| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like Exalted is the game for you!
No; I like to start as a common person, and work my way up to demigod -- one of the reasons I disliked Amber Diceless (I also like games with solid rules, not Storytime-y ones where the DM basically just tells everyone everything).
That said, by 15th level, a D&D character IS essentially a demigod, if you look at what casters can do as a benchmark. If they're all to be demigods, I'd be all in favor of "porting in" some Exalted and Amber stuff for higher-level martial PCs.
Or, if we're all to stay mortals, something more like E6 or James Bond 007 would be good.
But to have the casters "graduating" from E6 to Exalted, while the martials stay with E6, really doesn't make any sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like Exalted is the game for you!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.
Yeah, because a 20th level fighter swimming in full plate, falling from the stratosphere and surviving, drinking cyanide as breakfast, and being chewed by tyrannosaurius and crushed by 60.000 pounds dragons is fair game. But jumping more than 20'? THAT FREAKLY BREAKS MY IMMERSION DUDE!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Way I see it magic is what lets a PC twist (or even ignore) the rules of the physical world where the characters live and die.
So a non-caster should be awesome while still mostly following these rules. Not really sure if this is possible in PFRPG though.
As I implied in my previous post, that's a double standard. Martial characters *will* suck if you decide that only they should be bound by normal physics while casters enjoy being bound only by the arbitrary and nearly non-existent limits of magic. And this from a player who only rolls arcane casters.
It's like saying 'the Kaiju are allowed to be huge monsters cause their magical, but Jaegers are machines and can't break the square-cube law'.
Pacific Rim would have been much less fun that way.
I wish I could use this as sign
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are skilled at attacking opponents that you cannot clearly perceive.
Benefit: In melee, every time you miss because of concealment (see Combat), you can reroll your miss chance percentile roll one time to see if you actually hit.
An invisible attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you in melee. That is, you don't lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class, and the attacker doesn't get the usual +2 bonus for being invisible. The invisible attacker's bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however.
You do not need to make Acrobatics skill checks to move at full speed while blinded.
If you have 10 ranks in Perception, your melee attacks ignore the miss chance for less than total concealment. If you successfully pinpoint an invisible or hidden attacker within 30 feet, that attacker gets no advantages related to hitting you with ranged attacks.
If you have 15 ranks in Perception, you treat opponents with total concealment as if they had normal concealment (20% miss chance instead of 50%). You may still reroll a miss chance percentile roll as normal.
Normal: Regular attack roll modifiers for invisible attackers trying to hit you apply, and you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC. The speed reduction for darkness and poor visibility also applies.
Special: The Blind-Fight feat is of no use against a character who is the subject of a blink spell.
You are adept at using shadows to conceal your attacks.
Prerequisite: Blind-Fight, Combat Expertise, Bluff 3 ranks, darkvision or low-light vision racial trait.
Benefit: While you have concealment from an opponent, you gain a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against that opponent.
If you have 6 ranks in Bluff, you may spend a swift action once per round to make a bluff check to feint against an opponent from whom you have concealment.
If you have 9 ranks in Bluff and the feat Improved Feint, your opponents' miss chance agains tyou increases by 10% while you have concealment. If an opponent misses you due to your concealment, you can spend an immediate action to move 5 feet. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity and does not count as a 5-foot step.
Normal: Feinting is a standard action.
Note: The prerequisites of this might need to be reworked. The number of feats needed to get all the way to the end of this chain is definitely included in the prerequisites to keep this from being as low level as it now is available with feat chains being consolidated. I think the best way to make things available later is to: Move the IMproved Feint prerequisite up to step 2 - this make sense thematically to me - and increase the bluff requirements a bit. Probably to 3, 8 and 12? or 3, 9 and 15?
Your training makes it difficult for enemy spellcasters to safely cast spells near you.
Prerequisite: 6th-level fighter.
Benefit: The DC to cast spells defensively increases by +4 for all enemies that are within your threatened area. This increase to casting spells defensively only applies if you are aware of the enemy's location and are capable of taking an attack of opportunity. If you can only take one attack of opportunity per round and have already used that attack, this increase does not apply.
If you are a 10th-level fighter, enemies in your threatened area that fail their checks to cast spells defensively provoke attacks of opportunity from you.
If you have taken the feat Missle Shield and you are using a light, heavy, or tower shield, once per round when you would normally be hit with a ranged touch attack (including rays and similar magical effects), you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it. Your shield suffers the full effects of the spell or effect, if applicable.
If you have the feat Combat Reflexes any creature using a teleportation effect to enter or leave a square threatened by you provokes an attack of opportunity, even if casting defensively or using a supernatural ability.
Normal: Enemies that fail to cast spells defensively do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Note: Honestly, I wouldn't object to just making this a fighter class ability.
Harsh conditions or long exertions do not easily tire you.
Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus on the following checks and saves: Swim checks made to resist nonlethal damage from exhaustion; Constitution checks made to continue running; Constitution checks made to avoid nonlethal damage from a forced march; Constitution checks made to hold your breath; Constitution checks made to avoid nonlethal damage from starvation or thirst; Fortitude saves made to avoid nonlethal damage from hot or cold environments; and Fortitude saves made to resist damage from suffocation.
You may sleep in light or medium armor without becoming fatigued.
If your base Fortitude save bonus is +2 or greater, when your hit point total is below 0, but you are not dead, you automatically stabilize. You do not need to make a Constitution check each round to avoid losing additional hit points. You may choose to act as if you were disabled, rather than dying. You must make this decision as soon as you are reduced to negative hit points (even if it isn't your turn). If you do not choose to act as if you were disabled, you immediately fall unconscious. When using this ability, you are staggered. You can take a move action without further injuring yourself, but if you perform any standard action (or any other action deemed as strenuous, including some swift actions, such as casting a quickened spell) you take 1 point of damage after completing the act. If your negative hit points are equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you immediately die.
If your base Fortitude save bonus is +4 or greater, once per day as a standard action you may attempt a new saving throw against a harmful condition or affliction requiring a Fortitude save that is affecting you. If this save against the affliction fails, there is no additional effect, but a successful save counts toward curing an affliction such as poison or disease. You cannot use this ability to recover from instantaneous effects, effects that do not allow a saving throw, or effects that do not require a Fortitude save.
If your base Fortitude save bonus is +8 or greater, once per day as an immediate action you can delay the onset of one harmful condition or affliction (such as panicked, paralyzed, stunned, and so on), including permanent and instantaneous conditions. Activating this feat delays the onset of the condition until the end of your next turn, after which time the condition takes its normal effect. This feat has no effect on hit point damage or ability damage.
Normal: A character without this feat who sleeps in medium or heavier armor is fatigued the next day. A character without this feat who is reduced to negative hit points is unconscious and dying.
Note: Full Fort save characters get the first two benefits right off. Thoughts? Other possible prereqs for step 2? Also, this is very powerful for clerics and druids. Good idea? Need different or additional prerequisites than base fort save?
You have trained to use the net as a melee weapon.
Prerequisite:Exotic Weapon Proficiency (net).
Benefit: You can treat a net as a one-handed melee reach weapon with a 10-foot reach. Further, you take no penalty on melee attack rolls for using an unfolded net, and you can use one full-round action or two move actions to fold a net.
If you have the feat Two-Weapon Fighting, you can treat a net as a one-handed ranged weapon, allowing you to wield a light or one-handed melee weapon and still make ranged attacks with your net. When you use your light or one-handed melee weapon to attack an entangled opponent, you gain a +2 bonus on damage rolls and on attack rolls to confirm a critical hit.
If your base attack bonus is +3 or higher, you can use a net to trip or disarm opponents instead of entangling them while you are in melee. You gain a +2 bonus on disarm checks made to use a net in this way. Further, if you have an opponent entangled in your net, you can attempt to drag or reposition that opponent as long as he is within your net’s reach or you control the trailing rope on your net.
If your base attack bonus is +6 or higher, you can use your net to attempt a dirty trick combat maneuver to blind an opponent in place of one of your melee attacks. If you have an opponent entangled in your net, you can attempt to trip that opponent as long as he is within your net’s reach or you control the trailing rope on your net. You also gain a +2 bonus on drag and reposition combat maneuver checks you make using your net.
Normal: A net is a ranged weapon that imposes a –4 penalty on ranged attack rolls if it is unfolded. Folding a net takes a proficient user 2 rounds. A net is a two-handed ranged weapon.
Note: Prereqs for abilities might need to be reworked a bit. I'm worried they're a tad too light.
Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance
Prerequisite:Shield Proficiency.
Benefit: When you perform a shield bash, you may still apply the shield's shield bonus to your AC.
If you have the feat Two-Weapon Fighting and a base attack bonus of +6 or higher, any opponents hit by your shield bash are also hit with a free bull rush attack, substituting your attack roll for the combat maneuver check (see Combat). This bull rush does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Opponents who cannot move back due to a wall or other surface are knocked prone after moving the maximum possible distance. You may choose to move with your target if you are able to take a 5-foot step or to spend an action to move this turn.
If you have the feat Two-Weapon Fighting and a base attack bonus of +11 or higher, You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
If you have the feat Two-Weapon Fighting and a base attack bonus of +11 or higher, whenever you score a critical hit with a melee weapon, you can make a shield bash attack against the same target using the same bonus as a free action.
Normal: Without this feat, a character that performs a shield bash loses the shield's shield bonus to AC until his next turn (see Equipment).
Note: This is one feat where I couldn't just use the first description for the whole thing. I ended up using the feat Shield Master's description. Also, I think the fourth clause (Bashing Finish) might need a further prerequisite. I think a high BAB would be good, but 16 seems too far. Maybe 13? 14?
You are skilled at deflecting blows with your shield.
Prerequisite:Shield Proficiency, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: Increase the AC bonus granted by any shield you are using by 1.
If you are a 4th level fighter, choose one type of shield (buckler, light, heavy, or tower shield). With the selected shield, you gain a +2 bonus to your Armor Class against critical hit confirmation rolls. In addition, you may add your base shield bonus (including the bonus from Shield Focus but not including enhancement bonuses) to your CMD.
If you are an 8th level fighter, the AC bonus granted by any shield you are using is increased by 2.
If you are an 12th level fighter, with the selected shield type above, you gain a +4 bonus to your Armor Class against critical hit confirmation rolls. In addition, once per day you may negate a critical hit, and damage is instead rolled normally.
Note: I don't know what to do about the special that comes with abilities 2 and 4: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of shield. Remove the shield type clause completely and grant it across the board? I don't have a huge problem with that.
You can close the distance when a foe tries to move away.
Prerequisite:Base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: Whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5-foot step away from you, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to the foe that triggered this ability. If you take this step, you cannot take a 5-foot step during your next turn. If you take an action to move during your next turn, subtract 5 feet from your total movement.
If you have dex 13, When using the Step Up feat to follow an adjacent foe, you may move up to 10 feet. You may still take a 5-foot step during your next turn, and any movement you make using this feat does not subtract any distance from your movement during your next turn.
If you have a base attack bonus of +6 and dex 13, when using the Step Up feat to follow an adjacent foe, you may also make a single melee attack against that foe at your highest base attack bonus. This attack counts as one of your attacks of opportunity for the round. Using this feat does not count toward the number of actions you can usually take each round.
Note: I think an additional prereq might be required for the second ability...
Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple as your weapon for the purposes of this feat.
Prerequisite:Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.
If you are a 4th level fighter, you gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.
If you are an 8th level fighter, you gain a +2 total bonus on attack rolls you make using the selected weapon. This bonus stacks with other bonuses on attack rolls, including those from Weapon Focus.
If you are a 12th level fighter, you gain a +4 total bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
Note: I'd like some progression, even if limited, for non-fighters. I also removed the ray option for weapon focus.
One common thread I noticed - taking the flavor text from the first feat in the chain and looking at it, it applied to all the subsequent feats in every case. If you don't need to flavor text to describe what the feat does as compared to prereq feats...it probably shouldn't be a new feat, I think.
I think Blind Fight would be a great template for skill focused feats. If we could come up with something similar for each skill, I think that would be pretty awesome. I could imagine several in some cases where a skill has a wide variety of uses: acrobatics for avoiding aoos, for jumping, and for acrobat-y type stuff.
This was the low hanging fruit, with almost no modifications to be made. MAneuvers need work, but don't generally have a clear 3 step progression, and I want to look at some major changes to combat expertise that might affect that a lot. But here's a reasonable first step, anyway.
I like these. And I wouldn't object to making Spellbreaker a fighter class feature either.
Weapon Focus/specialization has always been odd, in that its advanced forms were fighter-only. I think this was to give the fighter some sort of feel-good edge, but if the class were improved enough, it wouldn't need that exclusivity to feel happy. The question is, is it appropriate to give that extra bonus to other classes, say Cleric, Ranger, Rogue, Eldritch Knight, Bard, etc? I have no idea.
Fighters deserve fighter-only feats the same way Barbarians deserve barb only feats (extra rage power), Paladins deserve paladin-only feats (Extra Mercy, Extra lay on hands, etc).
The problem is that the feat says 'fighter class', which is now DUMB. The feat should say "Weapon Training" or "Armor Training".
An easy re-write is:
Weapon Focus: Pick a specific type of weapon. You gain +1 to hit with that weapon.
Fighters: If you have Weapon Training in the weapon you pick, you instead double your Weapon Training bonus from class levels with that weapon.
Which means that at levels 4, 8 12 and 16, Weapon Focus automatically advances in usefulness, without having to spell things out. It takes one feat, goes up through all levels of the game, conserves feats, and remains basically the same strength at levels 4-12 (ending at +3/+3, which is not much different then +2/+2, and in fact is exactly equal at level 8).
I put the Fighters: thing on there for exactly one reason...Sohei, who also get Weapon Training, shouldn't get the benefit of the feat. Giving away class features is sooooo wrong.
==Aelryinth
I like these. And I wouldn't object to making Spellbreaker a fighter class feature either.
Weapon Focus/specialization has always been odd, in that its advanced forms were fighter-only. I think this was to give the fighter some sort of feel-good edge, but if the class were improved enough, it wouldn't need that exclusivity to feel happy. The question is, is it appropriate to give that extra bonus to other classes, say Cleric, Ranger, Rogue, Eldritch Knight, Bard, etc? I have no idea.
I think the numerical balance in fights should be preserved as much as possible. More diverse options for actions added, yes, but not a bunch more potential for damage. DPR is the last place most martials need help. It's also such a bland feat, even for combat feats. I think it'd be a great candidate for removal. If you make it scale to 4-5 extra attack, you've pretty seriously unbalanced the assumptions made about monster AC.
These are really good, thanks for the effort. Just a few suggested tweeks;
Moonlight Stalker - either Combat Expertise should be eliminated as a prerequisite for this Feat, or Combat Expertise needs to be made worth taking.
Spell Breaker - Probably it should just be made a free Fighter ability, or otherwise it should scale up somehow. Like an additional +1 to DCs to cast defensively per 5 points of damage done.
Plus, at a certain level or BAB, spell breaker could also be used to sunder spells, 1/day or whatnot.
Heroic Endurance is an interesting idea but might you might add that at 8th level you can stay on your feet and act for another round after being reduced to 0 HP.
Shield Focus: I would remove the shield type clause. I'm still not sure it will be considered "worth" taking (many people scoff at Weapon Focus, and even a +2 to AC w/Shield from a Feat ~= +1 to attack with a weapon). What you did with Weapon Focus is "the look" though (meaning = good).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
a quick sketch of my thoughts on combat expertise: I want it to have tiers of payoff, like power attack has.
I would make the most benefit (x3) come from one handed weapon one free hand fighting.
I would make the middle benefit (x2) come from Shield use
I would make the least benefit (x1) happen otherwise.
Expertise needs to become a feat that modifies other feats and abilities. An intelligent fighter will take it to realize the benefits it provides other feats.
The example with it helping out defensive fighting is an excellent idea.
Another would be it enhancing the Improved/Greater Manuver X line of feats, perhaps by +2/+4. So no longer a requirement, but it makes you a LOT better at it.
a flat Int bonus to your CMB/CMD might be a better reward, instead.
If Expertise unlocked bonuses for several feats, it becomes worthwhile to take in its own right.
Other suggestions (fighters/rogues only, of course): Reduce the BAB req of other feats by your INt bonus (you can learn feats sooner). Your stats for feat requirements are considered to be 2x your Int bonus points higher.
Choose a number of combat feats equal to your Int bonus +1 (min 1). You may swap those feats out with other combat feats you have of your choice at the beginning of the day.
Don't force the high Int req. Reward the Intelligence.
==Aelryinth
|
Fighters deserve fighter-only feats the same way Barbarians deserve barb only feats (extra rage power), Paladins deserve paladin-only feats (Extra Mercy, Extra lay on hands, etc).
The problem is that the feat says 'fighter class', which is now DUMB. The feat should say "Weapon Training" or "Armor Training".
An easy re-write is:
Weapon Focus: Pick a specific type of weapon. You gain +1 to hit with that weapon.
Fighters: If you have Weapon Training in the weapon you pick, you instead double your Weapon Training bonus from class levels with that weapon.
Which means that at levels 4, 8 12 and 16, Weapon Focus automatically advances in usefulness, without having to spell things out. It takes one feat, goes up through all levels of the game, conserves feats, and remains basically the same strength at levels 4-12 (ending at +3/+3, which is not much different then +2/+2, and in fact is exactly equal at level 8).
I put the Fighters: thing on there for exactly one reason...Sohei, who also get Weapon Training, shouldn't get the benefit of the feat. Giving away class features is sooooo wrong.
==Aelryinth
Some Archetypes don't have weapon/armor training.
And by Some, I mean Archer, Armor Master, Brawler, Cad, Crossbow man, dragoon, Free hand fighter, mobile fighter, Phanlanx solider, Polearm master, rough rider, savage warrior shielded fighter, Tower sheild specialist, two-weapon fighter, unarmed fighter, unbreakable, and viking.
(FYI, I simply went down the list of every fighter class that had an XXXX for weapon's training. Some might have it at other levels, it might even be a different name)
That sucks for those Archetypes then.
While feat consolidation will greatly help a fighter in combat, it will still mean that when the martial player makes the choice of a feat, it can go "oh, should i be much more awesome in combat, or should I be slightly better at diplomacy?". Feat consolidation might mean a martial character can stand up to a caster in combat, but the caster can still chose whether to spend resources in terms of feats on combat power or on out of combat stuff - the choice is so lopsided for martials it's not even funny.
Better to just empower the martial classes straight off, so they don't need feats and a feat will just be "hmm, should i be slightly better at this or slightly better at that?" as it is for casters.
Yes, the core of the martial classes need some reworking, but this is a good start. In particular, I feel martial classes need more access to swift and immediate actions.
Using my Acrobatics suggestion, Skill feats should add combat uses to skills while simultaneously increasing proficiency at them. Also, consolidating feat chains will allow new feat chains to develop that give a much more powerful effect then those that currently exist.
Also, I'd like to get rid of the Extra X line of feats (for every class) and replace them with Feats that add options to the X in addition to a few more uses. Example:
Brutal Rage
Your rage makes your attacks strike with crushing force.
Prerequisite: Rage class feature.
Benefit: Your threat range expands by 1 while in a rage. This feat stacks with other threat range increases. You can rage for 4 additional rounds per day.
We can also add feats that directly empower certain classes. I don't have a particular example handy but the Spell Sunder line that Barbarian gets is the right idea.
Yes, the core of the martial classes need some reworking, but this is a good start. In particular, I feel martial classes need more access to swift and immediate actions.
I would expand this to include standard actions worth taking. We're talking about how powerful casting is, so there's obviously precedent.
Also, I'd like to get rid of the Extra X line of feats (for every class) and replace them with Feats that add options to the X in addition to a few more uses.
I like this idea and agree partially. The feats that give extra uses I agree on. I think the current system works well by allowing me to spend a feat to gain an extra arcana, hex, etc.
Depending on the wording used in feat consolidation, you run the risk of empowering classes that do not need the empowerment for the sake of balance, which is counterproductive. Either such consolidated feats must be restricted to specific martial classes, or one is better off specifically empowering the martial classes themselves. I personally lean toward the latter school of thought.
As a kludge, one might open up specific martial classes to a prepared series of "combat drills" or "battle stratagem" that are structurally similar to spells. As an example, a 1st-level wizard has three 0th level spells and one 1st. If you were to assign an equivalent number of battle stratagem with tiered complexity structures to a martial class, you could effectively emulate a more flexible and customizable system whilst maintaining verisimilitude.
They would not be spell-like abilities and would open up martial characters to a greater range of mechanical options than "I swing my sword" that are not depending upon player imagination for variety. The intention is that this would eventually replace the existing combat maneuver system with one that is more robust and more easily tailored with an eye toward both balance and effectiveness. It also keeps martial boosting out of the bailiwick of non-martial characters, as they can be excluded from accessing specific stratagems while still benefiting from generic martial enhancement via the existing feat system.
Category: Unarmed; Level: fighter 0
Combat Timing: 1 swift action
Requirements: One free hand
Target: One living humanoid creature
Saving Throw: Fortitude negates
Damage Reduction: Yes
Clenching your fist, you slam it into the stomach of your target, driving the air out of their lungs and leaving them more vulnerable to subsequent attacks. This action allows for a single unarmed strike that targets the opponent's Touch AC. If successful, it renders the target flat-footed for one round.
As a kludge, one might open up specific martial classes to a prepared series of "combat drills" or "battle stratagem" that are structurally similar to spells. As an example, a 1st-level wizard has three 0th level spells and one 1st. If you were to assign an equivalent number of battle stratagem with tiered complexity structures to a martial class, you could effectively emulate a more flexible and customizable system whilst maintaining verisimilitude.
Such a system exists in the late-3.5 Tome of Battle. It is said to be overpowered for 3.5, but that could mean it's perfect for competing with Pathfinder casters.
Either such consolidated feats must be restricted to specific martial classes, or one is better off specifically empowering the martial classes themselves.
Scaling by BAB works nicely for that. For things that restrict you to one attack (Vital Strike, etc.), +6/+11/+16 is the way to go. For things that scale more evenly, if you put breaks at +1/+4/+8/+12/+16/+20 (as Paizo already does for a number of feats) you make 3/4 BAB classes wait an extra level to get each new "goodie" (and they never get the top 2 steps).
Such a system exists in the late-3.5 Tome of Battle. It is said to be overpowered for 3.5, but that could mean it's perfect for competing with Pathfinder casters.As a kludge, one might open up specific martial classes to a prepared series of "combat drills" or "battle stratagem" that are structurally similar to spells. As an example, a 1st-level wizard has three 0th level spells and one 1st. If you were to assign an equivalent number of battle stratagem with tiered complexity structures to a martial class, you could effectively emulate a more flexible and customizable system whilst maintaining verisimilitude.
Looks like I'm late to the party, then. :-P
Either such consolidated feats must be restricted to specific martial classes, or one is better off specifically empowering the martial classes themselves.Scaling by BAB works nicely for that. For things that restrict you to one attack (Vital Strike, etc.), +6/+11/+16 is the way to go. For things that scale more evenly, if you put breaks at +1/+4/+8/+12/+16/+20 (as Paizo already does for a number of feats) you make 3/4 BAB classes wait an extra level to get each new "goodie" (and they never get the top 2 steps).
There is still the risk of empowering classes that do not need such empowerment, though the risks are more limited, admittedly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like I'm late to the party, then. :-PSuch a system exists in the late-3.5 Tome of Battle. It is said to be overpowered for 3.5, but that could mean it's perfect for competing with Pathfinder casters.As a kludge, one might open up specific martial classes to a prepared series of "combat drills" or "battle stratagem" that are structurally similar to spells. As an example, a 1st-level wizard has three 0th level spells and one 1st. If you were to assign an equivalent number of battle stratagem with tiered complexity structures to a martial class, you could effectively emulate a more flexible and customizable system whilst maintaining verisimilitude.
BTW, late or not, and already thought of or not, this is still essentially a very good idea. Sadly, a lot of the fanbase gets all bent out of shape if you offer martials anything that looks like it might have ever looked at a spell or Vancian system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, late or not, and already thought of or not, this is still essentially a very good idea. Sadly, a lot of the fanbase gets all bent out of shape if you offer martials anything that looks like it might have ever looked at a spell or Vancian system.
I will freely admit that I modified existing structure, as I am a strong proponent of system consistency.
Me, too. Unfortunately, we're in a minority around here!
Also, I forgot in my last post, but those look excellent Jess Door and definitely a great start on looking at how Feat bloat could be consolidated.
Bodhizen: Feat consolidation, along with the suggested increased skill uses would admittedly most classes. But combined with some class reworking to incorporate more uses for the Swift, immediate and standard action (good call Pandora's) and some class only feat chains similar to Spell Sunder would go a long to helping achieve balance.
Me, too. Unfortunately, we're in a minority around here!
I would think that such battle stratagems (provided that I'm not just duplicating Tome of Battle materials here) would put martials on a more even footing to casters without dramatic modification to the existing system. They should allow for non-combat uses (tactics, inspiration, repositioning) and should also be able to be used to enhance or "buff" other party members. However, it would require considerably more work than simply altering the existing feat structure (which I believe has serious potential for unintended consequence). Both approaches would require fairly extensive play-testing, though, to ensure appropriate balance is maintained.
|
|
Also, I forgot in my last post, but those look excellent Jess Door and definitely a great start on looking at how Feat bloat could be consolidated.
Anzyr, you can get a look at where Jess and Kirth started working here.
Yeah, Jess had a lot of influence on the direction Kirthfinder went in a lot of areas. This thread eventually turned into a discussion forum for my home game, out of which the project sprang.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a gamer and a math nerd, who also reads and writes a lot. and has some definite opinions about systems design.
Maybe I was meant to be a game designer.
:P
There are definitely problems with the consolidated feats as presented above. with very few changes, I stuck to existing text. Part of this was because I was using the pfsrd, and doing that meant I wasn't straying into any copyright violation issues. Part of it was, I know that the issues in fair progression of feats can't really be solved until some other subsystems we think need a lot of help (skills especially!) get some attention. Also there were feats I wanted to seriously change that didn't fall within my initial parameters for the work done above (especially combat maneuvers and combat expertise), and others that sort of...split into trees instead of chains (archery, and spring attack/shot on the run come to mind).
The thing to remember when doing stuff like this, is these are systems with built in feedback loops. It's not static. You change one thing over here, and it has wide ranging effects on what players that gain system mastery are going to choose to do with their resources. So these consolidated feats will require more tweaking, especially in prerequisites, as other changes to the system are introduced to retune everything.
For me the biggest difficulty in consolidating feats is making sure I remember rogues and monks with their 3/4 BAB progression. There are some things it makes sense they get shut out of the top tier, but there are some things where I want to be sure they';re included.
Maybe I was meant to be a game designer.
Perhaps you were. I used to be a freelancer for one of the major RPG publishers. Loved it! :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One way to "consolidate" feats for specific classes only is to assign keywords to feats, such as "maneuver" for Improved Trip & friends. Then classes like Fighter and Monk might have Maneuver Master as a class feature:
Maneuver Master
You make take the "Improved" versions of any maneuver feats even if you do not meet the prerequisites. If you have the Improved feat, you also gain the Greater feat automatically when your BAB is 6 or higher.
---
Other feat chains could be handled similarly. In an even more generic approach, each feat chain could have the "chain" keyword. Then classes like Fighter could have a feature that lets him automatically gain all subsequent feats in the chain as long as he a) has the base feat and b) meets the BAB requirement (ignoring other requirements).
I also like the idea of feats like Combat Expertise or stats like Intelligence not being required, but giving bonuses when present.
So a third idea would be to create class features that automatically give the character those the first feat in a chain as bonus feats (ignoring all requirements), plus additional feats down the chain as his BAB + intelligence mod reach a certain level. For example, the fighter chooses Step Up as one of his class chains, and gains that feat for free. When his Int Mod + BAB reach 4 (or 6?), he gains Step Up and Strike automatically (this can happen very early for an intelligent fighter). Following Step would happen somewhere in between.
Then the fighter would pick one Feat Chain at 1st level, and an additional chain at levels 4, 8, 12 and so on. This is similar to how he gets new weapon trainings at various levels, and the ranger gets new favored enemies.
Blah. Unorganized brain dump. Sorry.
One thing that feat consolidation does not address is the fact that combat feats still do not give you the same bang for your buck, overall. I do like the idea that for specific classes, the feats will automatically upgrade when you meet certain prerequisite conditions. I still have overall balance concerns that remain outstanding by using this method rather than adding in a separate component system that would not affect any other balance outcomes.
Wazat: That is a good idea!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that feat consolidation does not address is the fact that combat feats still do not give you the same bang for your buck, overall. I do like the idea that for specific classes, the feats will automatically upgrade when you meet certain prerequisite conditions. I still have overall balance concerns that remain outstanding by using this method rather than adding in a separate component system that would not affect any other balance outcomes.
No, they don't. But now they actually extend versatility. a fighter with the ability to take 11 of these with his bonus feats will truly be a master of all types of combat. It's maybe worthwhile to just make them class components instead, but pure martial / combat feats tend to be so lackluster, and the number of feats a character gets is small enough that I like having these work better for all characters, including skill based characters and even casters.
just the changes to blind fight and moonlight stalker make that a viable option for a rogue without it taking about 2/3 of her feat slots up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Such a system exists in the late-3.5 Tome of Battle. It is said to be overpowered for 3.5, but that could mean it's perfect for competing with Pathfinder casters.As a kludge, one might open up specific martial classes to a prepared series of "combat drills" or "battle stratagem" that are structurally similar to spells. As an example, a 1st-level wizard has three 0th level spells and one 1st. If you were to assign an equivalent number of battle stratagem with tiered complexity structures to a martial class, you could effectively emulate a more flexible and customizable system whilst maintaining verisimilitude.
In my limited experience with the ToB, I think the problem isn't that it's overpowered - it's that it's really hard to screw up the classes and mechanics it introduces.
A 3.5 fighter has a very low optimization floor and a fairly high optimization ceiling - the difference between the "ceiling", for instance a shock trooper leap attack power attack brute and the "floor", like a 10 strength 16 dex weapon finesse two weapon fighter is huge.
Comparatively the ToB classes have a reasonable optimization ceiling (arguably around or slightly below a well-designed paladin), but a very high optimization floor - they're designed in such a way that they are really hard to not do reasonably well with.
So when a party that's used to the 16 dex TWF fighter sees a Warblade or self-healing Crusader in action, mountain dew flies across the table and the cries of "OP! OP! OP!" rise to the full moon in the uncaring sky above.
Depending on who you ask on for instance the OotS-forums the Tome of Battle is the "martial salvation, hallelujah" or "the vilest hive of scum in all the galaxy".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I did for the rogue is add a clause that, for purposes of certain feats (X, Y, Z, and Q), they can use their rogue class level in place of their BAB component derived from rogue levels. In other words, they're "pseudo-full-BAB" the way Pathfinder monks are for flurry, but only for purposes of certain scaling feat effects.
That way, I could scale by BAB and actively choose whether rogues got a bigger use or smaller one for each of those feats.
I'm glad my unorganized brain dump came out okay (Blarrrg! Me esplain gud!). :D
I'm pressed for time now, but later I'll try to assemble a more polished example of how this would look as an actual fighter feature, as others have done for previous ideas. I'll probably do it as a google doc that others can edit/comment/notate freely? Unless there's a wiki site made available for just such community projects. I can't remember any though (google needs to do this if it hasn't, imo).
Brain! Y u fail me?!
BTW, do we have a list of feat chains that would be appropriate for a fighter to pick up this way? If not, let's build one (these would be the combat feats that get the "chain" keyword, or whatever method we use for tagging them... might just be a list like for Ranger).
I imagine this could be a global feature called Professional Warrior, and each martial class could get it at varying rates. Fighter gets a PW at level 1, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 thanks to their versatility, while another martial class (say, Monk or Rogue) might get one at level 2, 8, 14, 20 or 3, 9, 15. Thoughts?
Well in other news, I've almost finished the first of the Prestige Weapon Style Feats... Desert Rose. Still working on everything though..
Such a system exists in the late-3.5 Tome of Battle. It is said to be overpowered for 3.5, but that could mean it's perfect for competing with Pathfinder casters.As a kludge, one might open up specific martial classes to a prepared series of "combat drills" or "battle stratagem" that are structurally similar to spells. As an example, a 1st-level wizard has three 0th level spells and one 1st. If you were to assign an equivalent number of battle stratagem with tiered complexity structures to a martial class, you could effectively emulate a more flexible and customizable system whilst maintaining verisimilitude.
In my limited experience with the ToB, I think the problem isn't that it's overpowered - it's that it's really hard to screw up the classes and mechanics it introduces.
A 3.5 fighter has a very low optimization floor and a fairly high optimization ceiling - the difference between the "ceiling", for instance a shock trooper leap attack power attack brute and the "floor", like a 10 strength 16 dex weapon finesse two weapon fighter is huge.
Comparatively the ToB classes have a reasonable optimization ceiling (arguably around or slightly below a well-designed paladin), but a very high optimization floor - they're designed in such a way that they are really hard to not do reasonably well with.
So when a party that's used to the 16 dex TWF fighter sees a Warblade or self-healing Crusader in action, mountain dew flies across the table and the cries of "OP! OP! OP!" rise to the full moon in the uncaring sky above.
Depending on who you ask on for instance the OotS-forums the Tome of Battle is the "martial salvation, hallelujah" or "the vilest hive of scum in all the galaxy".
I don't think the ToB was a "hive of scum", I think it was an interesting experiment and it was good that it was made and published (not the least because a lot of people love it).
My issue with the ToB was that the mechanics where a bit too similar to caster mechanics. They felt arbitrary and "unnatural", so to speak - they felt _mechanic_ rather than _descriptive_. This works for casters which adhere to the strange magic laws that are, but it works less well for martials which are supposed to at least generally fit into the natural laws. I'm not against martials having abilities that surpasses what is humanely possible, I have nothing against a barbarian that can punch through a 10ft wall - but I don't want them to feel _magical_. To some degree, the mechanics in ToB made them feel that to me - either mechanical and "gamist" or simply magical.
I think ToB was a great experiment, but it needed some heavy polishing.
Well, thats when you are gonna start getting into issues.. The whole 'natural' and 'magical' divide.
Its important to note that half of the ToB was SU and the other half EX.
Honestly though, a lot of the SU abilities could be explained through the use of specialized equipment and ways to use said equipment.
My biggest issue with ToB is that really it only had 9 styles or so. Maybe a few more, but somewhere around there. That kinda hurts a bit as you're forced to be one of those nine styles.. Something I'm trying to develop and avoid with the style feats. I'm also including blurbs and things on how you do various things to make it known that setting your blades on fire isn't magical, but through the use of alchemist fire and the like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not so much "magical" vs "natural" as "magical" vs "nonmagical". I'm fine with some things that would be considered supernatural. Hercules was supernatural, but didn't feel _magical_, you know what I mean? He wasn't strong for X round per day, he was just supernaturally strong.
It wasn't so much the flavor set by the ability descriptions and designations as the unintentional feeling I got from the mechanics themselves.
It's not so much "magical" vs "natural" as "magical" vs "nonmagical". I'm fine with some things that would be considered supernatural. Hercules was supernatural, but didn't feel _magical_, you know what I mean? He wasn't strong for X round per day, he was just supernaturally strong.
It wasn't so much the flavor set by the ability descriptions and designations as the unintentional feeling I got from the mechanics themselves.
That's a good pithy way of describing what I hope the "feel" will be like. While recognizing that *some* abilities might be an exception (I don't think martials that have some abilities with use-per-day clauses necessarily violate this atmosphere/distinction).
It's not so much "magical" vs "natural" as "magical" vs "nonmagical". I'm fine with some things that would be considered supernatural. Hercules was supernatural, but didn't feel _magical_, you know what I mean? He wasn't strong for X round per day, he was just supernaturally strong.
It wasn't so much the flavor set by the ability descriptions and designations as the unintentional feeling I got from the mechanics themselves.
While I was never able to use the system, the feel from what I read actually did work for me. The way to reset those single-use maneuvers in battle was to take a step back and take an action to refocus and ready yourself. You see that a lot in martial movies and even in real swordsplay somewhat, where the combatants will really get into it for a short while and then step back and get ready for another try at the opponent. I was skeptical at first too, but it actually ended up impressing me with how much sense it did make. To be honest, Vancian magic doesn't make sense to me either but that's a whole other topic.
No, they don't. But now they actually extend versatility. a fighter with the ability to take 11 of these with his bonus feats will truly be a master of all types of combat. It's maybe worthwhile to just make them class components instead, but pure martial / combat feats tend to be so lackluster, and the number of feats a character gets is small enough that I like having these work better for all characters, including skill based characters and even casters.
just the changes to blind fight and moonlight stalker make that a viable option for a rogue without it taking about 2/3 of her feat slots up.
Your consolidated feats do extend versatility, but I believe that they may create a series of other imbalances that you have not yet accounted for. I think that you might be better off giving the martial classes superior class components instead of altering the feat trees this significantly. I am not convinced that the number of feat slots is problematic, though I am convinced that most combat feats are underwhelming. I believe that the idea to enhance the existing feat system has merit, but it is not an operation upon a base system mechanic that is undertaken lightly.
This is why I suggested battle stratagems as an additional component.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your consolidated feats do extend versatility, but I believe that they may create a series of other imbalances that you have not yet accounted for...No, they don't. But now they actually extend versatility. a fighter with the ability to take 11 of these with his bonus feats will truly be a master of all types of combat. It's maybe worthwhile to just make them class components instead, but pure martial / combat feats tend to be so lackluster, and the number of feats a character gets is small enough that I like having these work better for all characters, including skill based characters and even casters.
just the changes to blind fight and moonlight stalker make that a viable option for a rogue without it taking about 2/3 of her feat slots up.
*ahem*
There are definitely problems with the consolidated feats as presented above. with very few changes, I stuck to existing text. Part of this was because I was using the pfsrd, and doing that meant I wasn't straying into any copyright violation issues. Part of it was, I know that the issues in fair progression of feats can't really be solved until some other subsystems we think need a lot of help (skills especially!) get some attention. Also there were feats I wanted to seriously change that didn't fall within my initial parameters for the work done above (especially combat maneuvers and combat expertise), and others that sort of...split into trees instead of chains (archery, and spring attack/shot on the run come to mind).
The thing to remember when doing stuff like this, is these are systems with built in feedback loops. It's not static. You change one thing over here, and it has wide ranging effects on what players that gain system mastery are going to choose to do with their resources. So these consolidated feats will require more tweaking, especially in prerequisites, as other changes to the system are introduced to retune everything.
For me the biggest difficulty in consolidating feats is making sure I remember rogues and monks with their 3/4 BAB progression. There are some things it makes sense they get shut out of the top tier, but there are some things where I want to be sure they';re included.
I don't understand why, despite clear and verbose and frequent statements that make it exceedingly clear I'm aware that each of my posts is only a small piece of a much bigger puzzle, people insist on informing me there's more to do and my quick and dirty posts to a forum are not as polished as a full fledged gaming overhaul ready for publication...