yep, played a heavily skill-focussed rogue in a game with a chain-tripper back in 3.5 a few years back. As you can imagine, every combat involved with the fighter (/barbarian/psychicwarrior/bwuh) literally sweeping the floor with her spiked chain and me rolling +10 to hit with a shortbow dealing 1d6 damage if it hit.
But the effectiveness in combat didn't dictate the group dynamics however- as I demonstrated time and time again how a good dice roll on bluff/diplomacy can earn just as much xp and let everyone participate in fun game of scheming and plotting...
In a series of few sessions the party defended a small kingdom from an invading force of a much larger kingdom, framing the enemy general with a forged letter from his mistress (who lived in the small kingdom we were defending) and causing his defection to our side. Well him and some hundred-ish elite strike force he trained himself.
So the immediate war was averted and a truce of a sort was made through careful diplomacy (I had +40odd in diplomacy) and political espionage (read: sneak into some nobleman's house and cut down all the plotters!), we were hailed as the heroes of legend. Quite a fitting ending to a group of level 13 characters, I think.
So yeah, TL;DR, it's the group dynamics and the amount of spotlight in each character that makes a game 'fun', not how effectve each one is in combat. If someone can handle themselves in combat so well that they can cover for the skill-monkey, it's even better!
Skills should be a secondary thing available to all classes
the problem with a skill monkey class, is that it doesn't work unless skills are highly restricted in access.
Or... You could make skills more useful and give skill-monkeys even more tricks.
(e.g.: Whenever a Rogue makes a skill check, she can roll twice and use the better result, or she gets Hide in Plain Sight, so Stealth becomes more useful.)Just like Fighters are the ones who would benefit the most from scaling feats, despite the fact that every class would be buffed.
Problem is... Paizo has a this annoying tendency of nerfing everything else instead of buffing specialists (e.g.: They removed Armor Proficiency from Combat-trained Animal Companions to make Cavaliers look better)
So instead of having 1 weak character, we have 1 weak character and several character who became weaker just so the weak one didn't feel too bad... ¬¬'
Rangers could use a small buff IMO. Nothing too fancy... Full Animal Companion would be nice...
Skills should be a secondary thing available to all classes
the problem with a skill monkey class, is that it doesn't work unless skills are highly restricted in access.
Or... You could make skills more useful and give skill-monkeys even more tricks.
(e.g.: Whenever a Rogue makes a skill check, she can roll twice and use the better result, or she gets Hide in Plain Sight, so Stealth becomes more useful.)Just like Fighters are the ones who would benefit the most from scaling feats, despite the fact that every class would be buffed.
Problem is... Paizo has a this annoying tendency of nerfing everything else instead of buffing specialists (e.g.: They removed Armor Proficiency from Combat-trained Animal Companions to make Cavaliers look better)
So instead of having 1 weak character, we have 1 weak character and several character who became weaker just so the weak one didn't feel too bad... ¬¬'
not only would i recommend that, i would also recommmend allowing skills to achieve related, but seemingly impossible effects that border the supernatural.
such as a high enough diplomacy check becoming mind control, a high enough swim giving you a swim speed and the ability to swim in a hurricane for weeks, or a high enough stealth allowing you to hide in plain sight.
Or they print things like "Teleport to another planet"
Which Greater Teleport could already do, but they wanted to print that spell so just decided that a previous option could do less than the "unlimited" spell range says it can.
Yeah buff skills and give the rogue skill tricks instead of rogue tricks. Everyone wins!
I absolutely despise the idea of nerfing casters just to make concepts that aren't fun for some people less unfun in comparison.
Rangers could use a small buff IMO. Nothing too fancy... Full Animal Companion would be nice...
full animal companion, and full access to the entire list of animal companions a druid may choose from.
cavalier, give them full access to druidic animal companions too
paladin as well
Problem is... Paizo has a this annoying tendency of nerfing everything else instead of buffing specialists (e.g.: They removed Armor Proficiency from Combat-trained Animal Companions to make Cavaliers look better)
You know what martials need? Patient strike! Oh, and to nerf and confuse two weapon fighting. Yeah!
You know what casters need? This cool new feat(planned Spontaneity) that lets them use split slots for 3 spells every time they prepare with almost no prereqs or limitations. Yeah!
I have no idea how that happened, but it did...
Anyways, I like a game where everyone gets some problem solving skills. The skill system in 3.5 was awful for that, 3.5 is a little better but the legacy of 2+ skill points for non intellect based characters is just unreasonable. Options would really help martial classes, I really wish they gave them options. Poor fighter.
Rangers could use a small buff IMO. Nothing too fancy... Full Animal Companion would be nice...full animal companion, and full access to the entire list of animal companions a druid may choose from.
cavalier, give them full access to druidic animal companions too
paladin as well
I don't know, you might ruin the devs perfect vision of people on horseback in their fantasy game. Its not like there are any iconic characters riding giant cats around into battle? Those guys would be real He-Men.
I can't find either of those...
I don't know, you might ruin the devs perfect vision of people on horseback in their fantasy game. Its not like there are any iconic characters riding giant cats around into battle? Those guys would be real He-Men.Rangers could use a small buff IMO. Nothing too fancy... Full Animal Companion would be nice...full animal companion, and full access to the entire list of animal companions a druid may choose from.
cavalier, give them full access to druidic animal companions too
paladin as well
he Man rides a giant cat
Cherche from fire emblem awakening rides a Freaking Wyvern and wields an Axe or Lance (she can use both fairly well)
Caeda from fire emblem shadow dragon rides a freaking pegasus
Tarna from heavy metal rides a freaking giant bird
Eragon rides a freaking dragon
these are all examples of concepts that are fantasy inspired cavalrymen that don't ride horses
heck, Suikoden 5 had a guild of cavalrymen that rode Wyverns too
if you promote Sumia or Cordelia in fire emblem awakening, they can potentially ride a griffon and use healing wands as well as lances
I can't find either of those...
New in the pathfinder society primer. The same book has a prestige that's possibly weaker than the rogue. May take a while to hit the PFSRD, but another database might have it, as might a friend you know. There was a blog a while back previewing 2 of the feats in the book. It was talked about right at the end of the worst feats thread. This book probably has a few contendors.
I can't find either of those...New in the pathfinder society primer. The same book has a prestige that's possibly weaker than the rogue. May take a while to hit the PFSRD, but another database might have it, as might a friend you know. There was a blog a while back previewing 2 of the feats in the book. It was talked about right at the end of the worst feats thread. This book probably has a few contendors.
OIC.
Yeah buff skills and give the rogue skill tricks instead of rogue tricks. Everyone wins!On top of rogue talents.
God no, those things are the bravery of rogues.
OIC.I can't find either of those...New in the pathfinder society primer. The same book has a prestige that's possibly weaker than the rogue. May take a while to hit the PFSRD, but another database might have it, as might a friend you know. There was a blog a while back previewing 2 of the feats in the book. It was talked about right at the end of the worst feats thread. This book probably has a few contendors.
i totally want to make a Russian cavalier who rides a bear into combat, drinks Vodka, and Eats Borsche.
I don't know, you might ruin the devs perfect vision of people on horseback in their fantasy game. Its not like there are any iconic characters riding giant cats around into battle? Those guys would be real He-Men.he Man rides a giant cat
That was the joke! I know there are plenty of characters in popular fantasy who rode something other than horses or camels. Too bad someone disagreed. Personally, I think riding a giant tiger or wolf into battle is more my style than a horse.
I do not have that book, what prestige is that?
Pathfinder Field Agent. Its pretty awful imo. It specializes in upgrading a wayfinder. But only the standard one. In a book that included new wayfinders. Yeah....
God no, those things are the bravery of rogues.Yeah buff skills and give the rogue skill tricks instead of rogue tricks. Everyone wins!On top of rogue talents.
Then make them better instead of removing them... That's the point.
I don't like skill tricks because I think they remove options from the game in the same way Patient Strike did...
Skill tricks are more often than not, things anyone with a high enough skill modifier should be capable of... Not something you need to invest a feat or class feature to accomplish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are we both thinking of 3.5 skill tricks from complete scoundrel?
Those were some of the dop-est things ever.
Good skill tricks shoudl not do that, taht is why even if strike back is a bad feat taht do not invalidate the concept of feats.God no, those things are the bravery of rogues.Yeah buff skills and give the rogue skill tricks instead of rogue tricks. Everyone wins!On top of rogue talents.Then make them better instead of removing them... That's the point.
I don't like skill tricks because I think they remove options from the game in the same way Patient Strike did...
Skill tricks are more often than not, things anyone with a high enough skill modifier should be capable of... Not something you need to invest a feat or class feature to accomplish.
How do good skill tricks invalidate skills? You need skills to use them!
What I don't like is "grab a Skill Trick feat, now you can use Climb to climb a tree without using your hands".
IMO, if you have +10 skill ranks in Climb and you can beat that Climb check with DC 40, you should be able to do it!
I don't want skill tricks that merely allow you to do something you're supposed to be able to do by simply having a high enough skill bonus.
Well, I have no idea what your commentary meant, but I really liked the skil trikcs in the complete scoundrel, maybe not the tricks themselves but the very idea was very intriguing.
Its a cool idea, but a feat/skill trick should never take away an option you had in the first place. Equipment feats look awesome, but if a GM says "you need a feat for that" when you feel like you should've already been able to do it, its a little weird.
Similarly, 2 skill points to climb a tree with no hands? Awesome! Wait, you mean I can't climb it like that on a 50? That's lame!
Patient strike could've been a martial option without a feat, you even have to pay action economy. It wouldn't have been OP if it were just a +2 when readying, but no. Instead taking extra time to read apparently needs a feat. Its like having to take a feat to double tie your shoes.
Those skill tricks did nothing of the sort.
They were things like "with X ranks in sleight of hand you can stab a person and they won't notice the damage until 1 round later"
This allowed you to sneak up to a person and full-attack them without being noticed.
Hell this allowed you to walk past a guy and stab him six times and be 30ft away before he even noticed he was dead.
Those skill tricks did nothing of the sort.
They were things like "with X ranks in sleight of hand you can stab a person and they won't notice the damage until 1 round later"
This allowed you to sneak up to a person and full-attack them without being noticed.
Hell this allowed you to walk past a guy and stab him six times and be 30ft away before he even noticed he was dead.
Yeah, they had some cool ones... And bunch of lame ones too... Although I can't remember any specific sill trick right now, it's been a long time since I read that book...
Skill tricks sound really awesome. Has anybody used them in a PF game? Would they translate well? I'm not familiar with how they worked. Was it just a bonus for having a really high skill check, or was it some feat/class feature?
I do remember reading the 3.5 Epic Level Handbook skill section, which was one of my all-time favorite reads. THAT was the way skill capstones SHOULD work. Sticking to any surface like Spider-Man with a high climb check, swimming up waterfalls with a Swim check, reading thoughts with Sense Motive. So much fun to read through.
Skill tricks sound really awesome. Has anybody used them in a PF game? Would they translate well? I'm not familiar with how they worked. Was it just a bonus for having a really high skill check, or was it some feat/class feature?
Skill tricks cost 2 skill points each, they required so many ranks in a skill and they gave an odd bonus. One might give the power to run up walls, another intimidate several people at once, a few were just static bonuses, and a few gave +10 movement of a certain type if you moved so far with that movement. In 3.5 this was costly for everyone who wasn't a skill monkey.
Of course, you may as well move closer to a point buy system with that.
After thirty years of D&D (and Pathfinder for the last few), the gaming groups I have been with have never had any serious issue with the martial-caster debate. I once saw our epic fighter kill an epic sphinx in one round by hitting a minion, cleaving into the sphinx, then a minion, cleaving into the sphinx, then a minion... enlarged with a potion and the right feats (whirlwind, the power attack cleave feat tree etc) and he just dominated that fight. I also saw him survive two (two!) prismatic spheres as he charged through and devastating criticled the caster villain du jour. (of course that was in 3.5).
attrition hurts casters far more than martial's, and the DM can always keep things interesting with energy resistances, save buffs, spell immunity, SR.
After thirty years of D&D (and Pathfinder for the last few), the gaming groups I have been with have never had any serious issue with the martial-caster debate.
I've been playing since the beginning of 3.0, I've seen it since I started playing. Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.
After thirty years of D&D (and Pathfinder for the last few), the gaming groups I have been with have never had any serious issue with the martial-caster debate. I once saw our epic fighter kill an epic sphinx in one round by hitting a minion, cleaving into the sphinx, then a minion, cleaving into the sphinx, then a minion... enlarged with a potion and the right feats (whirlwind, the power attack cleave feat tree etc) and he just dominated that fight. I also saw him survive two (two!) prismatic spheres as he charged through and devastating criticled the caster villain du jour. (of course that was in 3.5).
attrition hurts casters far more than martial's, and the DM can always keep things interesting with energy resistances, save buffs, spell immunity, SR.
Well yeah martials are gonna be a bit better if they outright ignore text on some of their Feats.
Like this bit.
You cannot attack an individual foe more than once during this attack action.
Make it simpler... Just ignore Cleave as a whole... You'll be doing your character a favor...
I changed Cleave in my games to be more useful, so it's at least a decent choice now...
Make it simpler... Just ignore Cleave as a whole... You'll be doing your character a favor...
I changed Cleave in my games to be more useful, so it's at least a decent choice now...
ignore cleave
ignore whirlwind attack
ignore combat expertise
ignore vital strike
ignore dual wielding
ignore hit and run tactics
Well yeah martials are gonna be a bit better if they outright ignore text on some of their Feats.
Like this bit.
You cannot attack an individual foe more than once during this attack action.
As I said, this particular example is from 3.5
Well yeah martials are gonna be a bit better if they outright ignore text on some of their Feats.
Like this bit.
You cannot attack an individual foe more than once during this attack action.As I said, this particular example is from 3.5
3.5, great cleave required you to drop a foe to make another attack. but you could keep attacking foes if they kept dropping. the number could grow pretty absurd against swarms and fine sized creatures.
makes them a little better, but not much better.
3.5, great cleave required you to drop a foe to make another attack. but you could keep attacking foes if they kept dropping. the number could grow pretty absurd against swarms and fine sized creatures.
makes them a little better, but not much better.
and improved cleaving finish would do the same. "Benefit: You can use Cleaving Finish any number of times per round."
One big enemy sharing reach with a number of lesser (easily slain in one hit) minions.
It is not a situation that has ever come up again in one of our games, but I think the point illustrates itself.
Changes to cleave:
- You can use it on any enemy that you threaten with the weapon used in the attack against your original target, not only on enemies adjacent to it.
- You can use it as part of a full attack. Cleave can be used with any attack you make. The Cleave attack has the same bonus as the original attack. Once you use Cleave, your full attack is interrupted and you can't use any remaining attacks you have left other than the ones provided by Cleave itself.
e.g.: You can use it with your 1st attack, so you use its bonus to hit an adjacent enemy, but you forgo the rest of your full attack, or you can use it with your last iterative attack, which means you get more attacks, but your Cleave attacks has a lower chance to hit.
You could add skill related special abilities to the skill focus feat.
I could see an interesting feature that is not possible normally below 10 ranks in a skill and then have a second skill enhancement when you hit 10 ranks. I'm not certain what kind of ability should be gained, but I think it would be helpful to add some real game changers to a skill at 10 ranks plus skill focus.
I would also add skill focus to rogue levels at level one and every three levels thereafter.
This is just to better illustrate my point. I haven't thought about what skill focus should give you very thoroughly as yet.
Skill focus(stealth)
upon gaining the skill focus feat, the character could become impossible to detect with tremorsense.
upon gaining 10 ranks in stealth, your character can hide in plain sight by achieving a dc 35 stealth check.
|
Attended objects get saving throws.
The spell can be cast on objects, which receive saving throws only if they are magical or if they are attended (held, worn, grasped, or the like) by a creature resisting the spell, in which case the object uses the creature's saving throw bonus unless its own bonus is greater.
Those skill tricks did nothing of the sort.
They were things like "with X ranks in sleight of hand you can stab a person and they won't notice the damage until 1 round later"
This allowed you to sneak up to a person and full-attack them without being noticed.
Hell this allowed you to walk past a guy and stab him six times and be 30ft away before he even noticed he was dead.
They were also (early) encounter powers, which can go die in a fire as far as I am concerned (at least as far as non-magical abilities are concerned).
There were no encounter powers. Some of the tricks were once per day (crap).
But most were unlimited in use.
No thoughts on adding skill features to the skill focus line of feats?
No thoughts on adding skill features to the skill focus line of feats?
I'd be cool with that, personally I'd rather have cool features that give a bonus to skills than skill prereqs or a flat bonus to skills. Let the feat shape you, don't force you to fit the feat. Get it?
There's a weird line where you try to make something useful without taking away options from people. If there were a feat to throw dirt in the air to reveal invisible foes for example, it would mean you shouldn't be able to do it without the feat. Which is silly.
No thoughts on adding skill features to the skill focus line of feats?I'd be cool with that, personally I'd rather have cool features that give a bonus to skills than skill prereqs or a flat bonus to skills. Let the feat shape you, don't force you to fit the feat. Get it?
There's a weird line where you try to make something useful without taking away options from people. If there were a feat to throw dirt in the air to reveal invisible foes for example, it would mean you shouldn't be able to do it without the feat. Which is silly.
I get where you are coming from. I did attempt to make the skill enhancements something you absolutely could not do with the skill alone. That way you actually gain something valuable without limiting skills in any way. If I was going to make a series of skill focus feat improvements that is the route I would take at least. It would certainly help out skill based classes and prevent every other class from getting a buff right away.