| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unlike Riuken, I was actually making fun of your apparently nonsequitur of a response as I am a font of chicanery.
I guess what I'm saying is that any advice we can give will be based on the assumption that everything about the base rules, other than what is specifically being discussed, is the same. As has been shown repeated times, that assumption is not true. Based on that, there are three outcomes of any insight into a houserule you present:
1) The advice given manages to address the houserule in a way that (coincidentally) doesn't interact with any other houserule you have not explained.
2) You present, in their entirety, all the houserules you use, and we can evaluate any specific houserule you want within the context of the game you play.
3) We give advice for houserules assuming there are no other unrevealed houserules, then that advice is invalidated by a response that cites a previously unrevealed houserule.So far, this thread has mostly been #3. I really do want to hear about your houserules and evaluate them. I enjoy making, discussing, and testing my own houserules as well. I believe I've made a few attempts to discuss your houserules in a constructive manner. If I've come across in any way but helpful, it is unintentional. I want to help you, but without knowing the parameters of the system I can't make an accurate analysis of any components.
So here it is. In this document, you have the four martial classes we use: Fighter, Barbarian, Hunter and Rogue. Enjoy.
Will wait for your expert feedback.
Cheers.
|
I guess what I'm saying is that any advice we can give will be based on the assumption that everything about the base rules, other than what is specifically being discussed, is the same. As has been shown repeated times, that assumption is not true. Based on that, there are three outcomes of any insight into a houserule you present:
1) The advice given manages to address the houserule in a way that (coincidentally) doesn't interact with any other houserule you have not explained.
2) You present, in their entirety, all the houserules you use, and we can evaluate any specific houserule you want within the context of the game you play.
3) We give advice for houserules assuming there are no other unrevealed houserules, then that advice is invalidated by a response that cites a previously unrevealed houserule.So far, this thread has mostly been #3. I really do want to hear about your houserules and evaluate them. I enjoy making, discussing, and testing my own houserules as well. I believe I've made a few attempts to discuss your houserules in a constructive manner. If I've come across in any way but helpful, it is unintentional. I want to help you, but without knowing the parameters of the system I can't make an accurate analysis of any components.
So here it is. In this document, you have the four martial classes we use: Fighter, Barbarian, Hunter and Rogue. Enjoy.
Will wait for your expert feedback.
Cheers.
AWESOME! I'll definitely be giving it a look over the next few days! I'm really glad you put this up.
I know you are trying to avoid fatigue... but I really want to hear your commets about this!
Cheers.
|
|
Still looking through it, but a few notes so far:
Static HP gain per level is good IMO. PFS already does this, and I like anything to reduce dice rolling as it relates to building and advancing a character. Luck of the dice should be in-game in the heat of the moment, not determining if you're a scrawny chump of a fighter or not. The amount gained is rather high, though I still don't think it will outpace damage all the way to level 20.
All base save progressions are the same, and are essentially just pathfinder's fast save progression without the base +2 at level 1, unless your class adds it back. It makes class based saves less relevant (equivalent to a feat), but maybe that's good. It would make your ability scores drive your good and bad saves more strongly. I would remove the saves columns from class charts since the rule is general, unless you also add the class +2. Less repetition and easier to remember I think.
Skills are termed with reference to "trained" or not, with no use of ranks in the skill total calculation. Are skill ranks only awarded at level one and used to "train" that number of skills? If not, and skill ranks are gained every level, what use do the subsequent skill ranks have?
Note: I like this system of doing skills if it is the first method I mentioned. Makes class skills more relevant, and simplifies the entire skill system. It reminds me of what 5e is doing. Unfortunately I worry that it will be hard to pull off certain concepts, unless there is a way to make skills class skills outside of multiclassing. Maybe feats or something. Just some thoughts.
The skills mentioned in the class skill lists I'm seeing are quite different from the pathfinder base, but I'm not noticing any major difference as far as an advantage or disadvantage. Just a different set that's more to your liking?
I like weapon proficiency groups. No specific reason.
These are just the comments on the general rules I saw, I'll be digging into the class specific ones next, starting with fighter and working down. After that I'll tie everything together and try to analyze all the pieces as a whole with reference to their interaction as part of a complete system.
Riuken, thank you for the feedback.
Saves:
I like your suggestion of removing the saves columns from class charts since the rule is general, to have less repetition and to make it easier to remember. Accepted.
Skill System:
The skill system is exactly the first method you have mentioned. Skill ranks are awarded at level one only, to train a number of skills. You can choose to train "class-skills" (from your own character class skill list) or "cross-class skills" (from other character classes skill list), and the cost to train a class skill or a cross-class skill is the same (1 rank). Skill Bonus is determined by your Ability Score Mod, Being Trained or Not on the Skill, and Being the Skill a Class-Skill or Not:
• Trained class skill: 1d20 + character level + key ability modifier.
• Untrained class skill: 1d20 + ½ character level + key ability modifier.
• Trained non-class skill: 1d20 + ½ character level + key ability modifier.
• Untrained non-class skill: 1d20 + key ability modifier
You can take a Feat called "Skill Training" to become trained in a new skill or "Skill Expertise" to get a +2 bonus on an already trained skill.
If you choose to Multiclass, just sum the skill bonus you have in your first and second class, as if they where two different characters, with two different skill progressions (that is, if you are a fighter and then choose to multiclass to rogue, a skill that is class-skill for the fighter does not become a class-skill for the rogue, and vice-versa).
Example: Multiclass: Fighter level 6/ Rogue level 4. At Level 1 Fighter, he chooses to train Tatics Skill. At level 6 his Skill check bonus is equal to +6 (from fighter character levels, since it is a "trained" class-skill). But he is also Rogue level 4. At level 1 Rogue, he chooses to spend 1 rank to train Tatics as a Rogue "cross-class" skill. At level 4 Rogue, his Skill check bonus with Tatics is equal to +2 (from 4 rogue character levels, since he choosed to train Tatics, but it is a cross-class skill for rogues). So he his total Skill check bonus with Tatics is equal to +6 (from fighter class) +2 (from rogue class) + 1 (Int Mod) = +9.
Cheers.
Go play 2ed or 5th. I would not play with this house rule.
Go play 2ed or 5th. I would not play with this house rule.
Sorry, I havent asked for your advice about which system should I play. These rules are totally different from 2e and 5e. If you would not play, at least explain why.
The skills mentioned in the class skill lists I'm seeing are quite different from the pathfinder base, but I'm not noticing any major difference as far as an advantage or disadvantage. Just a different set that's more to your liking?
.
.The complete skill list is the following:
Acrobatics (Dex) (merged: balance / tumble / escape artist)
Alchemy (Int) (includes ability to: craft alchemical item / craft poison)
Arcana (Int)
Armscraft (Int) (includes ability to: craft weapons and armor / craft traps)
Athletics (Str) (merged: climb, jump, ride and swim)
Bluff (Cha) (merged: Bluff and Disguise)
Concentration (Int)
Diplomacy (Cha) (merged: Diplomacy and Gather Information)
Disable Device (Int) (merged: Open Locks)
Endurance (Con)
Handle Animal (Cha)
Heal (Wis)
Insight (Wis) (*as sense motive)
Intimidate (Str)
Knowledge (Int) (*general knowledge - includes history, geography and local)
Linguistics (Int)
Nature (Wis)
Navigation (Wis)
Perception (Wis)
Perform (Cha)
Religion (Wis)
Sleight of Hand (Dex)
Stealth (Dex)
Tatics (Int)
This is a major (and unneeded) nerf to 3/4 BAB classes. Light nerf to Full BAB classes, and doesn't matter to full arcane casters. Will not help balance issues between casters and martial, or will it help the 3 classes that have the most issues: fighter (skills and saves), rogue (ability to hit targets and unreliable sneak damage), and monk (most attacks and still can't hit, MAD stat requirements that class is almost impossible for point buy). Notice to of the classes that get hurt are ones that need to hit help.
Reason I said 2nd was you're idea closely resembles hit rules from second edition. 5th is suppose to have smattering of older rules.
This is a major (and unneeded) nerf to 3/4 BAB classes. Light nerf to Full BAB classes, and doesn't matter to full arcane casters. Will not help balance issues between casters and martial, or will it help the 3 classes that have the most issues: fighter (skills and saves), rogue (ability to hit targets and unreliable sneak damage), and monk (most attacks and still can't hit, MAD stat requirements that class is almost impossible for point buy). Notice to of the classes that get hurt are ones that need to hit help.
Reason I said 2nd was you're idea closely resembles hit rules from second edition. 5th is suppose to have smattering of older rules.
Before criticizing, do your homework first. Most of the issues you have pointed (fighter skills and saves, rogue ability to hit targets and deal sneak attack damage etc.) are addressed in this document already mentioned above.
I am not adressing the monk issues here, since for me this class should not even exist as it is, or be completely reworked from scratch.
Lastly, BAB +20/+20/+20 is not a nerf, but an improvement in fighter's ability to hit and deal damage more consistently. Same is valid for the other BAB +20 classes.
I've often been tempted to try an alteration to iterative attacks for martials, though the idea I considered was never tempting enough to actually bother with DPR and hit calculations.
I'd considered trying the following assuming 20th level:
20 BAB = 20/20/15/15
15 BAB = 15/15/10
10 BAB = 10/10
Like I said above, never bothered doing the math, but it was a thought. Anyone actually given this sort of thing a go? If so, how did it work out?
The skills mentioned in the class skill lists I'm seeing are quite different from the pathfinder base, but I'm not noticing any major difference as far as an advantage or disadvantage. Just a different set that's more to your liking?.
.
The complete skill list is the following:Acrobatics (Dex) (merged: balance / tumble / escape artist)
Alchemy (Int) (includes ability to: craft alchemical item / craft poison)
Arcana (Int)
Armscraft (Int) (includes ability to: craft weapons and armor / craft traps)
Athletics (Str) (merged: climb, jump, ride and swim)
Bluff (Cha) (merged: Bluff and Disguise)
Concentration (Int)
Diplomacy (Cha) (merged: Diplomacy and Gather Information)
Disable Device (Int) (merged: Open Locks)
Endurance (Con)
Handle Animal (Cha)
Heal (Wis)
Insight (Wis) (*as sense motive)
Intimidate (Str)
Knowledge (Int) (*general knowledge - includes history, geography and local)
Linguistics (Int)
Nature (Wis)
Navigation (Wis)
Perception (Wis)
Perform (Cha)
Religion (Wis)
Sleight of Hand (Dex)
Stealth (Dex)
Tatics (Int)
If you want to shift power to martial classes, you want more skills, not less. That way, taking skills is powerful, and doesn't cater to the high Int classes that can just learn everything. The shrinking of the skill list is one of the things that hurt the rogue the most.
In other words, make classes take key skills, and only those classes with lots of skill points will diversify.
Blowing a feat for just a skill or a +2 to it is hugely undervaluing a feat.
ergo, I disagree with this skill list. There are certain things which can be combined, but once you start specializing in them, deviate rapidly from the norm (i.e. a specialized jumper and specialized swimmer are two very different animals).
You're also hugely undervaluing the Knowledge skills and changing them to Wisdom. Book knowledge of any kind is not a Wis skill.
I would recommend 'unbundling' more skills, not condensing them, and trying to shift more to the physical side instead of the mental, instead.
==Aelryinth
I've often been tempted to try an alteration to iterative attacks for martials, though the idea I considered was never tempting enough to actually bother with DPR and hit calculations.
I'd considered trying the following assuming 20th level:
20 BAB = 20/20/15/15
15 BAB = 15/15/10
10 BAB = 10/10Like I said above, never bothered doing the math, but it was a thought. Anyone actually given this sort of thing a go? If so, how did it work out?
At least we agree that something has to be done to fix the iterative attacks progression. The problem I see with the actual Pathfinder progression is that a fighter gaining a forth attack at level 16 with BAB +1 seens pointless. In the other hand, the problem I see with your suggestion is the same I see with the 5e fighter progression: sudden gain of power (an extra attack at full BAB) from one level (4th) to another (5th), makes the power difference (DPR) between these characteres of 4th and 5th level huge. Why a 5th level character should deal double damage of a 4th character? One level difference does not justify such a huge DPR difference.
So the merit I see in the suggestion of this tread is that it fixes iterative attacks progression making it more fluid, that is, avoinding the surge of power that the fighter has in 5e upon attaining 5th level (2 attacks at full BAB) and 11th level (3 attacks at full BAB), but also avoiding the inutile progession of 3.5e/Pathfinder which gives extra attacks starting at BAB +1 at 11th and 16th levels, which is pointless, specially at 16th level.
The power of iteratives maps out fairly closely overall to the fixed attacks of 1 and 2e.
At high levels, a specialized 1E fighter got 5 attack/2 rounds, or 2.5 attacks per round. So, 250% damage, since all attacks were at full strength.
in 3e and pf, a 20th level fighter with 100% chance to hit on his first attack is 100+75+50+25%. or, 250%!
The problem is that he had to give up his movement action to make it happen.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You would probably be better off changing the rules so as to allow what full attacks mean and are capable of.
Normal: You can move up to a double move and make a strike.
Vital: You can make a single move, or take a charge action, and deliver a Vital Strike. (This sets a precedent of decreasing movement = more damage). You may do this as part of a Spring Attack, as well.
Full Attack: You can make your normal move and deliver a full attack.
Full Vital Strike: You may make only a 5' step. You gain a bonus of +2 TH, Ac, or saving throws (your choice) until the beginning of your next turn, with an additional +1 per iterative attack after the first. Your first blow is a vital strike, the rest are normal attacks.
Note: Monsters that can do a normal move and full attack will be VERY dangerous.
==Aelryinth
If you want to shift power to martial classes, you want more skills, not less. That way, taking skills is powerful, and doesn't cater to the high Int classes that can just learn everything. The shrinking of the skill list is one of the things that hurt the rogue the most.
In other words, make classes take key skills, and only those classes with lots of skill points will diversify.
Blowing a feat for just a skill or a +2 to it is hugely undervaluing a feat.
ergo, I disagree with this skill list. There are certain things which can be combined, but once you start specializing in them, deviate rapidly from the norm (i.e. a specialized jumper and specialized swimmer are two very different animals).
You're also hugely undervaluing the...
Thank you for your feedback, but, again, before criticizing, do the homework, examine the document previously mentioned above, where we describe some of the house rules being discussed here.
In this document, you will see that by the rules we use for skills, shrinking the skills list does not hurt the rogue nor anybody else (it is just the opposite, expanding skills list hurts the rogue and everybody else, making the game more complex and cumbersome).
So, by the rules we use the rogue has the follwoing class-skill list:
Acrobatics (Dex), Alchemy (Int), Armscraft (Str), Athletics (Str), Bluff (Cha), Disable Device (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Insight (Wis), Intimidate (Str), Knowledge (Int), Linguistics (Int), Nature (Wis), Navigation (Wis), Perception (Wis), Perform (Cha), Diplomacy (Cha), Sleight of Hand (Dex) and Stealth (Dex). [TOTAL: 18 class skills]
In the other hand, a wizard has the following class-skill list:
Alchemy (Int), Arcana (Int), Bluff (Cha), Concentration (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Insight (Wis), Knowledge (Int), Linguistics (Int), and Sleight of Hand (Dex). [TOTAL: 09 class skills]
A rogue has 8 skill ranks + Int mod to choose train skils at level 1 (from his skill list or cross-class skills), while wizard has 2 skill ranks + Int mod to choose to train skills at level 1 (from his skills list or cross-class skills). However, different from the standard rules, in our game skills follow a diffrent progression:
• Trained class skill: 1d20 + character level + key ability modifier.
• Untrained class skill: 1d20 + ½ character level + key ability modifier.
• Trained non-class skill: 1d20 + ½ character level + key ability modifier.
• Untrained non-class skill: 1d20 + key ability modifier.
That means two things:
1st: You progress in skills from your class list even if you have not invested skill ranks in it ("untrained" class skills);
2nd: If you invest a skill rank to get trained in a cross-class skill, you will never get a skill bonus bigger than ½ character level + key ability modifier, which is the same for an "untrained" class skill. This method, as Riuken already observed above, makes "class skills" more relevant, and simplifies the entire system.
The power of iteratives maps out fairly closely overall to the fixed attacks of 1 and 2e.
At high levels, a specialized 1E fighter got 5 attack/2 rounds, or 2.5 attacks per round. So, 250% damage, since all attacks were at full strength.
in 3e and pf, a 20th level fighter with 100% chance to hit on his first attack is 100+75+50+25%. or, 250%!
The problem is that he had to give up his movement action to make it happen.
==Aelryinth
Making DPR equal to 1e or 2e is not a good parameter to fix the itterative attacks progression, since the parameter must be the other classes DPR from the same system of rules. Therefore, even if you think that fighter's DPR is ok with BAB +20/+15/+10/+5 (and I think it is), DPR is not the sole point here. What we want, our objective here, is to make itterative attacks more fluid and relevant (avoiding a pointless extra attack with BAB +1 at level 16), but without dropping fighters DPR (and rising it if possible).
You would probably be better off changing the rules so as to allow what full attacks mean and are capable of.
Normal: You can move up to a double move and make a strike.
Vital: You can make a single move, or take a charge action, and deliver a Vital Strike. (This sets a precedent of decreasing movement = more damage). You may do this as part of a Spring Attack, as well.
Full Attack: You can make your normal move and deliver a full attack.
Full Vital Strike: You may make only a 5' step. You gain a bonus of +2 TH, Ac, or saving throws (your choice) until the beginning of your next turn, with an additional +1 per iterative attack after the first. Your first blow is a vital strike, the rest are normal attacks.
Note: Monsters that can do a normal move and full attack will be VERY dangerous.
==Aelryinth
We already use this rule in our game (characters with iterative attacks can make a full attack using a standard action), as you can see in the previous posts in this tread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like 4E, to tell you the truth.
And you are incorrect, combining skills devalues the original skills they consist of. If I can get climb, swim, jump and ride for 1 skill point, instead of 4 skill points, the value of each skill class just dropped by 3/4.
Each SKILL POINT is more valuable, sure, but the skills themselves are worth less. When its 10 pts for Perception vs 20 pts for Spot and Listen, I'll happily take the former...which is exactly what happens with most people. Paying only ten points makes it a cheaper investment!
The gap between 'trained' and 'untrained' skills is pretty big as you level. I like the current +3 because it's large enough to make a difference and low enough to still be relevant. As your levels progress, your untrained, or cross-trained skills, simply won't be able to keep up with escalating skill DC's. By 20, a wizard who trains himself in Perception with some of the extra Skill points from his 34 Intelligence is at a -10 penalty on the roll vs level-appropriate stuff. He's basically going to fail every time vs equal foes, meaning it is almost a complete waste of time for him to invest in out of class skills...except that is all he's got left to do at this point.
having more skills available is a very small amount of additional paperwork. All the rules for the DC's still have to be in place even if you combine them.
I think you are overthinking this some. If you really want to restrict characters to class skill lists, its a decent way of imposing a penalty by venturing outside the zone. At the same time, it takes away a large amount of free will and customization of the class doing this kind of thing.
as has been pointed out, you don't need massive Ranks in a class to hit some DC's, especially for NPC/out of combat checks. Your version basically has this as all or none.
So, eh, not a big fan of how you're doing this. Sure, it'll streamline the accounting. But it takes away a lot of choices for doing so.
==Aelryinth
Looks like 4E, to tell you the truth.
And you are incorrect, combining skills devalues the original skills they consist of. If I can get climb, swim, jump and ride for 1 skill point, instead of 4 skill points, the value of each skill class just dropped by 3/4.
Each SKILL POINT is more valuable, sure, but the skills themselves are worth less. When its 10 pts for Perception vs 20 pts for Spot and Listen, I'll happily take the former...which is exactly what happens with most people. Paying only ten points makes it a cheaper investment!
(...)
So, eh, not a big fan of how you're doing this. Sure, it'll streamline the accounting. But it takes away a lot of choices for doing so.
==Aelryinth
Depends. You are assuming that all skills in the original skill list are balanced with each other in terms of importance and frequency of use, but they are not. So if you take Swim Skill and merge it with Climb, jump and Ride, for example, you are not automatically devaluating Perception Skill or others, since the Perception skill has always been much more useful in terms of frequency and in game opportunities (almost every game session) than Swim (only water or sea game sessions). So, many times you merge not only for matters of simplicity, but specially to make skills more balanced between itselves.
About your last conclusion, yes, it is exactly the trade-off envolved when you supress skill ranks system awarded at every level. But I think that the benefits are much bigger then the supposed "loss of choices", since even by the standard ranks skill system seens that characters tend to pick some skills and invest their ranks in then every level to get the maximum bonus possible. So, I am not a big fan of the supposed flexibility of the system of skill ranks awarded every level, since the supposed benefits do not surpass its much heavier paperwork.
|
|
Fighter class analysis:
1) Skills: I would increase the class skill ranks to 6+int mod. Actually, I would give all martial classes 2 more skill ranks. The goal of this would be to make skills the "martial specialty", and try to force casters into either using spells instead of skills, or just let the martial characters handle the skills. The whole skill system is screwy, both the base pathfinder one and yours. I'm not telling you that your skill system is bad, I just don't think it can be balanced in a way that resembles the current system. See the above vastly different opinions on what does and does not work in the skill system as proof that it's screwy.
2) Proficiencies: I feel that fighter weapon proficiencies could be brought down a touch, maybe 4 weapon groups. Currently they are proficient with at least 7/10 of all weapons, and more than that if weapons exist in multiple groups. The other option would be to flavor fighters as skilled with every weapon, not just a selection, and give them proficiency in all of them. That's a class feature worth picking a class for. Either way, the current selection of nearly every weapon feels a bit awkward.
3) Saves: Fighters could use another good save, I'd vote for will. I see that bravery is still an option (getting to bonus talents soon), but as a non-default feature I think all fighters could use a buff to their mental fortitude and general stubbornness. Being able to add bravery on top of that for a massive bonus against fear seems appropriate and flavorful. One of the common complaints with the current pathfinder fighter is his single good save (not as bad off as the rogue, mind you).
4) Weapon Training: step 1, get rid of the damage adjustment for handedness. It's a bit clumsy and ultimately continues to reward two-handed fighting styles, which are already strong. It also does little to reduce the effectiveness of two-weapon styles under your system. Step 2, I would apply the bonus increase to all weapon groups. This follows a quadratic progression like those seen in casters, and doesn't really affect the top end since the first group is probably the one being used 90% of the time anyway. It's also easier to remember/record, since it's just one bonus applied to a list of weapon groups.
Moving this feature to level 1 is a good decision, and alternates with armor training nicely.
5) Armor Training: I like that the bonus is linearly scaling and doesn't depend on the type of armor worn. I might add something to give shields half the bonus as well, to help offset the reduction in the bonus from weapon training from using a shield. You mention the bonus not applying to touch attacks and being lost while helpless twice.
6) Talents: A build-your-class-features class feature. Generally accepted as a good type of class feature, due to "modularity = good, pre-packaged = bad". Some base fighter class features live in this list, which weakens the fighter class overall. I would combine several talents into single talents that scale as you level, such as (armor adaptation/greater armor adaptation) and (critical focus/improved critical). You may also want to add a talent that grans a feat you qualify for, and can be taken multiple times. In general, I would look to buff this class feature and really make it the "meat" of the class, as part of offsetting the move of standard features to this list.
Overall, your houserule fighter only manages to have one major change from the base pathfinder fighter that actually matters, and that is strength of skills (both class list and ranks). All of the other changes accomplish the same end result with different mechanics. His niche may be better protected due to other classes not having access to his talents, but the fighter himself feels almost unchanged.
Up next: the barbarian, AKA angry fighter variant.
I don't see how a skill point would be more valuable if skills were weaker. That doesn't even make sense!
If you split skills into a million different skills, martial classes would suffer a huge nerf, while casters would still have access to their spells and go on being far more powerful than everyone else... With the difference that the classes that actually depend on skills to do useful stuff (i.e.: non-casters) now are much weaker.
Wizards could have twice as many skill points and they wouldn't be much more powerful than they already are... But take away half the skill points of Rangers, Bards, Rogues and other non-full casters, and their versatility and utility becomes incredibly lower.
Are you referring to my post above, Lemmy? Because I basically said the exact opposite.
Having access to a lot of skills is more valuable when there are lots of skills. Skill points are worth less individually when there's so many things to spend them on.
When you combine half your skills into other skills, the value of your skill points just doubled because they are now doing double duty. The value of the original skills themselves is cut in half, as they are now part of a larger skill.
==Aelryinth
Let us not forget that it makes all martial classes weaker compared to wizards who dont give a f$#$ about attacking more than once to begin with.
I think, and I could be wrong here, but I think that would be the goal. For whatever reason, Magic isn't powerful enough for the OP so they need to make it more important than before.
Are you referring to my post above, Lemmy? Because I basically said the exact opposite.
Having access to a lot of skills is more valuable when there are lots of skills. Skill points are worth less individually when there's so many things to spend them on.
When you combine half your skills into other skills, the value of your skill points just doubled because they are now doing double duty. The value of the original skills themselves is cut in half, as they are now part of a larger skill.
==Aelryinth
Increasing the number of skills does nothing but reduce the versatility of non-casters. It'll make skill-based classes weaker. The only classes that wouldn't suffer a serious nerf is... you guessed it! casters!
Rogues wouldn't be a better class because he now has to spend 2 points in Spot and Listen instead of a single point in Perception. Rogues would be made even less effective! The only difference is that everyone was dragged down because of them, which is precisely the kind of thing that should never happen!
Making weak classes... ahem... "better" by nerfing everyone (including the weak class you're trying to balance) is horrible, horrible design.
Just take a look at Fighters! Feat chains don't make them better! They nerf everyone and make Fighters even weaker! In fact, feat chains nerf Fighters more than anyone else! Are bonus feat more valuable because feats have a crapton of crappy prerequisites? No. Instead, feats are more useless just because of that. A feat-based classes are indirectly nerfed.
Getting rid of 3.5 1/2 rank to non-class skills is one of the best changes made by PF!
Condensing skills down also has the benefit of helping low skill point or off skills classes more then those currently endowed.
Consider Stealth. It used to take 2 skill points to get Stealth. For the Rogue, with 8 skill points, not a problem.
Now, this very valuable skill is 1 pt, and is not a hard investment at all.
Let's go back to Perception. Oi, mate, that's Spot, Search and Listen all in one! 3 skill points it used to cost! Everyone stuck with spot, which meant only a class with a ton of skill points got Search and/or listen.
But now, everybody can, and every body does, because it's so cheap.
Condensing skill points down for everybody to use heavily favors classes with fewer skill points to spend. It lets them grab the 'best' skills, the same way that classes with bonus feats grab the 'best' feats, and leave the piffling skills/feats that don't really matter to the rogue and fighter, stomping all over their shtick in the meantime.
It takes 2 skill points to pull off the iconic abilities of a Rogue - Perception and Stealth. It used to take FIVE...no class could afford to do that. Now, it's a no-brainer and trivally easy, and yet another way that skill-reliant classes get shuffled off to the side.
Spellcasters should not have skills. Skills are something for those WITHOUT magic to draw on. Bards should have 4 skill points tops and be forced to make the choice between performers, lore mavens, and social godlings, not easily able to do all those at once while consoling the rogue. A wizard with 30 Int still should not have more skill points then a Rogue that lives and dies by his skills. By that logic, the rogue should be able to get more magic then the wizard by upping his Dexterity and stealing it from the gods, or something.
Meh!
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Condensing skills down also has the benefit of helping low skill point or off skills classes more then those currently endowed.
Consider Stealth. It used to take 2 skill points to get Stealth. For the Rogue, with 8 skill points, not a problem.
Now, this very valuable skill is 1 pt, and is not a hard investment at all.
Let's go back to Perception. Oi, mate, that's Spot, Search and Listen all in one! 3 skill points it used to cost! Everyone stuck with spot, which meant only a class with a ton of skill points got Search and/or listen.
But now, everybody can, and every body does, because it's so cheap.
Condensing skill points down for everybody to use heavily favors classes with fewer skill points to spend. It lets them grab the 'best' skills, the same way that classes with bonus feats grab the 'best' feats, and leave the piffling skills/feats that don't really matter to the rogue and fighter, stomping all over their shtick in the meantime.
It takes 2 skill points to pull off the iconic abilities of a Rogue - Perception and Stealth. It used to take FIVE...no class could afford to do that. Now, it's a no-brainer and trivally easy, and yet another way that skill-reliant classes get shuffled off to the side.
Spellcasters should not have skills. Skills are something for those WITHOUT magic to draw on. Bards should have 4 skill points tops and be forced to make the choice between performers, lore mavens, and social godlings, not easily able to do all those at once while consoling the rogue. A wizard with 30 Int still should not have more skill points then a Rogue that lives and dies by his skills. By that logic, the rogue should be able to get more magic then the wizard by upping his Dexterity and stealing it from the gods, or something.
Meh!
==Aelryinth
That's like shooting yourself in the foot to make your friend look like a better runner.
"Guy who does skills" isn't really a valid character concept in the first place. Gimping everyone else so they have to rely on this other party member who is superfluous in any other situation besides the skills he's invested in won't improve the game.
Doing skills BETTER, and having unique applications for them might be a worthwhile niche.
Being the ONLY ONE who can do skills is just frustrating, because it means having that one guy in your party is mandatory.
Condensing skills means more people can have skills and contribute properly in situations involving skills. Which means you can do away with having that one guy who does skills and nothing else, and have far more well rounded characters who do skills AND ALSO other things.
Basically what I'm saying is, f%$$ the Rogue, if the Rogue's only purpose is to hold everyone else back it shouldn't exist at all.
Which it STILL does to an extent, with Talents like Rumormonger and Trap Spotter.
Literally the only thing Trap Spotter does is make it so instead of just getting on with your day, you have to say "I'm searching for traps" and that one time you forget your GM gets to go "Tee hee hee you didn't say 'I'm searching for traps' I'm going to assume your character, who is a skilled adventurer was suddenly dumb enough to go blundering off willy nilly into a collapsing floor trap by the way roll a Reflex save".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's like shooting yourself in the foot to make your friend look like a better runner.
Actually... It's closer to shooting your friend in the foot, then shooting yourself in both knees, making everyone a worse runner, then pretending your friend is doing better just because you're more badly crippled.
EDIT: Oh, and the other guy who you shot in the knee, the caster, he still has his high powered race car and the best medical insurance money can buy... So he doesn't care.
Wow... that is THE feedback I was waiting for. Thank you very much!
Fighter class analysis:
1) Skills: I would increase the class skill ranks to 6+int mod. Actually, I would give all martial classes 2 more skill ranks. The goal of this would be to make skills the "martial specialty", and try to force casters into either using spells instead of skills, or just let the martial characters handle the skills. The whole skill system is screwy, both the base pathfinder one and yours. I'm not telling you that your skill system is bad, I just don't think it can be balanced in a way that resembles the current system. See the above vastly different opinions on what does and does not work in the skill system as proof that it's screwy.
Feedback accepted, but since I am very concerned with proportion, I am increasing skill ranks by +50%, so Fighter, Barbarian and Hunter starts with 6 ranks + Int mod; Rogue starts with 12 ranks + Int mod; Cleric, Druid, Wizard and Sorcerer starts with 3 ranks + Int mod. Class skill lists will remain unchanged.
2) Proficiencies: I feel that fighter weapon proficiencies could be brought down a touch, maybe 4 weapon groups. Currently they are proficient with at least 7/10 of all weapons, and more than that if weapons exist in multiple groups. The other option would be to flavor fighters as skilled with every weapon, not just a selection, and give them proficiency in all of them. That's a class feature worth picking a class for. Either way, the current selection of nearly every weapon feels a bit awkward.
Feedback partially accepted. Fighter weapon groups reduced to 5 + basic weapons (instead of six). The Fighter still receives more weapon groups than the Barbarian (4 + basic), Hunter (4 + basic) and Rogue (3 + basic), since Fighter is reputed to be the most technical martial carreer.
3) Saves: Fighters could use another good save, I'd vote for will. I see that bravery is still an option (getting to bonus talents soon), but as a non-default feature I think all fighters could use a buff to their mental fortitude and general stubbornness. Being able to add bravery on top of that for a massive bonus against fear seems appropriate and flavorful. One of the common complaints with the current pathfinder fighter is his single good save (not as bad off as the rogue, mind you).
Feedback partially accepted, but still thinking about how to Balance the system as a whole after acepting this suggestion. Maybe would give to Fighter good Fort (+2) and Will (+1), to Barbarian good Fort (+2) and Ref (+1), to Hunter good Ref(+2) and Fort (+1), to Rogue good Ref(+2) and Will (+1), to Cleric good Will(+2) and Fort (+1), to Druid good Will (+2) and Ref (+1), to Wizard and Sorcerer with good Will (+2) only.
4) Weapon Training: step 1, get rid of the damage adjustment for handedness. It's a bit clumsy and ultimately continues to reward two-handed fighting styles, which are already strong. It also does little to reduce the effectiveness of two-weapon styles under your system. Step 2, I would apply the bonus increase to all weapon groups. This follows a quadratic progression...
First step: rejected. Seriously, I can not do that. Besides clumsy, the damage adjustment for handedness has a clear and fundamental purpose: ensure the principle of neutrality of the fighting styles. It makes equaly balanced to figth with two-handed weapons or two weapons. Keeps also this Fighter class feature (weapon trining) balanced compared to the Barbarian Rage Str bonus that already does the same. It is basically a fix to that. Otherwise, the dmg bonus for fighting with 2 weapons will be much greater than the bonus for fighting with one weapon or two-handed weapons.
Second step: partially accepted. I would keep it applying to a single weapon group because it has flavour value, but would add a new class Talent allowing you to improve the weapon groups selected later which the bonuses lags behind, as following:
Extra Weapon Training (Ex): A fighter can select a new weapon group to gain a bonus of +1 on attack and damage rolls, or increase by +1 the bonus associated with a weapon group already selected. In any case, the bonus associated with this weapon group cannot exceed the bonus associated with your first selected weapon group. At any level, when your weapon training bonus increases, the bonus associated with this new or already selected weapon group also increases.
5) Armor Training: I like that the bonus is linearly scaling and doesn't depend on the type of armor worn. I might add something to give shields half the bonus as well, to help offset the reduction in the bonus from weapon training from using a shield. You mention the bonus not applying to touch attacks and being lost while helpless twice.
Feedback rejected. Since a heavy shield already provides a flat +2 AC, and combined with Weapon'n'Shield Fighting Style it improves to +4 AC bonus, I consider it an already big increase and advantage to use a shield (even more if you apply magic shield bonus).
But even without magic item shield bonus, a +4 bonus to AC seens to be already enough, if you pile it up with 10 Base AC, +10 Base Defense Bonus (BDB), +9 armor Bonus from FullPlate (with +1 max dex (from Armor Mastery fighter talent)), +5 from armor training, you can get easily a total AC of 39 (without magic item bonuses) versus an AC of 35 of a 2-haneded or two weapon style fighter oppoenent. In the other hand, total attack bonus at level 20, (without magic item bonuses, but with weapon training +5 and 20 Str included) would be at +30. So a 20 level Fighter would need to roll a "9" (40% miss chance) to hit each attack against a shield'n'weapon opponent while the same Fighter would need to roll only a "5" (20% miss chance) to hit a non-shield fighter.6) Talents: A build-your-class-features class feature. Generally accepted as a good type of class feature, due to "modularity = good, pre-packaged = bad". Some base fighter class features live in this list, which weakens the fighter class overall. I would combine several talents into single talents that scale as you level, such as (armor adaptation/greater armor adaptation) and (critical focus/improved critical). You may also want to add a talent that grans a feat you qualify for, and can be taken multiple times. In general, I would look to buff this class feature and really make it the "meat" of the class, as part of offsetting the move of standard features to this list.
Will have to think about it, but fighter talents strength looks in pair with talents from other classes such as Barbarian and Hunter. The main class feature of the fighter is Weapon Training and Armor Training, the talents give him more options but are not as powerful as these main class features. Basically, you can direct your talents to improve your individual fighting skills (weapon and armor talents) or improve your teamworking and leadership abilities (some cool talents here, you should have noted). These are the 2 figter paths. Will wait for yor feedback about the other class, then maybe come back to rework this point.
Overall, your houserule fighter only manages to have one major change from the base pathfinder fighter that actually matters, and that is strength of skills (both class list and ranks). All of the other changes accomplish the same end result with different mechanics. His niche may be better protected due to other classes not having access to his talents, but the fighter himself feels almost unchanged.
Yes, this was our original purpose: improve the system but keeping its tradition, to avoid too radical changes (unlike 4e), making it more rounded, easier, flexible, but also standarized (all class receive a main class feature at each odd level, and a class talent at each even level), and keeping it more or less realistic too (again, unlike 4e).
Thank you very much again. Can't wait for the feeback about the other classes.
EDIT: Already added your sugestions to the online document!
Cheers.
Man, why do you Pathfinder guys hate the Fighter so much? Did some Fighter player steal your girl or kill your dog or something?
|
|
Wow... that is THE feedback I was waiting for. Thank you very much!
Just a quick reply:
Many of your responses are with regard to the other classes in your document (martials). The way I evaluated the fighter class is largely against a wizard, and how he can be an effective and valued party member alongside one. I might drop class based skill points from casters entirely, giving them only their int bonus in skill points (min 1). As stated, I would make it a goal to turn skills into the "martial specialty". Sort of like cantrips that scale: weaker than proper spells, but unlimited in use.
I'd want the talents, as a class feature, to feel like the "spells" of the martial classes. A broad list of powerful and scaling effects that help define your specific party role, or just help you diversify as a character. The core power of the "spells" class feature is twofold: versatility and quadratic scaling. I believe that achieving a lesser measure of that versatility and quadratic scaling with talents would help martial classes feel more powerful, especially compared to primary casters (cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard).
Man, why do you Pathfinder guys hate the Fighter so much?
We don't hate Fighters. We merely acknowledge the flaws in their class design.
Did some Fighter player steal your girl or kill your dog or something?
Of course not. Fighter don't have the necessary Cha, skill lists or skill points to steal anyone's girlfriend... I suppose they could kill someone's dog, though.
|
|
Man, why do you Pathfinder guys hate the Fighter so much? Did some Fighter player steal your girl or kill your dog or something?
I think the issue is that everyone has their own opinion of what the fighter class should be, and nobody agrees. Because of this, it continuously gets torn apart and reassembled according to individual desires and visions. Some are buffs, some are nerfs, and some are simply different.
Wow... that is THE feedback I was waiting for. Thank you very much!Just a quick reply:
Many of your responses are with regard to the other classes in your document (martials). The way I evaluated the fighter class is largely against a wizard, and how he can be an effective and valued party member alongside one. I might drop class based skill points from casters entirely, giving them only their int bonus in skill points (min 1). As stated, I would make it a goal to turn skills into the "martial specialty". Sort of like cantrips that scale: weaker than proper spells, but unlimited in use.
I'd want the talents, as a class feature, to feel like the "spells" of the martial classes. A broad list of powerful and scaling effects that help define your specific party role, or just help you diversify as a character. The core power of the "spells" class feature is twofold: versatility and quadratic scaling. I believe that achieving a lesser measure of that versatility and quadratic scaling with talents would help martial classes feel more powerful, especially compared to primary casters (cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard).
You have a point here. Your concept seens very interesting and promising, remembers a concept used in an old 3.5e book called "Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords". Besides our group prefference is for a more realistic feel for the martial classes, I have nothing against your concept which seens very reasonable too (but will need hard work!), if it is your obective. Go for it, and share with us. We are here to help in case of need!
Cheers.
Fighter class analysis:
5) Armor Training: I like that the bonus is linearly scaling and doesn't depend on the type of armor worn. I might add something to give shields half the bonus as well, to help offset the reduction in the bonus from weapon training from using a shield. You mention the bonus not applying to touch attacks and being lost while helpless twice.
Thinking twice, I am acepting this feedback about applying 1/2 armor training bonus to shields too. Makes sense. Already added it to our online document.
That's like shooting yourself in the foot to make your friend look like a better runner.Actually... It's closer to shooting your friend in the foot, then shooting yourself in both knees, making everyone a worse runner, then pretending your friend is doing better just because you're more badly crippled.
EDIT: Oh, and the other guy who you shot in the knee, the caster, he still has his high powered race car and the best medical insurance money can buy... So he doesn't care.
Huh. Martial caster disparity again.
Because the example I'd use is that condensing skills is like giving rogues and fighters access to the wizard spell list for a choice amount of spells/day. Screw the wizard, why should he have all the fun? Every class should be able to use 9th level spells eventually and all those arcane toys. Now you don't need a wizard in the party, because anyone can do his job.
Ditto the cleric. Let's just give the rogue and the fighter the choice of taking cleric or wizard spells. That'll balance everything out.
See how that works? It's badwrongfun to take away skill supremacy from Rogues and its okay to give away their niche to ANY OTHER CLASS, but do it the casters and you'll have people screaming.
Meh.
==Aelryinth
I always thought that iterative attacks should have the same bonus as your base attack bonus, instead of a cumulative -5 for each attack. Ex: At 6th level, a fighter's BAB is +6/+6. Plus this follows pretty closely to how the math philosophy for TWF and Rapid Shot were designed (-2 to each attack; not +0 first attack, -5 second attack). The variable math for each attack is what slows down combat the most.
It's badwrongfun to take away skill supremacy from Rogues and its okay to give away their niche to ANY OTHER CLASS, but do it the casters and you'll have people screaming.
I agree.
What follows is my opinion:
When you examine the shift from 2e AD&D to 3.x-Pathfinder, the sheer amount of limitations removed from casters, or "easy" means by which to bypass existing limitations is astonishing.
In 3.0-3.5, some niche protection was in place. There were still problems, many of which came from splat-books with inconsistent material or just plain silly mechanics (Ur-Priest, thy name is cheese).
The solution to the perceived problems is to look at when it wasn't "broken" and in some cases, reverse the change to restore checks and balances. This is blasphemy to the typical Pathfinder player (and some GMs), however.
The paradigm "Don't Nerf, BUFF!" is a never ending inflation of classes to achieve a perceived balance between martials and casters, which will inevitably result in martials becoming casters in all but name or martials being buffed to the point you now have to buff casters to keep up with the change in top dog.
It is ridiculous, not sustainable, and ultimately self-defeating.
I always thought that iterative attacks should have the same bonus as your base attack bonus, instead of a cumulative -5 for each attack. Ex: At 6th level, a fighter's BAB is +6/+6. Plus this follows pretty closely to how the math philosophy for TWF and Rapid Shot were designed (-2 to each attack; not +0 first attack, -5 second attack). The variable math for each attack is what slows down combat the most.
Valid point. It would, however, require a deflation of damage to balance out expectations of DPR, no? I believe SWSE does this very thing with the two-weapon chains.
|
|
As far as iterative attacks, I've always viewed them as a tool to demonstrate superiority over inferior foes. The 16th level fighter has +16/+11/+6/+1, but against a truly equal foe, he should only expect to hit with his best attack, maybe 2. The remaining attacks after the first few are there to really pile on the hurt to an enemy who shouldn't be standing in the fighter's way to start with. When the equivalent fighter runs up, they should have a meaningful exchange, with only the first attack or two really having a chance to hit. When the level 3 aristocrat picks a fight with the same level 16 fighter, he gets torn apart due to all of his defensive gaps the high level fighter is using against him.
Now, I realize the math doesn't really work this way. At level 1, your hit bonus can easily be surpassed by mundane armor and shields. Additionally, it isn't difficult at all to have an attack that would drop the stoutest PC with one hit. As levels advance, attack bonuses close the gap with AC, and hit points run away from single hit damage. The system as is is set up to require iterative attacks hitting to keep the lethality of low levels in place. The only difference is that there is now a spectrum of results, not just, "I have a 50% chance of hitting him, in which case he'll die. Otherwise nothing happens."
If we view the martials' combat role as simply the ability to apply the "dead" condition to enemies, then one would expect that ability to scale up with level, not down. After all, a caster moves from applying the "dazed" condition to one enemy, to commanding entire groups. Based on this, I would have the goal of the hit vs. AC system to be this:
1) Always have an equal chance to miss at all levels based on average equivalent combatants. The advantage over a non-AC character (arcane caster, etc.) should remain the same. If level 1 is a 50% chance to hit a fighter, and a 85% chance to hit a wizard, those chances shouldn't change with levels. A caster should have to invest spells in maintaining his 15% miss chance. Spells with non-AC miss chances would be removed, or would only grant an equivalent miss chance that didn't stack.
2) Increase the number of attacks that can be made in a standard action as the martial levels. This should function as cleave, great cleave, or whirlwind attack, meaning that no one enemy can be targeted twice. This is due to #3.
3) Maintain the same chance to apply the "dead" condition with a single attack at all levels. The damage should be somewhere around 1/3 of a martial's HP, and 1/2 of a caster's. Two non-crits, or a crit with a x2 weapon or better, drops a caster on average. Three non-crits, or a crit with a x3 weapon or better, drops a martial on average. A x4 critical weapon should guarantee a kill on a crit, assuming the enemy is not vastly overleveled.
As far as the current iterative scheme is concerned, there simply isn't a good answer. If the bonuses differ by 5 points each, then there is a chance of a one-round kill, but you will only ever apply that kill to one target. If the bonuses are equal, you have a higher chance of killing several targets, but nothing stops you from using them all on one target to guarantee a kill. Neither is really any better, they're just different answers to the same problem, each with their own feel and purpose.
That's like shooting yourself in the foot to make your friend look like a better runner.Actually... It's closer to shooting your friend in the foot, then shooting yourself in both knees, making everyone a worse runner, then pretending your friend is doing better just because you're more badly crippled.
EDIT: Oh, and the other guy who you shot in the knee, the caster, he still has his high powered race car and the best medical insurance money can buy... So he doesn't care.
Huh. Martial caster disparity again.
Because the example I'd use is that condensing skills is like giving rogues and fighters access to the wizard spell list for a choice amount of spells/day. Screw the wizard, why should he have all the fun? Every class should be able to use 9th level spells eventually and all those arcane toys. Now you don't need a wizard in the party, because anyone can do his job.
Ditto the cleric. Let's just give the rogue and the fighter the choice of taking cleric or wizard spells. That'll balance everything out.
See how that works? It's badwrongfun to take away skill supremacy from Rogues and its okay to give away their niche to ANY OTHER CLASS, but do it the casters and you'll have people screaming.
Meh.
==Aelryinth
The problem is that nerfing skill does not make anyone better. Not even the Rogue. Quite the contrary, it makes Rogues even less competent.
If you want to make skill monkeys more useful, try making them more useful instead of nerfing them slightly less than you nerf everyone else.
Nerfing skills just makes all other classes, especially martial classes, less useful and less fun to play. "Niche protection" by shooting everyone in the kneecap is a horrible idea.
Want Rogues to be the masters of skills? Make them better at skills, not worse. Give them unique applications of skill, allow them to always take 10, make "class skill" mean something more than a lowly +3.
That's how you make Rogues better. Not by crippling them and claiming they're more useful because other classes are even more crippled than them.
Slightly off-topic, but I really hate the way the term "nerf" is used. Any adjustment anyone doesn't like is immediately labeled a nerf. This isn't targetted at you, Lemmy, but it is something I've noticed in more and more threads (and your use of the term reminded me). There is a similar trend to refer to anything which buffs x, y, and z, but at a reduced effect for y and z as "a penalty to y and z" even though it is still a buff.
Anyway, I don't see splitting some of the combinations of skills back into their component parts as a nerf, necessarily. Combining Move Silently and Hide? Excellent idea, albeit not exactly new when Pathfinder did it. Many GMs had been doing it for years. Combining Spot & Listen into Perception? Awesome idea, and much like Stealth, nothing new. Combining Search into it? Not so much. That was one of Pathfinder's house rules we never adopted.
In essence, if you split the skills up, you should also make certain they are worth taking as the individual component, i.e. you need to make skills worthwhile instead of the truly half-$#%&@ job 3.0 (all the way to Pathfinder) has done.
Skills never taken in the vast majority of my campaigns include Climb, Jump, and Swim. In order to encourage them as selections, as GM, I included more uses for them in-game. In addition, I'm experimenting with benefits based on ranks in certain skills. A few examples; homebrew is denoted as (HB):
Athletics (HB) grants a +1 to Dexterity and +1 to Strength at 10 ranks; at 20 ranks, this bonus increases to +2 to each.
Running (HB) grants a +1 bonus to Constitution at 10 ranks and a +5' land speed; at 20 ranks, this bonus increases to +2 and +10' land speed, respectively.
Swim grants a +1 bonus to Constitution at 10 ranks and a +5' swim speed; at 20 ranks, this bonus increases to +2 and +10' swim speed, respectively.
Rogues, for example, receive a modified version of the Class skill bonus. We removed "skill focus" ages ago and adjusted expected DCs accordingly; with that in mind, I granted Rogues the standard +3 for putting a point in a class skill, which increases to +6 when the rogue acquires a total of 10 ranks in said skill.
Thankfully, I have a very tolerant and supportive gaming group, who encourage and are willing to try these little experiments to improve the gaming experience.
Additionally, nerf casters or reintroduce old rules - a handful of checks and balances [edit: that helped reign in casters] - that have been removed from the game by those looking to make a buck by catering to the power gamer in all of us.
I use "nerf" as "change that diminishes the power of something". Which is exactly what splitting skill points would do... Reduce the power and versatility of every class in the game (Rogues included... Casters not so much).
Therefore, a nerf.
I use "nerf" as "change that diminishes the power of something". Which is exactly what splitting skill points would do... Reduce the power and versatility of every class in the game (Rogues included... Casters not so much).
Therefore, a nerf.
And all these suggestions, nerf the limited utility of anything that doesn't use magic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And all these suggestions, nerf the limited utility of anything that doesn't use magic.
This is a perfect example of why you shouldn't make blanket statements without reading the entire thread.
Kindly remember that what you are calling 'nerfs to every class' were 'powers unique to the thief class' in other editions.
I.e. HS, MS, Open locks and all that stuff were things only thieves had (well, rangers, too).
3.E made all these things skills and let anyone take them. Which is directly akin to letting everyone get spellcasting...but, no, on top of this spellcasters got to keep their uniqueness, and then got even MORE stuff on top of it.
So, it's not 'reducing all other classes', it's 'taking back what was unique to the Rogue'.
But, no, can't have a unique niche for the rogue, because it isn't magic! For shame to need a rogue, but it's okay to need full casters!
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And there's a reason that was changed... Unlocking doors is not something that should be class-specific.
And no one needs full casters. A party composed of Magus, Bard, Paladin and Ranger can do just fine. And this is just one of multiple "no-full-caster-needed" party possibilities.
Instead of nerfing everyone, Rogue included, to make Rogues less obsolete, make Rogues better.
Notice how everyone can track, get a pet wolf, use stealth and scout ahead, and everyone gets feats... But Rangers aren't considered superfluous.
Everyone can deal damage and resist magic, but Barbarians are still considered a good class.
Lots of classes can fight and cast spells... But no one stole the Bard's role yet. Magus, Inquisitor, Oracle, Cleric... They may or may not be more powerful than Bards, but you don't see people claiming all 6-level spell lists should take a serious and unnecessary nerf just so Bards can feel better about themselves.
Or better yet... What about the Slayer? While it's true that we haven't seen the full class yet, most posters seem to consider it to be an useful and balanced class, even though it has no spells. And no one had to cripple skills for that, so the problem lies not in skill, but in Rogues.
Rogues are a bad class mostly because they suck in combat. They have low accuracy, low/mediocre AC and horrible, horrible saves. Whatever ability they have with skills is just not enough to compensate for that, especially when they are not all that good with skills to start with.
Want to make Rogues better? Make them better, not "worse but necessary". Make them better in combat. Make them better at skills. Just getting 2 extra skill points is just not enough.
Still waiting for the feedback about the barbarian, if anyone is interested in strengthing the rogue, there is a rogue version too.
And there's a reason that was changed... Unlocking doors is not something that should be class-specific.
And no one needs full casters. A party composed of Magus, Bard, Paladin and Ranger can do just fine. And this is just one of multiple "no-full-caster-needed" party possibilities.
Instead of nerfing everyone, Rogue included, to make Rogues less obsolete, make Rogues better.
Notice how everyone can track, get a pet wolf, use stealth and scout ahead, and everyone gets feats... But Rangers aren't considered superfluous.
Everyone can deal damage and resist magic, but Barbarians are still considered a good class.
Lots of classes can fight and cast spells... But no one stole the Bard's role yet. Magus, Inquisitor, Oracle, Cleric... They may or may not be more powerful than Bards, but you don't see people claiming all 6-level spell lists should take a serious and unnecessary nerf just so Bards can feel better about themselves.
Or better yet... What about the Slayer? While it's true that we haven't seen the full class yet, most posters seem to consider it to be an useful and balanced class, even though it has no spells. And no one had to cripple skills for that, so the problem lies not in skill, but in Rogues.
Rogues are a bad class mostly because they suck in combat. They have low accuracy, low/mediocre AC and horrible, horrible saves. Whatever ability they have with skills is just not enough to compensate for that, especially when they are not all that good with skills to start with.
Want to make Rogues better? Make them better, not "worse but necessary". Make them better in combat. Make them better at skills. Just getting 2 extra skill points is just not enough.
You can blow a feat to get a pet...that's not as good as a ranger's, who can blow the same feat and have a better one.
Rangers could always do stealth. Just not as good as a rogue.Unlocking doors is MAYBE something that shouldn't be class specific. Fighters casting wizard spells is maybe something that should be, too.
I am aware the Rogue sucks in combat, but being a combat maven was never the Rogue's role. The Rogue's role was always to have skills that the other classes did not...not spellcasting, not great combat abilities, not bardsong, not animal pets. Saying 'picking locks' should be available to everyone is exactly as valid as saying the Knock spell should be available to everyone.
To learn those skills, you should have to take class levels and earn them. The fact they were all lumped together and thrown open to everyone is, like the massive relative nerf to melee, the real reason behind the irrelevance of the Rogue.
--His class skills were given away, not to just another class, but to EVERY SINGLE CLASS.
--His combat ability wasn't significantly improved.
--His defenses certainly aren't stellar.
--His uniqueness is gone.
Having a skill subset that is only available to those who take Rogue levels, or having Rogues get more out of skills then any other class, would serve to return Rogues to at least a semblance of uniqueness. But when you just give away everything a Rogue has to other classes willy-nilly, why, with the other problems you have, would you ever bother to play a Rogue?
===Aelryinth