Ways to make martials less terrible.


Advice

801 to 850 of 1,079 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

My apologies, Jess, but I believe the thrust of my argument was not contained within the first sentence. To be more clear, I am not sure that feat consolidation is the best way to go and your energies may be better focused to other tasks. However, I wish to make it absolutely clear that this is my opinion and I fully expect that you will take it with a grain of salt. I would like to be explicit in expressing that am not criticising the quality of your efforts, but that I am concerned that with someone who is obviously capable of high-quality work may be putting more effort into an endeavour that is likely to only bear limited fruit while representing an enormity of effort that far exceeds the rewards.

Best wishes.


Bodhizen wrote:

My apologies, Jess, but I believe the thrust of my argument was not contained within the first sentence. To be more clear, I am not sure that feat consolidation is the best way to go and your energies may be better focused to other tasks. However, I wish to make it absolutely clear that this is my opinion and I fully expect that you will take it with a grain of salt. I would like to be explicit in expressing that am not criticising the quality of your efforts, but that I am concerned that with someone who is obviously capable of high-quality work may be putting more effort into an endeavour that is likely to only bear limited fruit while representing an enormity of effort that far exceeds the rewards.

Best wishes.

The problem is that you are advocating for the addition of a system onto another series of systems that don't function well without said addition. The more moving parts you add, the more likely you will have unintended consequences occur.

The beauty behind feat consolidation is that it has the opposite effect. You reduce the number of moving parts and improve an existing system at the same time. Its easier to find problem feats if you cut down on feats in general by 50%.

Jess is absolutely right about the unforeseen interaction of multiple changes though. A major skill overhaul in conjunction with feat consolidation would almost certainly have unexpected results, though I would suggest that the only way to deal with those results is to make the changes in the first place and see what you end up with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
The problem is that you are advocating for the addition of a system onto another series of systems that don't function well without said addition. The more moving parts you add, the more likely you will have unintended consequences occur.

Altering basic structures of the system will create more unintended consequences than adding additional and/or optional moving parts. This was true of game design in the other system I wrote for. The alternative is a complete overhaul, which would be similar to Pathfinder, but would not expressly be Pathfinder.

Please do not mistake me. I am very much interested in system streamlining. However, when streamlining a system, you must re-examine every moving part of it; a long and arduous process that is made considerably easier by consulting the original designer to both avoid the system pitfalls you will inevitably create and to remain true to the design paradigm. Whether the original designer is available to assist you or not, a competent and dedicated team of playtesters looking to abuse every aspect of your altered mechanics is absolutely necessary in order to redress unintended consequence before you release materials.

In this particular case, a major skill overhaul is more likely to lead to exacerbating problems extant in your feat consolidation, as you dramatically alter another key system component that was likely your basis for determining balance in the feat system in the first place, but even in doing both of those two things, you still leave unresolved the power disparity between the dedicated martial and the dedicated caster (with similar respect to relative balance when compared to 3/4 or 1/2 casters or martials).

Overall output for martials may be brought more into line in certain aspects, yes, but it will disrupt the current output of casters establishing less of an overall system impact than you might expect, particularly after a great deal of effort went into the system overhaul. By means of example, you might increase the overall effectiveness of dedicated martial characters by 50%, but also increase the overall effectiveness of dedicated casters by 18%. Sure, you shrink the gap, but in doing so, you create an arms race, which is a completely undesirable effect, as dedicated casters already have more than enough toys to play with. The overall goal is to shrink the gap while keeping dedicated casters on an equal (or lesser, depending on your perspective) footing to where they are before you begin. Feat consolidation alters the design paradigm; what begins as an awesome idea for martials eventually creeps into casters as well. Systems tend to equalise that way, whether the original design intention is for them to remain disparate or if it is for them to eventually homogenise. Failure to avoid the arms race will almost universally result in greater potential for abuse as players discover key elements that interact in unintended fashion to widen the power gap again.

Best wishes!


Bodhizen wrote:

In this particular case, a major skill overhaul is more likely to lead to exacerbating problems extant in your feat consolidation, as you dramatically alter another key system component that was likely your basis for determining balance in the feat system in the first place, but even in doing both of those two things, you still leave unresolved the power disparity between the dedicated martial and the dedicated caster (with similar respect to relative balance when compared to 3/4 or 1/2 casters or martials).

Overall output for martials may be brought more into line in certain aspects, yes, but it will disrupt the current output of casters establishing less of an overall system impact than you might expect, particularly after a great deal of effort went into the system overhaul. By means of example, you might increase the...

quoted because these two paragraphs contain so much truth!

*seconded* *signed*


I understand your position, but I don't agree.

As it stands, a martial character could reasonably expect to be able to 'do' two or three unique things with ten feats. If feats should not be consolidated then I advocate there removal. Give each class a series of talents that actually do something instead of granting another +1 to your hit chance. Balance those talents against each other and call it a day.

You'll likely end up with a cookie cutter build scheme and a clearly superior series of talents on one class like the barbarian, but they wouldn't interact with anything else because there would be no feats.

Feats are not fun. I hate that it takes hours to look through them all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Being absent from the boards for a few weeks and the first thread I see on my return is one that (falsely) states that Fighters suck...

Feeling at home at an instant :)

To the topic:
Time and again it has been said that there is a need for an easy to play character without much "on use" powers that covers the basic fantasy thrope or armored hero. I have very fond memories of my dwarvish axe Fighter Glod Glodson (thumbs up for anyone knowing where this name comes from).

Fighters are fine, its just that GMs tend to favor spell casters with things like the 15 minute workday.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MicMan wrote:

Being absent from the boards for a few weeks and the first thread I see on my return is one that (falsely) states that Fighters suck...

Feeling at home at an instant :)

To the topic:
Time and again it has been said that there is a need for an easy to play character without much "on use" powers that covers the basic fantasy thrope or armored hero. I have very fond memories of my dwarvish axe Fighter Glod Glodson (thumbs up for anyone knowing where this name comes from).

Fighters are fine, its just that GMs tend to favor spell casters with things like the 15 minute workday.

Incorrect - The board does not state that (falsely) fighters suck, but rather whole of the martial hero.

Secondly - Fighters (And other martial heroes) are not indestructible. They expend HP through encounters. HP is recovered by Clerics or other healing capable classes or by Resting. Once there is no HP and no healing Then the fighter dies. Fighters tend to like living.

Thirdly - A wizard could easily cover everything a fighter could do. Mage armor? 1 hour per level. Mimics up to a chain shirt of armor the fighter could have had. A blur spell, displacement, etc.. Bam. 20% of the time attacks miss for a few minutes per cast.

There is this entire misconception that wizards expend everything in 15 minutes or less, when actually it is quite the opposite. Fighter's one resource (HP) Drops in fifteen minutes or less. A fireball is /always/ going to do damage to a fighter. Even burning hands will as well. The only way not to is have SR, Energy Resistance or evasion. Don't have that? Well you take damage.

An evil cleric channels negative energy to harm the party? The fighter will take that damage. Often times the full amount of that damage, while the squishy caster kind don't.

The 15 minute workday isn't for wizards and other spellcasters, its for fighters and their pool of HP.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Every character should have a weakness. Spell Users however get more opportunities to mitigate against theirs whilst retaining formidable offensive/utility ability too.


One simple way to give martials a boon is to halve the amount of bonus skill points from intelligence (so +2 int gives 1 extra per level, and -2 gives -1 skill point per level), halve the skill points per level on full casters, and give +2 skill points per level to non-casters and 1/3 casters.

It's not a huge difference as the usefulness of skills is so-and-so compared to magic to begin with, but at least it's an easy change that won't upset balance heavily.

So sorcerers and clerics will generally have one skill point per level unless human etc. Not a big difference as they usually tank int anyway.
Druids will have one or two points, so a slight powerdown.
Wizards will have about 3 points, though it'll get maybe up to 5 over the career from int increases.
Fighters and paladins will get 3 or 4 sp depending on int so a noticable powerup.
Barbarians, monks and bards will get 5-6.
Rangers will get 7-8
Rogues will get 9-11 depending on int

The drawback with this is that Int becomes even more of a dump stat for those that don't need it and investments in it become even less interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That is a good step in the right direction, but at the moment skills don't scale particularly well compared to spells. A barbarian with 15 ranks, +10 strength modifier, skill focus: climbing and a +10 ring of climbing has a total of +41 on climb checks. That is impressive, but a simple casting of Levitate will still outperform it.

Maybe the skill rules need to be more relaxed when it comes to "realism"?

At the moment it's a DC 30 climb check to scale a city wall, whereas a perfectly smooth wall is impossible to climb - doesn't matter if your modifier is +5, +10, +35, or +100.

...Unless you use a low level spell or a cheap magic item like the slippers of spider climbing. Then it's fine.

Crafting a full plate requires 15 000 sp worth of craft checks. An optimized crafting character investing WBL, feats and ranks to get a modifier of 40+ might be able to crank one out in a week or so if he takes every step available to speed up the process. An adamantine or mithral full plate most likely requires months.

...Unless you use a spell like Fabricate. Then it's fine, and takes six seconds - and you don't need any ranks in craft unless the GM rules it so.

All of this makes sense to a point. The climbing rules are written to represent how climbing works in the real world - to the best of my limited knowledge of climbing, no one would be able to climb a 50 foot perfectly smooth wall without the use of some kind of tool.
On the other hand spiderclimb, levitate, and the aforementioned slippers are all magical, and can all comfortably tell the laws of physics to bugger off.

However, A character has more or less transcended humanity by the time he reaches level 15. He can take a cannon ball to the face and shrug it off, wiping away the trickle of blood it left on the corner of his mouth. He can comfortably solve the most complicated problems in physics on a cocktail napkin. The previously mentioned barbarian's climbing prowess is such that he should be able to, at the very least, have a chance to climb anything he puts his mind to.

In mythology there are dozens of accounts of heroes doing supernatural feats of heroism - and they usually didn't need to activate a wand or pull on a pair of slippers first.

Basically, as a character levels and leaves "normality" behind, he should also become "less fettered" by the laws of reality?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:

I understand your position, but I don't agree.

As it stands, a martial character could reasonably expect to be able to 'do' two or three unique things with ten feats. If feats should not be consolidated then I advocate there removal. Give each class a series of talents that actually do something instead of granting another +1 to your hit chance. Balance those talents against each other and call it a day.

You'll likely end up with a cookie cutter build scheme and a clearly superior series of talents on one class like the barbarian, but they wouldn't interact with anything else because there would be no feats.

Feats are not fun. I hate that it takes hours to look through them all.

I understand your concerns about feat bloat. To date, there are approximately 1,385 feats (non third-party publisher) to look through, which does considerably bloat the system. The system that I used to write for was looking at about 3,000 elements in the largest category when I wrote for it; over 5,000 when I stopped playing it altogether. The problem is not that the category in question that had over 5,000 elements to grant customisation to your character, it was that several other principal categories had options that numbered in the low hundreds. The bloat wasn't the primary issue (though it was a fair problem in and of itself), it's that the rest of the system had been almost completely neglected, narrowing the playing field really to one option for character development.

The issue that we have with martial characters being reasonably expected to do two or three unique things isn't contained within the feat system; it's really contained within the class ability structure. For a clear example of this, I compare to the cleric or the wizard (especially) who also benefit from the same feat system, but through their class abilities (principally spellcasting) give them such a wide array of means by which to affect the game world that martial characters like the fighter seem exceptionally underpowered by comparison.

Thusly, I suggest that the solution is not to be found in altering one of the "common pool" systems ("common pool" being used to represent the notion that everyone takes a dip into it), but to develop a specific martial system which can be as robust as the overall spellcasting system (with specific categories for rogues, fighters, cavaliers, etc... if you so choose). It's a lot of work, but it's a lot less work than examining every aspect of a 1,385 element system to determine what's about to create an undesired consequence and work to avoid it. If you were to create, say... A 200-component martial system that full spellcasters do not have access to (except via multiclassing, of course), you can balance that system against the couple of thousand published spells without worrying too much as to how that's going to empower spellcasting classes. At the same time, it creates a platform that empowers only the targeted classes and develops a starting point from which expansion can occur.


Kudaku wrote:

That is a good step in the right direction, but at the moment skills don't scale particularly well compared to spells. A barbarian with 15 ranks, +10 strength modifier, skill focus: climbing and a +10 ring of climbing has a total of +41 on climb checks. That is impressive, but a simple casting of Levitate will still outperform it.

Agreed. Skills are mostly useful at low levels, some stretching into the midlevels (okay perception and acrobatics are always useful).

But even at low to mid levels martials can feel a lack of solutions to non-combat problems, and this would be a step in the right direction.

Edit: Also, did you check out the field of expertise rules I'm considering? They aid somewhat in this (at least marginally); your example of a mundane crafter is specifically adressed.

An 8th level craftsman fighter that's say a weaponsmith will, apart from +11 from ranks and class, have +11 to craft (weaponsmithing), and also for every faster crafting doubles the speed, so with a take 10 of 36 (assuming assistants for +2 aid another and mw tools +2), so crafting a full plate which usually is DC is 19 it can make a masterwork full plate at a pace of (19+6+6)*36*2*2=4464 sp/week, and the masterwork component at a pace of (25+6)*36*2=2232 sp/week.
If it can get it's hand on some either some enchanted +6 tools or the DM rules it can have a few more assistants to get and additional +4 through aid another, the speed will instead be 11840 sp/week, and thus made in a week and a half.

Quote:


Maybe the skill rules need to be more relaxed when it comes to "realism"?

Yes, agreed. I think a good measuring stick is that at the modifiers reasonably possible at levels 1-5 should stick within what people can do IRL, between 5-9 it should be human movie hero type stunts like jumping between running cars, 10-14 it should be superhuman feats like jumping from a plane and landing on your feet, 14+ should be purely mythical feats like balancing on clouds etc. To take acrobatics as an example that is.


Bodhizen wrote:
Thusly, I suggest that the solution is not to be found in altering one of the "common pool" systems ("common pool" being used to represent the notion that everyone takes a dip into it), but to develop a specific martial system which can be as robust as the overall spellcasting system (with specific categories for rogues, fighters, cavaliers, etc... if you so choose). It's a lot of work, but it's a lot less work than examining every aspect of a 1,385 element system to determine what's about to create an undesired consequence and work to avoid it.

One simple thing that I think it was TriOmegaZero (might have been someone else) that came up with and uses in ze's campaigns is a feat that is more or less restricted to martial classes, that can mimic any other feat they qualify for, through "preparing" the other feat. That might be useful for this (though I personally don't really like the flavor part of it, it feels weird).

Liberty's Edge

Bodhizen wrote:
Thusly, I suggest that the solution is not to be found in altering one of the "common pool" systems ("common pool" being used to represent the notion that everyone takes a dip into it), but to develop a specific martial system which can be as robust as the overall spellcasting system (with specific categories for rogues, fighters, cavaliers, etc... if you so choose). It's a lot of work, but it's a lot less work than examining every aspect of a 1,385 element system to determine what's about to create an undesired consequence and work to avoid it. If you were to create, say... A 200-component martial system that full spellcasters do not have access to (except via multiclassing, of course), you can balance that system against the couple of thousand published spells without worrying too much as to how that's going to empower spellcasting classes. At the same time, it creates a platform that empowers only the targeted classes and develops a starting point from which expansion can occur.

I like the idea you are suggesting. I would give a nod to the feat chain idea presented by Wazat. In this way we can keep the idea of feat consolidation, but without altering existing feats (and thus not altering any unintended classes).

Perhaps we can take the feat consolidation work and rehash to be chains. The martial character must meet the prerequisites to activate the chain components, but could take a chain which they do not yet qualify to activate. Similar to a Wizard taking Magical Lineage for scorching ray or fireball. Some of the chains could be completely separate from the feat system. One chain could grant feats at certain levels (especially feats already exist which cover the idea) and some chains could be completely new progressions of awesome which do not grant any feats. Some of the chains could represent awesome skill talents which normal skill users can't accomplish.

To start with, several example chains need to be built and then need to decide how the chains would work into the existing martial classes. A few suggestions on the latter need: Rogues could gain it as a talent, fighters could choose a chain instead of bonus feats at certain levels, barbarians could gain them as rage powers. This would allow the system to fit smoothly into the standard game. However, archetypes would work (though limiting other options) and entirely composite systems (add to and not replace existing options) could also work. A completely composite system may need other elements of the class to be toned down to keep balance.

Apologies for not contributing a solid idea. I just wanted to throw out several possibilities to keep the thread from getting stuck on just feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
Bodhizen wrote:
Thusly, I suggest that the solution is not to be found in altering one of the "common pool" systems ("common pool" being used to represent the notion that everyone takes a dip into it), but to develop a specific martial system which can be as robust as the overall spellcasting system (with specific categories for rogues, fighters, cavaliers, etc... if you so choose). It's a lot of work, but it's a lot less work than examining every aspect of a 1,385 element system to determine what's about to create an undesired consequence and work to avoid it.
One simple thing that I think it was TriOmegaZero (might have been someone else) that came up with and uses in ze's campaigns is a feat that is more or less restricted to martial classes, that can mimic any other feat they qualify for, through "preparing" the other feat. That might be useful for this (though I personally don't really like the flavor part of it, it feels weird).

I understand that one can cater specific feats to be martial-only or based upon the base attack bonus in order to limit them so that they cannot be taken by non-martial characters. Having said that, giving martial characters a "meta-feat" as a preparatory feat not only seems more like it should be a class-feature and not something that takes up a feat slot in order to prevent other feats from being feat taxes.


Trogdar wrote:
A major skill overhaul in conjunction with feat consolidation would almost certainly have unexpected results, though I would suggest that the only way to deal with those results is to make the changes in the first place and see what you end up with.

I've done that! Jess was one of the primary drivers of the Alpha playtesting as well, so she actually has a far better grasp on the consequences than people may realize -- both from an outside view due to her expertise in systems work, and from an inside view from actual playtesting. (Also, from personal experience, when she says something, it pays to bet that she probably knows what she's talking about.) In short, I'd encourage people to hear her ideas without immediately assuming they know better than she does, as the reverse may well be true in most cases.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bodhizen wrote:
My apologies, Jess, but I believe the thrust of my argument was not contained within the first sentence.

No, but the condescension was. I prefer to assume the condescension in the post was unintended, but I couldn't just let it sit there unchallenged when on the selfsame page of the thread I had a post that more than made clear my understanding of the situation. I was not objecting to you post's point. I was objecting to your assumption that I didn't know or understand what I was doing.

Bodhizen wrote:

To be more clear, I am not sure that feat consolidation is the best way to go and your energies may be better focused to other tasks. However, I wish to make it absolutely clear that this is my opinion and I fully expect that you will take it with a grain of salt. I would like to be explicit in expressing that am not criticising the quality of your efforts, but that I am concerned that with someone who is obviously capable of high-quality work may be putting more effort into an endeavour that is likely to only bear limited fruit while representing an enormity of effort that far exceeds the rewards.

Best wishes.

I understand, I think, what you were trying to say the post I took issue with more clearly now.

Let me explain what I'm doing here, maybe that will help you understand my purposes here in this thread.

1. I believe that the problem with martials are two-fold: a. the mundane and essentially understandable nature of mundane actions places expectations that non-magical characters can only do things that make sense in our reality, while no such expectations of realism limit the capabilities of characters with magical ablities. b. The basic d20 system breaks down as modifiers on d20 rolls approach, reach, and surpass 20.

2. Problem (b) is the real stickler. There is nothing, short of a total overhaul of the entire basis for the game, that we can do to correct this. Nothing.

3. So what to do? I feel the best way to approach "fixing" the problem, given the fact that I don't have the time or inclination to design an entirely new system in totality, nor the arrogance to think I could design one that would be commercially viable in any way, is to provide ways to lessen the problem within the existing system. Preferably, something that disturbs as little as possible, uses existing subsystems, and leaves as many of the assumptions of the system undisturbed as possible while still having a noticable effect on the enjoyability, capability, and viability of mundane character in the game.

4. The system already has feats. The system already has skills. They just kinda....suck....in comparison to the other big subsysem shared between many characters - spells. I would rather make changes that are relatively small, and fit in the neat little boxes that already exist in the system - something someone can pretty easily adapt to from a knowledge of the existing system.

5. Consolidating combat feats will give a lot of versatility to the fighter. It will make choosing feats for a fighter a lot less like a 20 level puzzle, as there is a lot less of "I need this feat and this feat to gain this feat, which is what I really want my fighter to be able to do", and the occasionally sub-optimal feat choice is a lot less painful. It also means that instead of a fighter doing 2, maybe 3 things really well, the fighter can do probably about 7 or 8. Non fighter martials should be able to do 3-4.

6. If we create "skill feats", in some ways similar to the consolidated blind fight feat, it gives mundanes some good uses of their skills. I would suggest that other, more powerful type skill effects be created as rogue / ninja talents, making their skill mastery really worthwhile. The number of extra feats a fighter gets would allow them to consider investing in skill feats for some supernatural abilities as well, and if the fighter gets 4 sp / lvl instead of 2 (a much smaller change to the class than an entirely new subsystem), they can use their new feat freedom to invest there as they wish.

7. If the feat consolidation is limited to feats with direct combat uses, or limited to certain classes, and the top level power of these consolidated feats is not much higher than it currently is, this will not encourage power creep so much as a broadening of ability for characters that usually have a very narrow play range. And it shouldn't increase the power of casters too much. Casters with serious martial ability will require some additional examination here - do these feats, combined with their ability to have real combat efficiency and magic give them too much power?

In short, I am doing this because I feel it is a lot more painless to modify feats and add some skill feats for a gaming group, than it is to rewrite a base class like a fighter. That might be a more perfect solution, but it is also harder to use and implement for the typical group. The only solution I would be completely happy with is an overhaul of the very d20 system. That is a fun theoretical excercise, but not really so useful, as I have neither the time nor inclination to fully develop it. Therefore, I am doing something I find enjoyable, that I think few people interested in this thing would object to, and that I think more groups would find useful and implementable in their home games.

Please feel free to develop and share your alternate fighter class ablities. I in no way disagree that that is a valid solution to the problem of underpowered martial characters. But that does not fit within what I am trying to do here.

Sovereign Court

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
A major skill overhaul in conjunction with feat consolidation would almost certainly have unexpected results, though I would suggest that the only way to deal with those results is to make the changes in the first place and see what you end up with.
I've done that! Jess was one of the primary drivers of the Alpha playtesting as well, so she actually has a far better grasp on the consequences than people may realize -- both from an outside view due to her expertise in systems work, and from an inside view from actual playtesting. (Also, from personal experience, when she says something, it pays to bet that she probably knows what she's talking about.) In short, I'd encourage people to hear her ideas without immediately assuming they know better than she does, as the reverse may well be true in most cases.

Hehe, I shouldn't take so long to write such long replies. But thanks. :)

I think feat consolidation can be very useful if the top tier is going to be out of reach of those characters without a full BAB. If the top tier of combat feats is always BaB +16, then the only possibly problematic caster issue is a well built Eldritch Knight type base/base/prestige class character.

for the idea of skill feats, similar to the consolidated blind fight feat, I want to make rogues benefit most...so I think that the best skill abilities should probably be rogue/ninja talents. If generally available skill feats also happen to mostly copy abilities an intelligence based caster wouldn't particularly want or wouldn't want to spend a feat on when they can copy it with a spell, it would keep the skill feats from empowering them overmuch while it boosts mundanes/martials.


@Ilja

I had not seen those rules (in all honesty this thread moves too fast for me, I only skim it to try and keep up), but it was very interesting reading - I might well borrow some elements from that :)


Jess Door wrote:
No, but the condescension was. I prefer to assume the condescension in the post was unintended, but I couldn't just let it sit there unchallenged when on the selfsame page of the thread I had a post that more than made clear my understanding of the situation. I was not objecting to you post's point. I was objecting to your assumption that I didn't know or understand what I was doing.

The condescension is inferred, not implied. I hope that you will bear that in mind in our interactions. :)

Please understand that I come from the position of an RPG game writer who has seen his colleagues, who are exceptionally skilled people, create all manner of problems when working on system features. I speak from a position of professional experience, not condescension.

Jess Door wrote:
1. I believe that the problem with martials are two-fold: a. the mundane and essentially understandable nature of mundane actions places expectations that non-magical characters can only do things that make sense in our reality, while no such expectations of realism limit the capabilities of characters with magical ablities. b. The basic d20 system breaks down as modifiers on d20 rolls approach, reach, and surpass 20.

The nature of such mundane expectations is far more common in western fantasy than eastern. I think that we could take some cues from wuxia, though that might alter the flavor of Pathfinder to considerable degree. Current inclusion of eastern flavor has been limited, but I see no real reason to continue that trend. On your B-point, I would agree that the basic d20 system suffers from issues as modifiers approach 20, but the current system does make some small allowances for high-level play that is not limited by the system of modifiers. Epic-level play is possible and does not break the current d20 system, though it is currently not well-supported by Paizo.

Jess Door wrote:
2. Problem (b) is the real stickler. There is nothing, short of a total overhaul of the entire basis for the game, that we can do to correct this. Nothing.

I would be disinclined to agree with you. The system possesses flexibility in the skill system by allowing for increasing levels of difficulty. The downside is that the d20 roll becomes less impactful as modifiers increase, but the meaningfulness of the d20 roll never reaches 0. However, I understand the concern you express; it necessitates the "arms race" as difficulty checks climb higher to reflect epic deeds.

Jess Door wrote:
So what to do? I feel the best way to approach "fixing" the problem, given the fact that I don't have the time or inclination to design an entirely new system in totality, nor the arrogance to think I could design one that would be commercially viable in any way, is to provide ways to lessen the problem within the existing system. Preferably, something that disturbs as little as possible, uses existing subsystems, and leaves as many of the assumptions of the system undisturbed as possible while still having a noticable effect on the enjoyability, capability, and viability of mundane character in the game.

I would agree with your intention, though I believe that altering such a critical "common pool" system will create greater disturbances than intended. However, I will not make further attempts to dissuade you from this approach.

Jess Door wrote:
4. The system already has feats. The system already has skills. They just kinda....suck....in comparison to the other big subsysem shared between many characters - spells. I would rather make changes that are relatively small, and fit in the neat little boxes that already exist in the system - something someone can pretty easily adapt to from a knowledge of the existing system.

The changes required to bring the feat or skill systems up to par with the existing spellcasting system are significant and are in no way small. I am not confident that anyone would be capable of bringing the climb skill to equivalency to levitate, for example, nor do I believe that it was ever the intention of the skills system to be equivalent to magical powers.

Jess Door wrote:
5. Consolidating combat feats will give a lot of versatility to the fighter. It will make choosing feats for a fighter a lot less like a 20 level puzzle, as there is a lot less of "I need this feat and this feat to gain this feat, which is what I really want my fighter to be able to do", and the occasionally sub-optimal feat choice is a lot less painful. It also means that instead of a fighter doing 2, maybe 3 things really well, the fighter can do probably about 7 or 8. Non fighter martials should be able to do 3-4.

Consolidating combat feats will grant versatility to more than just the fighter, as the fighter is not the only character class that can access such feats, though that can be limited somewhat. However, it can quickly limit the effectiveness of non-fighter martials by comparison. If we were only worried about fighters, instead of all martial classes, this would not be a concern. Additionally, it does not make the fighter better at doing what the fighter does as the feats themselves still provide only modest or incremental benefits, though I am decidedly in favor of the fighters having more to do than fight. It appears as though the design intention is to avoid feat taxation.

My questions begin here. I would like to ask where the 7-8 versus 3-4 fighter/non-fighter martial determination came about. What was the determining factor in that decision?

Jess Door wrote:
6. If we create "skill feats", in some ways similar to the consolidated blind fight feat, it gives mundanes some good uses of their skills. I would suggest that other, more powerful type skill effects be created as rogue / ninja talents, making their skill mastery really worthwhile. The number of extra feats a fighter gets would allow them to consider investing in skill feats for some supernatural abilities as well, and if the fighter gets 4 sp / lvl instead of 2 (a much smaller change to the class than an entirely new subsystem), they can use their new feat freedom to invest there as they wish.

Skill feats are definitely an area worth exploration. I do feel it is important to note that boosting a fighter's skill points per level is a much smaller change to the class than altering the feat system as well. I appreciate knowing what you're working to accomplish, but this particular point is not related to my concerns at present.

Jess Door wrote:
7. If the feat consolidation is limited to feats with direct combat uses, or limited to certain classes, and the top level power of these consolidated feats is not much higher than it currently is, this will not encourage power creep so much as a broadening of ability for characters that usually have a very narrow play range. And it shouldn't increase the power of casters too much. Casters with serious martial ability will require some additional examination here - do these feats, combined with their ability to have real combat efficiency and magic give them too much power?

I disagree with this assessment, and I am not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that it shouldn't increase the power of casters too much. It would appear that it might encourage more level dipping if anything, which may very well diminish upper-end abilities for spellcasters, but as feats are often passive rather than active enhancements by design, I have concerns that this may not function as intended. As I have previously noted, I feel that the level of attention given to interaction with caster classes (whether they have serious martial ability or not) may require more effort than end benefit.

Jess Door wrote:

In short, I am doing this because I feel it is a lot more painless to modify feats and add some skill feats for a gaming group, than it is to rewrite a base class like a fighter. That might be a more perfect solution, but it is also harder to use and implement for the typical group. The only solution I would be completely happy with is an overhaul of the very d20 system. That is a fun theoretical excercise, but not really so useful, as I have neither the time nor inclination to fully develop it. Therefore, I am doing something I find enjoyable, that I think few people interested in this thing would object to, and that I think more groups would find useful and implementable in their home games.

Please feel free to develop and share your alternate fighter class ablities. I in no way disagree that that is a valid solution to the problem of underpowered martial characters. But that does not fit within what I am trying to do here.

A full base class rewrite is, in many ways, simpler than what you're working on, though I completely understand not wanting to go there. I have enjoyed the opportunity to talk with you more about it, and I hope that you will find my commentary useful, if for no other reason than it provides a different perspective. I wish you all my best in the success of your endeavour. Mine's going to take a bit, as I'm closing on a house this afternoon and will be moving over the weekend.

Lastly, I apologise for the multi-quote response, particularly if it came across negatively. I have a tendency to attempt to discuss each element as I go along.

Best wishes!

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
A major skill overhaul in conjunction with feat consolidation would almost certainly have unexpected results, though I would suggest that the only way to deal with those results is to make the changes in the first place and see what you end up with.
I've done that! Jess was one of the primary drivers of the Alpha playtesting as well, so she actually has a far better grasp on the consequences than people may realize -- both from an outside view due to her expertise in systems work, and from an inside view from actual playtesting. (Also, from personal experience, when she says something, it pays to bet that she probably knows what she's talking about.) In short, I'd encourage people to hear her ideas without immediately assuming they know better than she does, as the reverse may well be true in most cases.

Oh, and don't sell yourself short, that wasn't just a skill and feat overhaul, that was also a class overhaul, spell overhaul. Hell, the only thing you didn't touch was the d20+modifier system. :)

Sovereign Court

Bodhizen wrote:
I hope that you will bear that in mind in our interactions. :)

I believe this will answer that question as much as anything will:

Jess Door wrote:
I prefer to assume the condescension in the post was unintended,...

Anything further is really inappropriate for public posting, as it is off topic and not useful to the discussion.

Bodhizen wrote:
My questions begin here. I would like to ask where the 7-8 versus 3-4 fighter/non-fighter martial determination came about. What was the determining factor in that decision?

"Decision" is the wrong term here. It's an offhanded guess based on the relative difference in the number of feats available to fighters vs. everyone else.

Sovereign Court

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
A major skill overhaul in conjunction with feat consolidation would almost certainly have unexpected results, though I would suggest that the only way to deal with those results is to make the changes in the first place and see what you end up with.
I've done that!

Oh! Whch reminds me, I *really* enjoyed your combat maneuver rewrite. I'll have to get an updated version of Kirthfinder, I think. :)


Jess Door wrote:
Bodhizen wrote:
I hope that you will bear that in mind in our interactions. :)

I believe this will answer that question as much as anything will:

Jess Door wrote:
I prefer to assume the condescension in the post was unintended,...

Anything further is really inappropriate for public posting, as it is off topic and not useful to the discussion.

Bodhizen wrote:
My questions begin here. I would like to ask where the 7-8 versus 3-4 fighter/non-fighter martial determination came about. What was the determining factor in that decision?
"Decision" is the wrong term here. It's an offhanded guess based on the relative difference in the number of feats available to fighters vs. everyone else.

Perhaps I'll take this to private conversation later today, if you're agreeable. I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss your system ideas with you.

Cheers!


Jess Door, would you mind explaining the bit about the system falling apart when modifiers approach 20? As long as modifiers continue to increase with character power and as long as difficulty continues to increase as characters target more difficult challenges, I do not understand how the system becomes unbalanced. Lower level challenges may become an autosuccess, but I consider that a feature, not a shortcoming.


I think fundamentally the system DOES need that complete overhaul, keeping it firmly rooted in the d20 system but slaughtering a number of sacred cows in the process.

First, I want to see skills designed with diminishing returns on rank investment but also optional 'skill powers' (replacing many existing spells, feats and minor class features) to buy with ranks rather than just increasing the base roll. BAB (broken up into weapon categories, including unarmed/grapple) and saves should be reworked as skills. Spellcasting (and psionics) should also require the use of a number of separate skills for things like projection, enchantment, manipulation, etc. to achieve their effects.

I want to see a system where there are thematic martial style kits and groups of similar spells (for both arcane and divine, and more restrictive than schools currently are), with characters being able to start learning a number of each as they level up with availability depending on class. Class features should be further consolidated in similar manner to enable a classless system if desired. Nonstandard races (or applied templates like vampire) could likewise be worked up as taking up a 'kit' choice.

After all of that, feats should be relegated minor flavorful options, not something you build a character around. Traits you can keep choosing as you level up, basically.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pandora's wrote:
Jess Door, would you mind explaining the bit about the system falling apart when modifiers approach 20? As long as modifiers continue to increase with character power and as long as difficulty continues to increase as characters target more difficult challenges, I do not understand how the system becomes unbalanced. Lower level challenges may become an autosuccess, but I consider that a feature, not a shortcoming.

A more complete way to state the problem is as the difference between the modifiers an invested character and a non-invested character could expect to have approaches 20, the system breaks down.

Once the modifers approach the randomness in the system, the success or failure of a roll turns from a rating of the skilled being more successful vs. the unskilled being less success to a binary "You can/you can't" situation.

for a really quick sample, let's assume high level play (15+). Any challenge that is appropriately non-trivial for an invested 15th level character would be at least 35. for attacking a full BAB character at 15 should have modifiers at least around +20. That means possible d20 roll results would range from at least 21-41. A non invested character, the wizard, at that level, is sporting an attack modifier of around 7. They get values around 8-28. A middling invested character, let's say a bard, might have around a 15. they're rolling 16-36.

Now, a fighter SHOULD be able to do fighting much better than a wizard. But as the system gets into high levels, the difference between optimal / non-optimal actions becomes you will/you can't. skills are worse because there's not even the 5% auto success / auto failure clauses attack rolls get.

Also, this means that in general, you can't have a generalist character - because you can't be sorta good at everything. As the modifier disparity grows, even moderate investment falls in to the "don't even bother" category. everyone has to choose a couple of baskets, and put all their eggs there, in higher level games.

4th edition attempted to solve this by giving partial advancement to everyone. a 20th level fighter without acrobatics as a trained skill wasn't anywhere near as good as the rogue with it trained, but he was able to attempt it, and hope he might get lucky.

My personal preference for the starting point of a system would be severely limiting how large modifiers can get (I would prefer no higher than about 15, ever), and then introducing more d20 rolls. To me, this models things in a manner I like more - you don't get infinitely better on a linear-ish scale at things - you do get better, but you, more importantly, do it perfectly more often.

I graphed it out (I'll try to remember to link the graph here) out of curiousity. a 5d20 (take the best) roll results in a 20 about 22.5% of the time.


Jess Door wrote:
Oh! Which reminds me, I *really* enjoyed your combat maneuver rewrite. I'll have to get an updated version of Kirthfinder, I think. :)

I'm currently in the process of cutting page count (my Lulu hard copy ran to something like 640 pages and looks like a college textbook), and cleaning up some lingering inconsistencies. When it's presentable, I'll be very happy to send you a copy. Do you prefer collated or separate chapters? .docx or .pdf format?


Ok, I see where you're coming from now. I don't see impossible checks for non-invested characters as being a system flaw however. Basic checks should always have some chance of success, and those are represented by DCs 20 and lower. When you wish to achieve supernatural results from skills, for example, that compete with spells, I feel investing heavily should be required. Take a use for Acrobatics from the epic skill usage rules: balancing on a cloud. A 10 dex wizard with no ranks in Acrobatics should not have a chance at achieving that effect no matter how hard he wishes, just as a high level rogue can't cast the fly spell no matter how hard he tries. To allow martial ability to approach caster ability, martials must be able to achieve effects that a caster can't achieve with just a lucky roll. If skill ranks per level were increased by 2 across the board for all martial classes, they should be able to invest in a proper number of abilities.

You could make those supernatural effects functions of ranks rather than modifier but that makes the system even more binary and doesn't reward stat choices. I feel that activated abilities should require checks, and only passive abilities should be functions of skill ranks.

Sovereign Court

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Jess Door wrote:
Oh! Which reminds me, I *really* enjoyed your combat maneuver rewrite. I'll have to get an updated version of Kirthfinder, I think. :)
I'm currently in the process of cutting page count (my Lulu hard copy ran to something like 640 pages and looks like a college textbook), and cleaning up some lingering inconsistencies. When it's presentable, I'll be very happy to send you a copy. Do you prefer collated or separate chapters? .docx or .pdf format?

I have no need of a prettified copy. :) I just can't remember the details anymore, and would love any ol' copy at all. But I don't need it now or anything either. Either which way, thanks!

Pandora's wrote:

Ok, I see where you're coming from now. I don't see impossible checks for non-invested characters as being a system flaw however. Basic checks should always have some chance of success, and those are represented by DCs 20 and lower. When you wish to achieve supernatural results from skills, for example, that compete with spells, I feel investing heavily should be required. Take a use for Acrobatics from the epic skill usage rules: balancing on a cloud. A 10 dex wizard with no ranks in Acrobatics should not have a chance at achieving that effect no matter how hard he wishes, just as a high level rogue can't cast the fly spell no matter how hard he tries. To allow martial ability to approach caster ability, martials must be able to achieve effects that a caster can't achieve with just a lucky roll. If skill ranks per level were increased by 2 across the board for all martial classes, they should be able to invest in a proper number of abilities.

You could make those supernatural effects functions of ranks rather than modifier but that makes the system even more binary and doesn't reward stat choices. I feel that activated abilities should require checks, and only passive abilities should be functions of skill ranks.

The reason the game gets so unwieldy at high level is both the exponential rise of the power of spellcasting ability and the entrenched lockdowns in the system once DCs approach 35+ where everything becomes binary rocket tag. When a rogue or combatting bard has to hit a natural 20 to land a blow, which is already less effective than the fighter's typical blow, they not only contribute less to pure combat, but are relegated to nearly no contribution at all (obviously, the bard's ability to buff the fighter is still very relevent, I'm just touching on the problems inherent in the system when the randomness can no longer affect the outcome). a system where the rogue can hit about 30%-40% of the time, to their less effect, but the full bab character is critting 20% of the time would make the fighter the absolute winner, but still allows the rogue to contribute.

Part of this is obviously informed by personal preference, but I think multi-dice roll systems allow for more longevity in smooth and recognizable gameplay as levels rise. As is, once DCs rise to the point where the non-randomness in the roll approaches or exceeds the randomness, the essential nature of the game changes. I happen to view this as a flaw in the system.


Poor feats aren't just a fighter problem. They're a problem for everyone.

How often do you see a feat intensive build like offensive sword and board or TWF on a paladin or barbarian? You see archery because it's ridiculously overpowered by the standards of mundane combat and you see TWF rogues because it's a well baited trap, but the feat chains pretty well kill style variety for most classes.


Nem-Z wrote:

I think fundamentally the system DOES need that complete overhaul, keeping it firmly rooted in the d20 system but slaughtering a number of sacred cows in the process.

First, I want to see skills designed with diminishing returns on rank investment but also optional 'skill powers' (replacing many existing spells, feats and minor class features) to buy with ranks rather than just increasing the base roll. BAB (broken up into weapon categories, including unarmed/grapple) and saves should be reworked as skills. Spellcasting (and psionics) should also require the use of a number of separate skills for things like projection, enchantment, manipulation, etc. to achieve their effects.

I want to see a system where there are thematic martial style kits and groups of similar spells (for both arcane and divine, and more restrictive than schools currently are), with characters being able to start learning a number of each as they level up with availability depending on class. Class features should be further consolidated in similar manner to enable a classless system if desired. Nonstandard races (or applied templates like vampire) could likewise be worked up as taking up a 'kit' choice.

After all of that, feats should be relegated minor flavorful options, not something you build a character around. Traits you can keep choosing as you level up, basically.

Assuming I'm understanding right... At that point I think you're better off starting over with a 20-sided die, a list of skills to drive your system, and the Pathfinder book on the side as "inspiration". The more radical the change, the more you start to wonder "why are we still tied to the old system? Why not write nearly from scratch?". :D

And if I'm going to make that big of a change, I'll first look around at existing games to see if someone's already done it. That's a lot to edit and refactor, and if it's already been done then I'm betting it's been done better than I would have gotten it. I'm a lazy man (and proud of it!).

Erm... speaking of, I totally plan to put together that example fighter feature. Soon. Not procrastinating.
*hides*


Wazat wrote:
And if I'm going to make that big of a change, I'll first look around at existing games to see if someone's already done it.

They have, but not in a way that lets you play Pathfinder modules off the shelf. Direct conversion between bonuses and dice, or other changes to the basic chassis that don't depend on stat blocks (e.g., move and attack, spellcasting a full attack action), retain full Paizo AP usage.


I think within the context of combat you definitely have a point. Rogues and similar 3/4 BAB combatants are infamous for their inability in combat. I haven't examined the effectiveness comparison between 3/4 and full BAB classes in depth so I can't really add much to the discussion there however.

I'm curious as to your perspective on the examples in my last post concerning skills specifically. I feel that at high levels randomness should determine the success of difficult challenges but that lower level challenges should have a dependable success rate. A ninja who can balance on water and clouds should have no worries about crossing a tightrope. With a modifier of +30, the DC 20 check for a tightrope can be ignored, but the DC 45 check to balance on a cloud still only has a 25% success rate. As long as challenges rise with skills, I see no problems with linear progression to high modifiers in the skill system specifically.


Jess Door wrote:
Pandora's wrote:
Jess Door, would you mind explaining the bit about the system falling apart when modifiers approach 20? As long as modifiers continue to increase with character power and as long as difficulty continues to increase as characters target more difficult challenges, I do not understand how the system becomes unbalanced. Lower level challenges may become an autosuccess, but I consider that a feature, not a shortcoming.

A more complete way to state the problem is as the difference between the modifiers an invested character and a non-invested character could expect to have approaches 20, the system breaks down.

Once the modifers approach the randomness in the system, the success or failure of a roll turns from a rating of the skilled being more successful vs. the unskilled being less success to a binary "You can/you can't" situation.

for a really quick sample, let's assume high level play (15+). Any challenge that is appropriately non-trivial for an invested 15th level character would be at least 35. for attacking a full BAB character at 15 should have modifiers at least around +20. That means possible d20 roll results would range from at least 21-41. A non invested character, the wizard, at that level, is sporting an attack modifier of around 7. They get values around 8-28. A middling invested character, let's say a bard, might have around a 15. they're rolling 16-36.

Now, a fighter SHOULD be able to do fighting much better than a wizard. But as the system gets into high levels, the difference between optimal / non-optimal actions becomes you will/you can't. skills are worse because there's not even the 5% auto success / auto failure clauses attack rolls get.

Also, this means that in general, you can't have a generalist character - because you can't be sorta good at everything. As the modifier disparity grows, even moderate investment falls in to the "don't even bother" category. everyone has to choose a couple of baskets, and put all their eggs there, in...

Jess, have you looked at the Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game? It's free and legal on the interwebz. I'm not in love with their save system (5 static saves that advance with level, a la AD&D), but they've really got a handle on the whole bonus creep problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wazat wrote:
Assuming I'm understanding right... At that point I think you're better off starting over with a 20-sided die, a list of skills to drive your system, and the Pathfinder book on the side as "inspiration".

I freely admit I am basically calling for Pathfinder v2.0 not a simple patch job. However the system is fundamentally unbalanced in enough ways (caster/martial disparity, utterly broken high level play, skills are pointless, endless feat/spell bloat), most of them inherited from 3.X, that fixing it is harder than starting over.

And assuming I ever stop being lazy myself, I will one day be trying to publish an entirely from scratch system. There are tons of games built around rolling d6s, d10s or a d20... but why isn't there one that uses a mix of d4s, d8s and d12s when they scale so very nicely? :)


Atarlost wrote:

Poor feats aren't just a fighter problem. They're a problem for everyone.

How often do you see a feat intensive build like offensive sword and board or TWF on a paladin or barbarian? You see archery because it's ridiculously overpowered by the standards of mundane combat and you see TWF rogues because it's a well baited trap, but the feat chains pretty well kill style variety for most classes.

Have to agree on that point; with the way the rules are set up, there'e a huge disincentive to use any martial combat style other than a two-handed sword with power attack. It does the best damage, and leaves you with plenty of feats left to sink into other things (Paladins and Barbarians both have a lot of good options).


Jess Door wrote:

A more complete way to state the problem is as the difference between the modifiers an invested character and a non-invested character could expect to have approaches 20, the system breaks down.

Once the modifiers approach the randomness in the system, the success or failure of a roll turns from a rating of the skilled being more successful vs. the unskilled being less success to a binary "You can/you can't" situation.

Just to clarify this point: with high modifiers, there are a lot of "only fail on a 1/only succeed on a 20" type situations. With low modifiers, there is a lot less of that, and thus a lot more risk.

One issue too is: casters tend to accumulate a greater variety of ways to stack modifiers (either bonuses to themselves/allies, or penalties to their opponents). Now, of course it is only a tendency (there are exceptions).

A "generalist" tends to have fewer ways to stack bonuses. Their bonuses tend to be spread out. Since they're spread out, any encounter made to be challenging for characters who can stack bonuses would be overwhelming for a character that cannot - at least not without the help of their friend. Who then is the real hero.

Casting also tends to provide both "generalist" versatility and the benefits of "specialization" bonus/penalty stacking, particularly as they level and the potency of spells scale in ways that feats, for example, do not. I don't dislike this, myself (but the people who suggest that casters be forced to specialize understand this situation, I will give them that for sure).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been taking a look at narrative-driving abilities for martial characters. I'm trying to focus on effects that do not directly affect combat ability (with one exception that targets mass-combat scenarios) and interact fairly little with existing systems. I have built this list upon the sample suggestions I posted a few hundred posts back. I appreciate constructive feedback, especially compared to dismissive responses :)

Some of these are very similar to existing class features. However, they all either do less, require more investment, or are available only at a higher level.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is two animes I've seen with really powerful spell casters.

BASTARD!! and Slayers.

In BASTARD!! you've got Dark Schnider, this guy is so powerful everyone knows about him and fears him even. Though as the show progresses, you discover that he really isn't totally all powerful. He mentions how he only has a certain number of spells per day, and how he doesn't know cold or ice spells to take on a fire elemental. Though, he is capable of coming back from the dead by regenerating his heart post death.

The fighter here is Bon Jiovoni, the captain of the guard, who takes on every big monster, gets crushed afterwards. Somehow though he's tough enough to stay alive.

In Slayers Lina Inverse is one of the most powerful sorcerers there is. She mentions how her specialization though is black magic, which is an offensive type magic. While someone else has a white magic specialization. Someone else has a spirit or astral specialization and some such. However every big battle always tends to end with her casting Dragon Slave, a fireball cranked up to 11.. twice.

Her companion, Gourry, is our stereotypical fighter. However, unlike our fighters from here, he's capable of pulling out tricks that are quite clearly beyond human. As I mentioned earlier, he can strip a persons cloths away in an instant. Cut through bands of mental on their head in one swing, only cutting a bit of their hair. And while he is a swordsman, he is an agile swordsman. He can also switch around from weapon to weapon with some ease, as he has shown capable of using nuts or some kind to damage enemies.


Pandora's wrote:
I've been taking a look at narrative-driving abilities for martial characters. I'm trying to focus on effects that do not directly affect combat ability (with one exception that targets mass-combat scenarios) and interact fairly little with existing systems. I have built this list upon the sample suggestions I posted a few hundred posts back. I appreciate constructive feedback, especially compared to dismissive responses :)

Paladin's Call (and similar abilities): It might be better if CR -1 or CR -2.

Tell the World: if they carry sufficient water, do they have to stop? or can they drink while running?

Famed Mercenary: It should be made clear whether this allows people to "break" WBL or not. If the answer is "not," then for those campaigns in which WBL is an iron law, this ability has no effect other than reducing future treasure to "make up for" the fact that an NPC gave a greater reward in time 0.

Friend of the Wilds: Should have a CR cap. At most CR = Ranger level. Uncapped, it's probably too powerful. Plus, "no true neutral" seems kind of broad and not necessarily nature-themed. After all, you don't have to be nature-oriented to be neutral and not all nature-oriented people are neutral (or even non-evil). That said I'm not sure how to rewrite that to improve it, so I simply throw the observation out there.

Journal of Legends: it's Takano's scrapbook! (Actually, no. That item may [or may not have been! After all, there was real information in there!] more of a curse-equivalent than a benefit).

Indomitable - Thematically very nice. I like the atmospherics of this one.

Ages Endless - might need a different name but I like this one. It's odd how the game tends to give these kind of abilities to classes that need them least (because those classes tend to be ones where mental ability scores are their primary stats, not physical). capstone-level martials should get this automatically, for free, IMO. After all, at 20th level they're practically quasi-dieties.

No Matter the Distance - stationary target might need to be clarified. Is that anyone who didn't move on their previous round?

Science of Deduction - where is Watson!


Espy Kismet wrote:
In BASTARD!! you've got Dark Schnider, this guy is so powerful everyone knows about him and fears him even. Though as the show progresses, you discover that he really isn't totally all powerful.

ZOMG! Dark Schnider!

(Or is this Dark Schnider?)

Grand Lodge

this one

The Author of that anime/manga was into metal and dungeons and dragons. So Dark Schnider had some builds based on a DnD Sorcerer, and almost every one of his spells was named after a rock band.


Porphyrogenitus wrote:
Paladin's Call (and similar abilities): It might be better if CR -1 or CR -2.

I don't think it's a serious issues due to how conditional the effect is, but CR-1 is reasonable.

Porphyrogenitus wrote:
Tell the World: if they carry sufficient water, do they have to stop? or can they drink while running?

It's supposed to resemble the first Marathon run, without the dying at the end. Since it's odd enough a detail to cause hiccups, it can go.

Porphyrogenitus wrote:
Famed Mercenary: It should be made clear whether this allows people to "break" WBL or not. If the answer is "not," then for those campaigns in which WBL is an iron law, this ability has no effect other than reducing future treasure to "make up for" the fact that an NPC gave a greater reward in time 0.

This concept works rather well with adventure paths and the like. If loot is strictly governed by WBL, it should allow a bit extra. This only applies to being specifically commissioned for a task, which is not where most PCs get their millions.

Porphyrogenitus wrote:
Friend of the Wilds: Should have a CR cap. At most CR = Ranger level. Uncapped, it's probably too powerful. Plus, "no true neutral" seems kind of broad and not necessarily nature-themed. After all, you don't have to be nature-oriented to be neutral and not all nature-oriented people are neutral (or even non-evil). That said I'm not sure how to rewrite that to improve it, so I simply throw the observation out there.

Good catch. I meant to change it to "true neutral animals or magical beasts" while writing it but forgot. As for the CR cap, since it concerns niche types of creatures I don't feel it is overwhelming. If every once in a while this allows players to circumvent an encounter, that shouldn't be a major issue. Most creatures of these types encountered are higher CR so with a CR cap equal to level it would barely have an effect. Most encounters involving animals happen in the first few levels anyway, and this would not be available until level 5.

Porphyrogenitus wrote:
Journal of Legends: it's Takano's scrapbook! (Actually, no. That item may [or may not have been! After all, there was real information in there!] more of a curse-equivalent than a benefit).

I've shown these to my fighter player, and this is the one he wants yesterday :)

Porphyrogenitus wrote:
Ages Endless - might need a different name but I like this one. It's odd how the game tends to give these kind of abilities to classes that need them least (because those classes tend to be ones where mental ability scores are their primary stats, not physical). capstone-level martials should...

Precisely. I find it annoying that the path Irori took to godhood is represented nowhere but a couple of monk endcaps. I'll work on the pretentious name.

Porphyrogenitus wrote:
No Matter the Distance - stationary target might need to be clarified. Is that anyone who didn't move on their previous round?

Another good catch. I meant it to specify stationary as moving less than 5' during the entire aiming and firing process. This really is meant to target objects.

Updated to reflect changes. Thanks for the critique. I hope these are fun and flavorful without being over the top. I'll be working on some skills stuff next.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have been toying for few days with a martial build (a barbarian, with a fighter dip for heavy armor).

I noticed a thing. Martials (or at least barbarians) have a ton of cool things to do. I could, for example, have a huge DR, several energy resitances and nice magic resistance. I could charge through several characters, trampling them, and attacking three times the real target of the charge using spiked destroyed, imp overrun, and the stomping feat. I can add a ranged attack to that charge with hurling charge. That's not counting pounce. I can trip with ranged attack with the proper feats. Can also devour magic, fly with spectral wings, have near unbeateable AC, attack everything in 15' radious, creatr difficult terrain to stop 5' steps around me, and even vomit energy damage I've absorbed.

The problem? Everything cool is buried under half ton of crap. I have to buy several things I don't like to buy the things I do (like animal fury and intimidating glare for dragon totem, or hurling lesser for hurling charge).

If a sorcerer where forced to learn charm person, hypnotism, hold person, charm monster and dominate person to learn dominate mosnter, they'll suck too.

So a fast fix might be: remove ALL feat prrerrequisites except for BAB (to avoid things like staggering critical at level 1 and to keep Full BAB ahead of the nice feats). And let martials to learn feats by buying them . Just like casters do (scrolls for wizards and pages of spell knowledge for spontaneous).
Make them magi item, or just pay for a trainer that teach you.

Shadow Lodge

Nem-Z wrote:
I freely admit I am basically calling for Pathfinder v2.0 not a simple patch job. However the system is fundamentally unbalanced in enough ways (caster/martial disparity, utterly broken high level play, skills are pointless, endless feat/spell bloat), most of them inherited from 3.X, that fixing it is harder than starting over.

And therein lies the problem, because it would seem that most of the fans (and developers) don't want anything more than a patch job. If Pathfinder is D&S 3.75, then I don't expect Pathfinder 2E to be anything other than 3.76.


Zhayne wrote:
I'd dial back the casters instead of boosting the non-casters.

Yes. Correct the imbalance in the system.

Also by playing low magic and no crazy 24 int/wis/cha at level 8 (so you will want to eliminate spell save boosting items), spellcasters can come closer to being balanced to the martials.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hello, Armchair Theorists. How's that chair rockin' tonight?


MicMan wrote:

Being absent from the boards for a few weeks and the first thread I see on my return is one that (falsely) states that Fighters suck...

Feeling at home at an instant :)

To the topic:
Time and again it has been said that there is a need for an easy to play character without much "on use" powers that covers the basic fantasy thrope or armored hero. I have very fond memories of my dwarvish axe Fighter Glod Glodson (thumbs up for anyone knowing where this name comes from).

Fighters are fine, its just that GMs tend to favor spell casters with things like the 15 minute workday.

When the martials and scouting classes refuse to do the 15 minute workday for the benefit of a spellcaster, it can be hilarious.

I can't recover all my gnarly spells? Awwww. Why do you guys have to go and do heroic things?

Push on, and on the ninth hour of dungeon bashing, you may see some amusing events.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
MicMan wrote:

Being absent from the boards for a few weeks and the first thread I see on my return is one that (falsely) states that Fighters suck...

Feeling at home at an instant :)

To the topic:
Time and again it has been said that there is a need for an easy to play character without much "on use" powers that covers the basic fantasy thrope or armored hero. I have very fond memories of my dwarvish axe Fighter Glod Glodson (thumbs up for anyone knowing where this name comes from).

Fighters are fine, its just that GMs tend to favor spell casters with things like the 15 minute workday.

When the martials and scouting classes refuse to do the 15 minute workday for the benefit of a spellcaster, it can be hilarious.

I can't recover all my gnarly spells? Awwww. Why do you guys have to go and do heroic things?

Push on, and on the ninth hour of dungeon bashing, you may see some amusing events.

wizards have more spells than barbarians have rage rounds.

801 to 850 of 1,079 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Ways to make martials less terrible. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.