because it's... well, it's magicI think this right here sums up the part of the mindset that we're having problems with. Magic should be harder to deal with and impossible for a normal/martial/nonmagical character to ever fully deal with... just because it's magic.
I never said impossible. But it needs to be more difficult to deal with.
For narrative purposes, magic is supposed to be a special, something only some people are gifted with. Therefore it shouldn't be something everyone can just shrug off. It takes special training (feats/archetypes) or a certain type of character (rogue, monk) to be able to evade it completely.
For game balance purposes, magic needs to be harder to deal with because it's a limited resource. There are no limits to the number of attacks a martial character can make. There is, however, a limit to how many attack spells a wizard can cast.
If a Fighter swings with his sword and completely fails, oh well, he'll do it again next round and keep doing it until the enemy is dead. He has an infinite number of attacks.
If a wizard casts burning hands and it completely fails, he only has, say, 3 shots left before he's a goner. Every failure brings him closer to uselessness. And making a character feel useless is the mark of a bad game. Do you see my point now?
OK, so, to clarify:
1. Irish, Scandinavian, and other myths = Looney Toons.
2. Your personal preferences = default tone of the game.
1. Unless you're equating a 1st level Fighter, who by your interpretation of HP can survive a direct hit in the stomach from a javelin without even slowing down, with the demigods and divinely protected heroes of ancient lore, I fail to see the validity of this comparison.
2. The fact that I happen to like the narrative style the abstractions of the game set as the default tone doesn't make it any less true.
To start with, why would Pathfinder have "bleed" as a separate effect if every successful sword attack is cutting gashes in someone's flesh?
Let's just leave it at we disagree then, no sense in getting into yet another argument.
This is why I prefer Rolemaster....
|
Freehold - some good stuff in the doc post and the link.
Some of it is a power up (nothing too glaring) but I like when you added in some complementary features vs. pure numbers bumps to existing feats - e.g. weapon specialization adding an Initiative bonus for example, good stuff. Also, almost all weapons have a critical effect or effect on hit, two-handed sword requires the target to make a slam check on a hit, etc. So I like your masterwork variant also.
I am very biased in favor of your armor doc. I have re-written my Gamma World game and that game has a built in crit system/armor check/degrade system - so when I see things like Padded losing its special ability after a crit it warms my heart.
I think the buckler is a little op as presented, for me (and just me) if I kept the DR variability feature I would only allow it for one attack per round, hell - maybe even apply its shield bonus to one attack per round - but the fighter could decide each round which attack he would want to apply it to.
So if a fighter wearing a breastplate + buckler could employ his buckler to defend against the one guy using the warhammer, say out of the three guys facing him. Giving up his buckler bonus to the other clowns trying to kill him because he's focused on that damn hammer.
As a Fighter/martial ability I would also consider letting mundane shields optionally absorb/negate critical hits first before armor and the wearer (unless it's from a surprise attack) - so a +2 non-magical medium shield would soak a critical hit and become damaged now only giving a +1 till its repaired or takes another hit.
------------------------------------------------------
I have to say thank you for posting this. If I agree or disagree with the content is immaterial. It takes alot of guts to put yourself and your game out there in any conversation, let alone one where there in a heated debate going on.
As one DM to another - Thank you.
Ok back again. Yes after re-looking at things from my 2nd ed books the stuff you have pointed out are right. That said a fighter could still only swing his sword and a caster could bend reality. I think my point is still valid its has always been like that to diffrent degrees.
In 3rd ed at least the fighter got some cool options he could take (feats), are they as good as the stuff casters gained propably not. But you know I was happy I much prefered it over 2nd (and so did my now wife how really couldnt get to grips with 2nd but got 3rd from the get go).
I did do a comparison on pathfinder classes using points and opinions from these boards and its surprising really (let me know if you want to see it).
The thing is as I have found the more you look into the mechanics of the game the more you see problems (3rd ed did make this easier to see). As people have said if you like the style find something you do. I liked 3rd ed I liked 3.5 upto the end then stuff started to bother me and I like most of what pathfinder has done. Is it ever been perfect no but I roll with it and have fun.
Would I like to see fighters get a boost? sure but I think as with the end of 3.5 some of the new classes been released make other classes redundent anyway. What about the other martial classes they get some cool stuff fighters could do but sometimes they just fit the feel of another class better.
HP I roll with, what else is there 1 shot kills, being hit by a random bus and killed? It works and has done since 2nd.
This is why I prefer Rolemaster....Really...
Yes really - Martials are far less bland and they can do other stuff aside from hitting things. Heck they can even learn spells if they want.
Aux, I'm blushing over here....
Orthos, your thoughts?
|
Actually no. If your GM or you as a GM describe it like that it's wrong.3S, if you try to describe your character with blond hair, you're wrong. I'm telling you that your character's hair is brown.
P.S. I envision hp the way you do, but that doesn't mean everyone else is also required to.
I could definitely see a high HP having boss fight being more like Aragorn fighting Lurtz in LotR. Not always, but some of the more Barbarian-esque warriors could definitely be impaled, gored, etc. and keep going by sheer strength of will until they were healed.
Thanks for that link Hama well worth a read and eye opening. I think he makes a very good point on why Aragorn is 5th level ie if hes 20th why is he having a hard time fighting orcs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's real, it's MUCH WORSE than that. It means the designers hold high-level martial characters to the standards of what sedentary game designers can do, not what actual athletes can do.http://i.imgur.com/LsvEIAj.png%3F1
just saw this image. If this is real, it means the designers design martial characters to be "realistic" instead of "fun" or "balanced"
It's even more worse than that. It means they're approaching it from entirely the wrong direction.
Figure out how what you want the martial characters to be able to do, then come up with a way to let them do it. If you want two weapon firearms to work, introduce a mechanic to allow it. If you don't, don't. Don't make the decision on whether TWF works based on whether you think a gimmick from a pre-existing item is realistic or not.
I sure hope the dev's never try to actually cast a spell, either. Or wizards are going to get hosed...
The logic is preposterous; "Hmm, lemme try this thing. Unh, it's not very easy. Ergo, it can't be easy for anyone, ever. Even people who actually practice it. Herpderp."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's real, it's MUCH WORSE than that. It means the designers hold high-level martial characters to the standards of what sedentary game designers can do, not what actual athletes can do.http://i.imgur.com/LsvEIAj.png%3F1
just saw this image. If this is real, it means the designers design martial characters to be "realistic" instead of "fun" or "balanced"
It's even more worse than that. It means they're approaching it from entirely the wrong direction.
Figure out how what you want the martial characters to be able to do, then come up with a way to let them do it. If you want two weapon firearms to work, introduce a mechanic to allow it. If you don't, don't. Don't make the decision on whether TWF works based on whether you think a gimmick from a pre-existing item is realistic or not.I sure hope the dev's never try to actually cast a spell, either. Or wizards are going to get hosed...
The logic is preposterous; "Hmm, lemme try this thing. Unh, it's not very easy. Ergo, it can't be easy for anyone, ever. Even people who actually practice it. Herpderp."
I agree wholeheartedly.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok back again. Yes after re-looking at things from my 2nd ed books the stuff you have pointed out are right. That said a fighter could still only swing his sword and a caster could bend reality. I think my point is still valid its has always been like that to diffrent degrees.
In 3rd ed at least the fighter got some cool options he could take (feats), are they as good as the stuff casters gained propably not. But you know I was happy I much prefered it over 2nd (and so did my now wife how really couldnt get to grips with 2nd but got 3rd from the get go).
The problem with feats is two-fold: Feat Taxes and what I am going to call and name Feat Laws.
As many people have pointed out in this thread and others, the devs seems to have a problem with what I am naming Feat Law: this means that at one time either in this edition or an earlier one, you were able to just do something (start a rumor, recover weapon, etc) as an assumption, DM adjudicate check or just automatically. Other posters have addressed the concept, but I'm going to go ahead and name it. Feat Law is when the devs try to over-codify every action by turning them into a Feat. Some of these actions could just be managed between the players and their DM, but when they turn it into a Feat - that is "you need to have this feat to do this (X), other wise to do this (X) you do it slower, at a penalty, etc". These decrees basically change the universe of mundane action characters, since what was once an assumption, a DM ruling, or a freebie is now governed by a Feat. I think this is bad game writing and it's incredibly lazy. Instead of re-writing the core rules to cover new ground of what you can try to do in-game, they cover this new subject by assigning a Feat to it -and a penalty if you don't have that feat. Therefore you get a Feat Law. Feat laws are a cheap way to address something not covered in the core game, or it's the devs sticking their nose and trying to stamp every conceivable action into a Law governed by a Feat.Feat Tax most people already know: This can be a series of abilities or one type of attack/effect that requires the Fighter to invest in a series of feats, many often not that good - just to get that cool effect.
Feat Tax against assumed ability does not apply evenly. Let me give you one of the biggest offenders.
Weapon Focus vs. Spell Focus.
The first gives you +1 to hit with a single weapon type. It has a moderate to minor numerical impact.
The second one gives you a +1 DC to all saves for one spell school, doesn't matter how many different ones or what level they are. You just get this and its damn good. It scales with level (i.e, always relevant) and has a big numerical impact.
Do you think these feats are fairly balanced against each other?
I like the concept of Feats, but as they are written (and have been written since 2000) they are terrible. The first feat I listed gives you a +1 to hit - which can be pretty good when you need to hit, but the second feat helps decide if the target is going to make its save and suffer no effect/half effect or fail and take the full effect. The latter being CONSIDERABLY MORE POWERFUL THAN THE FORMER.
Also, if you were a 1st/2nd ed player trying to play a Fighter in 3rd, you need to spend several of your feats to shore up your character to meet those same levels of power. Increased Save feats to bring you saves from terrible to just bad, multiple feats so you can get extra attacks in combination - when you used to spend one proficiency and you got this for free (and better). Are some combat feats good - sure, power attack is pretty good. But tbh, a less effective version of power attack (and weapon finesse) should be available for any character swinging a weapon for free, it should be built into the game and the the power attack feat should just manage the task better (similar to all the combat maneuver feats).
TL;DR on Feats - Cool concept, poorly implemented, thought out and balanced since 2000.
HP I roll with, what else is there 1 shot kills, being hit by a random bus and killed? It works and has done since 2nd.
I only brought up the hit point argument earlier in the thread because people keep falling into the trap of "he has higher hit points = he's superhuman!!!!!1!!!!" when in fact an Elephant or a large animal (with more HD) also has more hit points and they are not "superbeasts". Same goes for all the no-name 5th level NPCs - more hit points =/= superhuman, it just means they have more hit points.
I wasn't attacking the concept of hit points, just the people who throw it up as cover to say the game characters a super-heroes at level 7. No, they are not. Everyone at level 7 gets the same crap. The high hit points = superhuman argument actually hurts the mission to get boosts or desired buffs to martials. People think they are helping the narrative and are using it as an argument to maintain the illusion that these classes are equals (Caster vs martial) and this is a large undermining point. Wizards are weak (hp) but can cast spells, but fighters are tanks - have alot of hit points. Unfortunately, everything the fighter goes against also has more hit point, and if going by CR/threat - probably more hit points than him. Poor argument in defense of why the fighter has what he has and the caster has what he has.
It's worth noting that I am doing something similar to spell focus that I did with weapon focus as well - specialist wizards(and only specialist wizards) get a bonus to initiative when casting spells from their specialized school.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Feat Law is when the devs try to over-codify every action by turning them into a Feat. Some of these actions could just be managed between the players and their DM, but when they turn it into a Feat - that is "you need to have this feat to do this (X), other wise to do this (X) you do it slower, at a penalty, etc".
I agree to a point, but I feel that, instead of leaving all these things to hand-waving or DM fiat, they could easily have been rolled into skills (spreading rumors), or made into general actions you can do in combat, etc.
In other words, I don't think it's bad to have rules for how things work. I think it's very bad to charge feats for actions that are more logically skill-related, or that should be general options in combat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Feat Law is when the devs try to over-codify every action by turning them into a Feat. Some of these actions could just be managed between the players and their DM, but when they turn it into a Feat - that is "you need to have this feat to do this (X), other wise to do this (X) you do it slower, at a penalty, etc".I agree to a point, but I feel that, instead of leaving all these things to hand-waving or DM fiat, they could easily have been rolled into skills (spreading rumors), or made into general actions you can do in combat, etc.
In other words, I don't think it's bad to have rules for how things work. I think it's very bad to charge feats for actions that are more logically skill-related, or that should be general options in combat.
I agree 100% Kirth, let me rephrase: I see any changes shuffled under Feats as bad - these things can be codified in the rules as freebies, this is how you do it, re-written skill, et al. So yeah, not against the codification (I am, but not for the sake of this argument) just the fact that they are making Feats the default "this is how you do it, and now you need a feat to do it better" approach - when in fact these could have just been written into the rules under generic stuff, combat actions, class abilities, instead of rule clarification/codification via Feat Law.
Hopefully that makes more sense.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two points: Characters at X level are superheroes. Maybe it's 7, maybe it's higher. Everyone at that level is a superhero. An elephant may have more hp, but a person who has as many hp as an elephant is superhuman.
That's not so much an argument that casters are already as powerful as martials, but that realism is already out the window, so don't use it to restrict them.
Realism isn't thrown out the window because of assigned abilities - realism is thrown out the window because of number scale. But there is no heroic exceptionalism in the system, - that's my point. A Living Wall or an Animated Giant Chocolate Bar or a Giant French Pug use the same hit point system as the players - there is no current structure or system in the game that says PCs can do this, while everything else can do that. It's just a numbers game. The super-hero comparison is false - once you are so high (hit point wise) you get to play in that game – everyone and everything else does also. Now how is that exceptional?
To me it isn't.I am not arguing against the hp system, what I am saying is that because the hp system is wonky, don't turn around and say "but Fighters have lots of hit points = superheroes". Wonky hp system =/= realism, but it also means wonky hp system =/= superheroes. All this does is illustrate a wonky hit point system or provide cover for the “but THEY ARE already SUPERHEROES argument” which is false.
I'm also not sure about the comparison of Spell and Weapon Focus. If the fighter focuses on one weapon type, as there are plenty of other reasons to do, he'll be getting that bonus most of time. It scales with level, at least with full attacks so it stays relevant. I'm not at all sure why helping to decide if the target gets hit and thus takes any damage is more powerful than similar help to decide if a spell takes full or half/no effect.
Other than that casters are in general more powerful.
Fair enough - let's build a model to reflect the difference. The final product will be a bit subjective but I will try to lay out (mechanically) why I think these two feats are miles apart.
Step 1 - Roll to hit +1 with One Weapon (if hit, check A, if miss check B)
A - Hit: roll for damage, possibly kill low-level target with one hit
B - Miss: nothing happens, action used up.
Low Level Caster with Spell Focus (works best with Arcane casters)
Step 1 - Cast Spell One School of Spells (will be multiple spells, levels 1-9) (if target fails save, check A, if target makes save check B)
A - Failed Save: roll for damage/effects. Target takes full effect, in some cases this effect may be reduced by target level - otherwise target suffers full effect/intent of spell. Possibly kill low-level target with one hit - less likely than the fighter though
B - Makes Save: nothing happens or partial condition/stated effect.
- May need to make round by round saves if a duration area effect.
Ok, not so bad - the fighter in this example may not have as much flare as the caster - but he is very economical resource wise.
Add a few levels later -
Step 1 - Roll to hit +1 with One Weapon (if hit, check A, if miss check B)
A - Hit: roll for damage, possibly kill low/mid-level target with one hit, more than likely not though. To-hit bonuses start become less relevant as AC for most foes start to level out. Possibly get 2nd attack at negative.
B - Miss: nothing happens, action used up. Possibly get 2nd attack at negative if high enough level.
Low/Mid Level Caster with Spell Focus (works best with Arcane casters)
Step 1 - Cast Spell+1 DC on One School of Spells (will be multiple spells, levels 1-9) (if target fails save, check A, if target makes save check B).
A - Failed Save: roll for damage/effects. Target takes full effect, in some cases this effect may be reduced by target level - otherwise target suffers full effect/intent of spell. Possibly kill low-level target with one hit - still less likely than the fighter though. Spells begin to more effectively turn off foes/encounters, re: Binary save effect. The Save paradigm vs. caster Save DCs start to shift in casters favor. Especially if the caster knows which spells to cast vs. target Save strengths (Will spells vs. Beef, etc).
B - Makes Save: nothing happens or partial condition/stated effect.
- May need to make round by round saves if a duration area effect.
So in the above examples we see that the caster gets to:
- Use his feat on multiple spells with scaling DC (as his spell levels go up) vs. Fighter who uses his feat on one weapon (which he needs to make magical, and he needs to replace to keep scaling it up). Wizard gets to apply and re-apply this Feat to multiple spells throughout his career - Fighter gets it on one weapon.
- Binary/SoD/SoS effect increases. The Save DC paradigm starts to really show problems as the classes level up - while the binary effects become greater. That is, if you fail you are screwed (level 1 spell) to really screwed (level 4 spell) and so on. The cast and "I hope he fails" becomes highly mutable by the caster and the risk vs. reward grows considerably for each subsequent level.
Anyway
scaling DC (as his spell levels go up)
What you mean like scaling bonus when his base attack bonus goes up.
|
One of the best things they did for some feats was scale them (like Toughness) it makes the feat worth the investment overall.
It would seem to me easy to do that with a lot of the feats to reduce bloat and increase worthwhile investment.
Weapon Focus:
+1 every four levels. Can be the same weapon or you may choose a new weapon for each +1. So +1 to 5 weapons or +5 to 1 by level 20.
Or make higher tier martial feats have a prereq that is only character level.
Greater Trip:
Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, base attack bonus +6, Int 13. OR Fighter level 5 (and any other class, etc.)
This feat functions like improved trip and grants the following "blah blah blah"
So if you are non-martial and invest you might get something great (a feat tax for not being martially focused) if you ARE martial you get the benefits of both feats in the chain for less investment and less restriction because you are trained, its "what you do".
Your right your finding are subjective, as to what you choose to add it to and the effect it has on the game.
Casting spells and hitting things are the primary attack forms of the two classes. Just because for casters the +1 adds to multiple spells doesnt make it more usefull its the same +1 regardless of spell cast its still +1, it cant be taken as +1 to every spell in the game as seperate things. The +1 weapon focus adds to more than just your attack bonus but you chose not to take that into account.
But if you are going to take this route then you have the 'none bonus' bonus feats because he is proficient it all none excotic weapons, that casters have to take if they want the same.
Please can I cash in these feats for others?
As for feat laws V 2nd you could just do it. The Dm just came up with the rules, really and thats better than having rules in place. How many threads can you find about how a rule works RAW V RAI, now lets take the rules away and see what happens. You get what we had rules after rules from one group to the next, questions after questions in magazines or just plain NO.
Can I break his shield? 2nd ed NO, 3rd ok heres the rule.
Can I madly swing with even more of my strength by taking away from by chance to hit? 2nd NO, 3rd heres the rules.
Sure there are things I miss from 2nd and some of the feats and the way feats work bug me, but atleast I have rules to do cool stuff without having to make it up or the dm make it up.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your right your finding are subjective, as to what you choose to add it to and the effect it has on the game.
Casting spells and hitting things are the primary attack forms of the two classes. Just because for casters the +1 adds to multiple spells doesnt make it more usefull its the same +1 regardless of spell cast its still +1, it cant be taken as +1 to every spell in the game as seperate things. The +1 weapon focus adds to more than just your attack bonus but you chose not to take that into account.
Not quite following this. Are you saying Weapon Focus adds +1 to something more than "to hit"?
The point upthread is that +1 DC is far more significant than +1 to attack. Sure it is only +1 but on something that has far more impact and on everything in the school chosen
If anything, at a minimum you would want WF to give all weapons in a class +1 like SF gives all spells in a school +1. The point is why should it take a fighter twice as many resources to get the same kind of broad effects casters do from their abilities?
I love 3.0/3.5/PF. I love the way its bones can be tinkered with to make great experiences. I don't love fiat and "we will figure it out" because then my cool actions come only at the summoning of my GMs ability to imagine in parallel with me but just because there are good rules doesn't mean we dont try to put the shine to dull ones or fix ones that don't seem fair?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
scaling DC (as his spell levels go up)What you mean like scaling bonus when his base attack bonus goes up.
No - the Fighter gets the bonus as a constant (Scaling) to his BAB and with one weapon while the caster gets a scaling bonus to each of his casting tiers (spell levels).
The caster gets it as a constant (Scaling) to his DCs throughout each spell level tier. So a level 1 spell is DC base 11 + mod, level 2 spell is DC 12 + mod, level 3 is DC 13 + mod. At lower levels this isn't as much of a big deal since there less spells that are available to the caster and the binary effect isn't as powerful (it is actually, for some spells). At mid to higher level though, those tiers of power (effect) start to outpace the +X that the fighter gets to hit with every round. Having surplus X on his to-hit starts having less and less meaning as the Fighter starts getting these bonuses from everywhere so that +1 starts to have less and less meaning.
His +X doesn't really translate into extra effects or damage - he just does his trick more reliably.
While the caster DC +1 due to Spell Focus is super critical due to the binary save system and the expanding power for each successive spell level and growing circle of spells.
This is a subjective argument – since it comes down to belief: Do you think that doing hit point damage (as hit point scale exponentially) vs casting binary spells (with target saves scale poorly) is better?
Ninja'd by PirateDevon on the point of one application (weapon) vs. many spells (whole school) argument.
Casting spells and hitting things are the primary attack forms of the two classes. Just because for casters the +1 adds to multiple spells doesnt make it more usefull its the same +1 regardless of spell cast its still +1, it cant be taken as +1 to every spell in the game as seperate things. The +1 weapon focus adds to more than just your attack bonus but you chose not to take that into account.
Having a hard time arguing with you on this since your position is a bit absurd. "Just because for casters the +1 adds to multiple spells doesn’t make it more useful its the same +1 regardless of spell cast its still +1, it can’t be taken as +1 to every spell in the game as separate things."
If you can't or choose not to see the power in applying a +1 to multiple resources vs. one resource I can't really carry on a discussion with you on the matter. You are saying that because one feat applies to dozens of spells throughout the casters various levels it doesn't make it better than a +1 to hit with one weapon? Seriously?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely. Pretty much any fighter is going to rely on that one weapon type far more heavily than all but the most narrowly focused casters will rely on one spell school. You can pretty much guarantee that the weapon focus bonus will be added to more rolls than the Spell focus bonus will add to the target DC for in the course of any game.
If I had the mind/resource to chart this visually I would but I don't/can't regardless I would point out that +1 to hit, presumes fighter never loses access to the weapon in question and it can be shown +1 becomes less relevant the longer you have it as you level. Its a feat that is worse to use the longer you have it and level. Not to mention that you HAVE to use the weapon more often than a spell to resolve its use case. Not many fights end in one hit.
A wizard gets a slightly less frequently used, but far more significantly statistical boost to a pool of abilities that ultimately can be used one shot a time to resolve not just the same use case as the fighter, but many other use cases the fighter has no tools to address.
You need to compare advantage per use, frequency per use AND outcome of use to establish a notion of comparison.
The caster is definitely more versatile and more powerful, but that's not really the fault of these two feats nor does it really say anything about the respective usefullness of the two.
Its not the fault of the feats but the feats are an excellent way to chart the inequity and compare how the inherent "balance" of feats (ie that each feat should be as useful as another) seems "off" to some of us.
|
|
Absolutely. Pretty much any fighter is going to rely on that one weapon type far more heavily than all but the most narrowly focused casters will rely on one spell school. You can pretty much guarantee that the weapon focus bonus will be added to more rolls than the Spell focus bonus will add to the target DC for in the course of any game.
The caster is definitely more versatile and more powerful, but that's not really the fault of these two feats nor does it really say anything about the respective usefullness of the two.
This is a subjective argument – since it comes down to belief: Do you think that doing hit point damage (as hit point scale exponentially) vs casting binary spells (with target saves scale poorly) is better?
It goes to the design philosophy behind those two feats. And you are right, that Fighter is going to be using that weapon all the time, while the Wizard may be using it a little less (casting spells outside of his school).
The issue here is - the Fighter starts getting bonuses from several sources as he levels up - so that +1 becomes less relevant, while the casting DCs and Saves (and modifiers to saves) are a much tigher range of controlled numbers - stats, save feats and magic items - that can modify those saves which gives that +1 much more weight.So to me (again, subjective) that +1 to DC is a better constant and a larger value when you take into account that it applies to spell levels 1-9, and that spell effects (which are binary) increase considerably over different spell levels vs. a Fighter who is just doing more hp damage and not much else when he hits.
No matter how you slice it - Spell Focus has more power, versatility, impact (binary saves) and potential than Weapon Focus. I don't even see it as a reasonable argument. I know people will disagree - I just don't see how they can when you weight the two against each other.
Edit: and Ninja'd by PD again who said it better and with less words:
You need to compare advantage per use, frequency per use AND outcome of use to establish a notion of comparison.
The sum of my argument right here - plus what he said about it being less useful/relevant for the Fighter as he levels up
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh man I Sure am glad I took weapon focus Falchion, I have a +1 falchion its working great for me... oh the treasure has this flaming +2 greatsword...awesome my measely bonus doesnt work for that, sell it for half. (doesnt matter that it is a two handed slashing sword they just arent the same for focus)
vs.
Oh look i got this cool new spell book that has this awesome spell: (school x)that does this, and its better cause i have spell focus:school X. Even though i have been casting fire spells this one is an ice spell but my feat still works yay.
Yup your right it is the exact same... except it isnt
Ok here we go again.
Swinging a sword id what fighters do, casting spells is what casters do. So +1 to what you do is great. Ok so the fighters +1 doesnt cover ALL weapons but it does cover wnat they do best. Would it be better to cover any weapon you ever find? Sure it would, but weapon training already does that to weapon groups.
Going on the example I just use the greatsword, why because I only lose +1. If the spell I find in the book isnt from my school I can still use it because I only lose +1.
Yes the casters options are broader as the main thing they have for their spells is schools, so really the fighters main thing (now we have them is weapon groups) so it would be good if the same applies to things like weapon focus.
But what would happen nothing much in game fighters would be happier, but guys on forums like this would still complain because unless every possible option has the same effect to the same number of things its not balanced. But what if I find a great hammer and I have my + is swords its not fair?
I have looked into this crap when I was looking at redoing epic and you see the numbers game and the more you look at the numbers game the more the game loses untill its not fun anymore. The more you see that trying to balance the numbers just makes it more numbers till all your left with is the numbers, no story no imagination or fantastical things.
I for one dont like that, if thats what you want fine. But for me is a player wants to be better with his sword - weapon focus, if he wants to be better with his spells - spell focus.
P.S I might try the weapon focus to weapon groups change.
Edit: and Ninja'd by PD again who said it better and with less words:
You need to compare advantage per use, frequency per use AND outcome of use to establish a notion of comparison.
The sum of my argument right here - plus what he said about it being less useful/relevant for the Fighter as he levels up.
Here's another factor to build into that:
The rulebook doesn't know whether the group is going to be playing the exhaustive resources game with casters running out of spells but still running into new things to fight. Sure, it gives recommendations, but half the players out there are likely to swing to one side or the other of those, and that's why we end up with things like this (not to mention that someone will undoubtedly go do some math to state why the rulebook recommendations are off-center)
That's why there's no "correct" balance possible here. When casters are resting to regain a full spell allowance early, or there's a lot more encounters per day than the devs intended, the GM needs to intervene to rebalance the game themselves. I can't see a way to get that balance within the rules without rewriting major parts of the system from the ground up... which takes us to the argument of whether that's a sign it needs rewriting, or whether that would cause such a fundamental change that it would drive other players away.
Following Matt I about redoing the system from the ground up I think sales show what people want in someway. People came to pathfinder instead of 4e to continue with the 3/3.5 base rules.
Derail - the way weapon focus works is really just how weapon proficency worked in 2nd and you guys were fine with that.
Back on track - We keep talking about fighters and realism and not getting the really cool stuff, but what would people like to see that doesnt mean a whole rewrite?
(Ps edit) And for me that doesnt mean a new Bo9S book that makes the base martials classes look even worse.
|
|
I do agree with you immo, to weapon groups focus. It makes more sense to me at least and honestly its how i house rule it was well when i run a game. I dont have anything against casters, just really higher level martials tend to be meh to me. The one thing i sometimes feel is that they went low level arcane is rough with certain things lets fix that, but when it came up to high level martial can be rough they went 'oh wells' but that is my opinion of course
It does Nine. As I say some things that a charcter does as his main schtick are braoder than others, I dont know why they decided to leave things like weapon focus and such to just 1 weapon when they gave us weapon groups. Weapon focus/specialisation to a group does make more sense and give more options when finding weapons ingame.
You know the Ranger gets favoured enemy which although situational makes a bigger diffrence than other fighter bonuses which are I would think more focused. The more I think about it the more i going to look at feats this way.
Also youve convinced me next fighter I make has got to have spell focus, if I get +1 to sooooo many things its a no brainer :P
I like that "turn male to eunuch" now how do I work that in....
No sounds to slow how about "instant eunoch"
Not if you have two weapon scissor.
I think there would be, But I know it would come keen.
This is why I prefer Rolemaster....
This is why I prefer my homegrown system.
How good your attack is and how poorly they botch up their defense determines the damage. Magic, ranged or melee.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you fail to quick draw your sword, do you roll a dice for the effect?
D8 Quick Draw Fumble Table
1 You drop it. All allies sigh as a free action.
2 You almost let it go, but juggle it for a few seconds before falling prone and dropping the weapon 15 feet away, if possible through a window. All enemies laugh at you. Players have the choice of snickering, laughing, guffawing, face-palming or sighing.
3 You drop it and sever your toes, 5 damage, -4 dex until healing.
4 You slip your draw and throw it into the enemy's knee, -10 movement speed to one enemy.
5 Fall prone onto the sword, roll a self-crit. If this kills you, gain honour.
6 You draw it clumsily tearing off your belt, turning your armour the wrong way around (treat as hastily donned armour) and making yourself flat-footed for a round.
7 You draw it so roughly the handle is pulled from the blade/head, the weapon is sundered. Enchantment doesn't matter.
8 You draw it so fast it hits the ceiling, rocks fall and everyone dies.
Now a fail table for ride, that I could get behind (and get kicked).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, it's totally realistic to break your neck on a failed Ride check!
I dunno about that. Sometimes, casters make ride checks. Could we get it so that only matrials can break their neck on a failed Ride check? Or at least a spell that would allow casters to avoid the issue? That would be realistic.
Absolutely. Pretty much any fighter is going to rely on that one weapon type far more heavily than all but the most narrowly focused casters will rely on one spell school. You can pretty much guarantee that the weapon focus bonus will be added to more rolls than the Spell focus bonus will add to the target DC for in the course of any game.If I had the mind/resource to chart this visually I would but I don't/can't regardless I would point out that +1 to hit, presumes fighter never loses access to the weapon in question and it can be shown +1 becomes less relevant the longer you have it as you level. Its a feat that is worse to use the longer you have it and level. Not to mention that you HAVE to use the weapon more often than a spell to resolve its use case. Not many fights end in one hit.
A wizard gets a slightly less frequently used, but far more significantly statistical boost to a pool of abilities that ultimately can be used one shot a time to resolve not just the same use case as the fighter, but many other use cases the fighter has no tools to address.
You need to compare advantage per use, frequency per use AND outcome of use to establish a notion of comparison.
Its not the fault of the feats but the feats are an excellent way to chart the inequity and compare how the inherent "balance" of feats (ie that each feat should be as useful as another) seems "off" to some of us.
The caster is definitely more versatile and more powerful, but that's not really the fault of these two feats nor does it really say anything about the respective usefullness of the two.
That's not quite accurate, regarding the reduction in value of a +1.
It isn't just about the first attack. At higher levels, a Fighter's first attack is more and more likely to hit, the real difference is being able to land multiple hits and that +1 makes a bigger difference on the Fighter's last attack, which will often be in the high teen's to land.
Say your bonus is +19/+14/+9 and you're attacking AC 25. You need a natural 6/11/16 to hit, without that +1 it becomes 7/12/17. The difference is smaller on the first, but it increases with each successive attack until the last one where it counts for a significant portion of the available numbers on the d20 that count as success.
If the AC goes higher and pushes the last attack to require a 20 regardless of the +1, then the +1 becomes significant to the middle attack.
For me the disconnect is the concept itself. Weapon Focus is about familiarity/specialization with a single weapon, but that's also being modeled with Weapon Training. Now, WF is more specific, so it can be argued to have a place, but if you viewed them independently, they would both look a lot like the weapon specialization from 2nd Ed. So I dislike the concept that the Fighter needs to spend resources on two versions of the same ability to do their job.