the easier way to do this would be to disallow rogue and fighter, but allow the slayer in their place because the slayer is actually a decent noncasting martial combatant with decent out of combat ability. the fighter and rogue fix we all have been asking for.
Problems with your idea:
The fighter is not only better at fighting than other classes, he is also better at everything than any class at all. You could easily bump all your stats and then simply replace them with God-like powers.
Hey wizard, can't identify that item? Give it here, I have 20 intellect.
Hey yo, paladin, look we get it, you're charismatic and have leader qualities, but let the master handle this diplomacy check. I've got 18 charisma, it's all good. Aww, don't be jealous, you can heal me while I go kick the BBEG's butt all by myself because I've got 17 Dex, 15 con and still got room for 16 STR.
--------------
You're creating a monster, not a fighter. Meanwhile you are trivializing all your party members and making the DM hate his job and glare at you tiredly.
Since you don't like when the forum folk try to explain what's wrong with this suggestion, why don't you try taking a look at it yourself in comparison to each other martial class available. You'll see our point.
This is actually not one of the problems I forsee with this idea. Attributes only get you so far, class skills and class features make a huge difference. Also, you can't identify an magic item without detect magic...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, after reading through your posts, now I get it.
You WANT something people can exploit to make them exponentially more powerful, and balance doesn't mean diddly squat to you.
Well, shoot, if that's the case, yeah, go all-in on your ability. Why didn't you just say "I'm a Monty Haul GM" and save us time?
I was just confused, because I haven't played a game where you have +3 flaming vorpal swords at level 4 since I was a teenager, where the GM was coming up with cartoonishly over-the-top challenges, and the like. The result tended to be unequivocally either dominate-the-monster-like-the-new-fish-in-prison or holy-crap-that-TPK-was-fast with nothing in between.
It's not badwrongfun, but it's sure nothing I would want to be involved in. To me, it's like how when you're a kid you can eat that bowl the size of your aquarium full of colored pure sugar the day after Halloween. As an adult, I'd much rather have a sensible, filling meal than sucrose in a wrapper. Not even because of health reasons, but I just don't need the taste of sugar like I used to, and I have learned to appreciate those rare moments when I do have it. Such is power distribution.
(By the way, this is coming from a guy who vilely hates low-power games, low point-buy, and literally squeezes as much power out of every character he can make using the RAW...but even I look at an ability like you describe and my face puckers in reaction. You literally give out power beyond a wish spell to a 1st level character! Ugh. Sorry, just felt like someone emptied a pixie stick in my mouth.)
Saccharin. That's the word I was looking for to describe that style of gameplay.
It's not wrong. But I would garner to believe it's overwhelmingly not the commonplace around here. And that's probably why you're getting so much of this. 'cause for 99% of tables, it is. For your table, I suppose it isn't too bad, but...that raises this question:
If you're gonna do what you want how how you want when you want regardless of what anyone says...which you totally have the right to...why ask opinions, if you will ignore them universally?
I've kinda been trying to sell my players on this idea a bit. I'm one of the few gms I know who allows the leadership feat. They don't seem too eager to bite on it though...Fighter is already the best at fighting, he just sucks at literally everything else and as a multiclass.
if you try to do anything but stab someone, you're out of luck, but the easily will on average always have a good-to-great to-hit, and high damage on their weapon roll. it's just, can he also do skills? nope, 2+int like a dirty full caster. can he manipulate plot? no not really, everyone else can do at least as well, and many severely better.
fighters are best as cohorts since you don't really care if they can't do anything else, that's what your main does.
It's awkward having a mook that's more capable than you are.
This is basically trying to fix the fighter by granting them free attribute bonus through a sidequest based on spending feats on random stuff that does not reflect martial training or anything resembling to what an actual Fighter might specialize in.
By spending feats to get the attribute bonuses, it entirely reflects the martial training that the player has chosen to buff their attributes. I'll admit that I'm surprised that it could even be seen any other way.
The stat load out people mention seems "overpowered" to me because its power is the same in EVERY GAME, regardless whether it is 15 point buy, 20 point buy, 25 point buy, 4d6, 4d6 drop lowest, 3d6, stat array, whatever. A Fighter with this feature just ignores the system completely.
A: Fixed that for you. B: Yes if you're a munchkin you will find the unilateral best way to exploit this and only do it that way exactly the same forever, but the players at my table are not so single minded. C: yes it's designed to supplement whatever point system the table is currently using, no its not as unilaterally dismissive of that system as you suggest.
This is not an effort to make Fighters less MAD. It's an effort to toss power into a class in the wrong way: that is, instead of IMPROVING what the class should iconically do (that is, for a Fighter, represent the ideal of a great martial combatant), it RAMPS UP power through arcane metagaming.
The wrong way is subjective and if you can't figure out how to discuss an idea without calling it wrong, you need to go someplace else. You really really do. It does not use arcane anything in any way to accomplish its goals.
Perhaps some players like this. Perhaps some DMs like this.
Indeed we might
Personal taste, however, is no proof of good design
Once again i'm not asking you for qualitative advice. I don't care if you think the idea is good or not. You don't seem to be able to get past this particular point.
But the OP can't come in and say "I know this is broken but my players will like it", because if it's about that, as I said, there is no point in following this conversation.
And this is the fundamental difference between the conversation I am interested in and the conversation you're interested in. I want to utilize the helpful portion of the gaming community to help me see the dangerous possible outcomes... to know the possible ways this can be exploited so as to decide for myself what I don't like about it and what I do like about it. I don't give two hoots if you like it or not.
I am all up to talk about "ignore prereqs", "make the fighter less MAD", sure.
Then go make a thread where you can talk about that, little bird... That's why we have a 'create new thread' button, which I used to talk about a way to do this other than the ways you want to talk about it.
But I need the OP to first come to this post and address it, along the ones I posted before, with something else than "BLUH BLUH BLUH YOU ARE MEAN".
I hope I've answered to your satisfaction.
Please understand whatever alternative ideas you may have about how to fix this problem are just as great for you and your table and the gaming industry as a whole and just as diserving of intelligent discourse. I'm not saying you cant talk about your ideas. But this is my thread and I'm only interested in using it to explore my particular idea, and in a quantitative, not qualitative way.
Examining the limits of what it can do is what I'm after, not examining how much bile it creates in you. How your table enjoys playing has nothing to do with how my possible rule works. It does nothing to inform me that how you play is different from how I play, which I A: already knew, B: am not interested in discussing.
Its not that your ideas are worse than mine. Its not that your ideas are bad. I'm literally not interested in exploring other ideas. There's plenty of threadspace for you to talk about and examine your idea. Why in particular are you using my thread to discuss your idea when I've got to quite great lengths to illustrate that's not what my thread is for?
I think I've done a pretty good job of changing my tone so as to politely ask you to stop with the qualitative analysis and by all means feel free to assist in a non judgemental quantitative analysis of my particular suggestion...
Okay, after reading through your posts, now I get it. You WANT something people can exploit to make them exponentially more powerful, and balance doesn't mean diddly squat to you.
Well, shoot, if that's the case, yeah, go all-in on your ability. Why didn't you just say "I'm a Monty Haul GM" and save us time?
- Because a qualitative analysis of my playstyle is not what i'm interested in debating? There. I've said it again. I have no interest in your possibly disagreeing with the quality of my game since you've never been in it. You have no place to talk. Not one place of reference to qualitatively judge my game, players, or playstyle and I will be easily offended each time you do so.
I was just confused, because I haven't played a game where you have +3 flaming vorpal swords at level 4 since I was a teenager, where the GM was coming up with cartoonishly over-the-top challenges, and the like.
- Like here. Perhaps my table is interested in playing the game again as we once played it when we were teenagers. Because we did enjoy it. It was fun and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to have that kind of over the top zany powerful fun that we used to if we want to, without you all doggin on it because you like doggin on other people's playstyles. If you have a hard time handling the fact that other people play the game differently than you, maybe forums arent the best place for you to hang out. I mean that in the nicest possible way. I can find your table's playstyle mind bending and shocking and dissatisfying all I want. Accomplishes nothing. So I'm not interested in doing so. I wish you felt the same way.
The result tended to be unequivocally either dominate-the-monster-like-the-new-fish-in-prison or holy-crap-that-TPK-was-fast with nothing in between.
- Again. Not two hoots do I care about how little you enjoyed how other people ran these kinds of games for you before or how often you did not enjoy them. Maybe you didnt enjoy them because you were in them. It's the one thing about them that never changed for you. But in my games, you are not in them, so there is the possibility that they are much more fun. See how not helpful this type of conversation can be. See how antagonistic it sounds? Us going back and forth saying how much we enjoy totally not doing what the other enjoys, and then you taking the added step of doing what I just did. Suggesting that because your way is different or more common (and thus qualitatively I could easily call more boring and sucky whether thats true for you or not) is so incredibly unproductive I can't even measure it. Are we on the same page yet?
It's not badwrongfun, but it's sure nothing I would want to be involved in.
- I welcome the possibility that if you're not interested in a qualitative analysis that you would cease to be involved in the conversation.
To me, it's like how when you're a kid you can eat that bowl the size of your aquarium full of colored pure sugar the day after Halloween. As an adult, I'd much rather have a sensible, filling meal than sucrose in a wrapper.
- sensible filling meal.... Qualitative statement. Not interested. Your playstyle is absolutely different than mine and that's totally awesome for you. Not. Interested.
(By the way, this is coming from a guy who vilely hates low-power games, low point-buy, and literally squeezes as much power out of every character he can make using the RAW...but even I look at an ability like you describe and my face puckers in reaction. You literally give out power beyond a wish spell to a 1st level character! Ugh. Sorry, just felt like someone emptied a pixie stick in my mouth.)
- I know you'll never run out of qualitative ways to express negativity. It would be equally easy for me to dog on your playstyle for being however it is having never played it, signifying nothing... I choose not to waste either of our times doing so. Are you on board with that possibility?
Saccharin. That's the word I was looking for to describe that style of gameplay.
It's not wrong. But I would garner to believe it's overwhelmingly not the commonplace around here.
- Oh, doing things that are not common around here is indeed my bread and butter. Qualitative bandwagon fallacy is qualitative.
it isn't too bad, but...that raises this question:
If you're gonna do what you want how how you want when you want regardless of what anyone says...which you totally have the right to...why ask opinions, if you will ignore them universally?
- It's because I'm not asking for opinions or suggestions. I'm absolutely though asking for people who are good at building characters to help me examine the ways they'd build characters with this rule so that I can decide which parts are appropriate to my goals, and what are the things players would race towards automatically that I haven't thought of (like dipping) that I'd want to change the rule for or discourage. I'm also not at the moment taking 'suggestions' for ways to change it. I'll change it how I like when I hear about things that I agree would need to change. That doesnt mean I think your suggestions are worse than mine or bad or whatever... I know that your opinions and your suggestion might work better for you and your table and your goals and thats cool.
If you'd rather discuss all the possible ideas instead of helping me with just my idea, that's totally cool. Go make another thread where you can do just that. If you'd rather discuss all the way that other people play that you'd like to call wrong and bad and unenjoyable not just for you but for the largess of the gaming population then I'm politely asking that you go make a different thread for that as well. As you might have gathered by now, I don't enjoy those kinds of discussions much and don't find them very useful or productive.
I apologize if that makes this thread significantly different than the kinds of threads you're used to diving into.
It's awkward having a mook that's more capable than you are.I've kinda been trying to sell my players on this idea a bit. I'm one of the few gms I know who allows the leadership feat. They don't seem too eager to bite on it though...Fighter is already the best at fighting, he just sucks at literally everything else and as a multiclass.
if you try to do anything but stab someone, you're out of luck, but the easily will on average always have a good-to-great to-hit, and high damage on their weapon roll. it's just, can he also do skills? nope, 2+int like a dirty full caster. can he manipulate plot? no not really, everyone else can do at least as well, and many severely better.
fighters are best as cohorts since you don't really care if they can't do anything else, that's what your main does.
Heheheh. I agree. As long as my table has fun with it though, I very much tend to embrace the awkward. And its exactly what I'm getting at with this mod. I agree that fighters tend to suck at everything else but multiclassing. This idea to me accomplishes the goal of giving him the opportunity to have better saves, or to have more skills, or to become even more adamantly focused on being better at stabbin things and nothing else... I'm giving him more versatility and more control over the implementation of that versatility, all in a way that I (don't yet) see as trumping other classes. It might make a fighter better at fighting than a gish or a monk or a barbarian though... And I might be quite ok with that.
It might be helpful for me to contextualise this a bit...
Say instead of talking about a rule change I were instead talking about possibly changing my car.
Lets say I'm thinking about changing my car to a 67 gto. Its more of a muscle car and less of a magical car, and I like the musclecar aesthetic and particularly the design of the 67 gto... But as I don't have a phd in automotive design, I'm interested in asking knowledgeable drivers what they think might be the drawbacks to such a decision.
Helpful posts would be things like
Unhelpful posts would be things like
Which is not to say that those arent completely valid opinions, points, or interesting discussions to be had... On a different thread.
You can totally see how one set of answers is exclusively trying to be helpful, while the other responses are more interested in whats going on in their own head, and could in some cases seem to be baiting, judgemental and antagonistic, despite the posters still adamantly thinking in their own heads that they're 'being very helpful'.
If I were to make a post saying 'I'd like to examine and explore this idea', (as I did within the first few postings) you can see how I might expect answers of the first type. If I instead had posted something like 'here's a zany idea I had. What kind of a crazy person am I? What zany ideas do you have instead?' I can more expect getting answers of the second type...
I dont think the difference between these two types of answers is a subtle one, but I also don't think I was too subtle in stating which types of answers I was interested in.
I hope this helps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if, unique to the actual fighter class, whenever they took a combat feat that had an attribute requirement... Instead of it being a prerequisite, it instead is an 'untyped adjustment'...
So like when you take combat expertise, instead of requiring a 13 intelligence, it 'bumps your intelligence' to 13.
Or if you take lightning stance... Instead of requiring a 17 dex... it raises your dex to 17.
The feats still work the same they always have for every other class.
But for fighters...
That would allow a fighter to put his point buy and points for leveling into other attributes, like int for better skills...
It always seemed wierd to me the concept of 'you must be this strong or this quick to do this technique'... Instead shouldnt it be 'if you practice this technique, you will *become* this strong or this quick...'?
There's also your second post, disallowing multiclassing, quick I cannot quote here due to my phone screwing up the formatting.
I can see where you are coming from with this system. It gives the player of the Fighter a bit of a narrative boost that other classes gain by virtue of being better with skills, or by having spells, or other class abilities, whereas the Fighter only pokes things with his sharp stick.
I can get behind that point.
But my question then becomes, "What makes the Fighter class inherently MAD?"
If all I want to do is poke things with my stick, unless I can gain access to a Bestiary feat, I'm better off not even taking Power Attack, which messes with my ability to poke things with my stick. (Unless this is not the way you envision your Fighter ability.)
I could instead become a Two-Weapon Fighter, raising my Dexterity up by quite a bit over the long run, which would also include Reflex saves and AC, except in heavier armor. But I could reliably afford to tank my Dex in favor of Str instead and gain a load of damage.
If I wanted to be skilled, then there's no reason for me to take Combat Expertise because instead of that 14 I spent on Intelligence to gain extra skill ranks, I would lose some because I took that feat . (Or is this not the way your envision it?)
Would these ability score enhancing feats be only combat feats or all feats?
I believe this Fighter ability would make other look at the Fighter with envy (not a bad thing) but also come with the side-effect of making every other character that doesn't have good ability scores, or class options, feel like those feats that grant a Fighter ability score bumps aren't worth as much in his own character's build.
Would there be a point to giving a player that intended to single-class as a Fighter any point-buy?
If you were in the position of using this Fighter exactly as you've posted here, what would your build be at every level? What would you start with in your point-buy calculations? Would you sink feats into only feats that "grant" bonus ability score bumps?
If you can honestly say you would enjoy this Fighter as you've imagined, please design and share something to make the Monk and Rogue as useful and fun. And then show up what you're doing with the rest of the classes.
If you're after something to "fix" the Fighter, giving him ability score boosts is, in my opinion, not the way to do it. Already, he hits things with a stick pretty hard. When he levels up, he hits them with a stick harder. Or with two sticks. Granting a Fighter class features outside of hitting creatures with a stick (which he already does very well) would be better appreciated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so, if the OP doesn't care for advice on how this interacts with the core pathfinder system, what exactly is he looking for by posting this here?
*also no one even commented on my fighter archetype ;-;*
It might be helpful for me to contextualise this a bit...
Say instead of talking about a rule change I were instead talking about possibly changing my car.Lets say I'm thinking about changing my car to a 67 gto. Its more of a muscle car and less of a magical car, and I like the musclecar aesthetic and particularly the design of the 67 gto... But as I don't have a phd in automotive design, I'm interested in asking knowledgeable drivers what they think might be the drawbacks to such a decision.
Helpful posts would be things like
You may not like not having airbags
You may not like the gas mileage
You might be very disappointed by the stock stereo... no jack for your ipod man!
You may not like constantly being called out by ricers to race all the time
You may not like the kind of crowd that this kind of car attracts. Unhelpful posts would be things like
Pontiacs suck. What kind of a fool would drive a pontiac. I bet you're fat and greasy and have a mullet and you're single.
Man I wouldn't want to be in *that* car with you.
The 68 judge is better.
I hate pontiacs. There's a reason the brand doesnt exist anymore. Every possible choice is a better choice than a pontiac.
If you want to have fun driving get a jeep. You can mod it like crazy and go offroadin' booyah!
I like ferraris! You should get a ferrari! Have you heard about the ariel atom? Its like just as fast as a ferrari but about as cheap as a gto. Get an ariel atom!
If you like the gto you should consider an oldsmobile 442 instead. An overbored 455 engine has an exhaust note that sends chills up my spine dude.
how dare you enjoy not driving the exact same car as me.. What's wrong with you?
me and all my friends and everyone in these threads drive prius. Do you hate the environment? How gauche!
These threads are for people who drive prius's and like it. Deal with it.
This is a prius modding thread. Not a musclecar thread. Deal with it.
My prius club is wehehaaaaay cooler than...
The issue is that there is no functional difference between the first type of comment and the second type of comment.
But I will say that the real issue is this: it won't fix the issue you are having. You are having issues with the fighter class not hanging with the rest of the group and you ascribe that issue to being mad. It isn't. The problem is the class features suck. Having sucky class features and higher stats doesn't make the problem go away. All it does is make the fighter have higher stats. A +2 or +3 to some stuff that isn't his main deal anyway.
So on top of it not fixing the issue its ugly. It doesn't fit well in the game. You are likely to run into unforeseen issues. You already have a REALLY ugly patch with multiclassing.
So the analogy is closer to this:
You come into a forum and tell people that you want a sporty car and you have this great idea to take an old big rig and drop a viper v12 in it. Never mind it doesn't fit, never mind the chasis wasn't built to do what you want, the only thing keeping you and your big rig from sporty goodness is that engine. So everyone who is vaguely familiar with driving can immediately see that it is a terrible idea. Not only are there practical problems (ugly) but it won't do what you want when it is finished.
Stop trying to put a viper engine in a big rig. Don't be that guy.
Completely breaking the economy of a fundamental game mechanic rarely strikes me as a viable solution to a problem.
But my question then becomes, "What makes the Fighter class inherently MAD?"
- Most of the conversations about why fighters suck revolve around their inability to do anything effectively other than poking things with a stick. They have bad saves. Attribute requirements on feats prevent fighters from taking all the feats they'd like to be able to take to become versatile combatants, and its VERY hard to meet top tier feat requirements in more than one feat tree, so fighters tend to only be able to build to one kind of feat. They become one trick ponies. Its true that bypassing the attribute requirement alone would solve that problem but it wouldn't be enough of a boost to convince anyone I game with personally to finally choose a fighter over any of the other fightin classes.
The other most common complaint with fighters is bad saves make them very vulnerable, which is also a pretty difficult or expensive thing to overcome... Being able to dump stats they don't traditionally have the option of dumping, or getting boosts in attributes they're not used to having the overhead to boost could solve this problem if a player were interested in using this rule in that particular way.If all I want to do is poke things with my stick, unless I can gain access to a Bestiary feat, I'm better off not even taking Power Attack, which messes with my ability to poke things with my stick. (Unless this is not the way you envision your Fighter ability.)
- While certain feats wouldnt give stat bonuses, I still don't think a fighter can resist building to strength and taking power attack and cleave.
I could instead become a Two-Weapon Fighter, raising my Dexterity up by quite a bit over the long run, which would also include Reflex saves and AC, except in heavier armor. But I could reliably afford to tank my Dex in favor of Str instead and gain a load of damage.
- I think there would both be a lot of players that gravitate to this, and in my table's case a lot of players that would go a different direction. The good news is the rule can be put to use in a variety of ways.
If I wanted to be skilled, then there's no reason for me to take Combat Expertise because instead of that 14 I spent on Intelligence to gain extra skill ranks, I would lose some because I took that feat . (Or is this not the way your envision it?)
- oh I definitely dont think taking a feat should reduce an ability score.
Would these ability score enhancing feats be only combat feats or all feats?
- at the moment I'm leaning towards all feats but i'm not firm on that decision.
I believe this Fighter ability would make other look at the Fighter with envy (not a bad thing) but also come with the side-effect of making every other character that doesn't have good ability scores, or class options, feel like those feats that grant a Fighter ability score bumps aren't worth as much in his own character's build.
-Agreed.
Would there be a point to giving a player that intended to single-class as a Fighter any point-buy?
-Maybe. Just not particularly focused on it at the moment.
If you were in the position of using this Fighter exactly as you've posted here, what would your build be at every level? What would you start with in your point-buy calculations? Would you sink feats into only feats that "grant" bonus ability score bumps?
-I'd certainly be keeping my strength high. I'd be interested in trying to use it to make a wisdom/dex/good saves kinda guy or a good int/skills kinda guy or a cha/face kinda guy. I think there are a lot of options. I'm definitely looking for the ways that a powergamer would use this rule to its best ability.
If you can honestly say you would enjoy this Fighter as you've imagined, please design and share something to make the Monk and Rogue as useful and fun. And then show up what you're doing with the rest of the classes.
- I think I may be biting off as much if not more than I can chew at the moment. If this worked out well I'd love to start thinking about things I coud do to help out a monk and a rogue, because they too have a reputation for 'needin a little help'
If you're after something to "fix" the Fighter, giving him ability score boosts is, in my opinion, not the way to do it. Already, he hits things with a stick pretty hard. When he levels up, he hits them with a stick harder. Or with two sticks. Granting a Fighter class features outside of hitting creatures with a stick (which he already does very well) would be better appreciated.
-Yep. I think having not just the ability to have a more diverse set of combat feats, but having improved attributes to improve his saving throws and improve his skill gamut or his ability to interact with the non combat side of the game can only be a good thing.
so, if the OP doesn't care for advice on how this interacts with the core pathfinder system, what exactly is he looking for by posting this here?
I am totally interested in how this interacts with the core pathfinder system as long as it's not accompanied by a personal opinion disparaging that possible interaction.
how about instead of makign this a really weird mechanic. make him ignore prereqs, but if he gains a feat that has a stat prereq he gains an inherent bonus of 1 in that stat. so if he has 18 strength, get's power attack, now it's 19. (but only if they're from bonus feats and thus combat feats)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am totally interested in how this interacts with the core pathfinder system as long as it's not accompanied by a personal opinion disparaging that possible interaction.so, if the OP doesn't care for advice on how this interacts with the core pathfinder system, what exactly is he looking for by posting this here?
except all critique on a system is opinion... so anyone who doesn't think this will work, will do exactly what your saying. :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
quantitative analysis:
1. I roll a Fighter.
2. Considering 20 point buy which is the bog standard, the optimal build is 18 STR, 7 DEX, 7 CON, 18 INT, 8 WIS, 7 CHA. While every other character is making a character that is represented in their person by their stats, my Fighter seems like a very smart and strong dude who is clumsy, unattractive, unwitting and infirm. But it's the most optimal.
3. Considering Human, start with Two-Weapon Fighting and Necromantic Affinity. Stats jump to 18 STR, 13 DEX, 15 CON, 18 INT, 8 WIS, 7 CHA. You now heal with inflict spells, but who cares, that's 8 free CON.
4. At second level, pick up Flagbearer, 18 STR, 13 DEX, 15 CON, 18 INT, 8 WIS, 15 CHA.
5. Third level, Stance of the Xorn. 18 STR, 13 DEX, 15 CON, 18 INT, 15 WIS, 15 CHA. That's a 58 (fifty-eight) point buy equal character by level three. 38 points ahead of every other character.
If you are playing 15 point buy, by third level, this feature makes the player stronger than every other characters by 43. At 25 point buy, by 33.
If you are playing 4d6 drop lowest, the average rolls are 13, 12, 13, 12, 13, 12. You are ahead of that in point buy terms by 43.
Now, if I played Fighters like I usually do, for 20 point buy, I'd do: STR 16, DEX 15, CON 14, 10 INT, 12 WIS, 7 CHA.
It has -1 STR bonus, +1 DEX bonus, same CON, -1 WIS bonus, -4 INT bonus and -4 CHA bonus than the version of the Fighter you make.
Is it less MAD? No, it still requires STR, DEX, CON and WIS, like every other Fighter, it just has a feature that grants them free attributes instead of rewarding making a character that is represented by its attributes during creation.
The issue is that there is no functional difference between the first type of comment and the second type of comment.
-Except that one is providing quantitative information and the other is providing subjective opinion and critique. If you are in fact not able to see the difference I won't be able to have a substantive conversation with you about it. The distinction is apparently out of your depth, which is still totally cool. But its why I won't put any consideration to any of your posts. Just so you know.
But I will say that the real issue is this: it won't fix the issue you are having. You are having issues with the fighter class not hanging with the rest of the group and you ascribe that issue to being mad. It isn't. The problem is the class features suck.
-The class features dont suck. Having access to a metric ton of feats is an awesome class feature as long as you actually have access to a variety of the best ones. If giving them more of the goods feats by letting them ignore the attribute prerequisite is a good thing, then my idea, which does the same thing and more, is likely to be just as good a thing.
Having sucky class features and higher stats doesn't make the problem go away. All it does is make the fighter have higher stats. A +2 or +3 to some stuff that isn't his main deal anyway.
-Having higher stats does remove some of the fighters perceived weaknesses. Possibly improving his weak saves, possibly giving him better skills, possibly giving him room to boost stats that would allow him to interact with the non combat element of the game.
So on top of it not fixing the issue its ugly.
- Qualitative. subjective. immaterial. Dont care.
It doesn't fit well in the game.
- Qualitative. subjective. immaterial. Still dont care.
You are likely to run into unforeseen issues.
-Very important point. Its why I made the thread.
You already have a REALLY ugly patch with multiclassing.
-Amazingly still thinking about a part of the rule that doesnt exist anymore. Let me know when you'd like to join the conversation.
So the analogy is closer to this: You come into a forum and tell people that you want a sporty car and you have this great idea to take an old big rig and drop a viper v12 in it. Never mind it doesn't fit, never mind the chasis wasn't built to do what you want, the only thing keeping you and your big rig from sporty goodness is that engine. So everyone who is vaguely familiar with driving can immediately see that it is a terrible idea. Not only are there practical problems (ugly) but it won't do what you want when it is finished. Stop trying to put a viper engine in a big rig. Don't be that guy.
-My take on your analogy is that i'd be thinking about putting a viper engine in a big rig, asking what are the possible drawbacks?
Helpful responses would be
Not helpful responses include
But again the fact that you cant see the difference between 'asking what would happen' and 'asking how you'd feel about what would happen' is why I'm not interested in your posts. Don't be that guy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the point is that people are telling directly that your fix doesn't fit in the game. The is an objective fact. You have to break the game to make your idea fit. That is not qualitative, it is a quantitative fact. That fact that you see concrete issues with your idea as subjective makes it impossible to have any discussion. The fact that you confuse "won't work" for "didn't concider my idea throughly and it could totally work if you guys would just stop being mean how come no one takes me cereal?!" is a big part of why you aren't getting help in here. The idea is bad, don't be that guy.
No, the point is that people are telling directly that your fix doesn't fit in the game. The is an objective fact.
-No the point that this wouldnt fit in certain peoples games is objective fact
The point that my game is not your game makes the critique subjective and immaterial for my purposes.I'm not trying to find ways to make my idea 'fit' your game. I'm not trying to make my rule into something 'you like'... its not about you. Its about what you might try to do if you were playing by my rules, and then how i'd feel about what you'd do, and if I'd need to change my rules if you did something in particular that was unintended with my rule. Not at all about if you think its good or pretty or elegant or 'fits' (whatever that means) or if I could 'do a better job' or 'if your idea works better' or 'if you like your idea better' or the position of ursa minor in the night sky. You can be very right about the fact that you don't like it. I'm not arguing that you don't like it. The fact that you don't like it or find it pretty or that it wouldnt 'fit' at your table is quite absolutely the least important facet of the rule i'm trying to examine.
You have to break the game to make your idea fit.
-Rules changes dont break the game, or do not tacitly have to. It's why we have a homebrew forum. It might break your game. That's your game. I might have to break your game to make my game, but thats a break I'm all too happy to do. I don't care how my rule would your break your game. I care how you would use my rule to break my game. If you can't see the difference then you wont ever know how to contribute to this conversation in a way that I will find not just meaningful, but helpful. Useful. Productive. Not productive for you to make your point. Productive for me to get the answers I'm looking for. Not the critiques you find so personally meaningful.
That fact that you see concrete issues with your idea as subjective makes it impossible to have any discussion.
-The fact that your personal issues are not my personal issues is the problem. Your personal issues are not concrete issues for me at my table because they are objective to you and subjective to me. The fact that you see no distinction between 'here's something I might try with it that you might not like. how would you feel about that?' and 'I dont like it.' is what makes 'what would bea an acceptable discussion' in your mind impossible to have. I'm not interested in 'what the rule would do'. I'm interested in 'what would you do with the rule'. I'm not interested in 'how would what the rule would do to your table make you feel'. I'm interested in 'how what you'd do with the rule makes me feel at my table.' I don't want your feelings. I want your facts. How would you use this rule. Not if you would use this rule. Not if you would like this rule. Not how pretty is this rule.
The fact that you confuse "won't work" for "didn't concider my idea throughly and it could totally work if you guys would just stop being mean how come no one takes me cereal?!" is a big part of why you aren't getting help in here.
-The fact that you confuse 'me wanting help with my idea' and 'me wanting your idea instead' is why you're not being very helpful, and yet continuing to post here. If you want to contribute, the ONLY question I want you to answer is 'if you were offered this rule at my table... what's the most powerful thing you would personally make with it'... Stop short of telling me if you think that your build would be too powerful or unbalancing or no fun or game breaking... Only what you'd make. Not how you think or feel about what you'd make or its effects on the game or your enjoyment of the game, or your enjoyment of the nature of the game... Keep it simple. What. Would. You. Build?
The idea is bad
For you, whom I don't care about.
Don't be that guy.
I am that guy.
-I'm batman!
- I am groot!
-I'm batman!
-I am groot!
-Guys this could go on for a while....
-I'm BATMAN!!!
- I am groot!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm done being polite. I gotta get outta this monkey cage.
Byenara.
Responding condescendingly to criticism neither advances your idea nor this discussion.
The reason many had negative first impressions of your idea stems from what I said in my previous post. Completely breaking the economy of a fundamental system in the game does not make for a viable solution to the problem at hand. Many people can intuitively come to this conclusion even with only cursory understanding of game design and D&D/PF. This is reason many people were quick to respond with "it's a bad idea." These are not personal attacks against you. It's simply a gut response to your idea from their intuition. It's valid criticism, and I haven't found any examples of someone criticizing your idea an inappropriate manner.
If someone gives you an abrupt response, then politely ask for an elaboration. Criticizing the way they do their criticism neither advances your idea nor the topic at hand. It's rude and generally considered unacceptable behavior in this community. Throughout this thread, you elevated the abrasive nature of your responses in a manner I consider as a personal attack against the people in the thread who feel genuinely invested in the subject of giving the fighter quality of life changes.
so, if the OP doesn't care for advice on how this interacts with the core pathfinder system, what exactly is he looking for by posting this here?
*also no one even commented on my fighter archetype ;-;*
It's okay, no one paid attention to my reasonable middle-ground either. :P
how about instead of makign this a really weird mechanic. make him ignore prereqs, but if he gains a feat that has a stat prereq he gains an inherent bonus of 1 in that stat. so if he has 18 strength, get's power attack, now it's 19. (but only if they're from bonus feats and thus combat feats)
This is an even safer and more playable version of what I said, and I imagine that it is actually balanced enough to make it into home games, but the OP doesn't seem to be concerned with balance in the slightest so don't expect either of our ideas to get any traction.
I'm done being polite. I gotta get outta this monkey cage.These are not personal attacks against you. It's simply a gut response to your idea from their intuition. It's valid criticism, and I haven't found any examples of someone criticizing your idea an inappropriate manner.
-and its totally ok to think that this is a bad idea. It's probably right. It's probably an ugly game breaking bad idea. There are people who wont like my idea. Its all very true. That fact is just not relevant information for me. Even 'how they dont like it' or 'why they dont like it' isnt relevant for me. I know thats a really hard concept for people to get past. I don't want people getting all emotional about me not wanting that type of information. I simply don't want it. Don't take it personal that I don't want that information. I simply don't want it. There is information I want. Just not that.
If someone gives you an abrupt response, then politely ask for an elaboration. Criticizing the way they do their criticism neither advances your idea nor the topic at hand. It's rude and generally considered unacceptable behavior in this community. Throughout this thread, you elevated the abrasive nature of your responses in a manner I consider as a personal attack against the people in the thread who feel genuinely invested in the subject of giving the fighter quality of life changes.
I'm not attacking anyone. I'm asking for a specific kind of information and explaining why I'm interested in only a specific kind of information. I don't want the issue to get personal. I'm not interested in 'getting personal' or 'insulting playstyles' or 'talking about feelings' or 'critiques' in any way. For some reason telling folks that I don't want to get personal or take critique or talk about feelings seems to... be... an abrasive concept to them. Now you're telling me that its 'insulting' too. Its not an insult. Its compartmentalization. But at least a few posters in particular are hung up on 'How dare I not care about how horrible and ugly my idea is to them personally?' Uhhhhh. How can I even respond to that without being insulting if 'Its simply true that such information is not, for the purposes of this immediate thread, relevant to me' is considered, itself, an insult.
If I made a thread specifically to discuss a very narrow question, and instead its becoming a conversation entirely about the opposite of the very narrow question I want answerd... I'm insulting the forum community now?
I made this thread to talk about something very specific. Its not about 'all the different ways you could fix a MAD fighter.' It's about me exploring my fix. There are a ton of other threads to explore everyone else's idea of how to fix a MAD fighter. And they're all great ideas and feelings. I don't hate people having feelings. They are not the purpose of a thread I built for me for my purposes with my chosen focus. It's totally ok for people who aren't interested in that narrow focus to not participate in my thread.
How many times should I be able to reillustrate the nature of the conversation I do want to have in my own thread vs the nature of conversation I do not want to have in my own thread before I have the right to get a little indignant about the fact that people still are both 'not on board' but still 'posting in contrast to the nature of the conversation I want to have and 'possibly not even understanding the difference'. Maybe the answer is zero... Maybe I'm never allowed to ask the posters on my thread to keep their answers specifically to the realm of the question i'm asking. Lets all start talking about whatever everyone else wants to start talking about instead.
I'm sorry if not being interested in the full spectrum of critique and not being interested in other solutions and not being interested in 'gut reactions' is something the people on these forums aren't used to and aren't keen on. None of those things is germaine to the information I'm looking for. Its nothing personal until people make it personal that I should care about their feelings. It becomes personal when the thread I created to talk about what I want to talk about is being derailed so I can talk instead about what they want to talk about. I want to know how people would use the rule. No feelings, no insults, no critiques, no alternatives, no opinions. Just an answer. What would you make using this rule. If thats a hard fence to jump I'm ok with people not posting. Saying they don't like my idea is just more posts I have to flip through that don't tell me what i'm interested in knowing. I totally know you don't like my rule... Got it. Page one. Done and done. Move past it and help, or move past it and leave... Either way. Move past it.
posted quantitative analysis. waiting for answer.
so, if the OP doesn't care for advice on how this interacts with the core pathfinder system, what exactly is he looking for by posting this here?
*also no one even commented on my fighter archetype ;-;*
It's okay, no one paid attention to my reasonable middle-ground either. :P
how about instead of makign this a really weird mechanic. make him ignore prereqs, but if he gains a feat that has a stat prereq he gains an inherent bonus of 1 in that stat. so if he has 18 strength, get's power attack, now it's 19. (but only if they're from bonus feats and thus combat feats)This is an even safer and more playable version of what I said, and I imagine that it is actually balanced enough to make it into home games, but the OP doesn't seem to be concerned with balance in the slightest so don't expect either of our ideas to get any traction.
See. right here. I'm so not trying to be rude, but here's folks offering alternative ideas. Its not what I asked for, but they're going to feel insulted if I'm not interested in these ideas of theirs...
except all critique on a system is opinion... so anyone who doesn't think this will work, will do exactly what your saying. :/I am totally interested in how this interacts with the core pathfinder system as long as it's not accompanied by a personal opinion disparaging that possible interaction.so, if the OP doesn't care for advice on how this interacts with the core pathfinder system, what exactly is he looking for by posting this here?
Thats right! I want to know how this interacts. All critique is opinion and I dont want critique or opinion.
posted quantitative analysis. waiting for answer.
Very cool. Having a look. Thank you!
this doesn't fit in pathfinder, because it's rule structure entirely tries to overwrite other portions of the games expectations and rulings. it tries to cut out a zone where the fighter is good by ignoring the base rules of pathfinder. this isn't subjective, the rules simply do not mesh well with native pathfinder.
that's why people call it inelegant, because it simply is. a solution should work from within the system, and behave like other rules, and unfortunately feats don't do anything beyond what they normally do, and the game expects the feats to have a certain power level.
the system also focuses a fighter in on weird and unusual choices that are only good under these conditions, making the feat not actually chosen for the feat but it's side effect due to the fighter's ability.
limiting multiclassing, flies in the face of how pathfinder battles multiclassing, which is by making abilities get better the more advancement in a class you get. Which is what your ability should be a 5th or 7th level ability at lowest.
these are simply true, they're not subjective. the rules simply DO NOT mesh with pathfinder's native rule structure.
A game designer can gleam a surprising amount of insight from first impression responses. I do not consider it wise to merely dismiss them and other criticism to the idea. Especially when the the topic is called "Making fighters less Mad," which suggests an open discussion of the issue and opens the door for alternative solutions. Many of the people here gave some good ones, too.
Responding condescendingly constitutes hostility, which you admit to doing so several times in this thread.
quantitative analysis:
1. I roll a Fighter.
2. Considering 20 point buy which is the bog standard, the optimal build is 18 STR, 7 DEX, 7 CON, 18 INT, 8 WIS, 7 CHA. While every other character is making a character that is represented in their person by their stats, my Fighter seems like a very smart and strong dude who is clumsy, unattractive, unwitting and infirm. But it's the most optimal.
3. Considering Human, start with Two-Weapon Fighting and Necromantic Affinity. Stats jump to 18 STR, 13 DEX, 15 CON, 18 INT, 8 WIS, 7 CHA. You now heal with inflict spells, but who cares, that's 8 free CON.
4. At second level, pick up Flagbearer, 18 STR, 13 DEX, 15 CON, 18 INT, 8 WIS, 15 CHA.
5. Third level, Stance of the Xorn. 18 STR, 13 DEX, 15 CON, 18 INT, 15 WIS, 15 CHA. That's a 58 (fifty-eight) point buy equal character by level three. 38 points ahead of every other character.
If you are playing 15 point buy, by third level, this feature makes the player stronger than every other characters by 43. At 25 point buy, by 33.
If you are playing 4d6 drop lowest, the average rolls are 13, 12, 13, 12, 13, 12. You are ahead of that in point buy terms by 43.
Now, if I played Fighters like I usually do, for 20 point buy, I'd do: STR 16, DEX 15, CON 14, 10 INT, 12 WIS, 7 CHA.
It has -1 STR bonus, +1 DEX bonus, same CON, -1 WIS bonus, -4 INT bonus and -4 CHA bonus than the version of the Fighter you make.
Is it less MAD? No, it still requires STR, DEX, CON and WIS, like every other Fighter, it just has a feature that grants them free attributes instead of rewarding making a character that is represented by its attributes during creation.
Going to assume then that you chose to play a dwarven fighter for this then? Not sure if only dwarves can choose stance of the xorn since it's from that sourcebook. the pfsrd doesnt list being a dwarf as a prerequisite. so by level 3 in a 20 point buy campaign we have a dwarven fighter with 18 13 15 18 15 15. Not game breaking but pretty good. Hits hard, decent hit points, good skills, better saves... funny challenges in the getting healed department to overcome is pretty flavorful and funny in my opinion. I tend to give my guy 25 point buy so while thats 33 points above other party members, thats not as bad as it sounds in actual game play.
So far I like it! For my table at least I again wouldnt call this game breaking or overpowered. Comfortable, effective, but not so much that it trounces other classes baliwick or makes the other players feel ineffective.
This is a 3rd level fighter with a Bab 7, an extra 6 hit points, 4 extra skill points per level, plus an extra 2 on will saves...
A pretty nice 3rd level fighter. Certainly not the second coming of pun pun...
I like it! Thank ya! Contextually I think you're right. It's not as appropriate to say that this fighter is 'no longer mad' as it is to say that it 'better copes with being mad'
A game designer can gleam a surprising amount of insight from first impression responses. I do not consider it wise to merely dismiss them and other criticism to the idea. Especially when the the topic is called "Making fighters less Mad," which suggests an open discussion of the issue and opens the door for alternative solutions. Many of the people here gave some good ones, too.
Responding condescendingly constitutes hostility, which you admit to doing so several times in this thread.
I'm a montyhaul gm, not a game designer, Jim!
Never claimed to be wise.I apologize if the title of the thread didnt properly encapsulate the nature of the conversation I want to have. I don't appear to have the option to change it but if a moderator wanted to change it to something like 'Wacky idea for embracing MAD fighters' I'd be cool with it.
Thankfully I'm not trying to publish and sell a houserule, so i'm not super beholden to creating rules that 'work well and easily for most people that would sell well'. Bit more 'unchained' than even the publisher in that respect.
I think I started out snarky, but the reaction to my snark certainly got hostile quick.
this doesn't fit in pathfinder, because it's rule structure entirely tries to overwrite other portions of the games expectations and rulings. it tries to cut out a zone where the fighter is good by ignoring the base rules of pathfinder. this isn't subjective, the rules simply do not mesh well with native pathfinder.
that's why people call it inelegant, because it simply is. a solution should work from within the system, and behave like other rules, and unfortunately feats don't do anything beyond what they normally do, and the game expects the feats to have a certain power level.
the system also focuses a fighter in on weird and unusual choices that are only good under these conditions, making the feat not actually chosen for the feat but it's side effect due to the fighter's ability.
limiting multiclassing, flies in the face of how pathfinder battles multiclassing, which is by making abilities get better the more advancement in a class you get. Which is what your ability should be a 5th or 7th level ability at lowest.
these are simply true, they're not subjective. the rules simply DO NOT mesh with pathfinder's native rule structure.
I will again fervently concede that this is as true as can be for those that believe it to be true.
I also fervently concede its a concept that would be difficult or confusing for some folks to enjoy or implement. I daresay they woud find it... Jarring! To each his own.
You weren't being snarky, you were being a jerk for no reason. It's against the rules, to boot.
You weren't being snarky, you were being a jerk for no reason. It's against the rules, to boot.
I'm trying to be a nice guy now. Are we going to try to make that easy or are we trying to make that hard? Are you here to help me out or are you here to keep making tension in a place where i'm trying very hard to avoid it?
You weren't being snarky, you were being a jerk for no reason. It's against the rules, to boot.I'm trying to be a nice guy now. Are we going to try to make that easy or are we trying to make that hard?
We're not sweeping your jerkishness under the rug, if that's what you're asking. You don't get to pretend you were just kidding. Own up to it and maybe try actually reading some posts that disagree with your idea.
I'm not interested in the posts that disagree with my idea and that doesnt make me a jerk. Even saying so doesnt make me a jerk.
Why did you post your idea if you didn't want to hear what people had to say about it?
To hear what they would build with it.
Not how they felt about it
Not what they'd do instead.
I've been super clear about this for like 2 pages now.
I've been so pedantic about being super clear about it that i've been labeled a jerk for being so pedantic about it.
When I say 'I'm not interested in the posts that disagree with my idea'
I'm not saying 'I dont care what you think'
I'm not saying 'I dont care how you feel'
I'm saying for the purposes of this particular thread, those details aren't the data i'm interested in culling.
This isnt a personal emotional jerky thing. This is a compartmentalization of data thing.
The information I'm collecting is 'what would all these imaginitive gamers build using this rule'
So I can decide for myself if I think the rule is a bad idea for my own table or not.
Its hard because there's no real good way to label the semantic difference between
A thread to help me examine my own homebrew idea exclusively and analytically vs
A thread for everyone to present their own homebrew ideas...
I could have posted this under the 'advice' thread, but it could just as easily have been moved to homebrew...
I chose homebrew because again. I'm not really looking for advice.
I'm looking for people to build me some samples within this framework so I can better make my own informed decision
I'm not interested in being told the rule is horrible and broken.
I want folks to use the system to build something they might think is horrible or broken so that I can decide for myself if I agree with that assessment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bwahahaha! "I want your opinions...as long as they don't disagree with me."
Holy crap, this thread just keeps getting more entertaining.
A frickin MASTER at the art of trolling. Truly, green giants must come from miles around to study at your feet.
Bwahahaha! "I want your opinions...as long as they don't disagree with me."
Holy crap, this thread just keeps getting more entertaining.
A frickin MASTER at the art of trolling. Truly, green giants must come from miles around to study at your feet.
Um. Instead try 'I dont want your opinions and didnt ask for them in the first place.'
'I told you I'm not interested in your personal disagreements. Only what you'd do with the rule or how the rule might be exploited by powergamers.'But instead 'Bwahaha!' You keep giving them to me anyway.
You're not being helpful, but i'm at least glad you find the inconsistancy between what you think is going on and what I'd like to be going on is funny.
I'm a montyhaul gm, not a game designer, Jim!
You asked a game design question. People gave you game design answers. Some of these people are game designers. You dismissed their expertise up until Secret Wizard generously did a sample build to illustrate the consequences of the idea and ultimately came to the same conclusion that critics of your idea said since page one.
To hear what they would build with it.
Not how they felt about it
Not what they'd do instead.
I've been super clear about this for like 2 pages now.
I've been so pedantic about being super clear about it that i've been labeled a jerk for being so pedantic about it.
When I say 'I'm not interested in the posts that disagree with my idea'
I'm not saying 'I dont care what you think'
I'm not saying 'I dont care how you feel'
I'm saying for the purposes of this particular thread, those details aren't the data i'm interested in culling.
This isnt a personal emotional jerky thing. This is a compartmentalization of data thing.
The information I'm collecting is 'what would all these imaginitive gamers build using this rule'
So I can decide for myself if I think the rule is a bad idea for my own table or not.Its hard because there's no real good way to label the semantic difference between
A thread to help me examine my own homebrew idea exclusively and analytically vs
A thread for everyone to present their own homebrew ideas...
I could have posted this under the 'advice' thread, but it could just as easily have been moved to homebrew...
I chose homebrew because again. I'm not really looking for advice.
I'm looking for people to build me some samples within this framework so I can better make my own informed decision
I'm not interested in being told the rule is broken.
I want folks to use the system to build something they might think is broken so that I can decide if I agree with the assessment.
The problem is that you posted a game design-related question -- one rather unclear in the OP -- in the homebrew forum, a forum populated by people dedicated to designing new rules and content for Pathfinder.
You ask the community to perform dry playtesting on your idea so you can understand the consequences of your idea designed to solve the fighter's multiple stat dependency issues. Understanding the system enough to intuitively see the consequences of your idea without performing explicit playtesting, some members of the community responded with their insights. You dismissed their responses and said "I dont want your opinions and didnt ask for them in the first place." That's not only counterproductive towards your cause, but also very rude.
I think I started out snarky, but the reaction to my snark certainly got hostile quick.
Of course you would receive negative reactions. Acting "snarky" constitutes behavior this community considers very inappropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so by level 3 in a 20 point buy campaign we have a dwarven fighter with 18 13 15 18 15 15. Not game breaking but pretty good
if that's your goal, why force players into feats? i used to give fighters and rogues extra points until i came up with a good solution. What your fix does is force builds rather than allow them to become a way of self expression.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not attacking anyone.
Quoting people directly and then responding with something dismissive, curt and rude is an attack.
This response I'm writing right now is an attack and you sir have been attacking people this entire thread.
I have some ideas that you might consider constructive and might not but have no remaining desire to share them with you at all because for this entire thread you've been taking a piss on the vast majority of people who've been trying to critique. Yes some of them have been doing a poor job of it but you're not creating a very welcoming environment.
- Torger
For those that helped, thanks
For those that didnt, thanks anyway
For those that helped in thier own way, sorry we don't communicate in the same way
Or I suppose maybe good thing we dont communicate in the same way?
Because that means you dont communicate like me
And my communication sux so your communication must be awesome by contrast.
Think what ya think and do whatcha do. Play how ya wanna play. I'll leave y'all to it then. Thread's over for me personally.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Psh, I've read that before... Three times. In this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suggest just giving your fighters extra stat bonuses, instead of doing this with feats.
Go back to the 3e Forsaker. Give them a +1 Inherent bonus to stats per Fighter level. This gets you more stats over time without giving them anything they wouldn't receive at extreme high level anyways. Indeed, if you use the 'We can Summon Efreeti excuse', it's giving them nothing they wouldn't have by level 13.
If you want to limit the abuse this causes, simply mandate that the inherent bonus always goes to the Fighter's lowest ability scores. This would allow the fighter to assign higher scores at creation, knowing that he'll get inherent bonuses to buy off lower point buy, but only over time.
This also has the benefit of being dependent on taking fighter levels, so not benefiting multiclassers.
This moves the stat raises from the territory of a free bonus that stacks, like your feat methodology, and simply to 'free gold' a few levels early.
==Aelryinth
