Here we go again...
Here we go again...Sorry, is this type of upgrade a pretty common thread on the forums? I'm fairly new, so if there's a well-executed version of this out there, I'd love if you could link me to it :)
There is a certain segment of people on this board who will not rest until caster classes are disallowed and martial classes are given all the spells but have them named as martial powers . . . "Fighter's Strike of Grease" and "Charming Stab" ect.
Here we go again...Sorry, is this type of upgrade a pretty common thread on the forums? I'm fairly new, so if there's a well-executed version of this out there, I'd love if you could link me to it :)
The martial-caster divide is a pretty common topic, yes, but don't let that stop you from executing your project. It doesn't hurt anybody and only adds to the community if you present an alternative vision for a class.
It only gets harmful to the community when people provide criticism while being rude and combative. Respectful disagreement and homebrew stuff is always welcome in my eyes :)
Plus, I really like the idea of an endurance pool that recharges by round for fighters. It gives them a resource management feel without having a per-day requirement that a lot of people dislike. I'll post actual feedback to your ideas when I can.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you have noticed is something that many other forum members have noticed, mentioned and discussed with considerable frequency. However, there is a dedicated opposition that believes either:
1. Casters are *supposed* to be better then martials.
2. The game is fine as is, your problem is those damn min/maxers.
or
3. If you believe there is a martial/caster disparity, you clearly have some kind of agenda.
Sadly there is no fix, because when you try to give martials useful options group 1 goes "Too anime", group 2 says "That's unnecessary you do plenty of damage" and group 3 says "The Illuminati wants us to believe your post but we're to smart to fall for that."
As such progress has been... minimal, though there have been several suggestions of varying quality.
I'm working on the following assumptions:
1. Active abilities – that is, abilities that provide a new capability or a bonus on demand – are more enjoyable to use than constant-effect passive abilities.
2. Characters should have a wide variety of abilities available, each of which are viable options in non-niche situations.
3. Characters should develop more abilities as they level up, with previous abilities remaining useful rather than being overtaken or replaced.
I think these are all reasonable goals. Also, I commend you for stating your design intentions. That gives a clear basis for feedback. Lots of people take homebrew stuff and criticize it based on what *they* want when really they should be trying to help the poster accomplish *their* goals. Note, you can tell people that you disagree with their goals, but that's a separate point, try to make the two points distinct.
With that in mind, I'm making the following changes:All Martial Classes:
-If you have a combat feat, and you would qualify for the Improved / Greater version of that feat solely using your Martial Class Levels, you are automatically granted that feat (i.e. If your Fighter knows Improved Trip, he automatically gains Greater Trip at Martial Level 6 if he meets the other requirements.)
Interesting...it definitely makes one worry less about passive stuff. However, if I were doing something similar, I would give all classes an effective "Martial Level" or maybe just base the time a character gains a feat based on BAB, otherwise the lesser versions of these feats become disproportionately good for straight martials. If this is the intention, then go ahead and do it :)
Barbarian:
-Rather than having round of rage per day, you get X rage points upon beginning a rage. These can be spent to activate powers (including those that were previously once/rage) but you must also spend one point per round to maintain your rage. This allows you to spike higher than the fighter, but you risk burning yourself out if you push too hard.
-You can regain rage points by being hit, or with certain new rage powers.
-Your powers generally encourage you to take damage, play recklessly,and be a terrifying screaming warrior who just won't stay dead even as you're pierced by the feeble weapons of anyone foolish enough to piss you off
-Sample Powers:
+Driven Beyond Death: When an attack would deal enough damage to kill you or knock you unconscious, you may pay Rage to ignore the damage from that attack until your rage ends.
+Cathartic Blow: Make an attack with a large damage bonus, but significant negative to-hit modifier. If you miss, the Rage cost of this ability is refunded.
+Refuse Obstacle: Ignore certain conditions until your rage ends. This begins at weaker conditions (i.e. dazzled) but upgrades until a high level barbarian can ignore things like Blindness, Paralysis and so on.
Cool stuff. This reflects the energy expenditure a rage is supposed to represent better in my opinion because not all rounds of rage consume equal amounts of energy (points).
Be especially careful with the Driven Beyond Death ability. If you make the rage cost to stay alive too low, the barbarian can stay up for a significant amount of time and each round they're up, they can put out a *lot* of damage.
Cathartic Blow is fine, but seems a bit redundant with Power Attack available.
I like refuse obstacle quite a bit. Do you imagine it as paying rage costs each round to ignore stuff or just part of raging? Also, if I were designing something similar, I would give it the ability to negate temporary effects, but not permanent effects. Like, if a barbarian is blinded because his eyeballs got torn out, I wouldn't allow raging to let him ignore *that.*
Fighter:
-6+Int skill points per level, add Perception, Knowledge (history), Bluff and Diplomacy to your favoured skill list.
-You have a small Endurance Pool which fuels exclusive fighter talents. This pool regains one point per round (I felt that Fighters should have the best battlefield endurance)
-Gain a bonus equal to your fighter level on Knowledge checks to identify the weaknesses of monsters (no other type of knowledge) and you may make those checks untrained.
-Eventually, add your level to your choice of certain Party Face / Leadership skills.
-Your talents cover a wide range of combat skills, but generally focus on controlling and weakening enemies while providing cover and support for your allies, rather than just straight-up dealing monster damage.
-Sample Talents:
+Knockback: Force an opponent struck to make a Fortitude save or be thrown back. Pay extra endurance to knock an affected enemy prone.
+Inflict bleed damage. Pay extra endurance to also inflict a small amount of Constitution Bleed.
+Pin an enemy to an adjacent solid object with your weapon, forcing them to destroy it or take extra damage to move away from said object.
Some people will say 6 skill points is too high. I don't think it *necessarily* is, but I would up other classes too if I were making a similar change. Feel free to do this or not.
Man, I can't tell you how much I like the idea of an endurance pool. Very nice.
Identifying monster weaknesses is fine. It's specific enough to not be unbalancing.
Be careful with just giving them a +class level bonus to blanket skills. If I have that plus a good amount of skill points (which you proposed earlier), I can have a crazy bonus to skills. At level 10, I could be making DC 30 checks no problem.
All of these are cool ideas for talents that aren't too powerful that they can't be used frequently. Makes me like the endurance idea even more. Check out Marthkus' thread about martial maneuvers for some more ideas.
Also, what do you imagine as the mechanism for these abilities. Does the enemy get a save or does it target their CMD or what? Just stuff to think about.
Rangers and Paladins next!
|
I get why Tome of Battle did things the way it did - it seems easier to balance, especially cause casters are already balanced on a pretty similar system. But it also strikes me as too arbitrary. I mean, Vancian Casting makes sense for wizards, cause you're casting a long ritual spell during preparation, and then just finishing it during combat. But I don't see why I would need to prepare special maneuvers as a guy who's just really good with a sword.
I will, say, though, that the Tome of Battle thing really fits well with my idea of the monk - I mean, you're already studying formalized martial arts and all that kind of thing! Even if no one else did, I can see why they would have individual named techniques and so on.
If you liked Tome of Battle, DreamScarred Press is making a Pathfinder version. 3 classes are out for it so far. LINK
As far as homebrew suggestions goes this is the best I got.
Ha! Ninja'd. There's definitely some good stuff in there :)
Ranger:
-Fold certain Favoured Enemy categories together (i.e. combine Abberations, Dragons and Magical Beasts into Favoured Enemy: Behemoths, or Animals, Plants, Fey and Vermin into Favoured Enemy: Wild Things), and allow players to just take Humanoid or Outsiders as a favoured enemy.
-Automatically gain ranger traps in addition to spellcasting, rather than instead of it. (This is a maybe, cause I don't really know if a Rage/Endurance style mechanic is appropriate for them - also, I want to establish them as the "tricky and clever" martial class to contrast with the barbarian's "smashy" and the fighter's "just plain skilled"
Be very careful with folding favored enemy categories together. The bonuses can get huge and ranged damage builds can really take advantage of the static bonuses. If I were designing this, I would lower the bonuses to compensate for the wider applicability.
Traps are cool. I would like them as an integral part of the class.
If you're struggling for a resource mechanic, may I suggest something like...Cunning or Guile? You could have them be debuffs or things that open the enemy up to further effects/damage. Maybe the limitation could be that they require a save and only work on an enemy once per combat because they are able to guard against it next time? I dunno. Just something to think about.
Paladin:
-Gain powers that act on a narrative level, rather than a purely combat level. Examples:
+Be There (ex): You automatically find out if someone you have promised to protect is in serious and legitimate danger early enough that you can arrive to save them - no matter how far you are. This upgrades into a supernatural version that lets you arrive, even if there's physically no way you could get there.
+Guided by Fate: You gain a sacred bonus on certain good acts, regardless of what stat or skill those acts are using. Yes, you are legitimately more competent at everything when trying to be a good person.
+The ability to defend others and force enemies to focus on you rather than your wards - this ability automatically gets stronger the more an individual needs your protection (i.e. You're competent at covering the Fighter's back in combat. You are a flawless shield of shining metal when stopping a demon from mauling a bunch of orphans.
+Visions from on High: You sometimes receive visions, omens, or other information needed to stop evil threats - this gives you the knowledge needed to stop evil plots and to do great good, but you can only use it for appropriate things. Also, it's controlled by the Player, not the Character (that is, the player chooses when it should happen, the Paladin merely "happens" to have a revelation at that moment).
I like the Be There ability for it's ability to tell when someone you promised to protect is in danger, but I'm not a fan of the supernatural version. Just a personal preference. Feel free to keep it that way.
I get what you're going for with Guided by Fate, but it seems to take a bit of the goodness out of good acts to me. It's like, oh if I do this good thing, I get rewarded rather than just doing it because it's good. It's a fine rule, just another perspective.
I like the ability to force enemies to focus on you. I think more martials need something like this. Very interesting and flavorful idea about the scaling bonus based on need. I love it! How would you quantify this? Maybe CR of monsters versus level of those threatened? Or would it just be up to the GM?
Hmmm. I'm not a huge fan of the Visions from on High power. That seems like something that's best left to the GM. Plus, it forces the GM to either directly reveal his/her plan or be able to come up with a suitably vague way to describe it on the spot. If you're comfortable with this, go for it!
Hope that helped, let me know if you have any questions or if you have new ideas for me to help with :)
Here we go again...Sorry, is this type of upgrade a pretty common thread on the forums? I'm fairly new, so if there's a well-executed version of this out there, I'd love if you could link me to it :)
Pretty common is an understatement. There are loads of threads like these on the homebrew/suggestions forum (where this should be by the way) and even more on General Discussion. Well executed is harder. Problem is everybody has their own idea of how much and what exactly to give each class. Closest thing to consensus is that 7th level plus should already be legendary/wuxia/mythologic and 15th plus should be mythic/epic. My opinion? Casters are making demipanes and fulfilling wishes sofighters should be able to leap tall buildings and break castle walls, at the very least.
Also, something else most people eventually notice is that the full BAB classes aren't the only ones that the need the boost. Monks and Rogues can do with some love too.Review on ideas tomorrow when I'm not conked out with imnsonia. Do you want ideas too or just reviews?
I get what you're going for with Guided by Fate, but it seems to take a bit of the goodness out of good acts to me. It's like, oh if I do this good thing, I get rewarded rather than just doing it because it's good. It's a fine rule, just another perspective.I like the ability to force enemies to focus on you. I think more martials need something like this. Very interesting and flavorful idea about the scaling bonus based on need. I love it! How would you quantify this? Maybe CR of monsters versus level of those threatened? Or would it just be up to the GM?
Just realized how contradictory it was for me to like one of these and not the other, ha! After thinking about it a bit more, I like them both :)
I like the principles behind your ideas - inject thematicly driven abilites into the classes instead of damage bonuses. As has been offered in previous posts, this gets tricky to pull off without going overboard.
I think I get what you're wanting for the fighter. On the one hand, change the fighter from aa warrior who improves his skills to only improve himself into the kind of who makes his fellow soldiers better than they were. I know that this is treading on the Cavalier's toes, but its the cavalier so who cares. The other idea I noticed is something I thought of too, and actually wrote up 20 levels for of a fighter re-write for that I eventually scrapped. You called it Endurance, I just called it Grit. It was a means for the Fighter to be a survivor, and pull through the worst of situations. For example, turn crits into hits, shake off conditions, get second chances on saves, get more powerful as his party falls around him, etc.
Anyhow, if I had any actual advice on how to achieve all these things I would offer it. Just wanted to let you know I feel your pain.
I don't like the 'point' system; it doesn't feel quite right for martial classes, but otherwise I think it's alright.
An alternative for defined points would be a dice pool system, where, whenever you do something that would cost a point, you roll a die versus a target number. This target number or die size could vary by level or by task or whatever, but since there's some uncertainty to it, it feels more martial.
There is a certain segment of people on this board who will not rest until caster classes are disallowed and martial classes are given all the spells but have them named as martial powers . . . "Fighter's Strike of Grease" and "Charming Stab" ect.Here we go again...Sorry, is this type of upgrade a pretty common thread on the forums? I'm fairly new, so if there's a well-executed version of this out there, I'd love if you could link me to it :)
To phrase things a bit more fairly, quite a few people on this forum enjoy poking fun at the fighter's limitations. Others feel the fighter's strengths are subtle, but important and distinctive. However, the topic's been broached a lot of late, and I'll admit I was being a bit snide. Not your fault, tzar, at least you're proposing solutions!
Tholomyes, this is the second or third time I've seen someone say something to the effect of 'it's less reliable so it feels more martial' can you explain to me where this line of thought comes from?
Speaking from personal experience... martials are all about doing what works. Not gambling on a random chance, but getting the job done as smoothly and crisply as possible.
(It's the same philosophy clash of old crane wing, which 'works' to new crane wing, which 'makes you slightly better at what you did before, and still puts you at the mercy of the dice gods)
Perhaps I didn't explain it right. I'm going based off a system I tried to homebrew, where the martial characters had a dice pool of a few dice, where every maneuver had a target number from 2-5 (or so), and the dice ranged from d4 to d12, based on level. Whenever you want to make a maneuver, you make the maneuver (which typically triggers on a successful attack, or some opposed roll), but the roll that you make using the dice pool determines whether you've overextended yourself, and lose that die (or alternatively, you drop one 'level' of die, like d6 to d4). It essentially allows them to do the maneuver effectively, but it provides some uncertainty to how many uses of a martial maneuver you can use in a period of time.
The straw that broke the camels back was that not only did the rest of the party have more general utility in combat than me, the Druid was actually better than me at my own game (melee combat). It turns out a few feats, and +2 or 3 to hit and damage doesn't really compare favourably with the ability to turn into a Dire Tiger for hours on end, let alone when said tiger can still dominate vast areas of the battlefield with spells.
Without touching on the rest right now, you sort of lose me with this. My feeling off hand is that if the druid is regularly showing you up in your dedicated branch of combat (in this case melee) it is because of a disparity in player skill and optimization.
That isn't the only possible reason (GM style and tactics can play in), but it is the most obvious one.
The fighter run strictly by the numbers isn't great at a lot of things, but he can dish out pretty good offensive numbers in melee or with a bow.
To phrase things a bit more fairly, quite a few people on this forum enjoy poking fun at the fighter's limitations. Others feel the fighter's strengths are subtle, but important and distinctive. However, the topic's been broached a lot of late, and I'll admit I was being a bit snide. Not your fault, tzar, at least you're proposing solutions!There is a certain segment of people on this board who will not rest until caster classes are disallowed and martial classes are given all the spells but have them named as martial powers . . . "Fighter's Strike of Grease" and "Charming Stab" ect.Here we go again...Sorry, is this type of upgrade a pretty common thread on the forums? I'm fairly new, so if there's a well-executed version of this out there, I'd love if you could link me to it :)
I've realized the exact source material all the fighter powers should be drawn from so its not "anime/wuxia". . . just base evertyhing off Adventure Time. . .
Rattleballs (a fighter) "cuts the air between him and his foe" to do a devastating strike. . .
then whirlwinds to fly away. . . martials beat up wizards all the time on that show.
To phrase things a bit more fairly, quite a few people on this forum enjoy poking fun at the fighter's limitations. Others feel the fighter's strengths are subtle, but important and distinctive. However, the topic's been broached a lot of late, and I'll admit I was being a bit snide. Not your fault, tzar, at least you're proposing solutions!There is a certain segment of people on this board who will not rest until caster classes are disallowed and martial classes are given all the spells but have them named as martial powers . . . "Fighter's Strike of Grease" and "Charming Stab" ect.Here we go again...Sorry, is this type of upgrade a pretty common thread on the forums? I'm fairly new, so if there's a well-executed version of this out there, I'd love if you could link me to it :)
Indeed. So perhaps we should try to actually be helpful?
One suggestion I will make is that you're unlikely to have to buff each martial class equally.
I will say that I like the general consolidation of martial feats a lot.
Our group's work with the fighter is not really focused along the same lines as what you're looking for, nor is it anywhere close to finished or well executed yet, but feel free to take a look. There's some more past the OP.
Personally, I think removing iterative attacks entirely is a good start. Eliminate the entire need for a fighter to decide between mobility and offensive power.
Then, take a page from 5e's book, and increase the damage a fighter does at certain levels. While it's been some time since I've seen the playtest, I think fighter capped out at x5 damage, other martials capped at x4, the cleric and some other secondary melee classes at x3.
I personally would suggest simply increasing the damage from a standard action attack at the same levels one gains an additional iterative attack.
I'm pretty sure 5e still has iterative attacks, but because they have no differentiation between types of actions (there's just "actions" which are essentially standard actions, and "free actions" and moves, which don't take an action, but can only be done once per turn, and certain spells which can be made in combination with other actions, and overall it's a mess, all for the sake of "simplification"), it basically acts as if everyone has pounce.
Honestly, though, that's not the main problem with martials though. While it would help make certain other things more viable, the big problem is that they have no real meaningful choices in combat. Unless you invest heavily in them, maneuvers are usually a bad choice, and even if you invest in them, their shelf-life is too short. I'd prefer to see stuff on the level of some of the mythic options, but mythic went too over the top with a lot of it, that that's not really an option, either.
Personally, I think removing iterative attacks entirely is a good start. Eliminate the entire need for a fighter to decide between mobility and offensive power.
Then, take a page from 5e's book, and increase the damage a fighter does at certain levels. While it's been some time since I've seen the playtest, I think fighter capped out at x5 damage, other martials capped at x4, the cleric and some other secondary melee classes at x3.
I personally would suggest simply increasing the damage from a standard action attack at the same levels one gains an additional iterative attack.
some ways I've seen suggested to do this:
- give the classes the vital strike line of feats. Allow vital strike to be used on charges/spring attack- condense feat chains (ie maneuver ones)
- increase damage based on BAB
- Allow classes to move and full attack
Not all of those should be done, and they would completely solve the problem martial characters can have.
Personally, I think removing iterative attacks entirely is a good start. Eliminate the entire need for a fighter to decide between mobility and offensive power.
Then, take a page from 5e's book, and increase the damage a fighter does at certain levels. While it's been some time since I've seen the playtest, I think fighter capped out at x5 damage, other martials capped at x4, the cleric and some other secondary melee classes at x3.
I personally would suggest simply increasing the damage from a standard action attack at the same levels one gains an additional iterative attack.
some ways I've seen suggested to do this:
- give the classes the vital strike line of feats. Allow vital strike to be used on charges/spring attack
- condense feat chains (ie maneuver ones)
- increase damage based on BAB
- Allow classes to move and full attackNot all of those should be done, and they would completely solve the problem martial characters can have.
Move + full attack is terrible. It splatters CR appropriate monsters in a single round and turns combat into rocket tag of the first order. It also removes all tactical depth from the game.
Vital strike for free at appropriate levels is something worth looking into. Allowing a 'rider' to be attached onto attacks at +6, +11 and +16 BaB is also something that could be attempted.
For instance, and this is just off the cuff, let's say you've got vital strike chain for free. So at +6 BaB, the fighter goes from 1d8+8 to 2d8+8 on his attack. Cool. Now, what if Improved Trip allowed him to add a trip attempt to any successful attack? And at 11th level, he could add two riders.
This changes the combat maneuver game, because now the fighter doesn't have to sack his attack for the round to maybe pull off something that might be applicable to the foe he is fighting. At 16th level, he's dealing damage, and threatening to knock the sword out of his foe's hand and his foe on his ass and possibly stagger/stun him, whatever. Now combat maneuvers aren't the red headed stepbrother of full attacks, and you can see a lot more interesting fights taking place rather than just the blitzkrieg death that current d20 full attack provides.
Move + full attack is terrible. It splatters CR appropriate monsters in a single round and turns combat into rocket tag of the first order. It also removes all tactical depth from the game.Personally, I think removing iterative attacks entirely is a good start. Eliminate the entire need for a fighter to decide between mobility and offensive power.
Then, take a page from 5e's book, and increase the damage a fighter does at certain levels. While it's been some time since I've seen the playtest, I think fighter capped out at x5 damage, other martials capped at x4, the cleric and some other secondary melee classes at x3.
I personally would suggest simply increasing the damage from a standard action attack at the same levels one gains an additional iterative attack.
some ways I've seen suggested to do this:
- give the classes the vital strike line of feats. Allow vital strike to be used on charges/spring attack
- condense feat chains (ie maneuver ones)
- increase damage based on BAB
- Allow classes to move and full attackNot all of those should be done, and they would completely solve the problem martial characters can have.
Probably, but casters can already do that, so I'm not sure how much of a problem it is. I should also note there is a major typo in my post that I can't edit now.
"and they wouldn't completely solve the problem of martial characters"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. Let's see. A random 20th level fighter.
20 starting str, +6 item, all ability increases into strength, +5 inherent. 36 Str.
Weapon Focus chain, Weapon Spec chain. +5 weapon. Weapon training. +11 attack, +13 damage.
Dude swings at +44 (1d8+26) or (2d6+39 two handed) With power attack, that is +38 (1d8+38) or (2d6+57)
Now, if that is at x4, he's swinging at 4d8+104 or 8d6+156 two handed.
Average damage to a single foe is 122 or 184. (170 or 228 power attack) Minus whatever DR applies, though RAW with a +5 sword, that's all.
Same random 20th level wizard. 36 Int. Spell Focus chain.
DC 34 wail of the banshee deals 200 points of damage vs up to 20 creatures.
DC 34 meteor swarm deals 8d6 bludgeon to one plus 24d6 fire to all in area. Average 28 bludgeon plus 84 fire (no wonder people think that's a bad spell) to area.
DC doesn't apply polar ray deals 70 cold plus 1d4 Dex.
DC 31 empowered disintegrate deals 210 damage.
DC doesn't apply gate brings in 105 average damage per round (according to monster creation) or possibly other effects.
So we've got a lot of spells being out-damaged by by the full attack, assuming they only catch one person. Except the best ones, and then it doesn't even come close. Average good saving throw of a CR 20 is +22. That's a 55% success rate for wail of the banshee. Assuming you catch more than 2 creatures in the area, you out-damage the fighter's super attack every time.
And this is with super stats, so the comparison favors the fighter over the wizard. Start those folks with a base 15 and the fighter damage plummets (both from lower attack bonus and lower damage), while the wizard's remains fairly stable.
It also removes all tactical depth from the game.
The full attack removed tactical depth from the game, to the point of reducing it down to 'get the full attack or lack contribution'. Getting rid of it, even if you literally replace it with nothing, allows fighters to actually move around the battlefield and thus provides more actual tactical battles than leaving it in.
However, if the full attack provides all the tactical depth the game has to offer, that is more evidence that martial combat needs an overhaul, not less.
I'm just checking here, when you say 'CR appropriate' do you mean CR equal to party level? Because those are SUPPOSED to get splattered.
If you're saying that having two martially inclined characters able to move and full attack, while being supported by two mystically inclined characters, splatters a CR equivalent foe, that's the system doing its job.
I would like to see some suggestions of what an 'appropriate' length in rounds of combat is expected from the developers.
Me, I like longer combats, where tactics and luck are playing a larger role than raw firepower. My ideal would be 5-8 rounds against a challenging foe, and 2-3 rounds against a weak one. 1-2 for inconsequentials.
However, it is entirely possible that some people consider 3 rounds too long to be in combat against foes, challenging or not.
Determining where design is aiming there is probably vital to keeping people on the same page when discussing these things. If splattered to me means 'killed in 1 round of contact' but to you means 'killed in 5 rounds of contact with zero threat of return damage', we're going to be talking past each other about our concerns.
I can compare martial damage to spell damage when that's what we're comparing. If you think there are spells that will deal more damage than a 20 target 200 damage wail of the banshee or an empowered (or maximized) disintegrate, feel free to provide your own analysis. Most of the time, the maximum potential of that damage is going to be lost, because you won't have 20 targets, or some will make their saves.
Whatever. The point is that martials can be outstripped even when getting full attacks on the fly.
|
When comparing AoE blasts to fighters full attacking, it's important to realize that most encounters aren't against 20+ scary enemies. If you're facing 20+ enemies, most of them are cannon fodder, not all that scary. The blaster is supposed to get them out of the way so the fighter doesn't have to spend multiple rounds moving through them to get to the boss monster(s).
Boss monsters tend to have HP beyond the range of 1-2 blast spells. If we pit a blaster caster and a warrior against two boss monsters, the warrior is supposed to kill his opponent first. That's the intent of the game design, anyway. (SoS/SoD spells can screw this up.)
---
Anyway, I like both the idea of Fighter Endurance and Barbarian Rage Pool. I like how they refresh in different ways. But I'm not wild about the way they encourage staying "pure"-classed. I think PF encourages pure-classing a bit much already. It's worse with casters, but we shouldn't increase the problem.
Here's a thought: allow multiclassed characters to learn techniques from both tracks, and combine both energy pools. However, pool recharge speed is linked to level; a higher-level barbarian recovers more energy from rage-triggers, while a higher-level fighter recovers more energy from endurance-over-time. A multiclassed character has more options but less stamina.
As for fighter Endurance, how about some of the following uses:
- rerolling saving throws, or gaining a bonus
- as an immediate action, generate some temporary hit points
- resist being pushed around/knocked down
- (expensive) move a modest distance and full attack
I'm not a fan of the powers that trigger if you deal damage according to a % of the enemy's hit points, because as a player you shouldn't have that information. In which case you constantly need to ask the GM "did I hit him for enough to break bones?" That's awkward. I like the power though, so I think it just needs a more elegant trigger.
As for fighters gaining 6+int skill points: I think that's too much. It makes the rogue obsolete, even more than he is now. It actually infringes on the bard's role as skill monkey and face. Then we're just creating new problems by solving old ones, especially if you give the fighter Knowledge and Face skills a-plenty. I think the solutions in this thread are more balanced.
Kain you can't compare martial damage to baseline spell damage. The spell blasting system was HORRIBLY designed, and the only way to get reliable blast damage is by highly specializing with feats and traits.
A highly specialized blaster with feats and traits (and probably bloodlines/school powers/misc similar class features) is a fair comparison to make.
Unless we're comparing to a martial character with no offensive combat feats like Power Attack or Weapon Focus/Spec, and no attack/damage class features like weapon training or Reckless Abandon. Perhaps something like an Unbreakable with all his feats in non offensive areas.
Apples to apples.
I like the barbarian's rage points concept. One question--and sorry if I missed it--but is there a limitation on how many times per day the barbarian can rage? Or is the only limitation the length of each rage?
Move + full attack is terrible. It splatters CR appropriate monsters in a single round and turns combat into rocket tag of the first order. It also removes all tactical depth from the game.
It's worked quite well in the games I've run, without any adverse effects.
As far as my experience with it, making full attacks a standard action, which allows move + full attack, is an excellent way to run things. Fighters, rogues, and especially monks all seem to benefit greatly.
|
|
I've seen arguments that fighters should have at least 3+ skill points; if they dump Int to 7, they take more penalty than if they dump to 8. That said, let's make it an even 4+; it didn't make barbarians or druids OP. (Even the people who think druids are OP don't think it's because of the skill points.)
Triggering a power of dealing a function of the monster's HP is pretty inelegant, I realize now. I'm not sure what else to do for it, though - basing it off fixed damage has the problem of making it get too good at higher levels (I did a tiny scratch to this enormous HP blob... And off go its wings!), while making it trigger when the fighter deals, say thrice his BAB in damage runs into the truenamer problem of it getting harder as you level up. Should I maybe make it a standard action that does one attacks worth of damage and also allows a sunder attempt instead?
I'm thinking you should be basing it on relative creature size and type; maybe also based on racial HD. Crumpling a tiny fairy like a napkin should be easier than doing it to a big troll.
Creatures immune to critical hits (oozes) should probably be immune to this as well.
If you're looking for holes to plug: a power that lets a fighter stay functional inside a swarm. Not necessarily damage it (use alchemical fire), but at least shrug off some of the damage.
I like your ideas for making Rage Cycling an obsolete trick.