Tying back into the main topic, why is it terribad for skills to be able to do semi-cool things fairly easily if you invest enough in it and roll well, but okay for casters to go "Lol, I cast a spell" and do them one better?
I don't really think it is ok either way. I'm solidly in the "magic is too powerful" camp.
Here my opinion , although Spell casters are powerful, they are even more powerful cause most GM are nice to them and will not do tricks players do. Caster tend to be High offense , low defense
For example if a party see four drow coming down the hall way, one in plate carrying a two handed sword, another in leather with a Rapier and short sword, a third with a mace and holy symbol on her shield and the fourth n robes with a staff, the party is going to try to turn the one in robes into a pink cloud on turn one. and maybe hit the cleric with anything left over. But most Gm will not Not do the same to the Wizards in the party. they will often target the melee types cause they know they can take it, instead of the casters.
Might mention we have a Barbarian with two level of fleet and improved bulls Rush just so he can get up close and personal with any enemy caster we meet., its slightly difficult to cast a spell when you have a axe in your face.But if a non player Orc did that many players playing caster would say the Gm is gunning for them.
Also Wizards and other Caster do best when they know what they are going into and worse when they are surprised. For example if the Wizard knows he going against Salamanders he can take Ice spells, but if suddenly there a couple of Earth elementals the Wizard may not have the right spells.. And I sen GM all but give the name of the big bad guys children to the caster so they can prepare the right spells
Tying back into the main topic, why is it terribad for skills to be able to do semi-cool things fairly easily if you invest enough in it and roll well, but okay for casters to go "Lol, I cast a spell" and do them one better?I don't really think it is ok either way. I'm solidly in the "magic is too powerful" camp.
I'm solidly in the "sweeping nerfs to magic would have me play a different system" camp.
Magic is not OP. But it is the essence of this game. A few spell tweaks is acceptable, but huge sweeping mechanical nerfs is something a disagree with.
Here my opinion , although Spell casters are powerful, they are even more powerful cause most GM are nice to them and will not do tricks players do. Caster tend to be High offense , low defense
For example if a party see four drow coming down the hall way, one in plate carrying a two handed sword, another in leather with a Rapier and short sword, a third with a mace and holy symbol on her shield and the fourth n robes with a staff, the party is going to try to turn the one in robes into a pink cloud on turn one. and maybe hit the cleric with anything left over. But most Gm will not Not do the same to the Wizards in the party. they will often target the melee types cause they know they can take it, instead of the casters.
Might mention we have a Barbarian with two level of fleet and improved bulls Rush just so he can get up close and personal with any enemy caster we meet., its slightly difficult to cast a spell when you have a axe in your face.But if a non player Orc did that many players playing caster would say the Gm is gunning for them.
Also Wizards and other Caster do best when they know what they are going into and worse when they are surprised. For example if the Wizard knows he going against Salamanders he can take Ice spells, but if suddenly there a couple of Earth elementals the Wizard may not have the right spells.. And I sen GM all but give the name of the big bad guys children to the caster so they can prepare the right spells
This is what I do. Powerful, intelligent enemies know all the tricks. They use them against the players. They definitely try to kill casters first.
Tying back into the main topic, why is it terribad for skills to be able to do semi-cool things fairly easily if you invest enough in it and roll well, but okay for casters to go "Lol, I cast a spell" and do them one better?I don't really think it is ok either way. I'm solidly in the "magic is too powerful" camp.I'm solidly in the "sweeping nerfs to magic would have me play a different system" camp.
Magic is not OP. But it is the essence of this game. A few spell tweaks is acceptable, but huge sweeping mechanical nerfs is something a disagree with.
Pathfinder is not my favorite RPG--probably not even top 5. I play it mostly because I'm playing with a group that has never played anything else and I'd like to ease them into better games.
Pathfinder has a place, though. It's very accessible--it's ok. For the first 6-8 levels, it's pretty fair--I like E6 and E8 a lot.
I'm currently running a game, for example, where the only full casters are a pair of Oracles I know for a fact won't abuse magic (because they hate making characters, so I built them for them based on what they wanted), so I'm not concerned and the game will go well even at high levels.
I'm solidly in the "sweeping nerfs to magic would have me play a different system" camp.
Yes, everyone knows your opinion on the matter and it isn't changing any minds. Until you pick up MANY more ranks in diplomacy you can go ahead and stop copy/pasting it onto every page of every thread even vaguelly threatening the status quo, thanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm solidly in the "sweeping nerfs to magic would have me play a different system" camp.Yes, everyone knows your opinion on the matter and it isn't changing any minds. Until you pick up MANY more ranks in diplomacy you can go ahead and stop copy/pasting it onto every page of every thread even vaguelly threatening the status quo, thanks.
I assume most people don't remember me from other threads because who really cares that much?
People remember me from thread to thread. In fact, I usually remember people too. Kind of a community thing, you know? I even got recognized by people at PaizoCon!
The exception that proves the rule.
*We love you TOZ!
Exceptionally stinky!
Say, would you like a chocolate covered pretzel?
It gives me a lot of hope that SKR (who I consider to be the most resistant to change of the dev team that posts regularly) is an advocate of making a "line" above which martial characters are explicitly superhuman and thus can perform feats of skill beyond normal man.
So, that's an option if PF is ever revised entirely, hopefully.
I'd like to see people with high Acrobatics able to walk on clouds and hop on leaves floating in the breeze, people with Climb/Swim ranks actually gain a Climb/Swim speed and some other bonus based on it (low-light vision and a bonus to holding your breath underwater or summat at high enough ranks?), Sense Motive be able to eventually cut through all deception (Illusions, as well as detecting enchantments and lies), and so on.
That would go a LOOOONG way to bringing martials up to par with casters in the everyday. Let casters remain the masters of long range transport (Overland Flight, Teleport, and so on), but make martials able to achieve effectively magical (and more consistent) feats at higher skill ranks and bonuses.
It'd have to be carefully balanced, sure, but so worth it both in Rule of Cool and balance between the class types.
It gives me a lot of hope that SKR (who I consider to be the most resistant to change of the dev team that posts regularly) is an advocate of making a "line" above which martial characters are explicitly superhuman and thus can perform feats of skill beyond normal man.
We actually agree on this part.
I'd like to see people with high Acrobatics able to walk on clouds
You'd probably want it to be a bit more reasonable number than 120 right?
Anyways, casters would also have access to it if it were based on skill ranks. Tome of Battle gave options to martials similar to that, and its always been one of my favorite 3.5 books. I'd just start looking for another game or conversions if its that big of an overhaul though.
That would go a LOOOONG way to bringing martials up to par with casters in the everyday.
I don't see how--casters get skills, too. In fact, the best skill users in the game (Bards, Magi, Alchemists, Wizards, Sage Sorcerers) are all casters.
I think this would do about as much to help the caster/martial divide as magic items do. "Oh, but magic items help martials do what spellcasters do." Yeah, and then casters also get magic items, so they're still ahead.
One of three things (or a combination of them) will happen:
1) Magic gets knocked down a peg
2) Martials get something new specific to them that spellcasters don't (i.e. not skills, not feats, not items, etc.)
3) The divide will remain
I felt like ToB was the 4th ed dry run. 4ed martials share many thematic qualities with ToB chars.
This is both good and bad depending on what kind of fighter you want to play.
Personally I would like to play Gutz from Berserk for my fighters.
|
What if the Martials got climb speeds or swim speeds only if it was granted by x ranks in a skill that was a class skill that the class provided (not one through traits/other classes) or if they got ranks of a certain number and the ranks were equal to BAB? Then casters would have a harder time getting them (other than paladins/rangers with 1/3 casting).
Anyways, casters would also have access to it if it were based on skill ranks. Tome of Battle gave options to martials similar to that, and its always been one of my favorite 3.5 books. I'd just start looking for another game or conversions if its that big of an overhaul though.
I see this is a common sentiment, but I don't see it. I loved Tome of Battle, but it didn't help the caster/martial disparity at all, it solved totally different issues.
1) It made combat more mobile and killed the tyranny of the Full Attack Action. The maneuvers almost all took standard actions and generally had the effects of a full attack, so it was more fun to play a martial.
2) It gave martials something interesting to do other than repeat the phrase "I attack" over and over. Sure, those interesting things were just attacks, but they had names and weird effects and felt like you were doing something new and interesting.
But it never closed the martial/caster divide. Tome of Battle Maneuvers mostly did damage comparable to full attacking, or added great mobility, or procced bonus attacks, or maybe generated a status condition. They never gave versatility out of combat, they never changed the way the game was played--spellcasters retained ultimate cosmic power, and martials just weren't as bored being inferior anymore.
The one and only power that came close to what needs to be done to fix the divide was Iron Heart Surge. I love that power--it was the best power in the book as far as I'm concerned, and it is exactly what I expect fighters should be able to do. Conan can shake off mind control and punch out the evil wizard--why can't D&D martials?
Yes, Iron Heart Surge exemplifies what martials should do, in my mind. The rest was just prettied up full attacks in a standard action package. Good, but not earth-shattering or paradigm-changing.
Anyways, casters would also have access to it if it were based on skill ranks. Tome of Battle gave options to martials similar to that, and its always been one of my favorite 3.5 books. I'd just start looking for another game or conversions if its that big of an overhaul though.I see this is a common sentiment, but I don't see it. I loved Tome of Battle, but it didn't help the caster/martial disparity at all, it solved totally different issues.
1) It made combat more mobile and killed the tyranny of the Full Attack Action. The maneuvers almost all took standard actions and generally had the effects of a full attack, so it was more fun to play a martial.
2) It gave martials something interesting to do other than repeat the phrase "I attack" over and over. Sure, those interesting things were just attacks, but they had names and weird effects and felt like you were doing something new and interesting.
But it never closed the martial/caster divide. Tome of Battle Maneuvers mostly did damage comparable to full attacking, or added great mobility, or procced bonus attacks, or maybe generated a status condition. They never gave versatility out of combat, they never changed the way the game was played--spellcasters retained ultimate cosmic power, and martials just weren't as bored being inferior anymore.
The one and only power that came close to what needs to be done to fix the divide was Iron Heart Surge. I love that power--it was the best power in the book as far as I'm concerned, and it is exactly what I expect fighters should be able to do. Conan can shake off mind control and punch out the evil wizard--why can't D&D martials?
Yes, Iron Heart Surge exemplifies what martials should do, in my mind. The rest was just prettied up full attacks in a standard action package. Good, but not earth-shattering or paradigm-changing.
Hahahahaha
ToB martials were better than all but the most stupid opt casters. Which you have to clarify that because in 3.5 because a level 1 and a level 4 build could ascend to Godhood and take over the universe.
But it never closed the martial/caster divide. Tome of Battle Maneuvers mostly did damage comparable to full attacking, or added great mobility, or procced bonus attacks, or maybe generated a status condition. They never gave versatility out of combat, they never changed the way the game was played--spellcasters retained ultimate cosmic power, and martials just weren't as bored being inferior anymore.
There were a few other abilities that were nifty, such as 30 foot blind sense with a stance, thicket of blades made a great lockdown stance, the stone hammer line was the best lock pick in the world. I'm sure there are a few others. I said it gave them some cool things, but I never said it really fixed the divide. I said to look for a new system if you really wanted that.
I've never been recognized outside these forums. :(
I've never been recognized outside these forums. :(
Neither have I! But to be fair I don't do much with society play anymore, which is a much different environment.
I said to look for a new system if you really wanted that.
I have those :)
Savage Worlds is my favorite, but its still not perfect. I'm trying to make my own, but motivation and time are hard to find as well.
I have to play Pathfinder a lot, though (and with the other group I play with, I have to play World of Darkness a lot), because it's not just up to me what the group plays. So, I'd like to make the games I think are good, but not great (Pathfinder, WoD) into something closer to my ideal.
Ok... Hopefully this will never see the light of day in pathfinder :PTying back into the main topic, why is it terribad for skills to be able to do semi-cool things fairly easily if you invest enough in it and roll well, but okay for casters to go "Lol, I cast a spell" and do them one better?I have always wanted Skill tricks for rogues that let them do more with skill that what is now possible.
But What are those semi-cool tings? Because mental domination if I have high enough diplomacy would be immediately banned in my games. With things like this a NPC do not need Dominate person to control the actions of your character, he just need high enough Bluff.
Hmmm... This could actually be balanced, but it'd would need a few limitations...
1- It should require a minimum number of skill ranks in Diplomacy or whatever skill you find better appropriate (I'd use Bluff for Illusion effects), so a hyper-specialized 1st level character doesn't get it too soon. For a "Charm Person" effect, 5 skill ranks seems reasonable, since it's a 1st level spell.
2- It should allow a save (DC = 10 + 1/2 skill ranks in Diplomacy + Cha modifier?), and whether or not the target makes it saves, it can't be the target of this ability again for 24h... Just like a Witch's Hex.
3- It should be considered a Charm (or Compulsion) effect, so that appropriate bonuses and immunities apply.
i Disagree with the concept of not wanting to see such a thing
i want to see skill checks mimic appropriate spells.
a high enough diplomacy check should be akin to full on mind control.
but at the same time, i don't want to see hyperspecialized 1st level characters pull this off.
just characters at 5th level and higher
in fact, i would recommend consolidating skills in the next edition for this
for the love of God, only give the cinematic skill abilities to classes that actually need them.
I'd call that arbitrary. "I'm sorry, but your name is Rogue. Your not actually capable of swimming as well as the guy who put 'Barbarian' on his character sheet." Also would require additional rules for multicasting, hopefully ones that don't make it any more awful than it is.
You can only have as many skill ranks in a skill as you have levels, never more, so that isn't an issue, proftobe.
You do however have a skill total that varies between classes. The idea a guy with a -2 to dexterity learns a climb speed with 5 ranks but the guy with +6 and 4 ranks doesn't is kind of silly. And even if you cap it at 9 ranks that doesn't mean the character actually has 9 ranks at level 9. Fighter(poor fighter...) just sucks in the skill department. Gets 2+ skill points, same as the wizard, but probably won't ever have the same totals or out of combat effectiveness. I've played wizards with more skill ranks than the party rogue.
I look at it this way. If you improve skills for everyone, non-casters gain the most benefit.
If you improve combat feats for everyone, fighters gain the most benefit, followed by other martials, and then divine casters, with no gain for wizards.
Letting casters do cool stuff with skills isn't a problem. The skills being talked about are skill most casters do not get anyways.
I look at it this way. If you improve skills for everyone, non-casters gain the most benefit.
If you improve combat feats for everyone, fighters gain the most benefit, followed by other martials, and then divine casters, with no gain for wizards.
Letting casters do cool stuff with skills isn't a problem. The skills being talked about are skill most casters do not get anyways.
skills with which they can still invest cross class ranks into without any penalty but the lack of a class skill bonus and maybe a slightly weaker base attribute.
skills with which they can still invest cross class ranks into without any penalty but the lack of a class skill bonus and maybe a slightly weaker base attribute.I look at it this way. If you improve skills for everyone, non-casters gain the most benefit.
If you improve combat feats for everyone, fighters gain the most benefit, followed by other martials, and then divine casters, with no gain for wizards.
Letting casters do cool stuff with skills isn't a problem. The skills being talked about are skill most casters do not get anyways.
But why would they when casters have their own skills that they need?
Carefully balance the new class system. In class should have more weight and make so that the wizards lesser bonus is the difference between the skill check being like a spell and being worse than a spell.
Tying back into the main topic, why is it terribad for skills to be able to do semi-cool things fairly easily if you invest enough in it and roll well, but okay for casters to go "Lol, I cast a spell" and do them one better?I have always wanted Skill tricks for rogues that let them do more with skill that what is now possible.
But What are those semi-cool tings? Because mental domination if I have high enough diplomacy would be immediately banned in my games. With things like this a NPC do not need Dominate person to control the actions of your character, he just need high enough Bluff.
Hmmm... This could actually be balanced, but it'd would need a few limitations...
1- It should require a minimum number of skill ranks in Diplomacy or whatever skill you find better appropriate (I'd use Bluff for Illusion effects), so a hyper-specialized 1st level character doesn't get it too soon. For a "Charm Person" effect, 5 skill ranks seems reasonable, since it's a 1st level spell.
2- It should allow a save (DC = 10 + 1/2 skill ranks in Diplomacy + Cha modifier?), and whether or not the target makes it saves, it can't be the target of this ability again for 24h... Just like a Witch's Hex.
3- It should be considered a Charm (or Compulsion) effect, so that appropriate bonuses and immunities apply.
Forgot one...
4- This effect should require 1min of "casting".
Ok... Hopefully this will never see the light of day in pathfinder :P
I think it'd be pretty well balanced... Not so powerful that spells become obsolete, and not so weak that it's pointless... Giving skills powerful effects makes sense... Any 6th level character is already above what even the most capable humans can do IRL, so they should have appropriate skills.
Although I'd like to make all sorts of mind-control less powerful. IMO, Charm effects should make someone treat you as their idol/best friend/personal hero, but not give you control over their actions, that should be restricted to Compulsion effects only.
What's the problem with high-level skill checks creating powerful effects? Many 1st~2nd level spells obsolete all sorts of skills...
skills with which they can still invest cross class ranks into without any penalty but the lack of a class skill bonus and maybe a slightly weaker base attribute.I look at it this way. If you improve skills for everyone, non-casters gain the most benefit.
If you improve combat feats for everyone, fighters gain the most benefit, followed by other martials, and then divine casters, with no gain for wizards.
Letting casters do cool stuff with skills isn't a problem. The skills being talked about are skill most casters do not get anyways.
But why would they when casters have their own skills that they need?
Carefully balance the new class system. In class should have more weight and make so that the wizards lesser bonus is the difference between the skill check being like a spell and being worse than a spell.
then by doing that you have penalized, the fighter, monk, barbarian, cavalier, and samurai, who cannot afford the charisma for diplomacy, nor invest much in dexterity for dex based skills.
i'm going to work on a Rogue Vs Monk Thread
i'm going to work on a Rogue Vs Monk Thread
Please don't. That will spark another way of rogue and monk threads.
then by doing that you have penalized, the fighter, monk, barbarian, cavalier, and samurai, who cannot afford the charisma for diplomacy, nor invest much in dexterity for dex based skills.
I'm still against turning social skills into mind control.
I'm still against turning social skills into mind control.
I actually agree. I've had DMs who play social skills like that before and it feels like its taking even more of the thrill out of RPing than just rolling for it and it really takes away the fun if its used against you in that way.
i'm going to work on a Rogue Vs Monk ThreadPlease don't. That will spark another way of rogue and monk threads.
then by doing that you have penalized, the fighter, monk, barbarian, cavalier, and samurai, who cannot afford the charisma for diplomacy, nor invest much in dexterity for dex based skills.I'm still against turning social skills into mind control.
okay. i won't build the Monk Vs. Rogue build thread
but i think we need one to show, who stands up top between the two weakest classes in the game,
so that it doesn't need to end up taking over this one.
We can call it "The DPR Special Olympics"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The DRP Special Olympics...
Even if you win, you're still a monk or rogue.
:(
|
|
okay. i won't build the Monk Vs. Rogue build thread
but i think we need one to show, who stands up top between the two weakest classes in the game,
so that it doesn't need to end up taking over this one.
Meh, I'll probably build one soon anyway, just so that its clear enough and the pathfinder message board community knows what to houserule improve first.
If you want to use such a system then decouple skill points from Int and then give a number of points based on class type. Martials might get, say 10 per level. Partial casters get 6 and full casters get 3. If you want an in game rationale then those classes spend too much of their time studying magic to focus on mundane skills.
At that point your creating a new system though aren't you? May as well just play a game with more free form like one of the white wolf games(vampire the masquerade/exaulted).
I prefer each ability score granting skill points for associated skills. Dexterity for acrobatics and the like. skill ranks could be spent on skills that are not associated at double cost.