| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Traditionally I have found martial classes to be boring. The 3.5 fighter was plain vanilla and the barbarian not much better than that. The original TOB was a breath of fresh air. It swept aside boring and gave us something exciting. Then came 3.75 and now the fighter is much more in line with what I would imagine they should be and for the first time in a long time I enjoy playing a fighter.
Now with that said, I will happily and readily set the fighter aside for any of the TOB classes without looking back. Nothing against the new fighter, but I looooove martial/magic classes. My concern with the feedback thus far, and their have been good points made, is that in an effort to balance the warlord class their is a chance of over correcting and making them less efficient and killing the overall fun of playing them in the first place. Please don't let the loudest and most repetitive voices water down these classes because they have an unspoken agenda to make these classes mediocre.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cornugon Smash is the reason we can't have nice things :P It wouldn't be as easy if not for that feat. Thanks for ruining everything, Cheliax! I will find a way to address it or it hits the dumpster.
I'll have to adjust a couple of those gambits to think about unarmed strikes / locked gauntlets.
And the reason I'm using the Psychic Warrior and the Magus to an extent as a balance point is because those are it's closest peers. They have more versatility with their powers and spells and have the ability to nova some pretty exceptional abilities between psionic feats and spell combat/spell strike, and the Warlord (and other martial disciples) will have their maneuvers to bring that sort of potency to the table.
Using fighter as balance point, at this stage, would ensure that martial initiators would basically have feats that they wouldn't have constant access to, and that's not what I want to go for. It's an unfortunate thing, but Tier 3 (for those of you who are familiar with the concept) is what I'm aiming for after a talk with those above me. Fighter is a Tier 5 class (Tier 4 with certain archetypes) and barbarian can sometimes hit Tier 3 if properly optimized, but generally hits 4 with the ranger. The PF paladin hits in the 3-4 range, and psychic warrior and magus solidly are tier 3 and hit on the same roles to varying degrees.
All I can say is trust me on this one for the moment, I have a plan. When I get my feat selection out for Martial Training, it will make a world of difference for non-initiator classes as they'll get access to maneuvers of their own for a pretty low investment and that will help pull classes that might have trouble in a game with an optimized martial disciple up into the same level of potency. If it turns out to be a big hot mess, then things can be reigned in or redesigned and of course I'll need peer feedback on that. I'm basically waiting on play test data for disciplines to fine tune their damage caps.
Anyway, back to the Stalker write up. I'm trying to get together a few more feats because instead of the Systems chapter inclusion (simply just use the systems chapter for Warlord) I'm including a feat section for something new. All the fine-tuning on the warlord has slowed my progress on that and I want to get something else out there for you all to check out!
-Chris
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some notes on the new Warlord-
The new adjustments to the Solar Wind school are... Interesting. I notice that the school is more in line with traditional ranged combat, making it easier for it to deal damage on par with what one expects from a martial character, but it's actually a little less unique and fun. Previously, I liked that it had a kind of up and down rhythm to it, where you rotated between solid unique attacks with interesting riders and desperate, essentially unbuffed, flurries for recovery. The new discipline is more consistent, but not as involved. I can see it being more accessible to a wider audience, but I can't help but feel like the ranged Warlord has been suffering a steady downward trend when he was already the weakest build. The v1 ranged Warlord is still my favorite version of the build.
On another note-
I had an unfortunate incident while traveling this weekend where I attempted to post a fairly in depth comparison between the performance of the melee Warlord and a cavalier, magus, and monk. I think those three classes have the most in common with the Warlord in theme, power, skills, and versatility. That post fell victim to the massive slow-downs this site is prone to from time to time and I lost the post which I haven't had the time or patience to re-post, but it came down to essentially this:
For a brand new player with little to know system mastery, the Warlord is a sweet option. You aren't leaning on feat trees or class feature combos, and the maneuver system essentially allows you to boost what you need when you need it to meet you party's expectations.
However, when you bring level appropriate gear and system mastery into play, the balance changes rapidly. The Warlord's poor armor proficiencies and single save will inevitably leave him lacking in the defense department compared to his peers, and adjusting his maneuvers to compensate for this detracts from his offensive abilities. The melee warlords focus on single strikes leaves him with a much smaller chance of accruing critical hits over the course of the day, and unlike the Magus, he lacks a mechanic for multiplying his bonus damage dice on a crit, meaning he gains substantially less when he does crit. The cavalier already multiplies big static bonuses on his mounted hits, and he can do this reliably round after round from about level 7 on, putting up single damage hits that dwarf the Warlord's ( you have to be trying to not build a good cavalier to get less than 70 points of damage a round from about level 6 or so on, multiplying your strikes on a Ride-by Attack by 3. That's 3x weapon die, 3x STR, 3x Challenge bonus, 3x enhancement bonus, 3x his mount's STR mod from 8th on for Order of the Sword, and of those bonuses getting multiplied, only Challenge is limited to daily uses). The class that came closest to being marginalized by the Warlord was the monk. They had the most overlap in versatility and the Core Monk's reliance on the Flurry and low crit attacks puts him in an awkward position. When you start looking at archetypes and magic items though, you see the same curious phenomenon occur with the Monk that you see with the other classes stacked against the Warlord. The Monk has options via Sohei, Zen Archer, and others to either increase his chances to Flurry each combat, or drastically change his damage and combat capabilities.
The Warlord gains substantially less from system mastery and equipment than any core or base class. A Monk in a Quickrunner's shirt experiences a big uptick in damage and the chances of a crit. The Warlord does not. A Magus with a Keen scimitar sees his damage for the day increase by leaps and bounds. He can multiply his Shocking Grasps, Chilling Touches and other spells more than 1 out of 4 times now in addition to multiplying his base damage. The Warlord never multiplies his bonus dice though, and his bonus dice are where all of his damage come from. This means when you start playing the kind of game where you're planning your character ahead few levels, or when you've played enough that you can solidly distinguish trap feats and theme feats from solid and powerful mechanical choices, the Warlord actually starts falling behind his peers. He gains new choices for maneuvers, but the underlying mechanics of his damage, and the requirements for playing him, never change.
Ultimately, the Warlord (depending on build, some options are actually pretty sub-par) is a powerful beginner class. Solid Tier 3, cool versatility, potent damage. But he's got little variance, little reward for system mastery. This a pretty standard truth of the Bo9S play system. If I have a veteran player and a player who's barely gotten into PF sit down and both make a Warlord, the difference in capabilities between their two builds is going to be negligible. If I take a monk (or any other class really) and do same thing, I'll probably end up with two wildly different characters with totally different levels of effectiveness. The newbie player's Warlord will beat the newbie's Monk, but the veteran's Warlord will be sitting within a few points of overall effectiveness where the veteran player's Monk will be a completely different beast altogether, one who has left all 3 of the other characters behind.
Found some more issues with warlord, fixed it's maneuver progression a tad so it gets new maneuvers on levels when it gets access to new levels, and fixed some wording in Solar Wind maneuvers (Solar Sting, Horizon Wind Lancet, and Phantom Sun Stance). Removed Demoralizing Gambit.
Okay, for real now. Going to finish Stalker. Tonight. Warlord, go home. :P
-Chris
|
Design Manager
|
Found some more issues with warlord, fixed it's maneuver progression a tad so it gets new maneuvers on levels when it gets access to new levels, and fixed some wording in Solar Wind maneuvers (Solar Sting, Horizon Wind Lancet, and Phantom Sun Stance). Removed Demoralizing Gambit.
Okay, for real now. Going to finish Stalker. Tonight. Warlord, go home. :P
-Chris
Excited to see the Stalker!
I'm actually not too disappointed you didn't get him up, I was on the road all weekend and worried that he'd be on v3 before I even saw v1 :)
Found some more issues with warlord, fixed it's maneuver progression a tad so it gets new maneuvers on levels when it gets access to new levels, and fixed some wording in Solar Wind maneuvers (Solar Sting, Horizon Wind Lancet, and Phantom Sun Stance). Removed Demoralizing Gambit.
Okay, for real now. Going to finish Stalker. Tonight. Warlord, go home. :P
-Chris
Excited to see the Stalker!
I'm actually not too disappointed you didn't get him up, I was on the road all weekend and worried that he'd be on v3 before I even saw v1 :)
Before he even gets posted he's on V6 sir. :P
-Chris
Demoralizing Gambit:
Risk: The warlord uses intimidate as a standard action to demoralize an opponent.
There, fixed it. No Cornugon Smash, no barbarian 2 level dip for Intimidating Glare, no inquisitor 4 level dip for Blistering Invective.
|
Have you considered making the Path of war classes a little weak, maybe tier 4/5 just to shutup many people who would complain it is hands down better than some martials? Even in such a case, I would still enjoy playing a weak initiator with many options over a typical martial.
Looking forward to the end product.
|
Some off the cuff thoughts:
- An always-on bonus to Perception checks is incredibly powerful and stronger than almost any skill ability any other class gets.
- With so many abilities concerned with critical hits, I suspect almost every Stalker will use an 18-20 weapon. Seems like every other rogue/ninja uses wakizashi already...
- I don't think the "15 + variable amount" DC for recalling historical battles and tactics is really appropriate. Knowledge (history) would just have a DC based on how well-known or not the battle is.
- Deadly Agility is pretty similar to a MYTHIC feat which does the same thing... :) Also note that Piranha Strike doesn't actually work with Rapiers and Elven Curve Blades etc., so it's kind of a wasted feat for them. On the other hand, I'm tired of seeing everyone use scimitars with Dervish Dance. You may want to consider some limitations of this with that in mind (i.e., consider the power of two-weapon fighters).
- If Greater Unarmed Strike has a prerequisite of BAB +5, why does the table display the damage for levels 1st-3rd? Keep in mind that the ninja has an ADVANCED talent that gives them damage equal to a monk of their level - 4.
|
|
So I posted this on the Dreamscarred press site but the only concern i have right now with the stalker is the 8th level combat insight. as its written now:
At 8h level, the killer's instinct in the stalker is honed to a razor's fine edge, allowing him to add his
Wisdom modifier to as a circumstance modifier to confirm critical hits. This ability counts as if the
character possessed the Critical Focus feat for the purposes of taking critical feats that the character
qualifies for.
Would this mean that we would be able to stack this with the critical focus feat? if so a +4 wisdom and crit focus would give us a +8 to crit confirmations. Which is something the power gamer in me would love to have but the DM in me quails in terror at.
Some things I noticed after a quick read-through:
Body of Night (stance): This is a huge boost to stealth. This moves dedicated stealthers from "hard to spot" to "invisible." You may consider making the stance give you a competence bonus instead of an untyped bonus. That way, at least it won't stack with the cloak of elvenkind.
Greater unarmed strike: Why is the list in reference to small creatures? Medium is usually the standard, but you can just list both.
Lightning recovery: It says that you can recover counters as an immediate action, but using a counter is an immediate action, so you can never do that. I am also not sure if using a swift (for boosts) action and an immediate action on the same turn is allowed. The feat is already limited per encounter, you might as well let it be used as a free action.
That being said, I would limit this feat to maneuvers lower than your max level. That way, it becomes a utility ability rather than a way to just boost DPR. I don't think you want someone to take this multiple times and just spam their strongest maneuver all combat.
The martial training feats: They seem interesting. I think if I was building a character I cound use them either to get a bunch of boosts and counters to augment your regular abilities, or get strikes and build a vital-striker type character.
You may want to make the BaB pre-reqs either all odd, so that a non-fighter can pick these up when he gains feat-levels or all even, if you want to make them more fighter friendly. Having them available every 3 levels feels weird and does not really match any progression.
The only problem I see is that martial stances are much better than other feats. You may want to deffer getting a stance to martial training 2. For example, Inner Sphere Stance gives +2 AC and +2 to will saves. To a fighter-type(That uses TWF) that is way better than iron will, and most fighter-types take iron will.
Inner/Outer Sphere Stance: Does this work with unarmed strikes? What if I am wielding a longsword in one hand? Can I say that my other hand is "wielding" an unarmed strike? What If I never attack with my off hand? What if I don't even have Imp. Unarmed strike? What if I don't have TWF?
Deadly Strike: I agree with Alice Margatroid. I feel this ability is very situational and pigeonholes the stalker into high-crit weapons. What if the damage scaled based on the weapon's crit multiplier? Then the ki-based boost would be nicer with high-mult weapons and it would create an interesting choice. I want to see more people wielding scythes and picks :D
--------------
I really wish I was starting a new character... I want to play the martial adepts so bad :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I posted this on the Dreamscarred press site but the only concern i have right now with the stalker is the 8th level combat insight. as its written now:
At 8h level, the killer's instinct in the stalker is honed to a razor's fine edge, allowing him to add his
Wisdom modifier to as a circumstance modifier to confirm critical hits. This ability counts as if the
character possessed the Critical Focus feat for the purposes of taking critical feats that the character
qualifies for.Would this mean that we would be able to stack this with the critical focus feat? if so a +4 wisdom and crit focus would give us a +8 to crit confirmations. Which is something the power gamer in me would love to have but the DM in me quails in terror at.
a feat cannot stack with itself, and it counts as that feat.
Killer instinct only counts as critical focus for prerequisites. Thus, it would stack.
+5 Toaster is correct here, and I see it need to fix the wording on that. They in effect get that feat for that level, but it gives them Wisdom over a flat bonus and counts towards learning critical feats.
I'm also letting more information flow in on this before I put together the next version of the Stalker. I overloaded it intentionally, I know it's a little heavy on abilities. For my methods, it's easier to take away or tune down than add to or beef up abilities.
-Chris
|
Design Manager
|
The Stalker-
3/4 BAB with one good save (will)... Interesting. Combined with their use of WIS as a primary stat this means they're pretty Dominate proof, and when they start adding DEX and WIS to REF saves that defense is going to be solid as well. This leaves them turning to their k ability to add +4 to a save to cover their Fort. This class has some serious saves.
I feel like there's a bit of a disconnect between the Deadly Strike's ki mechanic and the ability's standard usage, but maybe I'm missing something. I feel like every Stalker's first Swift action is going to be activating Deadly Strike for the encounter, even over their stances.
There's this underlying theme throughout the class that tells you this guy should be trying for criticals every chance he gets, but then there's mechanics that allow you to divorce from that structure, but only half way. It gives the class a disjointed feel.
Here's my concern. You have a pretty sweet damage booster that is going to be hard not to opt for, but it relies on limited resource that is also your way of recharging yet another limited resource. It's.... clunky. I would almost remove the portion where Deadly Strike triggers on a critical hit and make it just ki activated, and maybe make critical hits a way of regaining/reactivating the ability? Something like, "If you score a critical hit, you may activate your Deadly Strike as an immediate action without paying its ki cost, applying the damage to the target of this hit." And make Deadly Strike an ability that just follows the "lasts for rounds = to WIS Mod" formula. This would also have the ability functioning the same way every time you use it, instead of the weird "do x and get a, or do y and get b" function it has now.
I also noticed that the ki activated version of Deadly Strike implies through flavor that it is good versus one opponent per use, but nothing in the mechanics actually backs that up. Is it supposed to be a damage bonus vs. one enemy, similar to a cavalier's challenge or paladin's smite, or is it good for rounds = WIS mod against any opponent? What was the intent there?
|
Design Manager
|
I also noticed that you removed the Warlord's ability to regain a single maneuver as a full-round action, but left the Stalker with the ability to regain one as a standard.
I feel like the class would be more intuitive and balanced if you tied it more fully to it's ki mechanic, making that the only way to regain maneuvers.
I realize I'm suggesting you tie pretty much everything in the class to ki, but maybe just adjusting the ki points per day formula to 1/2 level plus 2x WIS mod, or just level + WIS mod would resolve that problem?
Then the class relies on it's limited resource to utilize the full breadth of it's abilities, but if it burns them all up to nova an encounter, he's still got his base allotment of maneuvers to see him through any further encounters that day.
I feel like that gives the class better balance through resource management, without breaking the encounter-based maneuver structure.
Just my two cents.
|
|
I agree Ssalarn this class is definitely geared towards criticals and trying it more closely to the ki pool would be a good step I would also suggest looking at the cap stone ability. It allows for the stalker to auto confirm critical strikes. This would make the 8th level ability i pointed out almost redundant save for the fact that your essentially getting a feat as a class ability. Yes it allows you set up for other critical feats which again lend this class its heavy critical flavor. But now the bonus to confirmations is redundant. Dunno about you guys but it just seems a little jarring to me but maybe im over thinking it.
|
Design Manager
|
It wouldn't be the first class to have "tiered" abilities that eventually make earlier class abilities or versions of the ability gained at earlier levels redundant.
My thought?
Remove the current capstone and replace it with an Improved Deadly Strike that can be activated as a free action and is multiplied on a crit. That way, there's still an element of risk involved, you aren't potentially nullifying earlier class abilities, and your capstone really feels like a pretty uber capstone.
I think that, combined with my earlier suggestions about tying the class more closely to the ki pool, would put the Stalker pretty much exactly where I'd expect to see him balance and power-wise. It also leaves room for builds that don't absolutely have to use an 18-20 crit weapon to maintain effectiveness, while ensuring that the reward is there for those who do play into the riskier, crit-based builds.
I say riskier, because this guy, much like any initiator build, has a lot of maneuvers that are move or standard action activated, meaning that even though his crit chances are improved, his opportunities to get crits are going to be about a third of a core or base class'.
With that in mind, my other thought for a capstone ability would be something like, we'll call it "Perfect Strike" for the sake of giving it a name, where you can spend 5 ki as an immediate action to treat a successful attack you've just made as a confirmed crit and activate your Deadly Strike ability. If you go by my earlier suggestions, that'd equate to about 1/5 of your daily ki resources, so you'd be able to use it about once an encounter if you dedicated your resources towards it, pretty on par with most other capstone abilities.
Let me preface this comment by saying that I have only read the first three pages thus far.
That said, just for curiosities sake, Have you considered a system of maneuvers that has a buy in? What I mean is, consider the potential of having maneuvers requiring another lower level maneuver to "set up" the next. You could then add a focus gate similar to psionics that you could "burn" to start a higher level maneuver straight away.
Certain classes could also gain class abilities that would allow bursts of activity or something.
just some thoughts, back to the third page!
I can't get behind a 3/4 melee class with two bad saves.
|
Design Manager
|
I can't get behind a 3/4 melee class with two bad saves.
Look at the class again. He eventually applies both DEX and WIS to saves (and by eventually, I mean 2nd level), and has a class ability to add +4 to a save by spending a ki point. It's more like two good saves and one bad save with a built in option to shore up as needed.
With Stances and counters taken into account, this guy has about as much chance of failing a save as a well-built monk.
I can't get behind a 3/4 melee class with two bad saves.Look at the class again. He eventually applies both DEX and WIS to saves (and by eventually, I mean 2nd level), and has a class ability to add +4 to a save by spending a ki point. It's more like two good saves and one bad save with a built in option to shore up as needed.
With Stances and counters taken into account, this guy has about as much chance of failing a save as a well-built monk.
huh, didn't see that. Objection rescinded.
Alright, I let stalker marinate so far, I've gotten responses on several forums. I'm going to address this over the course of the day and make some alterations and edits, try to get a v2 up. I still would appreciate new people coming into this to also check out the Warlord playtest to see if they find anything else in that class.
I'll let everyone know when I post the new version of the stalker. You guys are awesome, thank you!
-Chris
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chris-
My group will be running the "The Ruby Phoenix Tournament" module this weekend. We'll have a Stalker, a Ninja, a Warlord, a Monk, and a Bard (Arcane Duelist). I'll get some playtest data back to you in regards to how the various classes all hold up next to each other, and ask my players to be sure and weigh in on their thoughts and experiences related to the class they play compared to the other classes, etc.
I had to skip a couple pages of reading, so sorry if this has all been discussed/rehashed/put to rest already, but I thought I'd throw in my worthless coppers.
If we're having problems with maneuvers being "encounter powers," isn't there an easy way to fix this? If you had some maneuvers be usable multiple times in combat but have a lower power level than those usable only once per opponent, that'd make sense. Some of your maneuvers are pretty straightforward, they're strikes or attacks or whatever, maybe adding to your CMB or CMD or allowing you to (maybe at higher levels) make free Combat Maneuver checks at the end of a basic attack. More powerful maneuvers would be things that a canny opponent would be able to pick out the next time you do them, sort of like how a lot of spells (and even most witch hexes) are only usable once against a creature per day. Once you've used them against a guy, that's all. He knows that trick, he isn't falling for it again.
I also like what Trogdar said above, having some maneuvers set up other maneuvers, and was actually going to suggest this myself. I keep having flashbacks to playing Guild Wars, and although it was a videogame I think a lot of the mechanics it used were pretty simple and straightforward. Some attacks (on the assassin, especially) required you to chain things to set your opponent up for a more powerful finisher. These could get stale in a pen-and-paper, but an easy way to do this is just have a lead attack and a finishing strike designation on certain maneuvers and let the player mix and match as they see fit.
I also think that more mundane maneuvers could very, very easily be grounded in base Pathfinder mechanics and let those who want to avoid wuxia do so while still maintaining a class of maneuvers for those who want to do that. Stuff like having a maneuver make the target bleed for a number of rounds, then one that deals extra damage if the opponent is bleeding. One could have the player roll to cripple his opponent by striking their leg, then a follow-up maneuver could be a trip attempt as an immediate action that you can blow once per encounter on a crippled opponent. There's a TON of wiggle-room here, we don't have to be limited to what's been done before.
I've always thought Fighters should get a mechanic where they can do a Combat Maneuver beyond Dirty Trick to apply effects to their opponents like bleeding, staggered, nauseated, confused, etc. that's just built in to the class. Sorry if I'm tangential. I have the flu =D
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, life caught up with me.
Now I'm catching up with life. Or rather, what I meant to post in this thread.
Here's why I think the Gambit system, while really cool, needs to go.
When I was starting out as a designer for PF, I had an ability that was pretty similar. This ability had a chance of failure, and there'd be a punishment for failure. In turn, the reward was pretty good. The advice my developer gave me was simple:
"Never add a drawback to balance an ability. The players are smarter than you and will find ways to ignore the drawback but reap the reward."
And that's what this ability is. It's adding a drawback to balance out a reward. When we look at the classes Paizo has put out, we don't really see this anywhere. The closest there is is the Alchemist's mutagen with the penalty to a mental stat (even that's pushing it) or the Oracle's curse. Which isn't actually a curse, and is more of a benefit in the long run anyways. We don't see abilities like this, and it's for a good reason.
The player will pick the gambits that they can easily ignore the consequences of. They will use tricks and rules from books you don't know to be able to use this as an exceedingly cheap way to regenerate maneuvers. Cornugan Smash is just the beginning of this, but it perfectly encapsulates why adding drawbacks is a bad idea for a balanced ability.
Remove the drawback and make the ability balanced without any penalties that the player will just ignore. By adding in a drawback, it's just inviting a powerlevel for your class that you don't want, and this will fuel claims of overpoweredness. Which I'm sure you are amply aware of, this being a spiritual successor to the Tome of Battle. Dreamscarred Press' status as a publisher of psionics rules also makes them acutely aware of claims of overpoweredness as well.
So there's my feedback on Gambits. I highly recommend nixing the idea and replacing it with another awesome idea, as you're using the drawback as a balancing point for getting maneuvers back, and the players will just choose gambits that they can ignore. Simple as that.
First off, huge thank yous to everyone who's responded on feedback for both Warlord and Stalker. Cannot thank you enough! I've taken into account much of what you've all said, and while the core maneuver system isn't changing overly much, if at all, from the Tome of Battle (just the very basic system), the classes and how they interact with are very different and I'm smart enough to know that I don't know near as much as all of you combined. So, again, thank you for hitting me with your wisdom here.
Secondly, I've gotten a lot of changes in place with the Stalker and the feats section, fixed some stuff in the maneuvers too. I'll try to put together a change log. Someone gave me a great idea to a question I hadn't asked anyone, and that was regarding what kind of discipline specific feats could I put together, and it was alerted to me, by virtue of the Fuse Styles feat that was suggested here, that Style Feats for each of the Disciplines (3 feat chains) would be a great idea! What do you all think?
Lastly, I want to address what Cheapy here has said. Who else feels this way or has something else to weigh in on this. Of all the people who've had negative to speak of the Gambit System, this is probably the best articulated and most well thought out objection. I think he has merit here, but I want to know what others think before I go to the drawing board. Feedback please!
Anyhow, back to the grindstone! Working on stalker v2!
-Chris
Cheapy is probably right. I wish that wasn't the case, but a gamer will game the system. You either have to tightly constrain the kinds of things people can do to make it balance out, or you need to change the mechanic to represent something similar without the pitfalls of gambits.
If you were to take something like a limited resource to power your daring... maybe a grit pool or something that gave a minor penalty for one round, but gave back some maneuvers equal to a tertiary ability modifier... that might work. No work around, just a -2 to armor class for a round or something to represent reckless daring. You could even add feats that would give you a bonus to saves or something when you expend grit to represent your crazy testicular fortitude. :)
|
|
Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with Cheapy.
When I make a barbarian, I consider various ways to get around the fatigue of raging. The same thing would go with the various gambits. There's plenty of ways to boost skill checks for example that would make them incredibly trivial. I can also think of other ways to minimise or nullify the penalties for other things - admittedly with far more investment than Cornugon Smash, but still. We don't know what will be released in the future or what things a GM allows a character to have.
Another +1 to agreeing with Cheapy.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is defintiely a lot of merit to what Cheapy said. That being said, I really like the Gambit system, and I like the flow it brings to combat. It's definitely true that there are ways to trivialize the risk involved, but I don't think you should be dropping the system all together.
My thought- make the act of utilizing each Gambit a Full Round Action in and of itself (or possibly a standard action). Even though a player can trivialize the likelihood of a Gambit they've chosen failing, this will still balance the ability in several ways:
1) If the character is building resources towards trivializing the ability, that's resource expenditure not being put elsewhere. Damage, to-hit, saves, capability, something is suffering.
2)The larger the base action for an ability is, the less likely it is that it will be compatible with something else. Look at the numerous hate threads on Vital Strike, which stacks with remarkably little since it is its own standard action.
3) This maintains the wave-like pattern of the Warlord's damage sequence, and thus maintains his balance to other classes. Forcing him to take a full round or standard action to complete a Gambit instead of making it a Swift action compatible with his other maneuvers (other than boosts and stances) limits the damage output he can ring from each Gambit, or forces him to forgo damage altogether in exchange for performing the Gambit, etc.
Ultimately, if you adjust the action type required by the Gambit system, it doesn't matter if a player picks a Gambit they know they can crank up to an auto-success level. They're still taking a round out to do it, and they're still diverting resources to guarantee that success. Preventing them from mixing their maneuvers with their gambits also means the class can't leverage its biggest advantage against its biggest weakness. This preserves the Gambit system largely as is, minimizes the effects of characters building to overcome the risk, and maintains that edge-of-your-seat excitement for characters who like the current system. For me, the risk/reward is actually a big part of what I like about the class. And some Gambits just can't be cranked to auto-success levels. Ask our rogue who took an attack from a Double Crossbow when I flubbed my Pinhole Gambit....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually just recently got rid of an ability like that from one of the books I'm developing, for the same reasons.
The nifty thing is that you can keep the feel of the ability, but just tailor it so that it can't easily be gamed. To me, the root of the ability is heroic actions. Another cool aspect of it is that you get to choose which ones to specialize in.
So let's take these ideas, and mold some new abilities. You can have the same progression of acquiring Heroic Acts, and here are some example ones.
Defiance (Ex): Whenever you are next to least 3 adjacent Level Appropriate enemies (see Deadly Juggernaut for how to handle this) and there are no allies within 20 feet of you, you gain DR X/Y.
Bolt Charge (Su): During a surprise round, whenever you charge and successfully hit your opponent, you deal an additional 1d6 points of damage. Each enemy adjacent to your opponent takes this damage as well.
Taking One For The Team (Su): Whenever you use In Harm's Way (APG) to successfully take an attack from a Level Appropriate Enemy for an ally, you gain fast healing Y.
Just be sure to have the Level Appropriate Enemy text nailed down. This will cut down tremendously on the Bag of Rats problem that could arise.
I'm really not trying to sound condescending, so I apologize profusely if that's coming across. I'm just approaching this as I would if it was a work I was the developer on (and I'm pretty sure I'm not a developer for this). I like the flavor of the ability and what you're going for, but I do strongly believe in not adding drawbacks to abilities to balance them. Even though I used to try and do that a lot. :)
|
|
1) If the character is building resources towards trivializing the ability, that's resource expenditure not being put elsewhere. Damage, to-hit, saves, capability, something is suffering.
If you're a fighter that's going to be using Acrobatics a fair bit (i.e. a swashbuckler type), it's a high likelihood that you'll be expending those resources in that skill anyway. Same with a mounted archer fighter maxing Ride and Dex, or any of the other gambits you can pick. People will pick Gambits their character is already good or great at and maximise from there.
I like both Sslarn and Cheapy's new options.
|
Design Manager
|
1) If the character is building resources towards trivializing the ability, that's resource expenditure not being put elsewhere. Damage, to-hit, saves, capability, something is suffering.If you're a fighter that's going to be using Acrobatics a fair bit (i.e. a swashbuckler type), it's a high likelihood that you'll be expending those resources in that skill anyway. Same with a mounted archer fighter maxing Ride and Dex, or any of the other gambits you can pick. People will pick Gambits their character is already good or great at and maximise from there.
This is why I suggested changing the action economy. It doesn't matter if the character can always make their Ride check, or Acrobatics check, or what have you if that's basically all they're doing. The issue now, if it exists, is that Gambits are activated as Swift actions that can be riders on virtually anything else the player wants to do. By changing them from Riders to primary actions, you alleviate any potential imbalance.
Don't mind me, I'm just gonna drop this little >dot< right here and get outta y'alls way.
|
Design Manager
|
I also wanted to note, we're talking about tearing apart an awesome system when there are exactly 3 skill based checks that have the possibility of auto-success. Anyone who claims that the Combat Maneuver based Gambits are auto-successes, or are even going to be an available option in every combat, just isn't playing the same game.
I'm inclined to play RAI when I can identify it rather than searching for loopholes. Cool combinations, yeah, I look for those. Gaming the system, I try not to.
But I'm well aware that there are entire forums on this site and who knows how many others that are specifically there so people that want to game the system can put their heads together and figure out how to get around those annoying features they don't like.
I don't know much about this system yet, but I think Cheapy's totally got it right. For any system you care to come up with, this will be an issue.
I appreciate Ssalarn's concern about losing a system that he likes, but until you can make it completely bulletproof to the efforts of a seemingly-infinite number of game crackers, you will be giving them something for nothing. The only question is how they'll do it.
Unfortunately, I'm too ignorant of the system to make any worthy suggestions, so I will return to quietly lurking. I'm enjoying watching this develop and have no doubt I'll jump in when it becomes available, even if it's just to support Chris' work and DSP.
Peace.
|
Does anyone remember the Master At Arms series from Blackdirge press? Good stuff...only mildly related but I liked the thematic element injected by these prestige classes.
|
This is why I suggested changing the action economy. It doesn't matter if the character can always make their Ride check, or Acrobatics check, or what have you if that's basically all they're doing. The issue now, if it exists, is that Gambits are activated as Swift actions that can be riders on virtually anything else the player wants to do. By changing them from Riders to primary actions, you alleviate any potential imbalance.1) If the character is building resources towards trivializing the ability, that's resource expenditure not being put elsewhere. Damage, to-hit, saves, capability, something is suffering.If you're a fighter that's going to be using Acrobatics a fair bit (i.e. a swashbuckler type), it's a high likelihood that you'll be expending those resources in that skill anyway. Same with a mounted archer fighter maxing Ride and Dex, or any of the other gambits you can pick. People will pick Gambits their character is already good or great at and maximise from there.
I think that the idea of an auto-success only exists with the skill-based gambits. I think the balance is in the attack option gambits and that the increasing the action economy will balance them without tarnishing the flavor of the gambit system. If necessary, tying the skill based gambits into an attack would help balance because someone can always roll a one and that's an automatic miss, then the gambit rake takes place almost like a Critical miss penalty in some cases.
I think doing away with the Gambit system entirely is robbing the warlord of flavor. Sure people can game the system and if that's how they have fun then I say let them. Most people who play the class are going to for flavor. The warlord has already been nerfed that anyone playing it will be for flavor more than anything and I think that's great because it is a wonderful class that really evokes the Warlord title.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that using a drawback to balance is a bad, but understandable, design choice. The skill check ones aren't my main worries. It's the idea in general. It will be gamed. Players will naturally try to minimize any negatives. :) Note that I'm not attacking the designer here, but rather I'm disagreeing with the ability. We all make abilities that some see as duds now and then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a compromise then? Cheapy definitely hit me square in the face (metaphorically speaking) with the mirror of truth and its left me taken aback. So if I keep gambits as is (mostly) with the following changes: Gambits are a full round action and remove the skill-based gambits in favor of combat maneuver-type gambits. Combat maneuvers are rarely as easily accomplished as skill-based ones, and as Ssalarn pointed out, it takes an action economy penalty. You can't boost or strike on these rounds you're running a gambit.
How do people feel about that?
-Chris
Well, even if the combat maneuvers aren't as easily auto-success, you can still negate most of the consequences.
Dastardly Gambit: In actual play, this rake is only a penalty if you have Improved Dirty Trick. If you get the rake, you've already failed the risk, so the 'fails the attempt' is superfluous. And if you don't have Improved Dirty Trick, the chance that the enemy has a second AoO (the first one was spent when the warlord provoked!) is pretty dang low. Combat Reflexes isn't that common of a feat for NPCs! See also: crane style, snake style, any of the other 'you miss, lol' abilities. Or even a cloak of displacement. A nice miss chance so that the AoO doesn't matter :)
Duelist's Gambit: The Rake is really...stretching it....
Gatecrasher Gambit: I'm pretty sure there are a few ways to ignore falling prone. Probably one of the style feats.
Grappler: The warlord would be grappled no matter what. It applies to both guys :) And see the comments from Dastardly Gambit.
Rascal's Gambit: This is a case where you want to use 'denied your dexterity bonus to AC' rather than Flat-footed. The only difference between the two is that FF means you can't make AoOs, but since this is only FF against the opponent's attacks, AoOs don't matter. Also, this is probably the difference of 1 or 2 AC if the person is playing their cards right.
Sweeping: See Dastardly Gambit. And Gatecrasher, actually.
Ravager's: Actually, does this reduce the hit points of the item? And with a bit of DR, this could be easily mitigated.
Acrobatics: Well, you can get a pretty good bonus to AC for AoOs provoked by movement, which is really helpful here. There's also crane style, snake style. Or the Fortification. Or even Concealment. Lots of options on how to really mitigate this one, all of which are just good in general :)
And there's some really weird things going on with the FRA route. Brave Gambit: So this all-ready full-round action is going to be nerfed to a...full-round action? And how would it interact with Quick Dirty Trick or Greater Grapple? Lots of rules complications.
|
|
I'm going to post more later today or tomorrow on both classes and get specific but for right now, I do want to get into the Gambit debate.
First, as a GM I don't let PC's game the system and as a player I try not to as well. But not everyone plays the game that way and, as such, I must unfortunately agree with Cheapy et al.
But I do love the gambits and want them to stay in some form. Chris, I like your compromise. Frankly, I think that battlefield control things like combat maneuvers are woefully underused for most martial types.
A couple things to think about, though.
1. Will they provoke AoO's without the proper feats?
2. If they have the proper feats will they get the associated bonuses (+2, free attacks, causing AoO's from allies, etc)
3. Really big bad guys are going to be a problem for recovering maneuvers. When we start talking about huge and larger creatures their CMD can be through the roof. Not to mention the difficulty of tripping something with more than 2 legs and the impossibility of tripping a flying creature or sundering/disarming and monster that doesn't use weapons.
I don't really have solutions for you, just problems, which I realize is unkind. For that, I'm sorry. I'll think on it some, though.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a compromise then? Cheapy definitely hit me square in the face (metaphorically speaking) with the mirror of truth and its left me taken aback. So if I keep gambits as is (mostly) with the following changes: Gambits are a full round action and remove the skill-based gambits in favor of combat maneuver-type gambits. Combat maneuvers are rarely as easily accomplished as skill-based ones, and as Ssalarn pointed out, it takes an action economy penalty. You can't boost or strike on these rounds you're running a gambit.
How do people feel about that?
-Chris
I really like that compromise (no surprise there).
As to some of Cheapy's other comments-
I don't see a problem with a character reaching the point through feat or skill investment where he can eventually almost automatically make his Gambit's succeed. At lower level the Rake's are a real risk, and if they build to shore up their weaknesses, well, that's what you are supposed to do. As long as the action economy prevents them from stacking multiple abilities, the Gambits are doing their job of forcing a rotation into the Warlord's combat abilities.
I have been actively playtesting this class since the playtest opened, and I will tell you with authority, the Warlord has already been nerfed to the point that he's almost more about flavor than power. I would put him solidly in contention with a Bard (Arcane Duelist) for what he brings to the party, and he doesn't even touch what a Ninja or Cavalier can do. I really don't want to see this awesome bit of flavor stripped from a class that has already taken a pretty thorough beating.