| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I'm sure you could if you wanted, but that's not really the point. Nothing wrong with doing a little more damage to help speed combat along and/or match that wizard's fireball. All I'm saying, is that if you get multiple attacks, your modifier/attack bonus for all attacks that turn should be the same.
I agree, SWSE did a great job with multiple attacks. Everyone only gets one attack, regardless of BAB, unless you take feats. Double Attack gives you two attacks (aside from TWF), with a -5 penalty to each attack. Triple Attack gives you three attacks, with a -10 penalty to each attack. Now -5 and -10 might be a little steep compared to Rapid Shot and TWF, so I would rule that Double Attack is -2 to each, cumulative with TWF penalties (or FoBs) and/or Rapid Shot. Triple Attack would be another -2 to each, cumulative with Double Attack, Rapid Shot and/or TWF (or FoBs).
Related Side note: TWF penalties should be -8/-8 base > -6/-6 if light > -4/-4 if feat > -2/-2 if feat and light.
So the same ruling could apply to iterative attacks; first iterative attack, if taken, imposes a -2 penalty to all attack rolls that turn; second iterative attack, if taken, imposes an additional -2 (-4 total) penalty to all attack rolls that turn. You could move the iterative unlock criteria to BAB +8 and BAB +15, if you think leaving it at BAB +6 and BAB +11 is too much of an early power spike (though I prefer this, as it's rare to see higher level campaigns).
I like the idea of only granting three iterative attacks, or six attacks if you invest all of your resources into the TWF chain (five-feat commitment seems balanced). Five iterative attacks at 16th level is great and all, but you are rolling for days at that point. Plus, limiting it to only max three iterative attacks, you are essentially balancing out DPR at that point.
In summary, if your going to allow multiple attacks, then the modifiers for each attack roll should be the same for all of the attacks. Everything seems to work this way (multiple natural attacks, TWF after feat, Rapid Shot, Flurry of Blows, etc.) except iterative attacks, which I think is silly.
|
Barbarian class analysis:
1) Alignment: I feel the alignment restriction is unnecessary. Many people agree with me, many people don't. It's really just a flavor thing, and doesn't impact the mechanics much. Since this is your homebrew, I'll assume you like your barbarians excluded from being lawful, and that's ok.
2) Skills: Unlike with the fighter, I may not give the barbarian more skill points. 4+int mod is acceptable, and having fewer than the fighter displays the "trained vs. instinctive" difference of the classes. I would remove armscraft from the class skill list. These are all flavor preferences, though I don't think there will be an appreciable reduction in the barbarian's effectiveness from them.
3) Proficiencies: Everything looks good here. However, if fighter proficiency count is lowered, I would lower the barbarian's to 3.
4) Saves: Probably ok, though I suggest considering adding reflex as a class save. I feel less strongly about this than will for the fighter. It's really a toss-up.
5) Rage: Slightly modified from base, though in some detrimental ways. For starters, removing the constitution bonus hurts alot. It really is a core feature of barbarians, meaning the immense HP pool. I would try to find a way to add it back in, even if its only HP, without boosting fort saves via constitution. Additionally, the strength bonus seems out of control as levels advance. Being realistic, your barbarian is probably prioritizing strength already. The pathfinder barbarian gets to +8 strength, and that's as a capstone at level 20. For most of the game it's +6, half of yours. I haven't heard anyone say, "I really think barbarians need more strength." I'll expand on this in another post, since the issue goes back to your original post about BAB progression. For now, the only other note would be that the loss of the will save bonus is likely ok if reflex is added as a class save. It seems like you are trying to compensate for the better strength bonus by taking away the other advantages, but I think it weakens the ability as a whole. Rage is considered one of the better designed class features for pathfinder, so I'm less inclined to think it needs changing. Comparing it to the fighter's weapon training, I feel like you're trying too hard to make them similar.
6) Damage reduction: This is identical to the base version, just accessed earlier. It may have been stealth-buffed due to your hit vs. AC change and removal of power attack. As I'll talk more about later, AC in your homebrew is a losing game, even with BDB. The loss of power attack makes damage per hit lower, and ultimately makes DR a bigger factor. However, this is still a solid class feature, and I wouldn't change it.
7) MISSING ABILITIES: I thought it important to point out all of the abilities a pathfinder barbarian has that yours does not, and discuss the effect.
For starters, fast movement is a talent. Accessed a level later at best, only while raging, and instead of a rage power. You may as well remove it, preferably replaced with spell sunder or something equally interesting. It was always a nice bonus, but not a big deal.
Uncanny dodge is also gone, though since barbarian AC rarely matters anyway, it's not really a significant loss.
Trap sense is also gone, and part of why I suggested a reflex save bonus. It seems more like a rogue ability anyway, so I'll concede a flavor based removal. It's another one that probably doesn't make much of a difference.
Improved uncanny dodge exists almost solely to remove the primary source of sneak attack opportunities. This one is also probably missed little.
Indomitable will is amazing. Why did you remove it? Are you itching to dominate the raging murder-machine and mad you can't? A strong resistance to enchantments is another iconic barbarian feature, and one that I feel is missing from your barbarian. On top of removing the rage bonus to will saves, the party may as well just assume to have him mind-raped at all times.
Tireless rage is a talent now, and I'm 100% in for that, except that the level requirement is absurdly low. If you can stop rage cycling some other way it may be ok, but right now a level 6 barbarian is a rage cycling monster without any level dipping shenanigans. I suggest making rage a swift action.
SIDE NOTE: None of your classes have level 20 capstones, is that intentional?
8) Talents: Where to start? Most of these are rage powers, and many of them are rage cycle bait, especially with tireless rage (as noted above). I will not be assessing them with rage cycling in mind, but understand that it's probably a real issue for any power useable "once per rage".
Animal fury: flavorful and balanced.
Sharpened senses: flavorful and balanced.
Roar: flavorful, but mechanically broken. While I'm raging, I can use my move action to try to apply a minor debuff resisted with a will save? And I only get one try? I realize this merges intimidating glare and terrifying howl, but those were both bad anyway. Changes recommended: usable without raging, change to an intimidate check. Basically the dazzling display feat usable as a move action.
Indomitable will: the bonus to will saves is needed, but ultimately not enough. Not stacking with iron will is an additional slap in the face. Immune to shaken and frightened is cool, though I would make it include panicked as a blanket fear immunity. At that point I would just remove the save bonus (with intent to add the bonus back elsewhere).
Clear mind: good ability.
Clarity of mind: except for sounding too similar to its prereq, this is good.
Strength surge: good ability, though it might need to either be a flat bonus or scaled way back. A massive bonus to CMB and CMD for a barbarian is huge due to adding in your increased strength bonus from raging (also increased). I'm predicting some maneuver monster barbarians with CMB numbers that are untouchable. Good idea, bad numbers.
Cleave: the name is misleading, but the ability is great.
Flurry of blows: I would say the name is misleading, but you have no monks. Good ability.
Mighty swing: identical to an already existing one. Good ability.
Raging prowess: enhancement bonus? The bonus type is weird, and the ability is mechanically weak. Good flavor though.
Fast movement: already discussed.
Freedom of movement: misleading name, though I understand the reasoning. Good ability, but raging prowess feels like an unnecessary talent tax.
Internal fortitude: weak ability that plugs a self-created gap. Just put the constitution bonus back into rage. Flavor is good though.
Renewed vigor: make it a swift action, and specify current or maximum HP. Otherwise good.
Tireless rage: already discussed.
Increased damage reduction: normally I'd suggest the increase be 2, but in your system 1 is probably good.
Unnatural reflexes: good ability.
Amazing dodge: I like the flavor, but the mechanics are a bit off. Not sure how to fix it.
Whirling frenzy: extremely weak.
Superstition: good ability. Reasonable re-balance of the standard version.
No escape: good ability.
Leap attack: great flavor. Specify if the 10 feet can be horizontal, vertical, or both. "His weapon deals double damage..." does that mean just the base weapon damage dice, or the entire attack's damage? If the second, change wording to "The attack deals double damage..." I might add that the trip attempt doesn't provoke, though you may have previously said maneuvers never provoke. I can't remember.
Whirlwind attack: good ability.
Overall, I feel like this is just a variant of the fighter, not its own class. Weapon training = rage, where weapon training is weapon specific and rage is limited use. Armor training = damage reduction, it's just a question of if you're using AC for defense or DR. They have the same BAB, BDB, and saves. Skills are nearly identical. Fighter has more proficiencies, but barbarian has more HP. Talents are just different, and I don't see the need to keep them class specific between these two. The barbarian is an angry fighter, and I don't like that. Of course, I didn't like 4e. Take that for what you will.
|
|
So here's the bit on attack bonuses and AC as I see them so far.
Estimated barbarian strength:
Base strength: 18
Level increases (level 17): +4
Belt of strength: +6
Rage: +12
Total: 40
Attack bonus from strength: +15
Damage bonus from strength (2-hand): +22
This number could go even higher, such as starting with a 20 or even 22 strength (if orc is allowed), or using an inherent bonus. This seems a bit out of control, mostly for the attack bonus. The damage bonus makes sense, since power attack isn't an option, but for the same reason, the attack bonus is quite large.
Likely barbarian attack bonus at level 20:
BAB: +20
Strength: +15
Basic buffs (greater heroism + haste): +5
Weapon enhancement (+5 or +3 furious): +5
Misc (flank, feat, etc.): +2
TOTAL: +47
Likely fighter AC at level 20:
Base: 10
BDB: +10
Dexterity: +0
Mithral fullplate: +9
Armor enhancement: +5
Armor training (armor): +5
Ring of protection: +5
Amulet of natural armor: +5
Dusty rose ioun stone: +1
Haste: +1
TOTAL: 51
Chance for barbarian to hit fighter: 80%
If we replace the barbarian with a fighter, the attack bonus is +46, as I think is intended. You have rage and weapon training set up to scale the same way, with a +1 bonus to rage for having downsides (limited duration, AC penalty, etc.) All in all, it's not that bad. But wait! Your iteratives are +20/+20/+20! So this isn't just the first attack, this is all three. Let's assume each attack would deal 40 damage if it hit:
BAB +20/+15/+10/+5: (0.8+0.55+0.3+0.05)*40 = 68 DPR
BAB +20/+20/+20: (0.8+0.8+0.8)*40 = 96 DPR
That's a 40% damage increase.
This may be required with your HP increases, but ultimately it feels stale, since the damage each hit is low, but every attack likely hits on anything but a 1.
I guess we're back to your original post topic. If you want all BAB attacks equal, you'll need to reduce the total bonus BAB gives. If you wanted to keep damage high, you could just add a damage bonus elsewhere. This is where power attack comes in. Lowers the bonus and increases the damage. If you really don't want power attack, I would look to find a way to add it back into the system as a default mechanic. The easiest way is to give a scaling damage increase, then improve AC by some small amount, around 1/5 of your level. The +20/+15/+10/+5 iterative scheme avoids this issue by letting the first attack have a high hit chance, and using the iteratives as the scaling damage chance based on attack vs. AC and dice rolls. Yes, that last iterative probably won't hit, but it's not all that different from a crit. The chance for it to happen is low, but it is a massive damage increase. The +20/+20/+20 system prefers a stale system where nearly all attacks hit, but deal only a small percentage of HP damage, as you have yours set up. The other option is where there is a lot of chance for each attack to hit or miss, and that makes the damage each round very variable. There really isn't a nice middle, at least not with attack bonuses and AC bonuses as complicated as they are. I admire trying to simplify the BAB scheme, but the +20/+15/+10/+5 scheme does a lot to smooth over the inconsistencies with the current attack vs. AC system.
I am aware the Rogue sucks in combat, but being a combat maven was never the Rogue's role.
People keep saying this... But I fail to see how it makes sense. Backstab/Sneak attack is a mechanic that is completely focused on combat. So is Uncanny Dodge and Evasion. Hell, the Rogue's capstone is a combat ability! Let's not forget Rogue Talents such as Finesse Rogue, Combat Trick, Weapon Training, etc.
If anything, Rogues are more combat focused than Bards, Clerics and Wizards.
Besides, combat is a HUGE part of 3.X/Pathfinder. All classes are expected to be competent at it. There are more rules devoted to combat than everything else combined.
A class that completely sucks in combat is just as poorly designed as one that completely sucks out of it.
And "uniqueness" is not necessarily a good thing. I'd much rather have my Rogues be made "more competent and useful" than "less competent, but more unique". Especially if that would mean Rogues are necessary in the game because they are the only skill class.
Splitting skills won't make anyone's game more fun. All characters (Rogues included) are suddenly more restricted, and the difference between 8 skill points and 6 is made even smaller, gone from 2 skills to a single 1. And overall, the game would be less balanced. All Non-casters would lose a lot of options, while casters would keep pretty much all of their power and versatility.
Saying nerfing skills would buff Rogues makes as much sense as saying nerfing spells would buff Wizards, or that nerfing Power Attack and Iron Will would buff Fighters.
It seems you're more worried about Rogues being special snow flakes than you're about them being competent and the game being more balanced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
--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.
And the game as a whole is better for it.
The solution, therefore, is to get rid of the Rogue.
2) Skills: I do not think the barbarian as an absolute brute (besides some can be). I think he is raised in the wilderness so the type of skills he get trained are different, but he is not necessarily less skilled then the fighter. Just my view, but I respect yours. Armscraft is important to craft weapons (barbarian know how to forge weapons indeed) and to set traps. Maybe in the future I post the details about this skill, it is very interesting.
3) Proficiencies: I gave the barbarian 4, since fighter has 5. for example, a Barb could choose swords / Axes&Picks/ Maces & Hammers / Spears & Polearms + Basic. Or make a trade-off and choose bows in place of polearms. Etc. 4 weapon group slots works for me for this reason. 3 I think is too limited.
4) Saves: Already adjusted after your previous review about the fighter. Take a look again in the online document. Barbarians get +2 Fort and +1 Ref vs Fighters gaining +2 Fort +1 Will.
5) Rage: Dont know if you have noted but I removed limitation about the number of usages of rage per day (3.5e) or maximum number of rounds per day (Pathfinder). You can start a rage at anytime (as long as you arent fatigued or exhausted) for longs as you want, until the end of the encounter (after that you suffer the tiring/fatigue consequences). Removed the Constitution becaused it used to kill many barbs after rages runs out, so add renewed vigor instead. I think temporary hp is better to control than a subtle surge of hp that leaves the barbarian helpless and dead after rage. The strength bonus is in pair with Fighters weapon training as you already noted. The AC penalty for raging is reduced to -1 (instead of -2).
6) Damage reduction: AC in my homebrew is not a losing game, as I will try to show in advance.
7) MISSING ABILITIES:
"Improved uncanny." Yes, and the reason for me to remove this ability is to protect te rogues niche in duels. Only rogues can have an inherent ability to counter a rogue's main ability.
"Indomitable will is amazing. Why did you remove it?" Substituted by the talent of the same name but reducted its effect. I may let it stack with Save Bonus from feats as you suggested.
"Tireless rage is a talent now, and I'm 100% in for that, except that the level requirement is absurdly low." It is not low since it is not identical to Tireless Rage from Pathfinder. Tireless Rage here only allows the barb to enter in Rage while fatigued (because otherwise he cannot enter in rage while fatigued, for example, from a previous rage), but he becomes exhausted (instead of ust fatigued) after rage for using this talent to enter rage even if fatigued. In pathfinder, Tireless rage lets the barb end the rage without getting fatigued. So its VERY different and DOES NOT ALLOW rage cycling more than once.
SIDE NOTE: None of your classes have level 20 capstones, is that intentional? Yes. All classes are modular: 1 main class ability at every odd level, 1 talent at eevery even level. Feats are different too, but we can talk about it later on.
8) Talents:
Roar: Changes recommended: usable without raging (rejected, since he only becomes fearsome while raging). change to an intimidate check (prefer to give other a chance to resist through a Will Save since the shaken effect last longer than 1 rd). But, accepting your feedback partially, I will reduce it to a SWIFT action to make it a bit stronger.
Indomitable will: Accepted. Will allow stacking with iron will.
Clear mind: good ability.
Clarity of mind: "except for sounding too similar to its prereq, this is good." Any suggestion for a better name?
Strength surge: "Good idea, bad numbers." Works exactly as in Pathfinder. See it again.
"Mighty swing: identical to an already existing one. Good ability." It is not identical to the existing one since it allows you to MAXIMIZE the DICE DAMGE if you score a crit, but only once per rage.
Raging prowess: "enhancement bonus? The bonus type is weird, and the ability is mechanically weak. " Just merged raging leaper, raging leaper and raging swimer from PF into ust one talent.
"Freedom of movement: misleading name," Any name sugestion? Will think in a better one.
"Internal fortitude: weak ability that plugs a self-created gap." Will allow it stack with Great Fortitude Feat.
"Renewed vigor: make it a swift action, and specify current or maximum HP." feedbakc accepted.
"Amazing dodge: I like the flavor, but the mechanics are a bit off. Not sure how to fix it." Agreed, but not sure how to fix it too.
"Whirling frenzy: extremely weak." Disagree a free +1 Ac bonus. The is no dodge feat open for all.
"Leap attack: great flavor. Specify if the 10 feet can be horizontal, vertical, or both. "His weapon deals double damage..." does that mean just the base weapon damage dice, or the entire attack's damage? If the second, change wording to "The attack deals double damage..." I might add that the trip attempt doesn't provoke." Originally my it was only weapon deals double damage, but I am accepting your suggestion and making the attack deal doudle damage instead. The trip attempt doesnt provoke AO, but I must explicit it in the text. thank you.
Estimated barbarian strength:
Base strength: 18
Level increases (level 17): +4
Belt of strength: +6
Rage: +12
Total: 40
Attack bonus from strength: +15
Damage bonus from strength (2-hand): +22
This number could go even higher, such as starting with a 20 or even 22 strength (if orc is allowed), or using an inherent bonus. This seems a bit out of control, mostly for the attack bonus. The damage bonus makes sense, since power attack isn't an option, but for the same reason, the attack bonus is quite large.Likely barbarian attack bonus at level 20:
BAB: +20
Strength: +15
Basic buffs (greater heroism + haste): +5
Weapon enhancement (+5 or +3 furious): +5
Misc (flank, feat, etc.): +2
TOTAL: +47Likely fighter AC at level 20:
Base: 10
BDB: +10
Dexterity: +0
Mithral fullplate: +9
Armor enhancement: +5
Armor training (armor): +5
Ring of protection: +5
Amulet of natural armor: +5
Dusty rose ioun stone: +1
Haste: +1
TOTAL: 51
Comments:
1.Lets try to compare class strengths ATT vs AC without magical items, since they also need a revison apart.2.Another point, I out game no stat buff can be used to increase any ability score beyond your race maximum (so mx Str is 18 for a human).
3. Lets recalculate:
A) Barbarian ATT:
+20 from level 20;
+4 from Strength
+6 from rage (+12 STR)
TOTAL: 30
B) FIGHTER AC:
10 from Base AC
+10 from BDB (base defense bonus) at level 20
+9 from full plate (in our games it allow +1 max dex)
+1 from Dex mod
+5 from Armor Training
TOTAL: 35
If the fighter chooses to use a heavy shield (+2), takes weapon'n'shield fighting style (+2), and adds bonus from 1/2 armor training bonus (+2), he will get +6 AC, so his total AC will be 41, and the barbarian will need to roll 11 or more to score a hit.
Here is an optional progression, for those who want to try 4 itterative attacks with full BAB:
.
.
.
.
Level BAB
01st. +01
02nd +02
03rd +03
04th +04
05th +05/+00
06th +06/+02
07th +07/+04
08th +08/+06
09th +09/+08
10th +10/+10/+05
11th +11/+11/+07
12th +12/+12/+09
13th +13/+13/+11
14th +14/+14/+13
15th +15/+15/+15/+10
16th +16/+16/+16/+12
17th +17/+17/+17/+14
18th +18/+18/+18/+16
19th +19/+19/+19/+18
20th +20/+20/+20/+20
Cheers.
Ah, yes, no more Rogues/Thieves. One of the great iconic classes of literature, no more, because bard archeologists and vivisectionist alchemists do his job better then he does.
And Lemmy, you are once again making a bad analogy. Restricting certain skills to the Rogue is no different then restricting certain spells to the Wizard, or the Cleric, or the Druid. Letting everyone have Rogue skills is directly comparable to letting everyone have access to every spell on every list.
The Rogue would shine in such a case, because he has more skill slots then anyone else. Everyone else would whine that they couldn't have all the skills they wanted...which is exactly the point. They aren't the skillz people, they should be FORCED to make choices. If you want a lot of skills and wanted to be great at them, you would play a rogue.
Combining skills is comparable to combining 2-3 spells into one spell...it becomes a no-brainer to take and use that spell because it is TONS more versatile. If one spell served as Fireball, Lightning Bolt and Acid Breath, and at higher levels, Meteor Swarm, Acid Fog and Lightning Storm, the game is 'better for it' because now mages don't need to memorize the individual spells anymore and save spell slots! - is the argument you are making re: skills.
It doesn't float.
And yes, combat is a big part of the game. No, Rogues were never, ever meant to be a dominating force in combat. Historically, Rogues were the guys who opened the fight with horrendously damaging surprise attacks and ended the fight with daggers to sensitive parts, but the in between was not where they should dominate. That's where pure Melees are supposed to shine.
And no, I never said that Bards, clerics and such should be better at fighting then a Rogue. That's a completely separate issue. I find it telling that the Rogue, a skilled non-magical class, is in the exact same boat as the Fighter, in that he has no class feature TH bonus vs ANYTHING at first level. Unlike the fighter, he at least gets a situational damage bonus, however.
==+Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, what... I was going to reply, but I'm tired of this discussion...
If you think weakening skills and making everyone (including Rogues) less competent is somehow a improvement for Rogues and that nerfing everything just so a poorly designed class can share their misery is good game design, then we have fundamentally different views on game design and simply can't agree.
Rogues suck. We should make them better, not worse. PF is already too much of a "D&D - Ultimate Caster Version".
Well, either the Rogue 'takes back' what was unique about him, which was SA and Skills, or you need to do a complete re-write of how skills function and double/triple/quadruple the power of Rogue Talents.
Taking back skills will do almost NOTHING to any other class. Seriously. No other class is dependent on skills to do things. Especially classes with spellcasting. What you're calling a nerf would do almost nothing to any class, but would again place importance on skills as a vital area of importance, whereas now skills are commodities because 'everyone gets everything'.
meh.
==Aelryinth
Ah, yes, no more Rogues/Thieves. One of the great iconic classes of literature
The only literature with "classes" is literature based on RPGs.
What literature has are character archetypes, and all of the Rogue's character archetypes can be filled by many other classes better at this point.
Because his focus was much too narrow.
You don't often see a character who not only does nothing but be the "skill guy" but is also the ONLY PERSON who can be the "skill guy".
If Aragorn wanted to learn how to pick locks, he shouldn't have to multiclass with Rogue, he should just be able to put points in Disable Device, is what I'm saying.
Likewise, he shouldn't need 8 skill points a level to be able to do all the things he does (Acrobatics, Spot, Listen, Search, Survival, Kn. Nobility, etc.).
What you're proposing is class locking things anybody should be able to learn how to do.
That's not the way to go about it. It makes the game less fun for everyone involved. Often even the guy who's stuck playing Rogue even when he doesn't want to be a Rogue because you need a Rogue if you want to do pretty much anything.
The Rogue as a character archetype survives in many other classes who are mechanically better.
The solution instead should be to either abolish the Rogue entirely as a class, or improve the Rogue so he is then better at USING skills rather than being the ONLY ONE who can use skills.
Stuff like the Inquisitor's Stern Gaze, Track, etc. would be a good start, but for more Rogue-y skills such as Disable Device and Perception...Trapfinding doesn't count, because it only works on traps.
If the Rogue were the BEST skill character people might pick him because he's mechanically effective and fun.
If he's the ONLY skill character all you're doing is forcing people to pick a Rogue or be gimped.
WHY should everyone be able to learn every skill?
There's no justification for it anywhere. Is it just because they have skill points?
Learning is learning. By your reasoning, Aragon should have been able to learn to cast a fireball without classing over to a wizard, simply because he wanted to do so! It's JUST SOMETHING YOU LEARN, after all!
If some other class wants to do what a Rogue does, he should be worse at it. Period. Much worse. Just like if some class wants to cast spells, he should not be competition for a wizard.
And the thief is a classic icon of literature, pulling off stuff that other classes can't do because they don't focus on those things...they don't learn them, and the mindset is as alien to other classes as poring over scratchy-scrawled books with glowing script or having zealous faith in abstract beings.
Just because all classes have skill points does not mean they should have access to all skills, or if they have access, are as good at it as a Rogue. Because skills are the spell list of the Rogue, and they should dominate at it.
And as for 'requiring' a Rogue...I'm sorry, there's a hundred ways to play a game without a rogue. If you have to chop through the door, fine. Summon a pony to spring the trap, fine. Tear apart the room to find the hidden door, yep. "Mr. Trapfinder" logs are part and parcel of the hilarious lore of the game, tossed down the corridor ahead of you to set things off.
You don't need a rogue to deal with things, even if you don't have access to Rogue skills. There's always another way.
And I'm sure the casters will find it. (sighs)
==Aelryinth
Because the two are not equivalent. The way D&D/Pathfinder does it is frankly stupid as far as the Wizard goes. Learning spells should be an in-born thing ala the Sorcerer, tempered with study or experience, not a "You study real hard and can now break reality with math or some shit" thing that no other story uses.
But skills are skills because they're things people, real life people, can do if they try to learn it.
Being sneaky and picking locks does not require a special mindset for you to learn. You don't need to be a criminal to learn to pick locks.
What you're essentially suggesting is that skills be some esoteric knowledge like spells are, and that makes no sense.
It would be like class locking Climb to the Ranger class. The Ranger is now the only class that can pass Climb checks over DC 10. Every real life mountain climber is actually a Ranger.
It's a dumb idea, and bad game design.
Restricting skills based on class limits the amount of character concepts you can create ("Sorry, only scholar classes can take Knowledge skills, your Fighter needs a level of Wizard or Bard if he wants to know about noble houses or underground monster lore") and character utility for some arbitrary reason.
Yes, we agree, the Rogue should be the best at skills. Or just gone. Because if it's not the best at skills there's no reason for it to exist.
But there is absolutely NO REASON he should be the only person who can use them.
And as an added bonus, what you're suggesting now makes casters MORE powerful. Because while they can't take those skills now, neither can anyone else. And they have spells to overcome that.
No, a GOOD change would be abolishing all those spells or severely weakening them (as I've said many a time before as an example, Spider Climb's power should scale based on the Climb skill of the recipient, not just a flat "F~~* the Climb Skill forever" spell) and then boosting the Rogue's utility.
Unique or odd uses for certain skills (using Sleight of Hand to get the effects of Still Spell when using wands or scrolls, for example), certainly.
Being flat out BETTER at certain skills? Yep, sure.
Being the SOLE POSSESOR of certain skills? No.
Ah, see, you're going overboard on skill restrictions and overzealous on terminology.
FYI, Rogues don't need to be criminals to be rogues, either. And you're doing martial-caster disparity again...you have to be 'unique' and 'special' to be a caster, but ANYONE can do skills. So spells are special and skills are a commodity.
If you want to learn about locks, what does a normal person do? They become a locksmith, and take Ranks in the craft. Learning how to pick locks fast and easy for purposes of breaking and entering is a whole different mindset. It's time-consuming and highly specialized...the whole kit of 'roguish' skills is generally only practiced by individuals who practice them all the time. It's not something you grab on a lark because you can.
So, a normal person would take ranks in Craft: Locksmith and could pick locks at like -5 or -10 to the DC. Pick Locks is essentially a specialized version of the skill that would let someone with a more liberal mindset do it faster, and be a Rogue skill you could only access with a feat or a level in the class.
Likewise, Stealth. Profession: Scout or some fill in...more generalized, less specific, you can make Stealth Checks at -5 or something. To be a real sneak, spend the feat to gain access to the skill, or be a Rogue or Ranger.
let skills be special again. And the only way you can do that is by putting restrictions on who can get them and use them the best. Otherwise, they are just a commodity item.
And if skills, which often take months or even years of practice to do well, are a commodity, then spellcasting, esp wizardry, should be, too, because they share all that in common.
==Aelryinth
I just don't see why you should over-complicate things and allow "skill replacements" that impart a -5 to using them to replicate the effects of other skills when you could just give the Rogue a +5 or +10 instead.
I.E. making them better instead of making everyone else worse.
Magic SHOULD be special. That's not to say it should be BETTER.
There is no disparity when one class can do a special thing and another class can do a different special thing. See Spells vs Rage Powers (though these more close the gap than abolish it...I'm not saying spells don't need work too, you know me better than that).
Skills aren't special. Skills are neat, skills take training, but they're not special.
What someone can DO with them might be, hence why certain classes get special abilities like Hide In Plain Sight, but skills themselves are not.
If you want Rogues to be special, he needs "Skill Tricks" not just SKILLS.
This discussion has done one useful thing for me though, I've been having a hard time thinking of a good class replacement for Rogue like I did for Fighter and Monk. This has given me a solid core idea.
|
|
The "rogues are skill points" issue, I believe, is largely because pathfinder (and 3.x) is at a very median point in the system options spectrum. Let's examine where that point is:
There could exist a game where all characters are mechanically equal, and only their fluff and the player running them sets them apart. I don't know of one. I'll assume this type of system is not desired.
You could have an entirely class based system. In this type of system, everything comes pre-packaged, and individualization is largely flavor and a bit of wiggle within classes. You don't get skill points; your class tells you what skills you have, and if you don't have a skill you either can't use it or are terrible. These systems actually work rather well, but most games have moved to more options and greater individualization, which this type of system sacrifices at the Altar of Balance-at-All-Costs(Tm).
The next step in the spectrum, and the first real point in the intermediate spectrum, is additional packages as additions rather than options. The example here is races, though it is imperfect. It is another group of pre-packaged features, chosen separately from your class. The reason it is imperfect is that it isn't 100% disconnected from the other group (classes). Some races work better with some classes, and this limits the true level of divergence. Many of the earliest RPGs used this type of system, and some newer ones do as well.
The next point is multiclassing, or really anything that lets you move around within the predefined packages. The option is now there, though often, like with races, there are only so many "valid" combinations, meaning ones that aren't too much of a reduction from single-classing. I believe 2e is close to this type of system.
Now we really branch out and allow a feature list available to all, so long as certain prereqs are met. Enter feats. This is the first intermediate trouble point, where options from the free-form list will likely break some of the boundaries of the packages (classes and feats). Some of these options either mirror, replace, or substitute for features within packages. Prereqs are what hold this system together.
Next in line is a free form list without prereqs. Some of this list's options will be more suited to certain characters, but anyone can take them and make good use of them. This is the skill list as we have it in pathfinder/3.x. Some of the abilities from this free form list are directly moved from pre-packaged lists. At this point, class boundary lines are blurry.
Moving towards the other end of the spectrum, a system can have pre-packaged lists that are modular. Pathfinder classes are a bit like this, but in reality would look like archetypes without the abilities being grouped into archetypes, more like alternate racial features. There are several package groups, from each of which one package is selected, and each of those packages have their own sets of features that can be selected. Packages within a group can be alternated between, but never truly combined.
Next up we have free form lists with prereqs. Each list is advanced separately. As an example, you would have 3 class points each level, 4 skill points each level, and 1 feat point every other level. You are free to chose anything within each group, though there are prereqs that must be met.
Close to the unrestricted end of the spectrum are point based systems. This is identical to the previous system type, but there are no prereqs. You pick what you want from each group so long as you have enough of that group's points. The groups still influence each other, and some combinations are clearly superior and others inferior.
Next are point buy systems with separate lists that are disconnected. You have points to spend on combat stuff, points to spend on social stuff, points to spend on crafting, etc. The alternative in this step is for the groups to still be interdependent, but have features from each list purchased with the same pool of points. This type of system can be found readily, despite its high fluidity.
Here at the most unrestricted extreme we have "pure" point buy systems. All options are equal cost, and they all live within the same group, purchased with the same points. Unlike with the first system (no mechanical customization), as extreme as this type of system is, there are RPGs that use it. Moving to this type of game is the current trend.
*** Because half of the rogue concept features exist in multiple classes, and the other half can be selected by anyone, this concept is not class based. However, within the same system we have wizards, who only really have competition in the form of sorcerers, and few features iconic to their concept are free for anyone to learn. The wizard concept is entirely class based. Basically, the issue is that some class boundaries are weaker than others. It's not IF they're weak or not that matters, just that they're different.
Nobody here is arguing that the pathfinder rogue doesn't have issues. The argument is if it's better to fix it by restricting further, creating niche protection within classes, or loosen up more, allowing all characters equal access to out-of-class abilities. The current trend is to loosen up, but a more restricted system has already existed and proven useable.
My preference is a pure point buy system. It reminds me of Skyrim. After Oblivion, I couldn't imagine the game without ability scores, but Skyrim's simple skill system won me over. If I want to be a lightly armored skirmisher who practices necromancy and can social-fu with the best of them, I don't want to be gimped for it. So long as the concept isn't "best at everything" or "useless commoner" it should be viable.
Well to be fair Skyrim's skill point system makes "best at everything" not just possible, but NECESSARY to reach max level. This is ignoring the very very belated "Legendary skill" system which makes you go back to square 1 on a skill so you can level it up again to reach a higher level.
At least Oblivion's Major and Minor skill system meant you could hit max level just using the key 7 skills you wanted your character based around.
|
|
Not saying I want Skyrim: the PnPRPG, just a more modular character building system. I'd reference BESM, and even a good number of White Wolf games. Even then, it's not quite there. As stated though, it doesn't really matter what type of system is used. The issue with pathfinder is that some parts (rogue concept) are completely modular, and others (wizard concept) are class based. Whether you put rogue concept into a class or make wizard concept modular doesn't matter apart from preference. Of course, DnD has always been a system where two different games are being played: the martial game and the caster game. So it's not surprising martial classes use stacking BAB and open-to-anyone skills, while casters use class specific CL and spells. I think Arneson and Gygax would turn in their graves if an edition of DnD came out where anyone could learn spells regardless of class or ability scores.
Riuken and others,
The ONLINE DOCUMENT has being edited incorporing Riuken suggestions and others (revision marks are set to help you to see what have changed). Before analysing the Hunter or the Rogue, check it again. Thank you.
Cheers.
Skill Ranks above sixth are as beyond human as magic, compared to reality. The things you can do with high skills break physics just as surely as magic does.
Open Locks is effectively a subset of Craft: Locksmith. A locksmith isn't going to be anywhere near as fast or sure breaking open a lock as someone with this skill, just like someone with profession: Sailor isn't going to be as good as someone with USe Rope or Climb with those skills.
I don't think you need to give Rogues huge bonuses. I think you should give bonuses in contested checks, so Rogues always have an edge in competition with someone else, and Rogues should be able to keep accruing more and more skills as a class feature, without having to be a supergenius.
Skills should also make a clear definition between 'Ranks' (what the character can actually do) and 'modifier' (how good they are at doing what they are capable of).
'Rogue Skills', like Perception, Open Locks, Stealth, Disable Device, Sleight of Hand should indeed be specialized versions of general skills and professions.
For instance, you may use half your modifier in Skill X for Rogue Skill y:
Survival for Perception:
Profession (Engineer) for Disable Device:
Craft (Locksmith) for Open Lock
Survival or Profession (Hunter) for Stealth
Perform (stage magician) for Sleight of Hand.
By making Rogue Skills specialized subsets of other skills (which is really exactly what they are) you can let anyone have the ability to do Rogue things...but they will never be as good as a Rogue at the 'adventuring' use of the skills, which is exactly as it should be without heaping numbers onto the Rogue.
==Aelryinth
I say we condense the Skill list, and then add in Skill Tricks that can be bought with skill points.
Tricks like:
- Hide in Plain Sight
- Camouflage
- Hide from Scent
- Hide from Tremorsense
- Hide from Blindsight/sense
- Breaking general caps (like jump height, etc)
- See invisible traces
- See magical effects
- Use observable details to gain effective post-cognition
- Using tracks to determine injury, what the person was carrying, etc.
- Charming, Dominating, Command, Geas a target with your words (Derren Brown style).
- Create Morale Boosts or grant competence bonuses to checks, attacks, damage, etc, by "creating a plan" based on intel.
- Etc.
* All with prerequisite rank requirements (which class skills allow 3 levels earlier).
This helps reduce cluttery rules for skills, and also keeps skill-based classes relevant, while simultaneously adding in higher level uses of these skills that can compete with high level demands.
This also opens up things like... granting the Rogue automatic access to these tricks on select chosen skills as soon as he has the ranks (making him undisputed king of skills).
I have suggested this in other Rogue discussions before, but if your goal is to make rogues the ultimate skill monkey, then these are among the easiest routes:
1. The class skill bonus for trained skills is +5 for a rogue, instead of +3. Perhaps the base trained bonus is +2 instead of +3, and rogues get +5 for trained, instead of +2.
OR
2. Rogues add one-half their level to trained class skills, or the normal +3 bonus for trained class skills, whichever is higher. Abilities like trapfinding would apply the rogue's full level, instead of half his level, if he is trained in Perception and/or Disable Device.
OR
3. The max number of ranks in a class skill for a Rogue is equal to twice his rogue level. So at 1st level, a Rogue can have up to 2 ranks in his class skills, instead of the standard 1 rank. At 2nd level, up to 4 ranks. At 3rd level, up to 6 ranks. And so on. This would allow the Rogue to either specialize in a certain skill and far surpass other classes and limitations, or retain his ability to spread his ranks among several other skills.
AND/OR
4. Give rogues "Jack-of-all-trades" as a rogue class feature or rogue talent.
5. Give rogues a free rogue talent for a skill once he has reached X ranks in that skill.
6. Give rogues "Skill Mastery" for free in a skill once he has 10 ranks in that skill.
Rogues already get some rogue talents that uniquely alter the way they use skills compared to other classes. So they already have that going for them.
I have suggested this in other Rogue discussions before, but if your goal is to make rogues the ultimate skill monkey, then these are among the easiest routes:
1. The class skill bonus for trained skills is +5 for a rogue, instead of +3. Perhaps the base trained bonus is +2 instead of +3, and rogues get +5 for trained, instead of +2.
OR
2. Rogues add one-half their level to trained class skills, or the normal +3 bonus for trained class skills, whichever is higher. Abilities like trapfinding would apply the rogue's full level, instead of half his level, if he is trained in Perception and/or Disable Device.
OR
3. The max number of ranks in a class skill for a Rogue is equal to twice his rogue level. So at 1st level, a Rogue can have up to 2 ranks in his class skills, instead of the standard 1 rank. At 2nd level, up to 4 ranks. At 3rd level, up to 6 ranks. And so on. This would allow the Rogue to either specialize in a certain skill and far surpass other classes and limitations, or retain his ability to spread his ranks among several other skills.
AND/OR
4. Give rogues "Jack-of-all-trades" as a rogue class feature or rogue talent.
Rogues already get some rogue talents that uniquely alter the way they use skills compared to other classes. So they already have that going for them.
In a class revamp I'm doing for them, I went with your fourth suggestion. They got the first tick of Jack of All Trades at level 5, with levels 10 and 15 for the next two parts. Also gave them Skill Focus for free at levels 6, 10, 14, and 18. No Trace from the ninja is something else they got, but it applied to both Disguise and Stealth under ALL circumstances as well as making it harder to both detect AND follow their tracks. Lastly, I repackaged the ninja ki pool ability into the class as an extraordinary guile pool mechanic that had slightly different options, one of which was to expend a point to grant a +4 insight bonus to the next skill check they made. By level 10, the rogue has everything as a class skill and can roll on all skill checks regardless, has a built-in +3 to being sneaky, has two free Skill Focus feats to spend on what they want, and can blow a single point of guile to amp their next check if they want to be more sure about their chance of success.
I have suggested this in other Rogue discussions before, but if your goal is to make rogues the ultimate skill monkey, then these are among the easiest routes:
1. The class skill bonus for trained skills is +5 for a rogue, instead of +3. Perhaps the base trained bonus is +2 instead of +3, and rogues get +5 for trained, instead of +2.
OR
2. Rogues add one-half their level to trained class skills, or the normal +3 bonus for trained class skills, whichever is higher. Abilities like trapfinding would apply the rogue's full level, instead of half his level, if he is trained in Perception and/or Disable Device.
OR
3. The max number of ranks in a class skill for a Rogue is equal to twice his rogue level. So at 1st level, a Rogue can have up to 2 ranks in his class skills, instead of the standard 1 rank. At 2nd level, up to 4 ranks. At 3rd level, up to 6 ranks. And so on. This would allow the Rogue to either specialize in a certain skill and far surpass other classes and limitations, or retain his ability to spread his ranks among several other skills.
AND/OR
4. Give rogues "Jack-of-all-trades" as a rogue class feature or rogue talent.
5. Give rogues a free rogue talent for a skill once he has reached X ranks in that skill.
6. Give rogues "Skill Mastery" for free in a skill once he has 10 ranks in that skill.
Rogues already get some rogue talents that uniquely alter the way they use skills compared to other classes. So they already have that going for them.
1) Won't work, because it creates a dipping class. One level of Rogue, +5 to all skills of my choice, never take another.
2) Doable if it's a Competence bonus...otherwise you rapidly get into the never fails a skill check area.
3)This would get broken really quickly with social skills.
4) JOAT gives some versatility.
5) This is moderately unworkable. You could expand the power of a Talent that uses a skill once he has X ranks, however.
6) This won't hurt anything and is pretty thematic. It basically is a free Talent or two.
==================================
As I noted before, combining skills gives away the Rogue's uniqueness to other classes. There's no reason why other classes should have a lot of skills. They get class features and magical abilities and feats and what not. Skills is not their focus.
Now, if you want to condense skills down FOR THE ROGUE...that's a different story. The fact that Bards get a 2 for 1 has always irked me. Giving something like that to the Rogue makes PERFECT sense.
For other classes, no sense at all. Might as well start giving away wizard spellcasting.
==Aelryinth
|
|
Riuken and others,
The ONLINE DOCUMENT has being edited incorporing Riuken suggestions and others (revision marks are set to help you to see what have changed). Before analysing the Hunter or the Rogue, check it again. Thank you.
Cheers.
The only edit I see is the addition of shields to fighter armor training. I don't see any revision marks. Not sure what's wrong, on my end, your end, or google's end.
Still think the best solution is to boost what Rogues can do with skills instead of nerfing everyone.
For example, in my homebrew Rogue Fix, Rogues have access to all sorts of skill-boosting abilities such as:
- Pick any 2 skills to become class skills for them. (making their skill list even better and adding some build variety to the class).
- Adding 1/2 their Rogue level to Acrobatics and replace Escape Artist checks with an Acrobatics check, essentially getting 1 extra skill point. Additionally, the DC for moving without provoking AoO is not increased for moving their full speed.
- Using Diplomacy to cast "Charm Monster" as an SLA at will, although only once per day per target.
- Roll twice and take the better result in any skill check, as well as take 10 even when distracted or in danger. At 20th level they can roll 3 times and take the best result.
- Use Bluff or Sleight of hand to get a scaling bonus to attack rolls
- Use Intimidate to demoralize an enemy whenever they confirm a critical or deal Sneak Attack damage, as well as replace Sense Motive checks with a Intimidate or Bluff check (again, essentially getting a bonus skill point).
- Use Bluff to make an enemy count as an ally for the purpose of providing flank.
- Add their Int bonus to Perception checks and get a scaling bonus to Knowledge checks
- Use acrobatics to avoid an attack (similar to Snake Style).
- Get a Climb speed (making them better at Climb checks)
- Get a Swim speed (making them better at Swim checks)
- Have access to up to 3 cantrips that can be used at will
There are also several Rogue Talents that improve the Rogues offensive options and defenses, such as the ability to make a Reflex save instead of a Fort/Will save against some effects. They also have the capability to eventually become immune to Disease and Poison.
The only edit I see is the addition of shields to fighter armor training. I don't see any revision marks. Not sure what's wrong, on my end, your end, or google's end.Riuken and others,
The ONLINE DOCUMENT has being edited incorporing Riuken suggestions and others (revision marks are set to help you to see what have changed). Before analysing the Hunter or the Rogue, check it again. Thank you.
Cheers.
My fault. Changes are marked as suggestions, I think it is only showed to the author of the document. I will try to fix it later, highlighting then in yeallow to make it visible to all, as I did with armor training.
First time using google docs. ;)
Cheers!
You know, what... I was going to reply, but I'm tired of this discussion...
If you think weakening skills and making everyone (including Rogues) less competent is somehow a improvement for Rogues and that nerfing everything just so a poorly designed class can share their misery is good game design, then we have fundamentally different views on game design and simply can't agree.
Rogues suck. We should make them better, not worse. PF is already too much of a "D&D - Ultimate Caster Version".
I'm with you. I came here for good ideas and discussion, instead everyone is terrified that a class, any class, but currently the Rogue is somehow stepping on the true POWER of PFRPG again. And by 'True Power' I mean Caster supremacy.
My fault. Changes are marked as suggestions, I think it is only showed to the author of the document. I will try to fix it later, highlighting then in yeallow to make it visible to all, as I did with armor training.The only edit I see is the addition of shields to fighter armor training. I don't see any revision marks. Not sure what's wrong, on my end, your end, or google's end.Riuken and others,
The ONLINE DOCUMENT has being edited incorporing Riuken suggestions and others (revision marks are set to help you to see what have changed). Before analysing the Hunter or the Rogue, check it again. Thank you.
Cheers.
ONLINE DOCUMENT is fixed and ready for use. Now the changes are highlighted in light blue.
Cheers.
Tricks like:
- Hide from Scent
- See invisible traces
- See magical effects
* All with prerequisite rank requirements (which class skills allow 3 levels earlier).
- Use Intimidate to demoralize an enemy whenever they confirm a critical or deal Sneak Attack damage, as well as replace Sense Motive checks with a Intimidate or Bluff check (again, essentially getting a bonus skill point).
- Use Bluff to make an enemy count as an ally for the purpose of providing flank.
- Use acrobatics to avoid an attack (similar to Snake Style).
The suggestions above I like and will try to add to the rogue already presented in our ONLINE document. In this document there ate some nice skill tricks for the rogue class too. I use 3 skill tricks theme-related are gained for each talent selected. Could take a look in it and say what you think about?
Also, do you guys have any document to share with us describing your rogue classes?
Cheers.
Never made an actual document for the Rogue. I've got something for a Fighter variant, but the key on a Fighter variant is feats even moreso then a class. Without a feat re-write, Fighters aren't going to compete.
==Aelryinth
Never made an actual document for the Rogue. I've got something for a Fighter variant, but the key on a Fighter variant is feats even moreso then a class. Without a feat re-write, Fighters aren't going to compete.
==Aelryinth
Thats a pitty. If you have time and want to, you can write down some scratch and submit to us to evaluate your ideas and also borrow from then. Otherwise, if you have time and want to... you can review the martial classes, specially the rogue in our online document. I will be grateful for that. Thank you.
Also, do you guys have any document to share with us describing your rogue classes?
Cheers.
I've posted a lot of what I've done so far in a couple threads:
Rogue (in the Shameless Rogue Boosts thread)
Base Class
Rogue Talents
Archetypes Ideas (w/ "mostly done" Archivist writeup)
Example Build (Merisiel NPC build, 12th level)
Fighter (in the In This Thread we Fix the Fighter thread)
Total writeup, with commentary on design decisions.
Note that I think I've made some minor changes to what I've posted in those already, but it's the lion share of changes.
But I agree with Aelryinth. I've gotten to the point where I'm not satisfied with the final mechanics I have here, and don't think a class-fix is the only way to go.
So I've switched over to making General Changes to combat, combat terms and glossary (allowing more gradients in basic game functions, like Damage Reduction or Proficiencies), and condensing Feats and Skills and adding Skill Tricks.
This will definitely alter how I write up the Rogue and Fighter, so I've put further work on those classes on hold until I figure this other stuff out.
I also have ideas on the Monk.. based more on a more open learning of Ki abilities, split between physical and mystical techniques, closer to how a wizard can learn any number of spells, as well as disciplines that are as much an ethos as they are a fighting style, breaking your discipline's ethos means losing access to those features until you meditate and regain your focus.
I haven't posted any of that up yet anywhere, I only have the chassis built for the class so far (need to write up the disciplines and ki abilities).
.
Edit
An example of an idea of how to condense feats can be found here.
It's basically what kicked off the idea and I've run with it.
I've tried to basically write up feats in context of themed packages. A single theme shouldn't be more than about 1/3rd the total feats a character gets, so about 3 feats to excel.
I'm going through combat styles right now, and have written up TWF and Ranged combat, such that they include most (if not all) of what can be done with feats now, only through three feats for each style.
Example..
TWO WEAPON TECHNIQUE0
You have trained in the skill of using a weapon in each hand in combat.
Prerequisites: Dexterity 13
Benefit: Your penalties on attack rolls for fighting with two weapons are reduced. The penalty for your primary hand lessens by 2 and the one for your off hand lessens by 6. You may also make an additional attack with your off-hand weapon for each secondary attack gained from high base attack bonus, using the same bonus as these attacks.
Improvements: If you are proficient with the net and are holding the line to an entangled target, you can drag or reposition the target as an attack action with that hand, and any attacks made with a weapon in your other hand against the target gains +2 attack and damage rolls.
If you are proficient with a one-handed or light firearm or any crossbow, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when firing that weapon from anyone you threaten with a melee weapon in your other hand.
Upon reaching +6 base attack bonus, you may forgo your first primary hand melee attack to make a feint check against an opponent. If you successfully feint, that opponent is denied his Dexterity bonus to AC until the end of your turn.
If you have the Improved Shield Bash feat, upon reaching +11 base attack bonus, you no longer suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with your shield while you are wielding another weapon, and add your shield's enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
OFF-HAND FETTER
You use an off-hand weapon in a defensive and distracting manner, blocking attacks and setting up disarming blows.
Prerequisites: Dexterity 15, Two Weapon Technique
Benefits: When using a melee weapon in your off-hand, you gain a +1 shield bonus to AC. This bonus increases to +2 when fighing defensively or using the total defense action. You also gain the parry combat action.
Parry - If your forgo your off-hand attacks for the round, you may apply the off-hand weapon enhancement bonus as shield enhancement bonus to AC. If an opponent misses you with a melee attack due to your AC while you are parrying, the attack is considered parried and you may make a feint action as a swift action.
Improvements: Upon reaching +3 base attack bonus, you gain an additional attack of opportunity per round for each off-hand attack you give up when parrying. These extra attacks of opportunity can only be made with your off-hand weapon.
Upon reaching +6 base attack bonus, when you parry an attack, you may spend a swift action to make a disarm or sunder maneuver attempt with a primary-hand weapon. This maneuver is made with a +5 bonus, and sunder damage is doubled. Also, upon making a successful feint, you now cause the target to lose their Dexterity bonus to AC until the end of your turn.
Upon reaching +9 base attack bonus, when you parry an attack, you may make a bull rush, disarm or sunder maneuver as an attack of opportunity, using your off-hand weapon. You may not follow when making this bull rush action. Also, upon making a successful feint, you now cause the target to lose their Dexterity bonus to AC until the beginning of your next turn.
Upon reaching +12 base attack bonus, when you parry an attack, your opponent provokes a normal attack of opportunity from you. The attack of opportunity must be made using your off-hand weapon.
OFF-HAND ASSAULT
You have learned to make devastating off-hand combination attacks.
Prerequisites: Dexterity 13, Strength 15, Two Weapon Technique
Benefits: You add your Strength bonus to damage rolls made with your off-hand weapon. You also gain the combination strike combat action.
Combination Strike - When you successfully hit with your off-hand weapon immediately after hitting with your primary-hand weapon, you deal additional damage on the off-hand attack equal to one half your base attack bonus.
Improvements: Upon reaching +3 base attack bonus, when you perform a combination strike, you can force a foe to make a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + half your base attack bonus + Strength) as a swift action. If they fail their saving throw, they are shaken for 1 round (until just before your next turn). If they are already shaken, they become staggered instead.
Upon reaching +6 base attack bonus, when you perform a combination strike, you can make a trip attempt as a swift action against a creature up to two sizes larger than you.
Upon reaching +9 base attack bonus, when you perform a combination strike, you may immediately make a rend attack as a swift action. This attack is made at your highest base attack bonus, and deals 1d6 points of slashing damage plus your Strength bonus.
Upon reaching +12 base attack bonus, when you perform a combination strike, you may force a Fortitude saving throw as a free action, and if they are already staggered, they become dazed. If they are already dazed, they instead become stunned.
Upon reaching +15 base attack bonus, your rend damage is increased to 1d12 slashing damage plus 1-1/2 your Strength bonus.
I went with the design process of:
- If something fits or expands the ideas of the feat, then it's just added to the feat as an improvement
- Only make a new feat if people using the first one might want a build without these extra features (or if we are getting into way too much for one feat)
Three feats to excel at TWF. That leaves the average person 7 more feats to get decent at ranged combat, boost non-combat things like crafting or other skill stuff, or adding in more defensive features (saves boosting).
Kaiosku, this kind of thing is where I'd just use Feat Synergy.
TWF: You gain the attacks with a second weapon at the appropriate levels. (Three feats become one feat)
If you have Expertise and Weapon training in both weapons, once per round you may rend an enemy that you strike at least once with both weapons. You do extra damage = to your Expertise bonus in d6 (i.e. 1d6 to 6d6).
Two Weapon Defense
If you choose to defend with your off hand, you gain +Shield AC equal to the number of off hand attacks you would normally get. You take no penalty TH on your primary attack if you fight this way.
If you are using a Defender or Guardian Weapon in your off-hand, you gain the defensive bonus even if you do not attack with the weapon.
And of course these are Techniques. Normal folks just have to burn lots of feats to get the same benefit.
I try to stay away from bonuses from stats with feats, as that is the quickest way to overpower or break a feat.
==Aelryinth
And of course these are Techniques. Normal folks just have to burn lots of feats to get the same benefit.
Ah, see, my suggested feats for TWF there are for everyone, not a specific class or set of classes to use. I'm thinking of condensing and revamping feats and skills for everyone.
The reason is to give a boost to all non-primary spellcasters (since metamagic and most other spellcasting feats won't need much adjustment). Martial feats and skills will have a more scaling effect overall, so all martials have built-in scaling by using feats and skills for effects.
My fixes for the Rogue and Fighter will be on top of that, giving them a more quadratic sense of growth over the way they use skills and feats.
Also, I'm looking at removing some extraneous feats like Combat Expertise and Power Attack and such, so this is a more game-wide change than just what these classes can do.
I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but it is why I'm going with this approach as opposed to a simpler one.
Note, I built those three TWF feats based mostly on what could be done with feats already:
Two Weapon Technique includes: TWF, ITWF, GTWF, TW Feint, Imp TW Feint, Net and Trident, Sword and Pistol (both changed to just proficiency instead of feat cost), and Shield Master.
8 Feats total
Off-Hand Fetter includes: TW Defense, Break Guard (with extras), as well as new stuff: a parry option, additional feint option, additional boosts to parry and breakguad stuff
About 6 feats worth of stuff (2 actual feats from PF subsumed)
Off-Hand Assault includes: Double Slice, TW Rend, a version of the Twin Thunders, Twin Thunders Flurry and Twin Thunders Mastery feats, and an upgrade to TW Rend
About 6 feats worth (5 actual feats subsumed)
Basically, condensing what would have taken 15 feats in regular PF and brought it down to 3 feats with some proficiency requirements instead.
This means for the average person, going with TWF isn't going to eat up the entirety of your character's feat customization, leaving room for skill focus or lightning reflexes (which I Have "super feat" versions of as well).
The Fighter will benefit from this even more than other classes, and on top of that I intend to make sure "Feats" isn't the only distinctive thing he gets. Condensing feats for everyone shouldn't impact negatively on the Fighter as I intend to see it.
I have no problems with other classes having to spend a lot of feats for what the fighter can do easily. I suppose that's a difference in view point. If they want to TWF, make them blow feats. It just makes the Fighter's condensed version that much better.
Other classes can already basically do everything the fighter can, if they blow feats. The idea is to drive home the fact that the Fighter is the Master of feats, and he can do more with one Technique style feat then another class can do with three or four normal feats.
You know, like a scaling Rage Power.
I actually consider devising Techniques for the fighter faster then rewriting every single feat in the game, you know? It just makes more sense. In essence, Techniques are like Rogue Talents (and yes, Rogue Talents need the same kind of upgrade).
==Aelryinth
Still missing Riuken's excelent feedback about the other classes...
Yeah, it's a slow process. I've also been working on my own system recently, though it hardly resembles pathfinder at all, or even d20 for that matter.
Take your time it is ok. Most of your suggestions where helping us a lot and where added to the game. Do not miss the hunter (totaly original) and the rogue which is one of our favorite classes. If you need help or feedback with your own system we can work it out.
Cheers.
Bump!
Dotting to read later.
I have updated the ONLINE DOCUMENT, between the bigger changes are the concession of itterative attacks for rogues (+15/+15), and a very extended list of skill tricks. Your feedback is very appreciated (But be aware that it is a d20 system based in 3.5e and Pathfinder, but a little bit different too, since feats are more generic abilities open for all classes, while each character class has an special talent tree selection that make each of then unique and modular at the same time).
Cheers.
.
.
Sneak peech: Rogue's itterative attacks progression:
01) +0
02) +1
03) +2
04) +3
05) +3
06) +4
07) +5
08) +6
09) +6
10) +7/+1
11) +8/+3
12) +9/+5
13) +9/+5
14) +10/+7
15) +11/+9
16) +12/+11
17) +12/+11
18) +13/+13
19) +14/+14
20) +15/+15
No reviews yet, sad boards. People prefer to talk about the archaic rather than examine the new.
No reviews yet, sad boards.
We all have our pet projects which take up a lot of our time. Yours is pretty significant in scope. It may be a deterrent for some due to "volume" alone.
It is for me, in some respects. You've changed vast amounts of information in your document. In the several times I've skimmed it, nothing jumped out at me and scream "RED ALERT!" I don't particularly like the way you've handled iteratives (my preference is more akin to SWSE over 3.x), but not liking something isn't the same as it not being a sound mechanic.
Also, you might be looking at it wrong. When you screw up, or people think you have screwed up, they'll come running out of the wood-work to tell you how much your idea sucks; people have a lot less to say when they're isn't something to complain about, especially on the internet.
This leads to me coming out of the wood-work for this, something I consider a screw up:
People prefer to talk about the archaic rather than examine the new.
That's hardly fair; you gave me flash-backs of my grandmother trying to guilt trip me into things when I was younger.
Our projects are no less important to us than your project is to you.
After checking your post history, of your 59 posts, 2 of which have been to pimp this thread in two separate, related threads, and only 1 of the remaining 57 was helping someone else - in other words, about 1% of your posts involve something other than your project. If you were my room-mate, I'd tell you you need to start getting your part of the rent in order, or we'd need to part ways.
Building relationships on these boards, by helping others, is a solid way to get more attention to your projects, but even that isn't a guarantee. I've seen countless projects fall to the wayside without even a single comment after several attempts by the poster to bump (I limit mine to 2 bumps, then drop it and work on it myself).
As my Drill Sgt would often say to us, "Suck it up and drive on."
Anyway, since I'm already here and done with probably what could be considered "being condescending," I will ask this:
Why are rogue's able to gain Hide In Plain Sight at 4th level when it is normally only available at 10th or higher or through prestie classing?
Skipping the personal part, which I disagree but prefer not to argue, I will answer about Hide in Plain Sight. If examine carefully you will see that it's weeker than the standard version in PFRPG, but also sounds more realistic:
Rogue Talent
Swift and Silent: A rogue with this talent gains three Stealth skill tricks, as following:
1) Fast Stealth (Ex): The rogue can use the Stealth skill while moving at his normal speed without penalty (normal -5) and takes only a -10 penalty on Stealth checks while running (normal -20).
2) Quicker than the Eye (Ex): The rogue can use the Stealth skill without penalty after succeeding in a Bluff check to create a diversion to hide (normal -10). The rogue can also use the Stealth skill to snipe without penalty (normal: -10; snipe is a standard action that combine a single ranged attack and a subsequent Stealth skill check to hide).
3) Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): The rogue can use the Stealth skill with a -10 penalty to attempt to hide from a single observer in a place that doesn't grant cover or concealment (such as grabing in the ceiling, going prone and standing up again and doing other maneuvers to move out from the target’s sight). For each additional observer the rogue attempts to hide in a place without cover or concealment, he takes an additional -2 penalty on his Stealth check. Prerequisite: 4th level rogue, Dex 13.
Diferences: Quicker than the Eye allows you to negate the -10 penalty AFTER succeding in a Bluff check to create a diversion to hide. Hide in Plain Sight from PFRPG allow you to hide without penalty regardless of sucessfully creating a diversion to hide.
Also, the number 3 is camouflage from PFRPG but it is relabeled and a little bit weeker too, since it only allows you to hide from 1 creature regardless of cover or concealment, but you take a -10 penalty.
Cheers.
The ACG just came out. People aren't stuck on the old, they are just looking at the official new.
Also, being the book that it is, it has a LOT of material to go over and there's been some big topic questionable parts, so a lot of focus has gone that way.
Also, last week before school. As a parent myself, I'm quite busy, and was only tangentially interested in this topic.
A lot going on! But your update wasn't invisible (at least, for me).
ACG = Pathfinder Adventure Card Game?
Thanks anyway, you made me feel a lot better indeed.
As you will see, I have borrowed some of your ideas in this last update (see rogue talent: magic lore).
ACG = Pathfinder Adventure Card Game?
Thanks anyway, you made me feel a lot better indeed.
As you will see, I have borrowed some of your ideas in this last update (see rogue talent: magic lore).
Advanced Class Guide.
Skipping the personal part, which I disagree but prefer not to argue,
I'm not terribly interested in arguing anything but game mechanics, so if you're good, I'm good.
If examine carefully you will see that it's weeker than the standard version in PFRPG, but also sounds more realistic
I did notice the reduction in power and do like the bonus of not having to use the really-stupid-in-my-opinion favored terrain garbage, but didn't realize it was camouflage re-skinned.
I don't have ANY complaints about the skill tricks; I was mostly curious about the design decision. Do you intend to keep prestige classes or gut them for improving the core classes? Same question, archetypes?
Most of the threads I was following sort of died off when folks started getting their advanced copies of it, and d20pfsrd updated.