| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have casters take non-lethal damage equal to the spell slot used squared. As level goes up lower level spells are not as costly to use. One of the things I hear about casters being over powered is them tossing out two or more high level spells in a round out. With the above house rule it can be costly to the caster to do that. So a quickened Fireball would cause 49 point of non-lethal damage to the caster.
I've added a very rough draft of how the Feat Chain Mastery feature might look. It's on the wiki. Feedback and additions are appreciated. Don't expect it to be balanced yet though. ;)
I wonder if classes should have to wait a few more levels before they start picking up feat chains. As it stands now, a couple levels of fighter grace a multiclasser with a lot of feats. Or maybe that's exactly the way we want it? Discuss!
Fighters and Paladins need at least an option for 4 skill points + int per level; 2 per level doesn't cut it, and they lag behind.
It replaces most of the Fighter's Armour options, so. . . . I'm not sure it fits the bill. Also, it's an archetype, and I find the idea of Fighters having the option to up their skill points/available skills as a general rule being more appropriate.. . .
It's the fact that it's an archetype, and yes, I don't feel like it's as good as an option, since it weakens the core abilities of the Fighter ( armor proficiencies ).
Speaking of out-of-combat powers, how many skill points *should* a fighter, ranger, rogue, monk or barbarian etc have? Have we decided on amounts? And should casters get 1 or 2 extra points per level too, or just martials?
I think it's not just about the number of skill points. The thing is, with the current system, just maxing the ranks of a skill isn't usually enough to be really good at it - at most you can be mediocre. There needs to be class features supporting or using those skills too.
While giving martials a few extra skill points per level can afford them to not be really sucky out of combat, they'll still not have a schtick. That's why I made the fields of expertise the way they are - they'd at least give them some kind of schtick, some circumstance where they can not only not suck, but actually be quite decent and have something casters can't.
Because wizards will still get like 7 skill points per level, so boosting fighters to 4 still will leave them suckish at skills. Giving them +1/2 their level on a few thematic skills in addition to that can make quite a large difference.
Tursic:
The problem is two-fold. First, that means the healer is very hesitant to heal the caster or himself. Or anyone. When your healer can't save the day because Cure Serious Wounds will kill him, it's time to run. And second, assuming max hit points are rolled per level, your wizard will have 6*13=78 HP at level 13 (the earliest he can quicken a fireball). He's lost 63% of his life just using his class feature of casting spells of 7th level (or a quickened 3rd-level spell). That's maybe not such a good plan, since it means casting high-level spells is a no-go unless the caster has gobs of potions or healing wands to get that HP back. And at that point it's acting a lot like spells costing mana, compounded with the already-present limit per day.
A spellcasting system that I liked was in Mayhem RPG. Casters can cast whatever spells they have without any hard limit, but casting gives them "feedback" based on the tier of the spell and how many points they've put into that school (more points means less feedback to cast those spells, because you're becoming an expert at it). The caster's willpower determines how much feedback they can accumulate before they start risking HP damage. Once they cross that threshold, they start rolling and hoping they don't pop. However, feedback is easily removed: Spending 1 or 2 actions to quiet their mind will lower their feedback down to acceptable levels again.
So the caster can use spells of any level as often as he likes, but he has to manage his feedback carefully or it can toast him. Given a brief pause, he can collect his thoughts and start casting safely again. That said, if the caster is feeling lucky, he can gamble a bit by shooting his feedback above the safe limits with constant small spells or a couple biggies.
This has an advantage over nonlethal HP damage because the caster can manage it more safely (healing back the feedback, or lost HP), and it doesn't shut them down nearly as quickly or permanently. And they have some control over how heavily they can cast at any given time (their willpower stat). From there they decide how much they like to gamble.
Unfortunately, this doesn't translate easily to Pathfinder. Mayhem is a skill-based game: there are no levels, just your ability scores and some skill points to spend on your skills, spells, techniques, etc. In Pathfinder, which stat would we use for the Willpower? Wisdom? But doesn't that benefit casters that are already wisdom-based? Constitution maybe?
In Pathfinder, maybe when the caster has feedback greater than or equal to his max HP, he has to start rolling a d20 + (spell slot)^2 + current feedback. If that result exceeds his max HP, he takes the excess as non-lethal damage (or maybe lethal?). Each spell cast gives (spell slot - constitution mod)^2 feedback? Spend a move action to reduce feedback by your constitution score, or a standard action to reduce twice that? Ugh.
These sorts of features would have to be worked over ad-nauseum to get them right, and all the same, most pathfinder casters would balk at any system we created along these lines because it would "nerf casters". :( Even assuming we could create a great and fun system this way, people would still balk because they signed up to play D&D 3.75, not a totally new system where casters have stopped being walking rapid-fire artillery platforms. (I'm in the same boat. I suspect that Pathfinder just isn't set up for spells to work like this, and I'd say we should just go play a different system because radically changing spell rules in Pathfinder touches too much and breaks things. It will take a whole new edition to make such sweeping changes.)
TriOmegaZero:
True, though Lore Warden is just another archetype. This means it replaces class features to get those extra skill points and other bonuses. It's working under the assumption that martial classes are as powerful and versatile as they should ever be, and if you add something, then you must also take something away. Most of the discussion in this thread is taking the assumption that martial classes are severely under-performing in certain areas like skills, narrative power, and other out-of-combat features.
Giving up nearly all my armor proficiency, my shield proficiency, the Bravery bonus, armor training, etc hurts. It may possibly work for some builds, but for the rest we still are stuck in the same place: my fighter gets 2+int skill points per level, and that's silly. Skills are the window to the out-of-combat experience for martials. Spellcasters have umpteen many spells they can cast to get the same or better effects. So the argument goes, martial classes should have a few more skill points, without sacrificing their class features for them.
Whether or not everyone agrees is another matter, but that's the discussion at hand. :D
I personally would like to see more skill points for martials, unless they start getting features like "martial presence" to give them extraordinary abilities that compete with non-combat utility spells. But that's another matter entirely.
Speaking of out-of-combat powers, how many skill points *should* a fighter, ranger, rogue, monk or barbarian etc have? Have we decided on amounts? And should casters get 1 or 2 extra points per level too, or just martials?I think it's not just about the number of skill points. The thing is, with the current system, just maxing the ranks of a skill isn't usually enough to be really good at it - at most you can be mediocre. There needs to be class features supporting or using those skills too.
While giving martials a few extra skill points per level can afford them to not be really sucky out of combat, they'll still not have a schtick. That's why I made the fields of expertise the way they are - they'd at least give them some kind of schtick, some circumstance where they can not only not suck, but actually be quite decent and have something casters can't.
Because wizards will still get like 7 skill points per level, so boosting fighters to 4 still will leave them suckish at skills. Giving them +1/2 their level on a few thematic skills in addition to that can make quite a large difference.
Particularly *PHYSICAL* skills! Plus, they need a way to access skills such as Perception, Heal and Sense Motive as class skills. I think there should be a trait option for special training that grants these as options. . . .
Only certain martials need more skill points; Rangers are in a good place and so are Barbarians. Fighters and Paladins need more. . . .
Particularly *PHYSICAL* skills! Plus, they need a way to access skills such as Perception, Heal and Sense Motive as class skills. I think there should be a trait option for special training that grants these as options. . . .
Yeah, but the issue with physical skills apart from acrobatics is that they're just plain bad as skills.
But I think it's not just that; they need stuff to do when not in a dungeon. They (and everyone) need to have some kind of social ability too. That's why I put in Affiliation; basically, depending on what role in society/profession you have, you are better at dealing with that part of society. So if you're a fighter who's field of expertise is the nobility, you get:
Affiliation - You gain a bonus equal to ½ your level (minimum 1) on all intimidate and sense motive checks when dealing with the nobility and aristocracy.
(and due to having nobility field of expertise you get +1/2 level to all bluff and diplomacy checks, which is the only reason it isn't included in affiliation)
This means that even if the sorcerer is usually the face, you get a not neglible bonus to social skills when dealing with military, and with just a single rank in the skills you should be able to deal with them about as well as the sorcerer even if you have a mediocre charisma - because you know the ins and outs of military protocol, norms and social codes.
The idea of caster taking damage (non-lethal or otherwise) for doing magic by "using up their lifeforce" or something similar is something I've always wanted to see. Even if it was 1 point of non-lethal per spell level (0lvl spells give 1 point), it would give some impact, an make casters think.
Particularly *PHYSICAL* skills! Plus, they need a way to access skills such as Perception, Heal and Sense Motive as class skills. I think there should be a trait option for special training that grants these as options. . . .Yeah, but the issue with physical skills apart from acrobatics is that they're just plain bad as skills.
But I think it's not just that; they need stuff to do when not in a dungeon. They (and everyone) need to have some kind of social ability too. That's why I put in Affiliation; basically, depending on what role in society/profession you have, you are better at dealing with that part of society. So if you're a fighter who's field of expertise is the nobility, you get:
Affiliation - You gain a bonus equal to ½ your level (minimum 1) on all intimidate and sense motive checks when dealing with the nobility and aristocracy.
(and due to having nobility field of expertise you get +1/2 level to all bluff and diplomacy checks, which is the only reason it isn't included in affiliation)This means that even if the sorcerer is usually the face, you get a not neglible bonus to social skills when dealing with military, and with just a single rank in the skills you should be able to deal with them about as well as the sorcerer even if you have a mediocre charisma - because you know the ins and outs of military protocol, norms and social codes.
That's a good idea.
I already do affiliation in an informal way with my group, and that because we do social interaction informally in general. Definitely a good idea, and simple for those who want it in a mechanical way.
I love the Lore Warden archetype and my Lore Warden player has very solid skills. He also overinvested in feats and intelligence to have them. The baselines should be raised to 4+int like Barbarians have, and the archetype should remain as an additional cherry on top.
If your going to make casters have fatigue, you should give them a fort save based off of the spell level. DC10+spell level fort save would at least require an investment in a poor save for them.
|
The idea of caster taking damage (non-lethal or otherwise) for doing magic by "using up their lifeforce" or something similar is something I've always wanted to see. Even if it was 1 point of non-lethal per spell level (0lvl spells give 1 point), it would give some impact, an make casters think.
Ever play Call of Cthulhu?
Usually the spells cost Sanity, but some cost other things as well.
There's also no such thing as spell levels, or character levels. If your character finds and learns the biggest baddest spell in the system, he can cast it, even if it's only that character's second adventure.
Admittedly, if he casts the biggest baddest spell in the system, he will go insane, and the Azathtoth will destroy the solar system.
But he can do it if he wants to.
Many high-level spells in Pathfinder are designed with the expectation that the player can only cast them some number of times per day. If we implemented the fatigue system I described earlier, then the player could just rest briefly and then cast his super spell again and again. So there would still need to be other costs or limiters IMO.
But anyway, back to martials... ;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In ADnD, I remember playing a spellcaster of some kind that could create a massive amount of illusionary effects so long as he concentrated on the spell..
So first time I used it, I sat outside the docks where a small army of troops were. Targeting certain enemies, I used my spell to create whispers of twisted compliments into peoples ears (like, Oh shake that luscious booty), make them feel as though someone was tugging on their coin purses, pinching rumps and the like.
That one spell, I destroyed the armys as they broke down into fighting each other.
I did the same against a cult, vanishing from site, making things appear that were unreal.
And again in the sewers when we were being chased by bad guys..
This one spell I had the power to bend any encounter around on its head that could be effected by illusions.
What an excellent spell.
Yes with illusions you can still get such effects, if a dm is willing and appreciates your divergent reasoning to the norm to solve problems.
Last night I played a 1st level 2H Weapon Fighter, I could put down things quite easily with my Lucerne Hammer (+6 to hit, d12+9 damage) however the 1st level party Sorcerer could effectively put 3-4 things a round down and could do it 5 times a day.
Compared to AD&D my fighter is tougher yes, even if I had had a high 18 percentage Strength I would probably be something like the equivalent of +2 to hit, d10+4 damage if I was lucky. Hit points comparable.
In old editions fighters had lower to hit and damage, but monsters had much worse AC and hp. A red dragon great wyrm had roughly 100hp, while in PF it has 450. Also, AC was capped at -10 (which is the equivalent of AC 30). Now AC doesn't have a hard cap, and I've seen NPC with AC in the 60s Kingmaker's BBEG has 51 for example. Also, fighters did not have -5 to hit with itterative attacks. At level 15, with my half-elf fighter in AD&D, I was hitting dragons with a 2+, with every attack. That's never true in PF
A red dragon great wyrm had roughly 100hp
Huge, ancient red dragon: 88 hp.
Fighter 7 with a +1 bastard sword, 18/51 Str and double weapon specialization: attacks 2, damage 2d8+8. Assuming hits, dragon dead in 2.5 rounds, unless it killed you first.
A red dragon great wyrm had roughly 100hpHuge, ancient red dragon: 88 hp.
Fighter 7 with a +1 bastard sword, 18/51 Str and double weapon specialization: attacks 2, damage 2d8+8. Assuming hits, dragon dead in 2.5 rounds, unless it killed you first.
And that's without dual wielding, enlarge, gauntlets of ogre power, a frostbrand (I loved my frostbrand, +6 vs red dragons and devils. Yum), and if the fight was supposed to be tough, haste for double the attacks.
I remember killing Balors in the charge.
See: Feat Chain Mastery
Anyone have suggestions on:
1) Which feat chains to add to this?
2) How many feats should be included in each chain? I've been shooting for 4, but some feat chains can have more while others would probably have less.
I could, for example, include Power Attack in the cleave chain, and Two-Weapon Defense in the TWF chain. Or those can stay as optional feats that the player can take with their normal feat slots.
Thoughts?
Also, those of you who have offered your suggestions, let's get them onto the pfmartial wiki that Pandora has kindly provided!
I'm not fully on board with this approach, but I can see it's merits.
1) One for each combat maneuver, without the Int13 requirement. Potentially meld them together.
2) Four seems like a fine number.
Just one thing, I'd be careful with giving insta-access to it at level one for fighters. Fighters are already a quite strong dip-class, and dipping a single level to get weap&armor and _four_ bonus feats, or dipping two levels for _eight_ bonus feats, might be too strong. The same is true to some extent for ranger 2 and rogue 2, but I feel the ranger/rogue dips are mostly used for martial characters anyway so it's less of an issue.
Yea, I was worried the player could dip for too much. I may want to advance those forward.
Or maybe require a certain level in the class that granted the feat chain, e.g. their class level must meet or exceed the BAB requirement? And levels from multiple martial classes stack to meet this class requirement? Sounds convoluted though... and it may discourage players from ever dipping into prestige classes etc (or require that we painstakingly label each class and prestige class as martial vs non-martial, which gets ugly).
Not sure what else to do, other than push the feat chain bonuses to level 4. But that hurts pure fighters who were hoping to start with cleave, tripping, etc. Maybe they can take those feats at levels 1-3, but then get those feat slots back when they take the feat chain that grants them...?
"If a feat chain grants a feat you already have, you may select a replacement combat feat for which you meet all the requirements"?
I was wondering if anyone had any ideas about making martial characters that can work as well as full casters. I know the devs said that there is no difference and anyone who disagrees with that is someone with an agenda. My agenda has nothing to do with that, I just want a balanced game. (There are whole other posts about how much fighters suck more than casters and martials, so can we keep those posts to this post please).
In my experience, the easiest way to balance the martials to the casters, is to extend the adventuring day.
Casters are more powerful than martials because they have limited resources. If you extend the day, and the casters are required to conserve and manage their resources or risk running out before the adventuring day is over, then the classes are already balanced.
If your casters are free to fire off their big spells in every fight, knowing they will be able to rest afterwards, then nothing you do to the martials will ever balance the classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
=In my experience, the easiest way to balance the martials to the casters, is to extend the adventuring day.
This has been answered ad nauseum, and I can only assume no one will read this one, either, but here goes anyway:
Unless you nerf or outright remove certain spells from the game, you cannot extend the day. At 10th level, the cleric prepares two plane shift spells. When the wizard runs low on spells, the whole party plane shifts to a fast-time plane where they rest 8 hours while maybe 8 seconds go by, back in on the Prime. When good to go, they plane shift back. Even if you start limiting that (refusing to allow variable time, etc.), a magnificent mansion means uninterrupted rest at will -- which leads to the next thing.
"Oh!" you say, "Put all adventures on a strict timer!" In addition to feeling very contrived after you use it 3-4 times, this has several other problems. First off, it encourages the casters to use divination and transportation spells to bypass most of the encounters outright, since you've convinced them they don't have time for all that fighting. You can nerf that in various ways -- which again starts to feel VERY contrived -- but even then, what you end up accomplishing is killing fighters. Because, if your strict timer is even slightly legit, they don't have the leisure to stand around expending charges from a cheap wand after each fight. So they go into the next one at lower hp -- and get killed. Way to go.
TL;DR: The ONLY way to make "extend the adventuring day!" work is by selectively nerfing a lot of spells, having arbitrary timers that only apply to certain things, and providing infinite fast healing after every encounter. And even then, after a couple of adventures, it starts really crumbling the barriers of immersion in a lot of players.
While that is true, and is even more true at higher levels, it should be noted that 10th level is 2/3's through an adventure path. It should also be noted that the cleric is spending half of it's highest-level spells, and that travelling to the outer planes without a specific destination can be dangerous at level 10. It should also be noted that when travelling back they appear 5d100 miles from where they began, which will at least require another spell to teleport them to where they want to be, and that could have issues of it's own.
At 10th level, I would not rate that as a good staple tactic. Too many things can go wrong, including random monsters (even most of the nicer planes have dangers) and the 11% risk of failing the teleport check when going back into the dungeon.
And of course, having to put down 3 5th level spells at level 10 and keeping an extra as backup if you fail the teleport is in a way also reducing the caster/martial disparity.
Star Wars used Vitality and Wound points.
Vitality was like hit points but when a jedi used the force it cost him vitality. Turning a hit into a narrow miss cost vitality.
Wound points were equal to the constitution score. A wound gave you -2 to everything.
Could do that.
A red dragon great wyrm had roughly 100hpHuge, ancient red dragon: 88 hp.
Fighter 7 with a +1 bastard sword, 18/51 Str and double weapon specialization: attacks 2, damage 2d8+8. Assuming hits, dragon dead in 2.5 rounds, unless it killed you first.
Hey!
That's 2d8+7, tyvm!Bastard sword 2h for 2-8, 2-16 vs size L.
Sword +1.
18/51 Str for +2/+3.
Double Weapon Spec for +3/+3.
Attacking vs AC -1, base to hit of +7 (yes, I know it's a 14), +6 for bonuses = 13, hits on 8 or better.
Level 7 = 2 at/round.
Dragon: 88 Hp, THACO: 9, #At: 3, dmg 3-30/1-10/1-10. AC: -1. Breathes fire for damage equal to its hit points, bring your Resist Fire!
---
I know, I know. But I just had to. I don't remember the move rates.
==Aelryinth
As far as level dipping goes, the DM should be controlling that better. A starting characters has to spend 1d4 years training to become a Fighter, but once you start play you can do it in the short amount of time that exists between adventures? Nonsense.
If they want to train to be a Fighter, then they have to spend the time it takes to train. If they want to start off with multiple classes, then their starting age is affected by all of your classes. Have fun being a middle-aged adventurer.
I'm just saying that if people are concerned about the effects of level-dipping, there's something that can be done to fix that and it shouldn't be a road block to fixing a class that really needs to be fixed.
I agree that Fighters should get more skill points. Look at it this way, a Fighter gets the same base number of skill points as a Wizard. This is supposed to be because their combat training soaks up all of their time that would otherwise be spent on learning skills; much like a Wizard spends all his time learning the secrets of magic. This seems to suggest that the dedication and effort it takes to learn combat feats is the same in intensity as learning how to manipulate the fabric of reality.
What? That makes no sense at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Controlling level dipping hurts martial classes more than anyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's exactly why martial classes should be fixed. A martial class shouldn't HAVE TO dip into anything else to be an effective class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter and wizard do NOT get the same number of skill points. Remember, Intelligence is the wizard's core stat, so it will generally be very high. A wizard is likely to have 6+ skill points per level. Plus more for favored class or human if he takes those options.
The fighter? Well, if he's going with 13 Int for certain feats, he'll enjoy 3 per level (plus any for human and/or favored class, if he takes those). The fighter often has little incentive to put more points into Int, especially if he's stretched thin between strength and either Con, Dex or Cha (depending on his focus).
Many games claim that learning spellcasting is incredibly complex and time-consuming, and thus spellcasters enjoy fewer points for skills than other classes normally do. Martial characters supposedly have more time to expand out. However, in D&D they said "oh well, fighter training is extremely hard! And fighters get all these feats. Yippie for them! Why, they don't need any skills at all, they just stab things. And if anybody gets uppity about it, we'll just swat them in the ears." (read in the style of Zero Punctuation)
;)
But spellcasters like sorcerer have 2+int and don't necessarily have a high int score, right? Well... here's the problem: they have spells. The range of effects available with skills wilt in embarrassment when compared to the breadth and utility of spells. Especially as levels rise. So it's fitting that a spellcaster has so few skillpoints. It's... odd... that a martial character like fighter has so few. In balance terms, it makes no sense at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. I didn't want to bring in the Intelligence factor for skills because, even though it has a definite impact, it's too variable. I chose instead to remove the individual character from the equation and compare only what the classes actually grant.
In my opinion, many (not all) of the threads like this on this site revolve around one issue; a player desires to play a character concept and are forced to play a character class instead. Quite simply, Pathfinder is poorly suited to support any character concept that goes beyond the character concept inherent to a class. Pathfinder is better than past versions of D&D, but it's still limited to class roles and doesn't like to blur those lines.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I argue that you can't separate intelligence, particularly with the wizard vs fighter comparison because it consistently matters a ton. Wizards are very skillful mages, fighters are rarely skill-blessed martials. But anyway...
I do agree that Pathfinder doesn't lend itself very well to varying character creation. It's very much a package deal: you get a bunch of features in a bundle called a class and there's not a ton of mix & match. But it's still lots of fun if you go into it knowing this. And there's a lot you can do with dabbling across classes and with your feat & spell selection.
But the martial and caster disparity is troubling. Improving martials is what we're here to figure out.
Switching gears, lets look at the martials' spell list equivalent, combat maneuvers. They're not really the same, since ALL classes gain access to combat maneuvers, but it's the closest thing that they have to a spell list.
All casters have a built in ability (concentration check) that offers a chance to mitigate the AoO that casting a spell generates. So why not automatically grant martials a concentration check (adding their Str) to use combat maneuvers without provoking AoOs?
This would free up some of their general feats to pursue other areas of study without compromising their role in combat.
The Improved and Greater combat maneuver feats would still be viable options for those who don't want to have to bother with concentration checks for particular maneuvers and want to be especially effective at using them.
I agree with colemcm, intelligence is detached of skill points gained through class, also what about sorcerers they function with charisma.
Making a comparison between fighters and wizards.
Both gained 2 skill points per level.
Both have one good save.
Fighters have weapon and armor proficiency, wizards have cantrips.
Fighters have three class features: weapon training (good), armor training (also good), and bravery (this one really suck).
And wizards have three class feature (the ones gained for specialization).
Fighters have full BAB and wizards have the arcane bond.
Finally and this is in my opinion what makes the difference
Fighters get 11 feats and wizards get 5 feats and spells, spells are the most amazing stuff on the game, and why not this is high fantasy. So in order to make fighters more competitive they need some nice toys too, and their feats are the place for that, like making a list, similar to rage powers.
Edit: thinking about this and how chains of feats are terrible, what about making the fighter bonus feats allow you to take two or three combat feats. Also I always feel that option ala ToB will be great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
edduardco:
Normally intelligence is detached from skill points, except in the case where a class enjoys having intelligence as its core stat. It's reasonable to contrast the sorcerer's skill points with those of the fighter, but the wizard is unreasonably skilled in comparison. Wizards don't compete with rogues, but they do well against many other classes in total skill points because they already have a high intelligence (while most other classes won't). There are some classes that are able to take exception to this without major losses, but most others boost their Int at great cost to their core stats.
So it's not accurate to say Wizard and Fighter are on the same footing in terms of skill points. It's just not being honest to ourselves when the default wizard will have 6+ per level and the default fighter will have 2 or 3.
colemcm:
I'm not keen on adding more rules to the already over-rules-burdened maneuvers, but I get your intent. It would be nice if the player could avoid some OAs using, say, intelligence or wisdom. Or even dex? Or a feat that covers all maneuvers. But it probably should not add much to the complexity of trying a maneuver, or require that the player sink too many resources (e.g. feats or stats) to use it effectively. Maneuvers are already a mess of rules and are costly to specialize in for their effects, and that's when you're fighting enemies they'll work against. ;) All too often, enemies laugh at the poor fools who try maneuvers because of the way CMD is calculated.
For avoiding the OA: Maybe make a basic dex/int check vs opponent's wisdom? Might be too simple though, and heavily favors certain characters on one side or the other.
Note that there are also weapons which overcome the OA issue for specific maneuvers, though that does restrict the player's weapon choice a lot. If the maneuver feats were reworked the way we were discussing pages back, we might not need any special OA bypass rules?
|
|
A red dragon great wyrm had roughly 100hpHuge, ancient red dragon: 88 hp.
Fighter 7 with a +1 bastard sword, 18/51 Str and double weapon specialization: attacks 2, damage 2d8+8. Assuming hits, dragon dead in 2.5 rounds, unless it killed you first.
Actually, I can attest to this.
I had a fighter named Garr who specilized in 2h swords. I mean like really really specialized in them. Garr fought a red dragon that came down at them, lopping its head off in two strikes. Granted, the dragon came very close to killing me as well. but I won the fight.