
Fergie |

You use single boss monsters?
Why???
Any encounter I run typically has 3 or more main opponents [one might be a bit stronger than the others, or it might not] plus dozens of mooks.
While I do my best to avoid the single boss monster, adventure writers haven't gotten the memo. Also, the solo boss battle is a fantasy staple. I have found that to have a mid+ level boss encounter work as planned, I generally need at least a dozen punk mooks, and a hench-cleric with lots of dispel magic and healing to keep the boss a viable threat. The only exception to this is when using monsters custom built for the specific PC's, and that generally requires something like a vampire or outsider with PC and NPC class levels.
EDIT: Old Male Human Vampire Aristocrat 4, Wizard 5, Alchemist 3

kyrt-ryder |
kyrt-ryder wrote:That's a weird way to go about it. Nice that it works for you and your group, though.Oh, that explains it. You use published adventures.
I don't even write my adventures or most of my encounters, they're almost all spur of the moment evolved out of the RP with the party.
I should probably start a thread about spontaneous GMing at some point. It's certainly not the standard way to play but I've always enjoyed it. [And there's nothing in the world I've seen or heard of that provides more player agency than when the players are part and parcel of the events that create adventures and encounters.]

Freesword |
Possible 2 spells going off the same round is a small price to pay in exchange for having no effect for 1 round and spending an entire round casting giving all enemies a chance to hit you and disrupt your spell.
And as for move and full attack: action economy is a place where martials lose out. If buffing them in this way offends you then you will really hate that I support reducing the penalty on iterative attacks from +20/+15/+10/+5 to either +20/+15/+15/+15 or +20/+18/+16/+14.

BigDTBone |

Kobold Cleaver wrote:I should probably start a thread about spontaneous GMing at some point. It's certainly not the standard way to play but I've always enjoyed it. [And there's nothing in the world I've seen or heard of that provides more player agency than when the players are part and parcel of the events that create adventures and encounters.]kyrt-ryder wrote:That's a weird way to go about it. Nice that it works for you and your group, though.Oh, that explains it. You use published adventures.
I don't even write my adventures or most of my encounters, they're almost all spur of the moment evolved out of the RP with the party.
We should collaborate on a guide. I have been moving toward spontaneous GMing for a few years now. The most recent campaign in running has been nearly 100% spontaneous. It takes a fair bit of pre-campaign prep AND some intermittent maintainence with particular stat blocks and plot movement, but it has been a very statisfying experience for both me and my players.

Bandw2 |

Bandw2 wrote:...Cerberus Seven wrote:Malwing wrote:Cerberus Seven wrote:Malwing wrote:Consolidating is good, tweaking them as well is better. Vital Strike should really be usable in cases like at the end of a charge. Power Attack and Combat Expertise should let you throttle the maximum bonus/penalty if you want. I see no reason Improved Critical shouldn't be applied to a whole weapon category (why aren't you as good a shot with a shortbow as with a longbow). Also, having these feats work together in interesting ways would be good. For example, if you have Combat Reflexes, you can expend all your additional attacks of opportunity to use Vital Strike with your first AoO that round. Or maybe someone with both Dodge and Fleet can take an extra 5-ft step once per round when at attack misses them. As many have noted, power is only part of the issue with spells. Added flexibility of choices from everything spells can do is another. If a wizard can potentially have dozens of "just in case" tricks up his sleeve using magic, why shouldn't the 'feat class' (aka the fighter) have similar options and versatility with their class features?I have been continuously recommending The Book of Martial Action I & II to use in conjunction with since before Unchained came out in case anyone thought Path of War replaced their martials instead of buffing the ones they had. I wonder if anyone tried it out. Or just thought about it. Or believes me or disbelieves me.
I also think consolidating the major combat feats is helpful too. Not every single one but the main ones that generate the most frequent core fighting methods like TWF, Cleave and Vital Strike. Having major combat feats consolidated to scale with BAB is pretty significant.
How do you feel about these feats?:
Flash Cut: He can spend a stamina point to make an AoO against anyone that enters a space he threatens.
Meditations of Harmony: Can spend stamina to gain a bonus to saves if a successful
I was actually saying they weren't game breaking and saying they're not as powerful as he was saying

Bill Dunn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Uuuugh. I came here to finally get some productive advice to drown out all the stupid arguing on the other thread.
What did I get? More stupid arguing. I could dig through here to find the on-topic posts, but I don't really have the energy.
Come on, people. You already have a thread for this. Go over there and leave this one in peace. If you don't think martials need fixing, go over there and make your case.
Well, if you're asking, I've already posted several things over to the thread on what I'd change about PF. Here are some examples that seem relevant here:
1. Get rid of small weapons and 3.5's irritating weapon sizes. Sure, it added an element of simulationism, but it's the only edition that did it and it's a pain the the butt for small characters. PF doesn't need to follow that path.
2. All saves are based on 1/2 HD, even weak ones. Strong saves gets a +2 class bonus added at end. Simplifies multiclassing and boosts weak saves.
6. Pare down the clerical combat buffs
7. Scale the combat feats so they get better with levels
9. Possibly gut the wands entirely into combat-application wands only.
10. Reform SR into bonus to saves rather than all or nothing.
11. Boost evocations by getting rid of dice caps, keep at standard action. Most other spells go to 1 round casting times, particularly the save or sit spells.
13. Give fighters 4 skill points/level. Maybe sorcerers too. Strongly consider some of the skill options in Unchanined like the 2 tiers of skills.
Thinking more about it, I'd also cut down the strength bonuses given by size to pare CMB and CMD down a bit and possibly include some damage with combat maneuvers (maybe half?) so that they provide more benefit in actually ending a fight and are more worthwhile to execute. I'd probably just condense each maneuver chain down to a single feat that scales to include the upper chain benefits.
Overall, one of the biggest problems in the PF game, in my estimation, is magic item creation. PF has taken great strides in enabling mundane characters to craft items too, but I'd probably just cut it down to investment in the relevant craft skill and the item creation feat - if I kept easy item creation at all (I'd be content to ditch it entirely). In 1e and 2e, the random magic item tables were skewed toward expendable potions, expendable scrolls, and martial items and quite far away from wizard-focused items. I run my games embracing that lost principle and I think it should return to the treasure guidelines and random tables.

oldsaxhleel |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

There's no reason to re-work the way spells work, or the way martials work(aside from making them more flexible, "putting the extraordinary back in Ex," etc.)
the only real reason that spellcasters are so powerful is that they can effectively spend a whole bunch of nuke spells whenever they please, particularly at high levels. there are a few reasons for that;
1) spellcasters aren't made to worry about their spell components.
They should. It's a simple change, just make spell component pouches start as empty, and force the spellcasters to fill them. that means the evoker will spend a lot of time in alchemical shops haggling over the price of sulfur, and he's probably going to have a bat familiar because he needs the guano. but more broadly it means that the wizard can't cast Chain Lightning every round, regardless of how many spell slots he has.
2) expanding on 1), more spells should have components. Teleport especially shouldn't be free to cast.
3) require a certain amount of time be spent per spell level to prepare spells. whether it's a wizard reading his spellbook, a cleric praying to his god, or a sorcerer resting and focusing his internal energies, it shouldnt be a matter of simply spending 1 hour after you rest to regain *everything.* require 1 hour per spell level. you might have a hell of a lot of spell slots, but you have to chose which ones to replenish.
4) Clerics dont get their *entire* spell list for free, and wizards don't learn 2 spells for free at each level. Talk with your cleric players, and put together a smaller list of spells that make sense for their cleric, and their god. talk to your wizard players and put together a small list of spells that they already have in their spellbook. possibly one that their old master gave them. they can't cast all of them yet, and it may only stretch up to 3rd level spells, but it limits that massive wall of choice and makes things more personalized. then, for actual spell gains, let both clerics and wizards learn spells from scrolls and spell/prayer books. give the wizard actual *wizard* stuff to do, it's an RPG after all.
in summary; spellcasters get limited on the spells they can cast, can have prepared, and even know, but the spells themselves are just as powerful.
a 9th level wizard *should* be a terrifying foe, if he's prepared. they shouldnt be ground into the dust just to make the martials seem more powerful, just limited so that they can't use their world shattering power every single day. Form of the Dragon seems more 'magical' when the wizard may only be able to cast it once a year, and a cleric casting Implosion will seem more like heavenly wrath when this may be one of the few times you see him cast it.

kyrt-ryder |
kyrt-ryder wrote:We should collaborate on a guide. I have been moving toward spontaneous GMing for a few years now. The most recent campaign in running has been nearly 100% spontaneous. It takes a fair bit of pre-campaign prep AND some intermittent maintainence with particular stat blocks and plot movement, but it has been a very statisfying experience for both me and my players.Kobold Cleaver wrote:I should probably start a thread about spontaneous GMing at some point. It's certainly not the standard way to play but I've always enjoyed it. [And there's nothing in the world I've seen or heard of that provides more player agency than when the players are part and parcel of the events that create adventures and encounters.]kyrt-ryder wrote:That's a weird way to go about it. Nice that it works for you and your group, though.Oh, that explains it. You use published adventures.
I don't even write my adventures or most of my encounters, they're almost all spur of the moment evolved out of the RP with the party.

Kobold Catgirl |

Well, if you're asking, I've already posted several things over to the thread on what I'd change about PF. Here are some examples that seem relevant here:
I'm not saying nothing good's been posted, I'm just saying it's a pain to look it up.
1. Get rid of small weapons and 3.5's irritating weapon sizes. Sure, it added an element of simulationism, but it's the only edition that did it and it's a pain the the butt for small characters. PF doesn't need to follow that path.
Weapon sizes is so inconsequential, though. Removing them hurts martials more than helps them, in light of buffs like enlarge person. Nobody really cares if the longsword does 1d6 instead of 1d8.
6. Pare down the clerical combat buffs
I generally see these being used on the cleric's teammates, honestly. I'm not sure this is a help. Besides, it's the wizard's buffs that are the real problem.
7. Scale the combat feats so they get better with levels
I like this idea, though it'd be pretty challenging. Has anybody actually attempted it yet?
10. Reform SR into bonus to saves rather than all or nothing.
Aren't saves still more-or-less all or nothing? I think SR is much more effective when it requires a separate roll—it helps with the danger of "one bad roll and I'm dead". Being able to turn it off as an immediate action could be handy, though.
11. Boost evocations by getting rid of dice caps, keep at standard action. Most other spells go to 1 round casting times, particularly the save or sit spells.
I do like this. It really forces the casters to lean on the martials for protection, like it's supposed to be. Of course, they'd just summon allies to protect them.
13. Give fighters 4 skill points/level.Maybe sorcerers too.Strongly consider some of the skill options in Unchanined like the 2 tiers of skills.
Seems like common sense to me. Honestly, I think fighters should have better skill points than barbarians—just with different class skills. In 3.5, the idea was that skills were a way to balance out barbarians with fighters. In Pathfinder, though, barbarians are so much better. It'd be good for skills to reflect that a fighter is a competent, trained warrior.
Thinking more about it, I'd also cut down the strength bonuses given by size to pare CMB and CMD down a bit and possibly include some damage with combat maneuvers (maybe half?) so that they provide more benefit in actually ending a fight and are more worthwhile to execute.
I dunno about removing size benefits, but damage with a maneuver could work. Something like Greater Sunder, but for disarms/trips.
There's no reason to re-work the way spells work, or the way martials work(aside from making them more flexible, "putting the extraordinary back in Ex," etc.)
Making all spells require components that they have to haggle and search for is the definition of "reworking". The whole point of teleport, for instance, is that you can cast it even while tied up as long as you can speak*. I'm not saying your ideas are bad, but this would be an enormous change to how spells are treated, just like the casting time.
*Strangle should be an option in a grapple, right alongside Pin.

Fergie |

And as for move and full attack: action economy is a place where martials lose out. If buffing them in this way offends you then you will really hate that I support reducing the penalty on iterative attacks from +20/+15/+10/+5 to either +20/+15/+15/+15 or +20/+18/+16/+14.
(shrugs) There is nothing wrong with +20/+15/+10/+5 OR +20/+18/+16/+14. I think the current system has some elegance to it, and what you are describing is similar enough to the way pathfinder handles natural attacks with primary and secondary attacks which works fairly well. * Anyway, I would be fine with switching to +20/+15/+15/+15.
Move and full attack is TOO MUCH. It creates a WWI no-mans-land when you are are within movement rage of the attacker. You NEED to to be able to avoid/soak massive damage or you will probably get killed. This is worse then the current state of affairs where you can can expect a single attack, then an AoO when you try to move on your turn. Adding things to the game that make you likely to to get one-shotted don't make it more fun.
*It is prone to exploitation from attack stacking and adding powerful effects like smite evil. For example see what adding smiting damage on all seven of the dragons attacks looks like. well worth the +1 to CR from fiendish template.

Fergie |

So you prefer a scenario where the martial moves and gets off one attack... and then the monster opens up with a Full Attack on him?
Me?
I was saying that I wouldn't really mind if pathfinder switched the iterative attack progression to something like the way monsters natural weapon attack works. primary BAB + Str, secondary BAB-5 + half Str.I still say no move and attack without pounce, and pounce should be hard for PCs to use. For example, Barbarian (using a couple of feats/class abilities) pounce attacking with claw/claw/bite at mid-high levels - cool. Some 5th level druid wild shaped as a lion? Nah.

Kirth Gersen |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Quote:Scale the combat feats so they get better with levelsI like this idea, though it'd be pretty challenging. Has anybody actually attempted it yet?
I did a few years ago with "Kirthfinder," and Frank and K did something along those lines (although a bit more more extreme) further back for 3.5, in Races of War.

Freesword |
A conceptual issue just occurred to me.
Against a level appropriate opponent, a martial character is expected to engage in an epic 15 round boxing match.
Against a level appropriate opponent, a caster is expected to nuke it with a single attack.
The characters are literally playing two different games with different sets of rules.

Freesword |
So you prefer a scenario where the martial moves and gets off one attack... and then the monster opens up with a Full Attack on him?
Maybe he's expecting you to kite it. It moves up to you and attacks, you hit it and move away (possibly eating those pesky attacks of opportunity).
I still say no move and attack without pounce, and pounce should be hard for PCs to use. For example, Barbarian (using a couple of feats/class abilities) pounce attacking with claw/claw/bite at mid-high levels - cool. Some 5th level druid wild shaped as a lion? Nah.
Ah, I think I see the problem: pounce is special and if everyone can do it, then it isn't special any more.
Oh, and WWI trench warfare is what we have now. Stationary opponents exchanging full attacks with minimal movement.

Kirth Gersen |

A conceptual issue just occurred to me.
Against a level appropriate opponent, a martial character is expected to engage in an epic 15 round boxing match.
Against a level appropriate opponent, a caster is expected to nuke it with a single attack.
The characters are literally playing two different games with different sets of rules.
That's why, in my example in the spinoff thread, a 17th level gunslinger can unerringly kill targets as fast as he can point his gun and pull the trigger, and the rogue kills the BBEG with one shot, with a dagger. At that level, there should be nobody that can stand up to a martial character in their preferred form of combat except an epic-level monster or another high-level martial. Everyone else just dies.

calicokat |
How do you feel about these feats?:
...
Shadow of the Falcon: Can spend a stamina point to make a Combat Maneuver without provoking.
Personally I feel like opening up the combat maneuver system to that it can be used flexibly and creatively would go a long way toward giving melee martials the tools they need to compete with the spellcasting crowd.
You're already making a big tradeoff choosing a combat maneuver over an attack action. I don't understand why you have to pay so painfully many tolls along the way to use what would otherwise be a great set of options for mixing up melee combat.
I've played a combat maneuver focused fighter and I've played a battlefield control focused sorcerer.
For the sorcerer, all I had to do was pick out the spells and, bam, there it was, battlefield control at my fingertips. Still had all my feats. Still had a slew of other abilities. Could stun, stagger, sicken, fatigue, daze, dazzle, nauseate, deafen, confuse, etc. etc. to my heart's content.
The sheer variety of status effects I could pick from was phenomenal.
The fighter...first, I had to spend pretty much all my feats on combat maneuvers, even with all the extra feats fighters get. Even then, I was restricted in what I could choose to do each turn, didn't have half the impact my sorcerer had, and if I had played the sorcerer first I probably never would have played the fighter.
If I choose to grapple with a fighter, that's it. That's all I'm doing. However long I want the enemy tied up, that's how long I'm grappling.
If I wanted to "grapple" an enemy with my sorcerer, I cast Chains of Light on that enemy from a distance...and I go on to do whatever else I wanna do.
So, yeah. Gimmie combat maneuvers. Gimmie ALL the combat maneuvers. Open the gates. Set them free.
I still wouldn't be that sorcerer, but at least I'd have fun options at my fingertips.

Malwing |

Malwing wrote:How do you feel about these feats?:
...
Shadow of the Falcon: Can spend a stamina point to make a Combat Maneuver without provoking.
Personally I feel like opening up the combat maneuver system to that it can be used flexibly and creatively would go a long way toward giving melee martials the tools they need to compete with the spellcasting crowd.
You're already making a big tradeoff choosing a combat maneuver over an attack action. I don't understand why you have to pay so painfully many tolls along the way to use what would otherwise be a great set of options for mixing up melee combat.
I've played a combat maneuver focused fighter and I've played a battlefield control focused sorcerer.
For the sorcerer, all I had to do was pick out the spells and, bam, there it was, battlefield control at my fingertips. Still had all my feats. Still had a slew of other abilities. Could stun, stagger, sicken, fatigue, daze, dazzle, nauseate, deafen, confuse, etc. etc. to my heart's content.
The sheer variety of status effects I could pick from was phenomenal.
The fighter...first, I had to spend pretty much all my feats on combat maneuvers, even with all the extra feats fighters get. Even then, I was restricted in what I could choose to do each turn, didn't have half the impact my sorcerer had, and if I had played the sorcerer first I probably never would have played the fighter.
If I choose to grapple with a fighter, that's it. That's all I'm doing. However long I want the enemy tied up, that's how long I'm grappling.
If I wanted to "grapple" an enemy with my sorcerer, I cast Chains of Light on that enemy from a distance...and I go on to do whatever else I wanna do.
So, yeah. Gimmie combat maneuvers. Gimmie ALL the combat maneuvers. Open the gates. Set them free.
I still wouldn't be that sorcerer, but at least I'd have fun options at my fingertips.
You'd have fun with the fighter/martial stuff I allow at my table. If you use that feat and improved grapple you end up with a +6 bonus to grapple and still have access to other combat maneuvers for a stamina point. The capstone of that style is a feat that allows you to spend 20 stamina to perform 7 combat maneuvers as a standard action.
@Bandw2; sorry I misunderstood you. So how do you feel about stamina feats such as the ones I described? I find them rather conservative there are builds that can be done around the low level one. I just hope more are put out soon so that it can have as much of a range of effects as Path of War.

Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |

Feats which generate more attacks and generate more damage are the ones martials need the least.
Pretty much ALL the martial classes can deal respectable raw damage. It's pretty much all the other options where they start lacking.
For skills - the only way to make skills strong is to put restrictions on learning them, and/or having MORE of them, not less.
Cross-class severe penalties make people howl, but they make classes with a huge skill list valuable intrinsically. Being totally unable to spend skill points outside your class list would concentrate characters into their specialty skills and stop a lot of toe-stepping. Who cares if the mage gets 12 skill points if he has to spend it on knowledge and craft skills? That's what a mage is SUPPOSED to be good at.
Exclusivity is the core of every caster class...having access to magic others don't have. But everyone has access to all skills, and all feats. That's huge discrimination right there. You want feats and skills to be powerful, you have to restrict them, not open them up.
Or make them exclusive by calling them something other then feats (like, oh, Rage Powers).
Until you get past the huge discrepancy in the valuation of feats and skills vs spellcasting, there will always be disparity.
==Aelryinth

Bandw2 |

calicokat wrote:You'd have fun with the fighter/martial stuff I allow at my table. If you use...Malwing wrote:How do you feel about these feats?:
...
Shadow of the Falcon: Can spend a stamina point to make a Combat Maneuver without provoking.
Personally I feel like opening up the combat maneuver system to that it can be used flexibly and creatively would go a long way toward giving melee martials the tools they need to compete with the spellcasting crowd.
You're already making a big tradeoff choosing a combat maneuver over an attack action. I don't understand why you have to pay so painfully many tolls along the way to use what would otherwise be a great set of options for mixing up melee combat.
I've played a combat maneuver focused fighter and I've played a battlefield control focused sorcerer.
For the sorcerer, all I had to do was pick out the spells and, bam, there it was, battlefield control at my fingertips. Still had all my feats. Still had a slew of other abilities. Could stun, stagger, sicken, fatigue, daze, dazzle, nauseate, deafen, confuse, etc. etc. to my heart's content.
The sheer variety of status effects I could pick from was phenomenal.
The fighter...first, I had to spend pretty much all my feats on combat maneuvers, even with all the extra feats fighters get. Even then, I was restricted in what I could choose to do each turn, didn't have half the impact my sorcerer had, and if I had played the sorcerer first I probably never would have played the fighter.
If I choose to grapple with a fighter, that's it. That's all I'm doing. However long I want the enemy tied up, that's how long I'm grappling.
If I wanted to "grapple" an enemy with my sorcerer, I cast Chains of Light on that enemy from a distance...and I go on to do whatever else I wanna do.
So, yeah. Gimmie combat maneuvers. Gimmie ALL the combat maneuvers. Open the gates. Set them free.
I still wouldn't be that sorcerer, but at least I'd have fun options at my fingertips.
I liked them because they were pretty generic meaning you could use them in interesting ways, just like say create pit.

PIXIE DUST |

Fergie wrote:kyrt-ryder wrote:As for Pounce and Archers? Those are core facets of the game and far less broken than a well-played caster.EVERYTHING is less broken then a well played caster. Pounce is for creatures with natural attacks. I think it is a mistake to give it to things other then animals. Archers are a little overpowered because of the ease of bypassing the drawbacks (cover/concealment) and ease of stacking damage bonuses.I've yet to see Archers broken in actual play [and I tend to play with optimizers.] They do reliable damage yes, but it still takes 2-3 rounds to defeat an encounter. Even a two-handed weapon Leap Attack [using Pathfinder Power Attack], Shock Trooper Pounce is seldom a OHKO except against mook-class opponents.
Quote:kyrt-ryder wrote:I'm not really seeing the massive hp you are talking about. For example, a group of 10th level characters taking on a CR 13 boss monster (APL+3 epic difficulty encounter) only needs to do 180. Seems pretty reasonable for 4-5 PC's to chip through in a handful of rounds.
So far as I can tell, the game was built assuming martials would stand still trading full attacks with their enemies. This seldom works out in practice, but explains the massive piles of HP on the monsters.
You use single boss monsters?
Why???
Any encounter I run typically has 3 or more main opponents [one might be a bit stronger than the others, or it might not] plus dozens of mooks.
Zen Archer Monks are scary... SAD as a martial can get AND they can pretty much snipe you out before you ever even have a chance of getting close to them...

PIXIE DUST |

kyrt-ryder wrote:So you prefer a scenario where the martial moves and gets off one attack... and then the monster opens up with a Full Attack on him?Me?
I was saying that I wouldn't really mind if pathfinder switched the iterative attack progression to something like the way monsters natural weapon attack works. primary BAB + Str, secondary BAB-5 + half Str.I still say no move and attack without pounce, and pounce should be hard for PCs to use. For example, Barbarian (using a couple of feats/class abilities) pounce attacking with claw/claw/bite at mid-high levels - cool. Some 5th level druid wild shaped as a lion? Nah.
So the MAGUS becomes the best swordsman of all time... cool

Malwing |

Feats which generate more attacks and generate more damage are the ones martials need the least.
Pretty much ALL the martial classes can deal respectable raw damage. It's pretty much all the other options where they start lacking.
For skills - the only way to make skills strong is to put restrictions on learning them, and/or having MORE of them, not less.
Cross-class severe penalties make people howl, but they make classes with a huge skill list valuable intrinsically. Being totally unable to spend skill points outside your class list would concentrate characters into their specialty skills and stop a lot of toe-stepping. Who cares if the mage gets 12 skill points if he has to spend it on knowledge and craft skills? That's what a mage is SUPPOSED to be good at.
Exclusivity is the core of every caster class...having access to magic others don't have. But everyone has access to all skills, and all feats. That's huge discrimination right there. You want feats and skills to be powerful, you have to restrict them, not open them up.
Or make them exclusive by calling them something other then feats (like, oh, Rage Powers).
Until you get past the huge discrepancy in the valuation of feats and skills vs spellcasting, there will always be disparity.
==Aelryinth
What's your opinion about a series of feats only available via Bonus Combat Feats (a general sign that a class has a 'studied' martial focus) and better skill unlocks that only the rogue can have?

PIXIE DUST |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

I personally think one of the easiest ways to help martials to collapse the feat chains and let them scale to you without having to get ANOTHER feat.
This will, instead of powering up their numbers, give them MORE OPTIONS. So now the Two Handed Fighter is not just "Dude with a big stick" but instead "A dude with a big stick who can handle himself in hand to hand combat as well with Grapples, Trips, Repositions, Disarms, and a decent shot when the need arises"

Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |

Series of feats are available now.
As it stands, those feats would have to be written up to be the equal of rage powers, and exclusive to the class with the bonus feats, to be viable.
That means they'd have to be twice as strong as they are now, and they'd also have to scale with level. Feat chains, largely shouldn't be. They should just scale.
Synergy between feats should be more common, however. FOr instance, if Expertise affected your Improved Initiative bonus, and increased your Mobility bonus, and/or your Fighter-class skills. Things that independently don't overpower something, but when combined, form a versatile and thorough underpinning for a very well-rounded character.
Skill unlocks are a step in the direction of making skills valuable on their own basis. But unless you restrict them to rogues, experts, and MAYBE fighters, it just means there's one more trick other classes can use, too. And it's deuced hard to justify something like Healing as a Rogue-only skill unlock, or Jump, or whatever.
==Aelryinth

kyrt-ryder |
I do love seeing people talking about collapsing feat chains.
But do you know what's a lot better [and more logical] than scaling feats?
Complete feats! Feats that are actually everything they ever expect to be- the moment you take them- and remain badass and valuable throughout the entirety of your career.
In some cases these complete feats look like a Scaling Feat [Two Weapon Fighting granting an additional off-hand attack every time you get an additional attack to use, Vital Strike's damage increasing every time you gain an Iterative, Power Attack improving with level] while most others simply take full effect as soon as you take them, but have a very strong and meaningful effect.

Aelryinth RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 |

Those are the very definition of scaling feats. But just because a feat scales doesn't make it a good thing...you can have crap scaling feats, too.
So, for 'bonus combat feat' to be viable as a class feature, it has to be as strong as ANY OTHER CLASS FEATURE YOU COULD CHOOSE INSTEAD, such as one of a similar level in another class.
AND, it must scale.
As things stand, they don't do that.
==Aelryinth

kyrt-ryder |
When I said Scaling vs Complete, my point was that- barring cases like Two Weapon Fighting or Vital Strike where they're truly dependent on some facet of level to become more powerful, a Complete Feat just happens.
You take Combat Maneuver Specialist X, you get Improved, you get Greater and you get one additional feat related to that combat maneuver from the PRD, prerequisites [BAB or skill ranks included] be damned.

Malwing |

I personally think one of the easiest ways to help martials to collapse the feat chains and let them scale to you without having to get ANOTHER feat.
This will, instead of powering up their numbers, give them MORE OPTIONS. So now the Two Handed Fighter is not just "Dude with a big stick" but instead "A dude with a big stick who can handle himself in hand to hand combat as well with Grapples, Trips, Repositions, Disarms, and a decent shot when the need arises"
But how do we go about that? I for one am lazy and introduce a lot of powerful third party combat feats so I go about it the way its presented on New Paths Compendium and just condense the high profile combat feats with a direct chain. So far it's worked out for me and its been drastically less paperwork and takes less time to grasp which is important to me. Also I don't like to bother with every premade npc and monster so I tend to let players have it as a 'heroic perk' rather than make it a rule.

PIXIE DUST |

PIXIE DUST wrote:But how do we go about that? I for one am lazy and introduce a lot of powerful third party combat feats so I go about it the way its presented on New Paths Compendium and just condense the high profile combat feats with a direct chain. So far it's worked out for me and its been drastically less paperwork and takes less time to grasp which is important to me. Also I don't like to bother with every premade npc and monster so I tend to let players have it as a 'heroic perk' rather than make it a rule.I personally think one of the easiest ways to help martials to collapse the feat chains and let them scale to you without having to get ANOTHER feat.
This will, instead of powering up their numbers, give them MORE OPTIONS. So now the Two Handed Fighter is not just "Dude with a big stick" but instead "A dude with a big stick who can handle himself in hand to hand combat as well with Grapples, Trips, Repositions, Disarms, and a decent shot when the need arises"
1) Remove PA and Combat Expertise as feats. They should be just basic combat options baked into the game. As they are, they are nothing more than a basic feat tax.
2) Instead of taking "Improved Trip then Greater Trip" you can instead just take say.. Trip Focus. This gives you the benefit of Improved Trip and when your BAB gets to such a point that you would quality for Greater Trip, you get the benefits of Greater Trip for free. Makes it much easier for FIghters to Diversify since they don't need to waste so many feats to do basic things.

Cerberus Seven |

considering how weak all that stuff was, i'm pretty sure you're suffering from the martials can't have nice things, sure it's useful, but that's the point.
they're all pretty much condensed feat lines using stamina, and don't break the game in any way, even when used against you.
They aren't weak. Flash Cut is amazing for an AoO build. That's fine, but you'll notice what I talked about earlier in the thread was giving new options for versatility. Flash Cut is simply more offensive damage dealing, something martials generally don't need. My concern with the second one was about tying it to an attack roll. I regard that as a bit gimicky when just getting a re-roll is simpler, that's all. And yes, getting the more important part of ALL the combat maneuver feats is incredibly powerful, even at one stamina a pop. What we really need is for those feats to be consolidated and simplified as part of an overhaul to the CMB/CMD system. Until then, there's virtually no need for a fighter to take Improved Disarm or Improved Grapple so long as this feat and Combat Stamina are available. If your shiny new thing all but invalidates 90% of the reasons to ever take ten other feats that are a part of the core set of combat options, it's a good sign something went wrong in the design process. Also, none of those resemble combat feat lines from Paizo that I'm aware of.

Bandw2 |

Flash cut actually lets you move a lot more and keep your damage up, and moving in a defensive manner for the party.
it definitely opens up their options.
all the other feats were weak because of how seperated they were, a single feat to remove the AoO is actually worth a feat to someone who isn't an uber maneuver man, as once again it lets him do a much wider variety of things.
you're apparently not aware that they can't "patch" feats, and thus they have to "overwrite" them to bring bad ones up to par.

Bill Dunn |

A conceptual issue just occurred to me.
Against a level appropriate opponent, a martial character is expected to engage in an epic 15 round boxing match.
Against a level appropriate opponent, a caster is expected to nuke it with a single attack.
The characters are literally playing two different games with different sets of rules.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing in the sense that it is good for the game to have ways to shortcut having to whittle through an opponent's hit points in every fight. That was, I think, one of 4e's weaknesses - most things came down to hit point ablation. What the martials could use is a way to access some of those shortcuts themselves like KOs or scaring an enemy off with an intimidating effect. And I think the one-shots that spell casters get now should be made a bit less reliable for full effect (like in 1e/2e) because they are one-shotters. They should work well... when they work, but suffer a lesser chance of such success than ablating hit points.

Bill Dunn |

You wrote:1. Get rid of small weapons and 3.5's irritating weapon sizes. Sure, it added an element of simulationism, but it's the only edition that did it and it's a pain the the butt for small characters. PF doesn't need to follow that path.Weapon sizes is so inconsequential, though. Removing them hurts martials more than helps them, in light of buffs like enlarge person. Nobody really cares if the longsword does 1d6 instead of 1d8.
You ever play a halfling fighter? It doesn't feel very inconsequential because not only are you a die smaller but you're also at -1 on strength modifiers compared to your medium-sized peers.
You wrote:11. Boost evocations by getting rid of dice caps, keep at standard action. Most other spells go to 1 round casting times, particularly the save or sit spells.I do like this. It really forces the casters to lean on the martials for protection, like it's supposed to be. Of course, they'd just summon allies to protect them.
True, they could. But they take time to deploy - adventuring companions are there right away. This is somewhere the full round casting time is already doing its job because of the 1 round casting time of summon monster.

kyrt-ryder |
Kobold Cleaver wrote:You ever play a halfling fighter? It doesn't feel very inconsequential because not only are you a die smaller but you're also at -1 on strength modifiers compared to your medium-sized peers.You wrote:1. Get rid of small weapons and 3.5's irritating weapon sizes. Sure, it added an element of simulationism, but it's the only edition that did it and it's a pain the the butt for small characters. PF doesn't need to follow that path.Weapon sizes is so inconsequential, though. Removing them hurts martials more than helps them, in light of buffs like enlarge person. Nobody really cares if the longsword does 1d6 instead of 1d8.
So are you advocating for scrapping the difference in damage between weapon sizes entirely? A longsword is a longsword and deals d8+modifiers damage regardless whether it was made for and wielded by a halfling or a storm giant?
Because I am totally down with that. I was under the impression you wanted to go back to 3.0's method where halflings and others of similar size couldn't wield two-handed weapons, they could only wield one-handed weapons in two-hands. [I'm not sure what the justification was for arming Titans and Storm GIants and such though... it's possible I've got a few things wrong here, considering I never actually owned or played 3.0 and am speaking second-hand knowledge here]

Kobold Catgirl |

Kobold Cleaver wrote:You ever play a halfling fighter?You wrote:1. Get rid of small weapons and 3.5's irritating weapon sizes. Sure, it added an element of simulationism, but it's the only edition that did it and it's a pain the the butt for small characters. PF doesn't need to follow that path.Weapon sizes is so inconsequential, though. Removing them hurts martials more than helps them, in light of buffs like enlarge person. Nobody really cares if the longsword does 1d6 instead of 1d8.
Quite a few halfling melee fighters, yup (and a slinger). It's -1 damage. Individually, it's kinda close to meaningless. Removing it simply isn't worth what you give up.

Petty Alchemy RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 |

I've played a halfling fighter (into swordlord prestige), Dunn.
Adequate offense with dex to damage, excellent AC with the ability to share half of his fighting defensively with adjacent allies. They were all casters and never stood adjacent to him however, mostly because they could fly (without even using spell slots. The oracle had a revelation, the alchemist had a discovery, the wizard had a school power). Then there were fights in which he couldn't engage the enemy because it was in a bog. It would've taken him maybe 3 rounds to get there in the difficult terrain, or he could charge with a flight spell.
He didn't get the flight spell because the casters had better uses for their actions than getting him into the fray.

Cerberus Seven |

Flash cut actually lets you move a lot more and keep your damage up, and moving in a defensive manner for the party.
it definitely opens up their options.
all the other feats were weak because of how seperated they were, a single feat to remove the AoO is actually worth a feat to someone who isn't an uber maneuver man, as once again it lets him do a much wider variety of things.
you're apparently not aware that they can't "patch" feats, and thus they have to "overwrite" them to bring bad ones up to par.
Flash Cut is all about attacking and damage dealing. The only option it opens up is the option to do more damage (or maybe a disarm or trip maneuver). It's not what martials need.
Yes, as I've stately already, the CMB/CMD system needs to be revamped. The "Improved <insert maneuver name here>" feats are typically either too weak or have nonsensical prereqs or both. The Greater versions, though, are pretty damned awesome. That's the problem: not only will players not want to invest in the Improved maneuver feats (+2 situational CMB/CMD is hardly worth it), but by doing so they'll focus on something besides the cool Greater maneuver versions as well. So now, getting those greater maneuver options hasn't been made any easier and the investment a character needs to put into getting them is even LESS attractive. You've now put a big damned incentive in play AGAINST Greater combat maneuver effects, what with all the other awesome damage dealing and damage avoiding feats that are apparently being released. So while you're not strictly limiting martial versatility and flexibility, you're contributing to the attitude that does. That is why the feat is too powerful and why that's a bad thing.
Paizo actually DOES update, or 'patch', feats on occasion. For example, Rapid Reload after firearms came out. See also Crane Wing (ugh). I imagine one of these days Monkey Lunge is gonna get an errata too *fingers crossed*. So, they do update feats for consistency, clarity, and balance purposes. Of course, they're not going to do this kind of thing here, the established paradigm is to the liking of the designers and things like Unchained will continue to be 'options' rather than rule updates. Just pointing that out.

Kobold Catgirl |

For that matter, show me a 20th level wizard that can manage the same. The answer is... you can't.
Well...no, you're right. Cuchulain, Finn, Heracles and Gilgamesh weren't wizards. They did things wizards couldn't.
But you wanna talk wiping out thousands in seconds? You want to talk creating pocket dimensions, imprisoning an enemy beneath the earth's crust for eternity, creating hordes of undead, ripping mountains to shreds, driving hordes of warriors mad, paralyzing them, or killing them with sheer terror with a single spell? Bypassing an entire fortress full of guards by turning ethereal?*
Wizards are covered by their own set of fantastical staples. Meanwhile, the fighter gets...better crits. And he can't be disarmed. As long as he has his favorite weapon, that is.
*Normally you'd just bomb it into oblivion, but your silly rogue teammate got himself captured trying to sneak in, so you need to save him first. You're too lazy to find a pool to scry in, so you're taking the messy approach.

alexd1976 |

Fighter specific stuff:
As class abilities (NOT FEATS)
1) Ability to stun casters-on a hit, Fort save DC 10+1/2 level+STR or DEX (Fighters choice). If they fail, the caster cannot CAST SPELLS for 1 round! Works in melee or within 30ft if ranged. STR bonus only applies to ranged if weapon allows for STR bonus.
2) Add level to CMB and CMD. Fighter vs Fighter will be even, they will curbstomp everything else.
3) Add level to weapon damage.
4) Increase skills to 8+
Just some ideas... I mean, short of ADDING SPELLS, nothing you do is going to bring them up to caster equivalency anyway...

Bluenose |
Fighter specific stuff:
As class abilities (NOT FEATS)
1) Ability to stun casters-on a hit, Fort save DC 10+1/2 level+STR or DEX (Fighters choice). If they fail, the caster cannot CAST SPELLS for 1 round! Works in melee or within 30ft if ranged. STR bonus only applies to ranged if weapon allows for STR bonus.
2) Add level to CMB and CMD. Fighter vs Fighter will be even, they will curbstomp everything else.
3) Add level to weapon damage.
4) Increase skills to 8+
Just some ideas... I mean, short of ADDING SPELLS, nothing you do is going to bring them up to caster equivalency anyway...
I don't think many people are looking for exact equivalency between fighters and wizards, not in the sense that if the Wizard can Fly then the Fighter has to be able to fly too, and not with a magic item. Rather, it's a sort of 'role' or 'niche' that the class or general group of classes fill, that simply isn't practical to fill with other classes (or class groups). Replacing a warrior-type character with a cleric should make your party weaker in combat, to the point that it's dangerous to do so.
Steps in this direction for the warriors include giving them some codified abilities, things that they can just point at and tell the GM that the ability works like this the way casters point at spells for the same thing. Stances, fighting styles, things that make them different from other warriors and that also aren't something that classes not dedicating themselves to learning cannot got. Conditions they can impose on enemies, whether dazing or stunning or straightforward Save-or-Die abilities - remarkably sticking three feet of steel into a creatures throat only has a chance to be disabling if it's reduced to zero hit points.
For the casters, that means restricting them much more than they are now. 2e Specialist priests or arcane casters like the 3e Beguiler don't have specifically narrower capabilities and step on fewer toes, and it'd still be useful to remove a number of spells from the game too. If that means your priest has to choose between a god that grants a lot of useful healing spells or a god that lets you cast spells to enhance your combat ability or a god that lets you blast enemies with holy fire then you'll need to choose - which should hardly be an RP objection. If becoming a master of illusions and charms means you have to neglect blasting enemies apart or divination, nothing is forcing you to oick that choice, but being Jack of All Trades and Master of All Trades at the same time is not on the table in my version.

Bandw2 |

Bandw2 wrote:Flash cut actually lets you move a lot more and keep your damage up, and moving in a defensive manner for the party.
it definitely opens up their options.
all the other feats were weak because of how seperated they were, a single feat to remove the AoO is actually worth a feat to someone who isn't an uber maneuver man, as once again it lets him do a much wider variety of things.
you're apparently not aware that they can't "patch" feats, and thus they have to "overwrite" them to bring bad ones up to par.
Flash Cut is all about attacking and damage dealing. The only option it opens up is the option to do more damage (or maybe a disarm or trip maneuver). It's not what martials need.
they need new ways to not be reliant on full attacks
Yes, as I've stately already, the CMB/CMD system needs to be revamped. The "Improved <insert maneuver name here>" feats are typically either too weak or have nonsensical prereqs or both. The Greater versions, though, are pretty damned awesome. That's the problem: not only will players not want to invest in the Improved maneuver feats (+2 situational CMB/CMD is hardly worth it), but by doing so they'll focus on something besides the cool Greater maneuver versions as well. So now, getting those greater maneuver options hasn't been made any easier and the investment a character needs to put into getting them is even LESS attractive. You've now put a big damned incentive in play AGAINST Greater combat maneuver effects, what with all the other awesome damage dealing and damage avoiding feats that are apparently being released. So while you're not strictly limiting martial versatility and flexibility, you're contributing to the attitude that does. That is why the feat is too powerful and why that's a bad thing.
except you only would get those feats if you were focusing maneuvering, this feat is for the generic fighter who wants to try to trip someone if it might be advantageous, or use dirty trick, or sunder, or what have you. As it is now, you only ever try to them if you have enough AC where the AoO doesn't matter, or you have one of these feats for the specific ability that is useful. let me put it this way, how many times have you tried a reposition maneuver? because i haven't because im not wasting a feat on it, and if I don't have to worry about the AoO then the enemy probably just needs to be full rounded.
Paizo actually DOES update, or 'patch', feats on occasion. For example, Rapid Reload after firearms came out. See also Crane Wing (ugh). I imagine one of these days Monkey Lunge is gonna get an errata too *fingers crossed*. So, they do update feats for consistency, clarity, and balance purposes. Of course, they're not going to do this kind of thing here, the established paradigm is to the liking of the designers and things like Unchained will continue to be 'options' rather than rule updates. Just pointing that out.
okay sure yeah, they can update a feat to include new things they can release, they cannot however, replace 8 or so feats with a single new feat. Its just like how they made the slayer and investigator rather than actually updating the rogue.

Entryhazard |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Let the martials do crazy things at higher levels and acknowledge their extraordinary durability.
"realism" is a straightjacket that forces them into being more boring after level 6 or so. And anything fantastic is refuted as "giving magic to martials". It does need to be that way.
We can just have that creatures in these fantastical worlds have a training limit that is far far higher than the one of the real world.
We have Cu Chulainn (from western myth) and Mihawk (from eastern fantasy) that can level mountains with one blow without magical aid in their respective settings, while a Level 20 Fighter has an hard time busting doors or breaking walls or jumping down roofs. And some here make a point at killing those L20 Fighters when they fall from more than 20 feet or so.

alexd1976 |

Let the martials do crazy things at higher levels and acknowledge their extraordinary durability.
"realism" is a straightjacket that forces them into being more boring after level 6 or so. And anything fantastic is refuted as "giving magic to martials". It does need to be that way.
We can just have that creatures in these fantastical worlds have a training limit that is far far higher than the one of the real world.
We have Cu Chulainn (from western myth) and Mihawk (from eastern fantasy) that can level mountains with one blow without magical aid in their respective settings, while a Level 20 Fighter has an hard time busting doors or breaking walls or jumping down roofs. And some here make a point at killing those L20 Fighters when they fall from more than 20 feet or so.
Regarding the falling... that would involve HEAVY houseruling. A fighter can fall from 200ft up and likely walk away from it...
If my GM declared a 20ft fall as fatal to my level 3+fighter, I would hand him my character sheet, poop in his shoes and walk out.

Entryhazard |

Regarding the falling... that would involve HEAVY houseruling. A fighter can fall from 200ft up and likely walk away from it...
If my GM declared a 20ft fall as fatal to my level 3+fighter, I would hand him my character sheet, poop in his shoes and walk out.
Yes, the rules state that falling damage caps at 20d6 (terminal velocity kicks in) and thus most high level character can survive that and have a decent amount of hp left.
Yet some users here almost hate this, and state that should be impossible for humanoids to survive that in the game without explicitly magical aid.
Despite that for the same individuals the Fighter taking a fire blast from a Red Dragon in the face and survive is totally acceptable, despite the fact that the rules themselves state that that stuff is so hot that melts stone into LAVA.

alexd1976 |

alexd1976 wrote:Regarding the falling... that would involve HEAVY houseruling. A fighter can fall from 200ft up and likely walk away from it...
If my GM declared a 20ft fall as fatal to my level 3+fighter, I would hand him my character sheet, poop in his shoes and walk out.
Yes, the rules state that falling damage caps at 20d6 (terminal velocity kicks in) and thus most high level character can survive that and have a decent amount of hp left.
Yet some users here almost hate this, and state that should be impossible for humanoids to survive that in the game without explicitly magical aid.
Despite that for the same individuals the Fighter taking a fire blast from a Red Dragon in the face and survive is totally acceptable, despite the fact that the rules themselves state that that stuff is so hot that melts stone into LAVA.
Did you mean to say 200ft in your initial post?
Cause that would make more sense. Arbitrary death at 20ft isn't even realistic... people survive that all the time IRL. :D

Entryhazard |

Entryhazard wrote:Yes, the rules state that falling damage caps at 20d6 (terminal velocity kicks in) and thus most high level character can survive that and have a decent amount of hp left.
Yet some users here almost hate this, and state that should be impossible for humanoids to survive that in the game without explicitly magical aid.
Despite that for the same individuals the Fighter taking a fire blast from a Red Dragon in the face and survive is totally acceptable, despite the fact that the rules themselves state that that stuff is so hot that melts stone into LAVA.
Did you mean to say 200ft in your initial post?
Cause that would make more sense. Arbitrary death at 20ft isn't even realistic... people survive that all the time IRL. :D
My point about taking the dragon fire in the face still stands tho
"nobody could survive that!" and being level 20, legendary and all suddenly means nothing
(Also, there are documented cases of people surviving terminal velocity falls. Of course they stayed to the hospital for months after that, but now we can let a freakin' Level 20 character just have minor wounds please?)