| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think in literally every game I've ever played, veteran players tend to know the game better than the designers... The difference is not as obvious in tabletop RPGs as it is in video-games, but it's still there.
What RPG designers have you played with?
I played with Arneson, but he was notorious for making stuff up on the fly. Hargrave knew his system better than anyone. Jay Hartlove knew Supergame! better than anyone. Steve Perrin knew Runequest better than anyone I ever played with. Ken was a master of T&T. M.A.R. Barker knew his world really well, but not the nitty gritty of the rules.
Pretty much every designer I have played with knew their rules better than any player. Sure, even they could be surpried by a occassional odd corner case that the rules lawyers had memorized.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much every designer I have played with knew their rules better than any player. Sure, even they could be surpried by a occassional odd corner case that the rules lawyers had memorized.
Here's the major difference: Those were CREATORS, rather than simply designers, or were at least intimately involved in the initial creation.
Pathfinder is not, for the most part, created by Paizo. They did not make the majority of these rules.
Then that problem is compounded by there being a main dev team, and then a number of ones who write mainly for splatbooks and APs, who are clearly writing things for flavor and not how they actually fit into the rules (see the aforementioned Ghoul Barbarian benefiting from his Rage).
Then that problem is compounded again by this system (and other newer-ish systems) being far more complex and sprawling than many older RPGs.
I'd be willing to wager if you sat down and played a game of 3.5 with Monte Cook you wouldn't have to try too terribly hard to come up with some combination of rules he'd never seen before.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to reply, but then I thought twice and changed my mind. I'm not entering a discussion about designer/player game knowledge... Specially not with DD.
I was going to reply, but then I thought twice and changed my mind. I'm not entering a discussion about designer/player game knowledge... Specially not with DD.
It's not like he invented the thief class... or anything like that.
<.<
>.>
By all gods... Don't even kid about going there...
Pretty much every designer I have played with knew their rules better than any player. Sure, even they could be surpried by a occassional odd corner case that the rules lawyers had memorized.Here's the major difference: Those were CREATORS, rather than simply designers, or were at least intimately involved in the initial creation.
Pathfinder is not, for the most part, created by Paizo. They did not make the majority of these rules.
Then that problem is compounded by there being a main dev team, and then a number of ones who write mainly for splatbooks and APs, who are clearly writing things for flavor and not how they actually fit into the rules
Sorry, but since he said "designers" not "developers' I took that as meaning the main team. Sure, the guys that write a module or even a splatbook may not know the rules that well. Some are just good writers.
I played a bit with J. Eric Holmes , and he knew the rules really well- in a way you could call him a "designer'. But yeah, I also played with a few guys that had "only" written a module, and their game knowledge varied. More than the average player, sure, but not always masters by any means.
So, yeah, if by "designers' you mean anyone who has their name on any game product- many are not masters of the rules. Absolutely. And they'd be the first to admit it.
I was going to reply, but then I thought twice and changed my mind. I'm not entering a discussion about designer/player game knowledge... Specially not with DD.
Wise decision! ;-)
I am also not a big time rules expert, either. More than the casual player sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In many cases the community, who collectively have more playtime and can notice these things in actual play more readily and in greater numbers have more knowledge of how all the pieces interact (which is 80% of what determines the actual power level of an option).
Actually, I think it's more like 20%.
How your table works is HUGE part of it. Some players have a lot of fun finding rules to exploit. At other tables such a thing is really frowned upon.
What level your games get is also important. If your games rarely get into double digits- or at best you finish a AP then retire the character- you won't see issues with high level play.
Theorycrafting is also a issue- while theorycrafting is important and helps stress test, if only a tiny % play that way, it's hardly worth spending a couple weeks fo a devs time to 'fix" something only 1% of players will ever notice.
I think someone posted a wizard with a STR so high he could cast Wish for free using Blood Money. How many games would this actually occur? How many games even actually use Blood Money? How much time should be spent fixing this, then?
An understanding of how pieces fit together is what makes it easy to tell the difference between an exciting looking trap option and an actual good option.
Some examples:
Superstitious- A lot of players with low understanding of interacting pieces will see it and think "Oh no! When I rage my party can't cast spells on me." A player with good understanding would delay till after the Haste is cast before acting and raging, thus enjoying his buffs while having amazing saves.
Witch Hunter- A low understanding player would think "Oh man, so it only makes me better at killing squishies? boring." Without that knowledge of rules interactions he wouldn't realize that most high CR monsters and enemies have spells or SLA.
The Hunter Class- A low understanding player wouldn't realize how good 1 SL lower energy resistance/protection spells are. They wouldn't understand the damage output of a teamwork feat focused pair.
Archeologist- A low understanding player wouldn't understand that having less Rogue talents is a good thing. That Sneak attack isn't as impressive as bardic luck.
None of these options are broken or corner case. Superstitious+Human FCB+Courageous weapon is a pretty jacked and corner case scenario, but definitely not "superstition" by itself. Fate's Favored should never have been printed, but it's not required to make the Archeologist work as it's already amazing.
In reality the way individual pieces interact with the system is most of what determines the actual power level of an option. When a Swashbucker, reliant on Str+Dex+Con, is given Charisma to saves it helps shore up multistat dependency. When Charisma to saves is handed to an Oracle, reliant on Charisma for one of the best class features in the game and possibly getting Cha to AC and Initiative, it creates a broken mess. That is a direct example of how piece interaction determines power level of an option.
For some reason you ,very insultingly I might add, imply that having an inkling of system knowledge means you're a dirty filthy power gamer that looks for problems only 1% of the player base will notice.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wise decision! ;-)
I am also not a big time rules expert, either. More than the casual player sure.
Oh, I know that. My post wasn't meant to imply that I think you know a lot about the game (I don't).
I'm just not in the mood for yet another endless discussion... "Do devs know more about the game than players do" is too subjective to have any meaningful discussion... So why bother?
It's not wisdom... Just mere lack of patience and motivation...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. But not the "Do devs know more about the game than players do?" subject. ;)
Yup. But not the "Do devs know more about the game than players do?" subject. ;)
you just are discussing about not discussing.
We should probably stop before we start discussing about discussing about not discussing.Yup. But not the "Do devs know more about the game than players do?" subject. ;)you just are discussing about not discussing.
Can we start a discussion about whether or not we should stop discussing on the off chance we start a discussion about discussing about not discussing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we start a discussion about whether or not we should stop discussing on the off chance we start a discussion about discussing about not discussing?We should probably stop before we start discussing about discussing about not discussing.Yup. But not the "Do devs know more about the game than players do?" subject. ;)you just are discussing about not discussing.
That's disgusting... :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we need to break the chains on this discussion and free ourselves of the need to discuss what we should and should not discuss! We should discuss a new method to discuss whether or not a topic for discussion should be discussed.
... DISCUSSION
I do think the Fighter needs an "unchained variation."
My idea of an unchained fighter:
-Unchained from specific weapons, and instead to weapon groups
-Unchained from permanent feat selection. Maybe an ability to trade out 1/4th of their level (minimum 1) combat feats every morning
-Unchained from bad saves
-Unchained from bad skill point progression
I didn't really think there was anything in particular the fighter lacked until I read your post and remembered an old idea I had for the fighter...
The Unchained Fighter has a total pool of combat points equal to his constitution modifier + 2.
The unchained fighter may spend as a swift action any number of combat points to get, temporarily, that many combat feats of his or her choosing for 1 minute each.
There is some kind of cap on how many such temporary feats one can have active simultaneously.
This entirely removes the fighter's reliance upon a restricted line of feats. He or she is now free to play around using any combat feats.
I think we need to break the chains on this discussion and free ourselves of the need to discuss what we should and should not discuss! We should discuss a new method to discuss whether or not a topic for discussion should be discussed.
... DISCUSSION
You guys should stop dis cussing thing. You'll get banned.
The idea of "unchaining" the fighter may be exactly what the class needs. As it is now it tends to be too generic and clearly suffers from a lack of focus. A fighter tend to be just a generic beater, while other classes have a much more specific focus and flavour.
My take on the fighter is simple: regardless of their chosen weapon type fighters should be the best PCs when it comes to fighting, let paladins draw power from their patron divinity and barbarians hannel the fury of the wild. A Fighter is someone who grows so accostumed to battle and wearing the tools of his trade he can do superhuman feats all by himself. A fighter is a master of battle, and "unchained" should be the occasion to finally show it. This means I favor the road of focusing the fighter on what he does well, while freeing the template from unneeded rigidity.
Here's my take:
Keep BAB,hit die and saves the same, increase skill/level to 4+int.
Lvl 1: bonus feat, fighter focus (same as weapon focus but it works for a whole weapon group as listed in the fighter's description, every time the fighter choses weapon focus it affects a different weapon group).
Lvl 2:Bonus feat, Veteran of war +1 (As a veteran of a thousand battles the fighter has seen it all and instinctively learned to defend himself from most kind of accidents and hazards, from mind affecting spells to pitfalls. Starting at 2nd level, a fighter gains a +1 bonus on all type of saves. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels beyond 2nd), well trained (As a result of his strenuous training a fighter can ignore the ability prerequisites for combat feats, prerequisite feats are still mandatory)
Lvl 3: Armor training (as it is but the fighter also gains an inherent +1 AC bonus when wearing armor due to the ability to parry and deflect blows, this bonus increases by +1 at 7th, 11th and 15th lvl)
Lvl 4: Bonus feat, Fighter specialization (same as weapon specialization but it works on a whole weapon group as listed in the fighter's description, this weapon group must be one the fighter has chosen as fighter's focus)
Lvl 5: Weapon training (same as before but the fighter also decreases his target's AC when using weapons from his chosen weapon group, this malus to enemy AC increases at lvl 9th, 13th and 17th)
Lvl 6: Bonus feat, Veteran of war +2
Lvl 7: Armor training, make them bleed (the fighter learns how to cause horrific wounds upon his enemies, when he wounds an opponent with a weapon he has fighter focus for the fighter deals an extra 1d4 bleed damage)
Lvl 8: Bonus feat, greater fighter focus (same as greater weapon focus but it works for a whole weapon group as listed in the fighter's description, every time the fighter choses greater weapon focus it affects a different weapon group)
Lvl 9: Weapon training
Lvl 10: Bonus feat, Veteran of war +3
Lvl 11: Armor training, True weapon 1 (By focusing on his weapon of choice the fighter gains the ability unlock the weapon's true potential. For a number of rounds/day equal to half his fighter level the fighter treats weapons he has fighter's focus for as they were 1 size bigger when determining the amount of damage they causes. The rounds this ability is used don't need to be consecutive)
Lvl 12: Bonus feat, Greater fighter specialization (same as greater weapon specialization but it works on a whole weapon group as listed in the fighter's description, this weapon group must be one the fighter has chosen as fighter's focus)
Lvl 13: Weapon training, Veteran's charge (When the fighter makes a charge, it can make a full attack)
Lvl 14: Bonus feat, Veteran of war +4
Lvl 15: Armor training
Lvl 16: Bonus feat, Healing factor (Having survived wounds that would have crippled any lesser man the fighter's metabolism gained the ability to repair itself at faster rate than most mortals. The fighter regains 2 lost hit points per minute)
Lvl 17: Weapon training
Lvl 18: Bonus feat, Veteran of war +5
Lvl 19: Armor Mastery (At 19th level, a fighter gains Damage Reduction 10/—, and gains immunity to the stunned abd staggered conditions whenever he is wearing armor or using a shield), Steel lighting (The fighter gains the ability to move at an accelerated rate for a short amount of time. When using a weapon he has fighter focus for the fighter can choose to apply the speed quality to that weapon for a numer of rounds/day equal to half his fighter level. These rounds don't need to be conseutive)
Lvl 20:Bonus feat, weapon mastery (as it is but the feature works on whole weapon groups instead that on single weapon types), True weapon 2 (The fighter is now able to use a weapon to its maximum potential. When using True weapon the fighter needs not to roll for damage and the weapon automatically causes the maximum possible amount of damage, for example a weapon causing 2d6 dmg will cause 12 dmg, this effect lasts as long as true weapon lasts).
To be perfectly honest, the fighter is the kind of class that would benefit from having the underlying system simplified.
Getting rid of feats as they currently work would be a start.
Most of the things that a fighter currently needs feats to do should be available to all fighters without them having to spend feat slots on long feat chains.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Roger:
You've mostly just played with the Fighter's damage numbers. You've given him a save bonus...but precious little otherwise to help him with before level 13...when he FINALLY gets a movement bonus, able to full attack on a charge.
He's level 16 before he can heal himself.
He's level 19 before he gets DR, and suddenly it's 10/-
True Weapon is just more damage. THe fighter doesn't need damage, he needs more options.
Steel Lightning is more damage. The fighter doesn't need more damage, he needs more options.
Just my 2p.
My recommendations: The fighter should be able to do Weapon Spec damage with his favored weapon, with the sacrifice of only one feat.
The fighter should be able to get a save bonus.
The fighter should get DR early.
The fighter should be able to contribute to his companions.
The fighter should be able to withstand magic.
The fighter should get a movement bonus.
The fighter should get a bonus to command/lead large numbers of people, including recruitment and straight out combat bonuses.
The fighter should be flexible on what combat feats he should access if he has need of them.
The fighter should get more feats then anyone.
The fighter should get additional benefits from training and FC bonuses.
The fighter should get more out of feats then any other class.
The Fighter should learn feats more easily then other classes.
The fighter's class abilities should scale with level.
The fighter should be able to improve his weapons and armor without use of a wizard if need be.
The fighter relies on his gear more then other classes, and should be able to use his gear more effectively then other classes.
The fighter should have some way to regain health and recover from inflicted conditions without having to rely on magic.
The fighter does not have magic, and should have the skill points to reflect that.
The fighter should be able to contribute effectively in down time.
More then any other class, the Fighter should have a sidekick.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be perfectly honest, the fighter is the kind of class that would benefit from having the underlying system simplified.
Getting rid of feats as they currently work would be a start.
Most of the things that a fighter currently needs feats to do should be available to all fighters without them having to spend feat slots on long feat chains.
This.
But this means basically rewriting feats into Techniques or Forms or Masteries that only Fighters can access.
For Fighters;
Feats should scale with level
Feats should synergize.
Feats should be easy to train permanently.
Feats should be accessible on short term demand.
feats should be full power and balanced class features, not half strength non-scaling class features.
==Aelryinth
I am hoping, though not expecting, they may address the 2 skills/level issue for older classes.
It would do a great bit for their flexibility and fullness of character.
I have noticed that newer classes are more flexible, and tend to go with a 4/level minimum. The one change of 2 to 4 would go a long ways towards bringing older classes forward, into the new design, with the fewest changes needed.
They mentioned additional rules/options. That may be one.
To be perfectly honest, the fighter is the kind of class that would benefit from having the underlying system simplified.
Getting rid of feats as they currently work would be a start.
Most of the things that a fighter currently needs feats to do should be available to all fighters without them having to spend feat slots on long feat chains.
This.
But this means basically rewriting feats into Techniques or Forms or Masteries that only Fighters can access.
For Fighters;
Feats should scale with level
Feats should synergize.
Feats should be easy to train permanently.
Feats should be accessible on short term demand.
feats should be full power and balanced class features, not half strength non-scaling class features.==Aelryinth
Roger:
You've mostly just played with the Fighter's damage numbers. You've given him a save bonus...but precious little otherwise to help him with before level 13...when he FINALLY gets a movement bonus, able to full attack on a charge.
He's level 16 before he can heal himself.
He's level 19 before he gets DR, and suddenly it's 10/-
True Weapon is just more damage. THe fighter doesn't need damage, he needs more options.
Steel Lightning is more damage. The fighter doesn't need more damage, he needs more options.==Aelryinth
Hi there!
I suppose it comes down to a different way to look at what the fighter is and should be: to me the fighter problem is its lack of focus and bland options (you do what everyone can do taking feats, you just have more feats), there's nothing really exciting about the fighter progression choices. So my aim was to change that, while keeping the feat advantage in order to allow customization for the class as building a two handed fighter requires a different approach than building a rapier wielding one.
In order to achieve that end:
-Free some "mandatory" fighter feats that were always meant for the class (the weapon focus and specializations) giving them to the fighter without him having to spend feats and making them work for weapon groups instead than single weapons).
-Extended the scope of "bravery" a feature that was severely outdated and underpowered, in order to partially solve one of the most critical fighter issues without doing too much (other classes should be better than the fighter at saving throws imo).
-Given the fighter a way to circumvent the problem with ability point requirements that severely limited the fighter options for certain feat trees (for example two weapon fighting). Fighters should be the best at combat and being able to overcome some limitations with sheer skill at arms and rigorous training.
-Changed the way Armor Training and Weapon Training work to make them more attractive and interesting. This way you actually want to get to reach level 3 quickly enough to gain a powerful ability giving you extra AC for example.
-Damage boosts: yes, much of what the fighter should do is being good at killing stuff in a consistent way. The reason I choose to give the truly powerful damage dealing abilities to the fighter on the upper end of level progression is ability as such border on the supernatural, and therefore they should come when the fighter starts growing more powerful and experienced. That said I suppose one can argue that veteran's charge should come sooner than level 13 and as soon as level 6 or 8.
-Healing factor is another troublesome ability because it borders on the supernatural so I didn't want for it to come too soon, yet one could argue the effect isn't powerful enough to deserve to come that late.
-As for DR it's tricky to determine when to apply it. I suppose I could have chosen to apply DR 2/- at 3rd, 7th, 11th and 15th level along with armor training, but I felt the +1 inherent AC bonus every 4 levels was a good enough boost for armor training.
P.S.
Of course the Fighter could (or could not) improve from a radical change in the system rules, yet I doubt the Unchained Book means to change the system, so any upgraded fighter suggestion should work in the confines of the current system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Feat consolidation is fine.
2) Yes, bravery needs to be expanded. However, I take severe issue with 'other classes should be better at saves'. Here's the logic: "All the other melee classes have inbuilt class features that buff their saving throws, can cast spells, or have class features that enhance their saves (barb/pal/ranger specifically). The fighter has no spellcasting, no rage powers. Therefore, he should also have the worst base saving throws, in addition to no class features that buff those saves."
That's the logic you're using.
Because the fighter has nothing in his class features to buff his saves, he should actually have the best base saves of the 4 classes. Seriously, the fighter should be the most athletic, nimble, strong-willed and disciplined of the core 4 melee classes...fighting is ALL he does. And he has the worst saves of the classes?
4) Ignoring ability reqs for combat feats is a very minor buff. However, combat is offense, defense, movement and versatility...the fighter has only one of those options.
5) armor training being changed to a flat bonus is how the ability is supposed to work all along. Note that you have not changed the 'high end' result...all you did is not require a monster Dexterity for the fighter to be able to use his own class features!
I did the same, but made it a dodge bonus.
6) The fighter is already good at dealing monstrous amounts of damage in a consistent way, without spiking. He really doesn't need any more, esp. if he automatically gets weapon spec. He needs everything else (Defense, movement, options)
7) Healing. The ranger gets at level 4, level 1 with CLW wands. The paladin gets at level 1 with lay on hands and CLW wands, and then at level 4 with spells to boot. The barbarian gets Renewed Vigor by level 3 and more possibilities as he levels.
What's this about waiting to level 16 to be able to heal?
8) the barb can get +5 Nat AC and +5 Dodge while gaining +5 DR from class and +5 DR from rage powers. You're basically saying that because you set the Armor Training so the fighter always get the benefit of his class bonus, he can have less AC and no DR until late levels, while the Barb gets twice the AC and tons of DR.
Give them the DR and don't worry about it.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're probably being a little extreme. The fighter isn't the skill guy. He should, however, have at least as many skill points as a Ranger. There's no reason a Ranger, who can twiddle his fingers to solve so many of his problems, should have 6 skill points and the fighter shouldn't. The only reason he does is because hide in shadows, move silently, and track/survival are now skill points instead of class features.
But, two good saves is an imperative, and seriously, ALL good saves wouldn't be overpowered. The fighter has no class abilities that stack on them, unlike the monk.
Evasion should be a combat feat.
Talents are as bad as combat feats, and should be reserved to make the Rogue special.
Fighters should have their own 'Techniques' that other classes can't take, which should basically be combat feats that actually scale and are useful at all levels. In effect, a fighter's 'bonus combat feats' should be at least the equal of Rage Powers. They are both class features, but one is useful at all levels, and the other is meh.
==Aelryinth
|
Unless "having combat feats" is going to actually become a class feature worth having all on its own, thanks to the "fatigue" system they're planning to introduce.
For instance (examples provided by nothing but my cough-medicine-addled mind):
Every PC has a pool of fatigue equal to their Constitution bonus (if any). They also gain 1 additional fatigue for every combat feat they possess. Here are some of the ways fatigue can be spent (all of which require the choice to use the ability be made and the points spent before any relevant dice are rolled):
* Rapid Strikes: you may spend 1 fatigue, plus an additional 1 fatigue/5 levels, to make a number of attacks equal to the fatigue you spent as a single standard action. Effects that trigger on "making an attack as a standard action" only apply to the first of these attacks.
* Unrelenting: you may spend 1 fatigue when making a saving throw to add the total number of combat feats you possess to that roll. This does not require an action, but you can only do it once per turn, plus an additional time per turn for every five levels you possess.
* Shake It Off: As a standard action you may spend 1 fatigue to convert one point of damage you are suffering per combat feat you possess to nonlethal damage. As a move action, you may spent 1 fatigue to heal one point of nonlethal damage you are suffering per combat feat you possess.
* Tricky Maneuvers: You may spend 1 fatigue when making a combat maneuver to add the number of combat feats you possess to your CMB check and to your AC against any attack of opportunity the maneuver provokes. You may spend 1 fatigue to add the number of combat feats you possess to your CMD when an opponent attempts a combat maneuver against you; you must be aware of the attack and not flatfooted.
|
You're probably being a little extreme. The fighter isn't the skill guy. He should, however, have at least as many skill points as a Ranger. There's no reason a Ranger, who can twiddle his fingers to solve so many of his problems, should have 6 skill points and the fighter shouldn't. The only reason he does is because hide in shadows, move silently, and track/survival are now skill points instead of class features.
But, two good saves is an imperative, and seriously, ALL good saves wouldn't be overpowered. The fighter has no class abilities that stack on them, unlike the monk.
Evasion should be a combat feat.
Talents are as bad as combat feats, and should be reserved to make the Rogue special.
Fighters should have their own 'Techniques' that other classes can't take, which should basically be combat feats that actually scale and are useful at all levels. In effect, a fighter's 'bonus combat feats' should be at least the equal of Rage Powers. They are both class features, but one is useful at all levels, and the other is meh.==Aelryinth
Actually, I was being sorta serious. One of the assumptions from previous editions of the game is that fighter and rogue are separate classes--that Fafrd and the Grey Mouser have different class based abilities rather than just different stats and builds.
What if rather than having "skill guy" and "fighting guy" as archetypes, we just had a "non-magical" guy who is skilled at fighting and skilled at skills? That would nicely solve the constant complaining that fighters can't contribute outside of combat and rogues cannot contribute inside combat. And it would make it much easier for "fighter" characters to model the abilities that fictional heroes have. Many fictional heroes can fight well, ride, jump, climb, notice the ninjas sneaking up on them, notice when they are being lied to, be stealthy, be suave, lead an army, seduce a lady, and tinker with gadgets in their spare time--all at once and without splitting those abilities between two characters.
To use 4e-speak, what if the rogue killed the fighter and took his stuff or vise versa? Would that really be such a bad thing?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're probably being a little extreme. The fighter isn't the skill guy. He should, however, have at least as many skill points as a Ranger. There's no reason a Ranger, who can twiddle his fingers to solve so many of his problems, should have 6 skill points and the fighter shouldn't. The only reason he does is because hide in shadows, move silently, and track/survival are now skill points instead of class features.
But, two good saves is an imperative, and seriously, ALL good saves wouldn't be overpowered. The fighter has no class abilities that stack on them, unlike the monk.
Evasion should be a combat feat.
Talents are as bad as combat feats, and should be reserved to make the Rogue special.
Fighters should have their own 'Techniques' that other classes can't take, which should basically be combat feats that actually scale and are useful at all levels. In effect, a fighter's 'bonus combat feats' should be at least the equal of Rage Powers. They are both class features, but one is useful at all levels, and the other is meh.==Aelryinth
Actually, I was being sorta serious. One of the assumptions from previous editions of the game is that fighter and rogue are separate classes--that Fafrd and the Grey Mouser have different class based abilities rather than just different stats and builds.
What if rather than having "skill guy" and "fighting guy" as archetypes, we just had a "non-magical" guy who is skilled at fighting and skilled at skills? That would nicely solve the constant complaining that fighters can't contribute outside of combat and rogues cannot contribute inside combat. And it would make it much easier for "fighter" characters to model the abilities that fictional heroes have. Many fictional heroes can fight well, ride, jump, climb, notice the ninjas sneaking up on them, notice when they are being lied to, be stealthy, be suave, lead an army, seduce a lady, and tinker with gadgets in their spare time--all at once and without splitting those abilities...
And we could call it something cool like slayer or something.
Well, there's always been a literature difference between the 'champion' fighter and the 'clever' fighter, that's the thing.
The woeful fact is that making a clever fighter is hard, because raising Int doesn't really help the fighter types much. Hence the wizard ends up with more skill points. A non-magical type will literally never be smarter then the wizard.
Which means you can't make Batman or Lex Luthor, #1 on the hero/villain sides for DC for brains, and neither of them super powered.
To make a serious Rogue, you need to make them badass at skills, and they need to be Lord, Sage and Master of skills: More skills then anyone, better at pure skills then anyone, and capable of doing things with skills others can't do.
It's the whole "Everybody gets these, so these classes can be easily subbed out because you won't miss anything" paradigm working. For fighters, anyone can get combat feats. For Rogues, anyone can get the key skills for the class, and they gave away sneak attack and trapfinding, so there's nothing unique there. Rogue Talents and feats are so interchangeable (Extra Rogue Talent is a feat!) that there's really no excuse whatsoever to consider them separate items.
==Aelryinth
Well, there's always been a literature difference between the 'champion' fighter and the 'clever' fighter, that's the thing.
The woeful fact is that making a clever fighter is hard, because raising Int doesn't really help the fighter types much. Hence the wizard ends up with more skill points. A non-magical type will literally never be smarter then the wizard.
Which means you can't make Batman or Lex Luthor, #1 on the hero/villain sides for DC for brains, and neither of them super powered.
To make a serious Rogue, you need to make them badass at skills, and they need to be Lord, Sage and Master of skills: More skills then anyone, better at pure skills then anyone, and capable of doing things with skills others can't do.
It's the whole "Everybody gets these, so these classes can be easily subbed out because you won't miss anything" paradigm working. For fighters, anyone can get combat feats. For Rogues, anyone can get the key skills for the class, and they gave away sneak attack and trapfinding, so there's nothing unique there. Rogue Talents and feats are so interchangeable (Extra Rogue Talent is a feat!) that there's really no excuse whatsoever to consider them separate items.
==Aelryinth
Artful Dodge + high INT allows a full-plate fighter to qualify for Dodge, Two-Weapon Fighting, etc., all the while increasing his out of combat utility...
Plus, you can pick up Bruising Intellect and safely dump CHA while maintaining a high Intimidate bonus!
Scott:
1) All class skills? Really? 4 pts is fine, but all class skills?
2) More bonus combat feats. Note that a feat is half a class feature, so you're really getting him finally up to maybe close to rage powers...except combat feats suck for defense and utility, which is what the fighter needs.
3) Um. So he nets +7 scattered among his ability scores, which is less then a +3 Charisma for a paladin or +3 superstitious. It does make him almost equal to a Ranger, but no evasion.
4) +5 AC and +5 max dex? Impressive. Why does he need reduced arcane spell failure, again? And +2 to movement is effectively not a bonus. Just give him +5 fast movement per level and be done with it. Oh noez, he might end up faster then a barbarian!
5) Putting armor on and off is totally meh. I'd just toss it on as a gimme.
6) A full attack as an SA at this early level is impressive. Probably too soon. But at least you don't need the Vital Strike line of feats!
==Aelryinth
General question about this topic: Do we have anything confirmed about whether or not the fighter will get a spot in PF Unchained?
|
|
There is no Unchained!fighter class coming, not in the same way that the barbarian, rogue, monk and summoner are. What we've been told is that the book will include a "fatigue-based" action system which will heavily play off of combat feats, and from which presumably the fighter will benefit the most.
I tossed out a random example of what that might look like a few posts back.
Thanks. Well that could work just fine in bringing the fighter a little up to speed. Depending on what the fatigue/stamina system will actually allow a character to do.
fingers crossed.
@Aelryinth,
Well, these are just preliminary thoughts, not even a rough draft. But I can explain what I was thinking.
1) All class skills? Really? 4 pts is fine, but all class skills?As a game mechanics concept, a Fighter seems like it's supposed to be a Blank and highly customizable character concept. Between 4 skill points/level and making all skills class skills, I consider the latter more important. As it is, the Fighter's set of abilities is malleable to the vision of the player, and making all skills class skills: a +3 IF you invest ranks in it, makes it even more so.
2) More bonus combat feats.... so you're really getting him finally up to maybe close to rage powers...except combat feats suck for defense and utility, which is what the fighter needs.This suggests you don't think my concept for revisioning the Fighter Class is not ridiculously overpowered, which I take to be an encouraging sign. Although it seems you would say that my re-vision of the Fighter is not ridiculously overpowered in the same way that a cruise on the Titanic was not a very pleasant vacation. Nevertheless, the idea that I have outlined is not very ambitious is an encouraging one.
I profoundly disagree with you about Combat Feats sucking. With careful and clever planning, the right combination of Feats and Abilities can create truly impressive effects. Perhaps you are right that I am seeing things that aren't there, but I am definitely seeing things that you aren't. Hearing your unimpressed reaction makes me think that not only is this concept very powerful, but also one that wouldn't make very many DMs or game designers blanch about allowing.
Once again, my intent is to preserve and even intensify the Fighter as a Blank Slate character class that a visionary player can make anything he wants out of. Generally, I like Fighters as a concept. The customibility is what I like most about it, and my vision here is to heap on the awesome. When we...
1) All class skills is something the ROGUE should have, since the Rogue is basically supposed to be the Expert-Plus.
I'd let the Fighter choose 2-4 of his class skills.IN addition, on my fighter build, I let him choose an additional class skill and get an additional skill pt/level every time his Bravery hit (Resolve - skilled). So he started out with 2 skill points, picked 2 skills, and ends up with 7 skill points and 7 class skills of his choice.
2) More combat feats won't overpower any build. You could give him 2 combat feats a level and STILL not overpower him. That's because defense and utility feats are general feats, not combat feats.
3) Generally speaking, a combat feat will do only half as good as a class feature that accomplishes the same thing.
Rage: +2/+2. Wpn Focus, +1
Imp Init: +4. Diviner: Add Class to Init Various: use other stat/extra stat and add to Init.
3.5 feat: Fearless, immune to fear. Paladin: Immune to fear, +4 to friends in 10'r.
Iron WIll: +2 to Will. Paladin: Cha to all saves. Barb, +4 will raging.
etc etc etc.
And unlike all other classes that get bonus feats, the default fighter has to qualify for them.
4) To reduce arcane spell failure, you'd logically have to be able practice arcane spellcasting. It's entirely inappropriate. The fighter is a non-magical class and shouldn't facilitate spellcasting. That's the job of the Eldritch Knight.
I have in my fighter build armor to weigh 2/3 normal at AT 1, and 1/3 normal at AT2 for purposes of encumbrance. The fighter starts treating it like an exoskeleton around level 8.
Fast equipping armor is more something for magic, and it should be a +gp effect, not a +enhancement.
I didn't bother with boosting the max dex bonus for the armor. Mithral and celestial stacking will take care of that for you (to the tune of +2 and +4 Dex respectively). There's no NEED for it.
I don't like adding class features that other folks can just duplicate with spare cash.
I also don't believe in giving away racial traits. A Dwarf with AT gets +5 fast movement at AT 1 and 2, to offset the fact he's ALREADY GOT the movement effect, so it gives him nothing. He ends +10' faster. Y'know, like a barbarian.
5) Adding +1 to a save every 3 levels is in the end adding a total of +7 spread across 3 saves.
Paladin, +3 Cha, is +3 to 3 saves, which is +9 across his saves. You're barely better then a Paladin having a cha of 14 (i.e. a level 2 paladin) at Fighter level 18. See the problem?
==Aelryinth
I would like to see the new fighter be a commander instead of just a guy who follows around to be a bag of HP who deals damage (Harsh & exaggerated maybe but still). Most people think of the party "face" and think of a charisma based class. Why not give the fighter options to inspire his comrades?
I want to see fighters using more maneuvers and more often.
Give them the option to use any maneuver as if they had the greater X maneuver feat. Let them do any maneuver in place of an attack or even in addition to doing damage. If they could do damage on top of maneuvers, they would have something special over the other martial classes. Allow their "weapon bonuses" to apply to said maneuvers as well. I don't see my fighters as people who just power attack 2 handed all the time. I see them as people who will shove a troll into the campfire, overrun a goblin on his way to attack the hobgoblin, who he disarms.
A few people above mentioned moving+full attacking. I will as well even though it's not a fighter centric issue.
Please, please, please, for the love of God let iterative attacks DIE a quick and painful death.
Strong Fort & Will save. Unlike the barbarian, the fighter got to where he is in life by having the discipline to practice his craft everyday. Such resolve and mental fortitude should be conveyed through class features. Fighters have witnessed, and pushed through the horror and brutality that comes with being on the front lines.
Fighters should be less affected by things that mess with your state of mind. Get rid of bravery and give them something else.
Call it Composure or something and allow it to apply to things outside combat to things like being harder to intimidate, being harder to read with sense motive etc...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read the whole thread, but to my way of thinking there's one big thing that the fighter needs to be "unchained" from that's more important than anything else:
Realism.
"You can't shoot a bow that many times in 6 seconds!"
"You can't jump that far!"
"You can't just cut through a door like it's butter!"
"You can't wrestle something that big!"
"You can't cut something incorporeal without magic!"
"You can't break that world record!"You can't, you can't, you can't, you can't, you can't... No, you can't. That's why I'm playing a fantasy game starring someone who isn't YOU.
Currently, the name of the game is "if real people can't do it, then fantasy people can't* do it either".
I want my fighter to stop the dragon's bite by grabbing him by the teeth. And then body slam him.
I want my fighter to swing his sword and bat your enervation right back at you.
I want my fighter to get save-or-die effects at the same level your wizard does. Maybe even earlier, since I'm supposed to be good at killing things.
I want my fighter to have things he can do that no magic spell can duplicate.
Unchain the fighter from "realism". Everything else will follow.
** spoiler omitted **
I wanna disagree - especially the part about grabbing the dragon by the teeth and body slamming him. I don't want that level of anime-ish power in my D&D. I wanna disagree... but I can't because you're 100% right. Leave realism for the NPC Warrior class.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Power is not a function of the game, per se. It's a function of the level of the game.
The fighter is saddled with an E6 mentality...they can only do what a person could do in our world.
THe wizard is gifted with an E20 mentality...oh, he can Wish? That's fine, he's a wizard!
Once you stop past level 6, everything should start getting superhuman.
And it's not all about Power. Why does the Lore Warden get +8 on Manuver checks?
So he doesn't need +16 on his Strength to pull off a body slam aka Trip Manuver! He can just DO it.
It needs to be explicitly recognized that a post-6th Fighter can do inhumanly adept things.
Post-10th can do superhumanly adept things.
Post-15th can do things which superheroes can do.
THe Mythic rules were stuff that simply should have been in the game all along, for most of the utility effects (the thousand-point charge kills you could probably do without).
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Martial Flexibility for Brawlers was a step in the right direction, and would be a huge benefit for Fighters. It opens up the entire scope of Combat Feats that you can choose from as the situation demands.
Personally, a lot of the combat feats should have been simply options martials could choose as needed. But the PF mechanics didn't support that back in Core, but is slowly evolving on that direction. Just go for it! Unchain the Fighter! TONS of feats that rarely, if ever, get chosen now become playable given the right circumstances!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. Most of the Fighter builds I've seen immediately cannibalize Martial Flexibility as something the fighter should have had all along.
This completely abridges the need for a brawler except as an archetype/feat chain, but I don't consider that a bad thing, either. There should never have been a need for the Brawler.
==Aelryinth