| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
DrDeth, the point of this is that 'mundane' was left behind a long time ago when you're sword-fighting with a Balor. It doesn't have to be magic, but it really does have to be above and beyond the 'real world' or the fighter is playing e6 while everyone else if playing Pathfinder.
One of the examples I dropped with the Incredible Hulk. He's not magic, but he is incredibly strong. He can't fly: he isn't magic. But he can leap high enough, fast enough, and far enough that a flying opponent (or the 50 foot gap mentioned above) isn't going to slow him down.
Likewise, Thor doesn't actually have any magic powers. He's the strongest Asgardian, and the most durable except for maybe Baldur. He gets his magic from his hammer. But his mastery of mjolnir (and fighters are weapon experts) means he can do more than just fly and shoot lightning bolts with it.
Quick correction. Those are not Pro-martials. They are anti-martials that claim to like martials a lot but really mean they like low level play a lot. People who point out how weak martials are and how powerful casters can be are the pro-martials. Those people who don't like non-spellcasters to have anything they consider to be magical are literally the reason we real pro-martials can't have nice things.
I disagree. Especially I disagree with "how weak martials are and how powerful casters' since it's simply not true, at least in IRL tabletop play.
However, I agree with SKR in that really "Ex vs Su" has no real reason for being there anymore. We already have martials with Su ( the Paladin, barbarian & Monk), so I don't see the issue. But OTOH, what's wrong with having just one class (fighter) that doesn't have anything too far out of the ordinary?
"You also get rid of the idea that “martial characters don’t have magic, and therefore can’t do amazing things because they’re limited to what nonmagical people can do in the real world.” But Paladins can do those things, so can the Monk and barbarian. (There's even a few Su abilities for the Ranger). And of course the Ninja has Su stuff.
Just enhance and come up with more archetypes for those four martial classes that give "amazing things" above and beyond what "nonmagical people can do in the real world."
Leave the Fighter alone. Sure, better saves, more SkP would be nice next ed, and a Magic hunter archetype would be nice. But there should be ONE class that is tied to the mundane.
Agree to disagree. The mundane need not apply in any universe that is fundamentally tied to magic. Magic exists, therefore those species who evolve in an environment steeped in magic will, by necessity, have to harness or at least shut down magic.
I would be okay with the fighter being the equivalent of a blank though. (Blank being a term referencing anyone who's not only resistant to magic, but actively reduces the effects of the arcane substrate of the universe around him.)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quick correction. Those are not Pro-martials. They are anti-martials that claim to like martials a lot but really mean they like low level play a lot. People who point out how weak martials are and how powerful casters can be are the pro-martials. Those people who don't like non-spellcasters to have anything they consider to be magical are literally the reason we real pro-martials can't have nice things.
I disagree. Especially I disagree with "how weak martials are and how powerful casters' since it's simply not true, at least in IRL tabletop play.
However, I agree with SKR in that really "Ex vs Su" has no real reason for being there anymore. We already have martials with Su ( the Paladin, barbarian & Monk), so I don't see the issue. But OTOH, what's wrong with having just one class (fighter) that doesn't have anything too far out of the ordinary?
"You also get rid of the idea that “martial characters don’t have magic, and therefore can’t do amazing things because they’re limited to what nonmagical people can do in the real world.” But Paladins can do those things, so can the Monk and barbarian. (There's even a few Su abilities for the Ranger). And of course the Ninja has Su stuff.
Just enhance and come up with more archetypes for those four martial classes that give "amazing things" above and beyond what "nonmagical people can do in the real world."
Leave the Fighter alone. Sure, better saves, more SkP would be nice next ed, and a Magic hunter archetype would be nice. But there should be ONE class that is tied to the mundane.
The problem is that that guy tied to the mundane plays the same game as the dude who bends space and time. Higher saves, or more skill points doesnt mean squat. Those things are all founded in whats real. Its like having Aragorn in the same game as Superman. Sure Aragorn can kill badguys really well, even survive a fall off a cliff into a river. But superman already caught the badguy and stopped the evil plot 5 minutes ago, also he's now facing down something that Stryder can literally not harm or influence in any way without some kind of severe plot contrivance that says only Aragorn can weild the sword that strikes down the bad guy, and supermans ability smash mountains to bits is worthless against it.
Thats what the rogue and fighter are in a world with druids, clerics and wizards. The entire problem revolves around the fact that the rogue and fighter are tied to the real. And inevitably the barbarian, paladin, ranger, ninja, cavalier and others are compared to the fighter and rogue. And people will say, well x is overpowered because it overshadows the fighter, or the rogue. It holds back a whole swath of character classes from getting cool abilities to play with. Think about all the complaining about the ninja when it came out, and now the slayer and investigator. 'Its replacing the rogue', 'Power Creep'. And they are right. In a general sense. Give mostly martial characters supernatural (and thus not tied to the 'real') powers, and you overshadow those that dont have them. Because those powers are not handcuffed to reality. No ability based on boromir is going to compare to green lanterns ring.
If your goal is a balanced game, in which all classes feel equally valuable, and equally able to influence individual situations as well as the overall story of a game (read: narrative power), then you cant have both the fighter, and the wizard as they stand now in the same game. Something has to give. It is a literally impossible goal to maintain that real vs not real disparity and 'balance' things.
My issues with the ToB are not that they give some Su abilities to martials, it's that it tries to fix martials by giving them what amounts to spells.
Leave the Fighter alone. Sure, better saves, more SkP would be nice next ed, and a Magic hunter archetype would be nice. But there should be ONE class that is tied to the mundane.
IT'S NOT A MUNDANE GAME. You get to be mundane during the first 5 levels of play. After that, the game quickly leaves mundane behind. The problem is that the "Give stuff to other classes and leave the Fighter alone" mentality goes beyond unhelpful and right into foolish. You can't do that. The Fighter then becomes a giant lead weight around the neck of every other class in the game where they have to be limited by the limits imposed upon him to maintain "balance".
I'm sorry DD, but you say stuff like this all of the time and you're just wrong, and it's not advice that even fits within the design paradigm of the game. The game already exists in a state where some classes are completely reliant on others (like the Fighter) and other classes are completely self sufficient (Druid, Cleric, Witch, etc.).
I can have my Fighter and you can have yours. Just create feats that allow the Fighter the same kind of quadratic progression you see in a spellcaster, where his capabilities grow in line with the challenges he faces and logical consistency of his own world.
If you don't want the Fighter to be able to perform a 60 foot straight up leaping pounce like SKR talks about, don't take the (theoretical) feats that allow that, or stick to your normal turf in the below 10 range where that stuff isn't possible. But stop trying to tell others how to play.
But you really cant have it both ways. From a design standpoint, the feat that lets you jump 60ft up and pounce seems a bit out of balance with skill focus acrobatics dont you think? Not to mention you force martial characters to spend limited and generic resources to acheive what their classes should be able to do.
Feats are probably the fighters biggest problem. Everyone gets feats. Everyone can take most feats. Feats generally need to be in the same general weight class as eachother because of this. You cant have Weapon focus, and superawesome destroy everything power require the same expenditure of resources.
Class abilities dont have that restriction. Druids have wild empathy, and they have wild shape. They both start with wild, they are both class abilities, but they are in no way equal, and no one expects them to be. If wild shape was a feat, people would complain that it is too much more powerful then every other feat (see leadership and vow of poverty from 3.5).
So you cant have both the lord of the rings fighter, and the fighter that actually fits with dnd in the same game. It just doesnt work as a functionally sound game.
DrDeth, the point of this is that 'mundane' was left behind a long time ago when you're sword-fighting with a Balor. It doesn't have to be magic, but it really does have to be above and beyond the 'real world' or the fighter is playing e6 while everyone else if playing Pathfinder..
Roos, you know I respect your views. But there's 18 classes now, more very soon. Why not ONE with no magical abilities? Just one? In our RotRL campaign, @ 13th level, the straight fighter is far and away the most dangerous. Many, many players like and want a straight vanilla fighter. Leave that one class alone, but yes- MOAR supernatural stuff as options for the rest! Even flight. Even Dimension Door.
Trogdar- I agree, a "anti-magic/blank" fighter archetype is sorely needed. One who is very resistant to magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My issues with the ToB are not that they give some Su abilities to martials, it's that it tries to fix martials by giving them these-are-totally-not-spells-we-swear.
I dont think there was any attempt to hide the fact that they were trying to give a spell like resource to martial characters. This is in fact how you fix the martial caster disparity. You have to give everyone a resource that is as flexible, powerful, varied, and low investment as spells.
Think about this for a moment. How much investment does a wizard put into an individual spell? Almost none right? Assuming he can get a hold of it, he gets 2 for free every level, and the rest cost a pitance of gold. Sorcerors get them all for free, and can swap them out a bit a time. Spells are flexible and require very little investment of character resources. I dont need to take the fireball feat, or the fireball archetype to cast fireball. I just learn fireball.
Fighters have to pick feats that are effectively permanent (retraining aside), and though they get alot, its no where near the variety a cleric gets when choosing his spells every day. But who here things any one feat is better then a single spell of their choice? I certainly havent seen that feat. Is there a feat that compares to the gate spell? Anywhere? How about miracle? Yet the fighter needs to pay more for his feat then the cleric did to cast miracle.
ToB gives martial characters something that follows the same structure as spells, and it does this intentionally. Because that structure is what makes casters powerful. If wizards had to take a feat, or get a class ability for each of their spells, we wouldnt have this problem. ToB for once, takes the problem head on. And it would have been near perfect if it got a little more love and attention. But its not the game some people (those who want normal fighters) want to play. Except they dont realize they already werent playing that game. They were just handicaping a third of the classes in the process.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a design standpoint, the feat that lets you jump 60ft up and pounce seems a bit out of balance with skill focus acrobatics dont you think? Not to mention you force martial characters to spend limited and generic resources to acheive what their classes should be able to do.
Stop focusing on the word 'Feat'. Imagine a world where Fighters, instead of a bonus feat every other level, got 'Fighter Techniques' every other level. (Like rogues get talents, barbarians get rage powers, magi get arcana, arcanists get exploits, and so on.)
Sure, you could trade a technique for a feat, just as you can trade a rogue talent for a feat. But mostly they'd be fighter-only abilities. They could come in chains, or have level-based prerequisites to ensure that Weapon Specialization is the kind of thing you take at 4th level and 'superawesome destroy everything power' is the thing you take at 18th.
A 9th level spell is better than a first level spell. An 18th level fighter technique can be better than a 2nd level fighter technique.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DrDeth, the point of this is that 'mundane' was left behind a long time ago when you're sword-fighting with a Balor. It doesn't have to be magic, but it really does have to be above and beyond the 'real world' or the fighter is playing e6 while everyone else if playing Pathfinder..Roos, you know I respect your views. But there's 18 classes now, more very soon. Why not ONE with no magical abilities? Just one? In our RotRL campaign, @ 13th level, the straight fighter is far and away the most dangerous. Many, many players like and want a straight vanilla fighter. Leave that one class alone, but yes- MOAR supernatural stuff as options for the rest! Even flight. Even Dimension Door.
Trogdar- I agree, a "anti-magic/blank" fighter archetype is sorely needed. One who is very resistant to magic.
I'm sorry DrDeth but there is no "straight vanilla" anything. The WBL table exists for a reason - EVERYONE needs some kind of magic, even if only items, to cut it at later levels. So they may as well have magic built-in.
I just would not expect anyone to be able to take on a Great Wyrm Dragon, Mummy Lord, Dread Wraith, or Pit Fiend without magic of some kind.
Why not ONE with no magical abilities?
This isn't about 'magic', this is about 'awesome'. If a 20th level fighter can leap 100 feet and full attack a demon prince, why is that Su and not Ex? That's the point of this thread.
But even if it was magic, the great thing about making things options is that they're optional. Rogues can take the Minor and Major Magic, but that doesn't make EVERY rogue a magic user. If you want to make a fighter who doesn't have any magical, supernatural, or even exceptional/extraordinary abilities, you can. Why is it a problem that someone else can make a fighter that does?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just would not expect anyone to be able to take on a Great Wyrm Dragon, Mummy Lord, Dread Wraith, or Pit Fiend without magic of some kind.I assume you mean aside from the magic armor, weapon, ammunition, boots, rings, cloak, amulet, nose-ring, hat-pin and go-kart.
He mentions WBL and purchased magic. He's explicitly referring to those things.
|
|
He mentions WBL and purchased magic. He's explicitly referring to those things.I just would not expect anyone to be able to take on a Great Wyrm Dragon, Mummy Lord, Dread Wraith, or Pit Fiend without magic of some kind.I assume you mean aside from the magic armor, weapon, ammunition, boots, rings, cloak, amulet, nose-ring, hat-pin and go-kart.
Indeed - having your character purchase all that and then still claim he is not using magic is ludicrous.
Why not ONE with no magical abilities?This isn't about 'magic', this is about 'awesome'. If a 20th level fighter can leap 100 feet and full attack a demon prince, why is that Su and not Ex? That's the point of this thread.
But even if it was magic, the great thing about making things options is that they're optional. Rogues can take the Minor and Major Magic, but that doesn't make EVERY rogue a magic user. If you want to make a fighter who doesn't have any magical, supernatural, or even exceptional/extraordinary abilities, you can. Why is it a problem that someone else can make a fighter that does?
They why not leave those to Barbarian, Monk, Ranger, Paladin, Ninja and Cavalier?
Design Manager
|
But you really cant have it both ways. From a design standpoint, the feat that lets you jump 60ft up and pounce seems a bit out of balance with skill focus acrobatics dont you think?
Not if I can take acrobatics at level 1 and "Flying Edge Massacre" requires me to have Whirlwind Attack, Skill Focus: Acrobatics, and Fighter level 15.
Not all feats have to be balanced. They just don't. That's why prereqs exist, and class or class feature restrictions, etc.
The Fighter needs feats that are uniquely his, and he needs feats that are better than the norm, certainly better than junk like Weapon Focus.
Or, he needs the feats to go away, and be replaced by something unique to him. I think that you could probably do a book of 100 feats that were all specific to the Fighter though, and in so doing resolve much of the conflict and disagreement without making any substantive changes to the system.
Give him a feat called "Stubborn Courage" that applies his Bravery bonus to saves vs. compulsion effects.
Give him a feat called "Fearsome Reputation" that allows him to influence people within a certain geographic or social radius.
Give him "Flying Edge Massacre".
And then make sure all of those feats have a "Fighter level X" or "Bravery +Y" tag in the prerequisites, and you've gone a long way towards resolving the gaps between the Fighter and others without breaking anything, or inadvertently giving every other class a bunch of goodies you didn't mean for them to have. Or do it like the Style feats where it's "Fighter level X, or so-many-prereqs-you-better-hope-this-is-something-you-actually-want-to-do-b ecause-you-aren't-doing-anything-else"
DrDeth, the point of this is that 'mundane' was left behind a long time ago when you're sword-fighting with a Balor. It doesn't have to be magic, but it really does have to be above and beyond the 'real world' or the fighter is playing e6 while everyone else if playing Pathfinder..Roos, you know I respect your views. But there's 18 classes now, more very soon. Why not ONE with no magical abilities? Just one? In our RotRL campaign, @ 13th level, the straight fighter is far and away the most dangerous. Many, many players like and want a straight vanilla fighter. Leave that one class alone, but yes- MOAR supernatural stuff as options for the rest! Even flight. Even Dimension Door.
Trogdar- I agree, a "anti-magic/blank" fighter archetype is sorely needed. One who is very resistant to magic.
If you are that insistent on it then play a freaking warrior...
And I would be amazed if the fighter si the most effective person in the party without having to drain everyone else out of their resources... Turns out Dominate Person is a stupid fun spell...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They why not leave those to Barbarian, Monk, Ranger, Paladin, Ninja and Cavalier?Why not ONE with no magical abilities?This isn't about 'magic', this is about 'awesome'. If a 20th level fighter can leap 100 feet and full attack a demon prince, why is that Su and not Ex? That's the point of this thread.
But even if it was magic, the great thing about making things options is that they're optional. Rogues can take the Minor and Major Magic, but that doesn't make EVERY rogue a magic user. If you want to make a fighter who doesn't have any magical, supernatural, or even exceptional/extraordinary abilities, you can. Why is it a problem that someone else can make a fighter that does?
Because giving other players options doesn't take them away from you.
Because if the fighter can't get those abilities, then the other martial classes are either constrained in turn, and thus can't get anything too much better than 'mundane', or they dramatically outshine fighters, which turns the fighter into an NPC class.
It really sounds like you don't want a fighter, a PC character who, at his peak, can fight ancient dragons and infant gods. You want the Warrior, a guy with a 20th level progression but no reason to exist at higher than 5th level.
But you really cant have it both ways. From a design standpoint, the feat that lets you jump 60ft up and pounce seems a bit out of balance with skill focus acrobatics dont you think?Not if I can take acrobatics at level 1 and "Flying Edge Massacre" requires me to have Whirlwind Attack, Skill Focus: Acrobatics, and Fighter level 15.
Not all feats have to be balanced. They just don't. That's why prereqs exist, and class or class feature restrictions, etc.
The Fighter needs feats that are uniquely his, and he needs feats that are better than the norm, certainly better than junk like Weapon Focus.
Or, he needs the feats to go away, and be replaced by something unique to him. I think that you could probably do a book of 100 feats that were all specific to the Fighter though, and in so doing resolve much of the conflict and disagreement without making any substantive changes to the system.
Give him a feat called "Stubborn Courage" that applies his Bravery bonus to saves vs. compulsion effects.
Give him a feat called "Fearsome Reputation" that allows him to influence people within a certain geographic or social radius.
Give him "Flying Edge Massacre".
And then make sure all of those feats have a "Fighter level X" or "Bravery +Y" tag in the prerequisites, and you've gone a long way towards resolving the gaps between the Fighter and others without breaking anything, or inadvertently giving every other class a bunch of goodies you didn't mean for them to have. Or do it like the Style feats where it's "Fighter level X, or so-many-prereqs-you-better-hope-this-is-something-you-actually-want-to-do-b ecause-you-aren't-doing-anything-else"
At this point its a bit silly that its a feat, and not just a fighter class feature.
Also, its a bit silly that the fighter has to spend 5 class features qualifying for flying edge masacre, when the wizard just takes the gate spell. Not to mention the fighter has to wait until 15th level to do awesome stuff, the druid gets wild shape at level 4. In my mind, making martial character wait until late in the game (where many groups never even play) and expend relatively limited resources to do cool things when casters dont have to, is a bad solution to the problem.
Modules Overlord
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters have to pick feats that are effectively permanent (retraining aside)
It *is* worth noting that starting at 4th level a fighter gets to swap out a bonus feat without having to go to the retraining rules, and does it every 4 levels.
One reason games I have run and played in ahem had particularly effective fighters in that their players were not afraid to adjust feats as the abilities of the other players, focus of the campaign, and availability of magic items made ding so useful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you cant just beef up the numbers on the fighter, for instance, your idea of a fighter thats 'highly resistant to magic' is problematic. Because if he is dramatically more restant to magic, he trivializes the encounter with the evil wizard. If he's just a little bit more resistant to magic, well you are in the same boat as Fx lead us too, just with a different variable.
However this is exactly what the 1st edition Fighter was. They had some of the best saving throws in the game, because they didn't have magic and focused all of their training on being able to overcome whatever the magical world they existed in could throw at them.
I'm not sure why 3.0+ has insisted on making the Fighter the stereotypical dumb-jock. PF did a decent job in updating their fighting abilities from 3.X, but they're still 2/3 pathetic in the saves department.
Of course, that's off-topic.
Because a big portion of the community wants balance. They want a sense of fairness in their game. They cry foul, and power creep when there is a 'ninja' which is really just a big rogue archetype, that 'totally replaces' the rogue because it gets those cool supernatural/magical powers.
And yet...
A significant portion of the D&D fan community chose PF over 4e, even with its imbalances, and people play rogues in PFS despite the ninja being available as an alternative. So it's clear that, for a big portion of the community, balance isn't a primary concern.Surely there can be ways to satisfy both big portions of the community.
I will put this simply. When I play a high level fighter my goal is to be Hercules. Barbarians are not Hercules. Rangers are not Hercules. The Fighter is the best Hercules, but he just can't do it.
It would have been nice to see an advanced class that blends the fighter with the magus; focusing on using Su to upgrade his martial abilities. Doing this would allow some people to play the supernatural fighter and others to play the mundane.