfinder (like summon walls of fire, fly, teleport around, magically control their minds, spew fireballs...).
But people want to keep those low level character concepts from level 1 to level 20. And that's impossible. Aragorn, as described in the books, would never be able to fight a Dragon, a Balor, a Banshee. He can't compete against a flying gargantuan monster that can toast him with a firebreath, while being almost impervious to normal damage.
To be able to compete with the guys who summon Angels, change the reality at their wish, stop time and create demiplanes, the fighter need to be modeled after Beowulf, Achilles, Hercules, Sigfrid, Thor... Gimli can't be in the same league than the guy who stop time and destroy coastlines by invoking Tsunamis
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cú Chulainn was so bad-ass that his enemies waited to see ravens on his corpse before they would believe he was dead. When Lugaid finally went up and tried to touch the body, Cú Chulainn's body lit up and cut off Lugaid's hand. It's only after they cut off the hero's sword arm that it's even safe to approach his corpse.
And Cú Chulainn wasn't even 20th level.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW ANY OF THIS RELATES TO THE PREVIOUS TOPIC OF THE THREAD.
Silly Nickleback. Trix are for kids!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cú Chulainn was so bad-ass that his enemies waited to see ravens on his corpse before they would believe he was dead. When Lugaid finally went up and tried to touch the body, Cú Chulainn's body lit up and cut off Lugaid's hand. It's only after they cut off the hero's sword arm that it's even safe to approach his corpse.
And Cú Chulainn wasn't even 20th level.
Sounds like Exalted is the game for you!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be able to compete with the guys who summon Angels, change the reality at their wish, stop time and create demiplanes, the fighter need to be modeled after Beowulf, Achilles, Hercules, Sigfrid, Thor... Gimli can't be in the same league than the guy who stop time and destroy coastlines by invoking Tsunamis
You're exactly right. To reiterate my theory on why this problem exists from another thread, the problem is a certain interpretation of how a fantasy setting should work. Everything in our world is governed by laws of physics. The core concept of fantasy is to allow things impossible in reality, thus a fantasy world is governed by the laws of magic. Magic is just a replacement of the laws of physics.
The D&D implementation of a fantasy world assumes that everyone who casts spells should be subject to the laws of magic and everyone who doesn't should still be subject to our world's laws of physics. This is silly and unfun. A swordsman subject to our physical laws is by definition not a fantasy character. Players just need to come to terms with barbarians playing like the Hulk rather than a local weightlifter. I think we've manged to establish that as the driving goal of changes proposed in this thread.