If we were to "fix" the system so martials do "get nice things", what would we do?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 938 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

Chengar Qordath wrote:
oldsaxhleel wrote:

Ok, I'll bite.

I'm assuming an intensified, maximized, and empowered fireball cast by a Orc/Draconic crossblooded halforc with the APG favored class bonus for +1/2 pt fire damage?
and you're getting that out of a 3rd level slot how? to my knowledge, there is no incantatrix twin in PF, and no way to gouge out free metamagic beyond magical lineage, wayang, and spell perfection, and that only gets you maximized and intensified for free, max, making that a 5th level spell slot at least.

Metamagic Rod, I'd assume.

you can only use 1 metamagic rod per spell, and the dazing effect was also included in the list of effects.


oldsaxhleel wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
oldsaxhleel wrote:

Ok, I'll bite.

I'm assuming an intensified, maximized, and empowered fireball cast by a Orc/Draconic crossblooded halforc with the APG favored class bonus for +1/2 pt fire damage?
and you're getting that out of a 3rd level slot how? to my knowledge, there is no incantatrix twin in PF, and no way to gouge out free metamagic beyond magical lineage, wayang, and spell perfection, and that only gets you maximized and intensified for free, max, making that a 5th level spell slot at least.

Metamagic Rod, I'd assume.
you can only use 1 metamagic rod per spell, and the dazing effect was also included in the list of effects.

Pretty sure he was also using Spell Perfection

As well as the two traits, each of which can only be applied to a spell of 3rd level or less, but reduce the total metamagic cost when metamagicing that spell by one level per trait. So that's one free metamagic feat, two free metamagic adjusted levels, and a metamagic rod slot.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
oldsaxhleel wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:
oldsaxhleel wrote:

Ok, I'll bite.

I'm assuming an intensified, maximized, and empowered fireball cast by a Orc/Draconic crossblooded halforc with the APG favored class bonus for +1/2 pt fire damage?
and you're getting that out of a 3rd level slot how? to my knowledge, there is no incantatrix twin in PF, and no way to gouge out free metamagic beyond magical lineage, wayang, and spell perfection, and that only gets you maximized and intensified for free, max, making that a 5th level spell slot at least.

Metamagic Rod, I'd assume.
you can only use 1 metamagic rod per spell, and the dazing effect was also included in the list of effects.

Pretty sure he was also using Spell Perfection

As well as the two traits, each of which can only be applied to a spell of 3rd level or less, but reduce the total metamagic cost when metamagicing that spell by one level per trait. So that's one free metamagic feat, two free metamagic adjusted levels, and a metamagic rod slot.

Spell perfection nets you the maximize or dazing(both are +3 level)

Magical Lineage and Wayang together get you Empower(a +2 level metamagic)
that leaves you with either Max or dazing, and Intensify. you can knock out the first with a rod a few times a day, but you still have a metamagic feat unaccounted for.


I want to reiterate a question I asked earlier just so I don't need to make a new thread about it; With the consideration of Pathfinder Unchained and the options from hardcovers, what classes are actually underpowered in this discussion?

Cavalier hasn't been a part of this discussion. Barbarian seems to be an exception and I haven't heard anyone complain about the 4/9 casters. Similarly I never hear bad things about the Slayer and the Gunslinger is often the center of the subject of whether or not it's overpowered or whether or not guns are overpowered. I've seen Monk vs Brawler arguments but not conclusive ones. It seems the list is limited to Fighter, Monk, Rogue, and Swashbuckler with Brawler and Cavalier as 'maybe's.


Cavalier isn't part of this discussion because Cavalier is so rarely played. I imagine it's just a hair above fighter, literally within spitting distance.

Barbarian and Paladin and Ranger are all way better off than the rest of the martials, but they still fall horribly short of full casters.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Cavalier isn't part of this discussion because Cavalier is so rarely played. I imagine it's just a hair above fighter, literally within spitting distance.

Barbarian and Paladin and Ranger are all way better off than the rest of the martials, but they still fall horribly short of full casters.

For the purpose of argument lets say that Inquisitor is the desired comparison rather than Wizards. Mostly because that range extends to the realm of brokeness rather than usefulness and for my purposes all my players suck at playing full casters to the extent discussed on the boards.


I like Cavalier. It's fun and you get to charge things for a ton of multiplied damage and you crit big, and you can get cool mounts...

and it's mostly a wasted effort. Unless you're one of those Emissary Cavaliers who jump off the 'horse' and fight alongside it like a Hunter, you're just a Fighter with a shtick that takes up 4 squares. Like I said, I enjoy charging headlong into everything we see and forcing my party to deal with it, but it's just another way to be a beatstick.


DominusMegadeus wrote:

I like Cavalier. It's fun and you get to charge things for a ton of multiplied damage and you crit big, and you can get cool mounts...

and it's mostly a wasted effort. Unless you're one of those Emissary Cavaliers who jump off the 'horse' and fight alongside it like a Hunter, you're just a Fighter with a shtick that takes up 4 squares. Like I said, I enjoy charging headlong into everything we see and forcing my party to deal with it, but it's just another way to be a beatstick.

Daring Champion though. Oh hell yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_Blake wrote:

I'm not saying Pathfinder is broken. Far from it. I like the group dynamic and think a good GM can make wonderful challenges for a FULL PARTY even though there is power and/or utility "tier" disparity between the individuals of that party.

But, if we wanted to rig the system to smooth out that disparity, what changes would we make?

Can we do it without turning every martial class into into weird magus/jedi/ninja/wizards?

utility "tier" disparity between the individuals of that party.

But, if we wanted to rig the system to smooth out that disparity, what changes would we make?

Can we do it without turning every martial class into into weird magus/jedi/ninja/wizards?

First of all we need to not thank the people who brought about the idea of tier disparaity. The wizard was always suppose to have more utility than the fighter. A lot of casters will tell you early levels are dominated by fighters and unless they make that color spray cone or sleep spell & catch a few creatures they don't feel useful in combat. Of course combat isn't the only measure of utility but that largely depends on what kind of campaign you are playing. Of course some people don't like or necessarily understand support characters either. Giving a monk mage armor is one of the best things a lvl 1 wizard can do to contribute to the party. Enlarge person does a great deal of damage because it gives that 2 handed barbarian reach, allowing him to essentially make attacks of opportunity as the enemy closes. If wizards were always support characters and never did big damage or good aoe damage what would people say then? Let's leave that thought for now. In addition, if you look at core only...you'll quickly notice wizards, druids, and clerics have specific types of spells alotted to them. As time went on writers intergrated more spells belonging to each. Giving druids more evocation, wizards a way to heal with archetypes, and ect...I challenge everyone to just look at the core spells pathfinder laid out and you'll see clear defined roles. Clerics took on almost a pure support role. Druids were a mix but had great battle field control. Eventually, economic goals or requires pushed this to the side or piazo went into a different direction. It's a company, their purpose is to make money along with making a quality product. Piazo seemed to have left this idea in the dust and spell lists started running together. Your next issue is skills. Look at how many are covered under STR/DEX/CON/INT/WIS/CHA and you'll quickly see where the utility is. If you read this far you might be asking yourself Noctani what are you getting at.

I'm saying Pathfinder needs to be scaled down.

There are too many spell choices and GM's should limit the number of books players have access to. Just like the read world knowledge that is readily available should be limited and this makes finding that new spell scroll all that more exciting or going to the magic shop that much better for wizards. Divine casters should be equally limited. Have low level casters cap out at two and mid level casters cap out at 4. Next have full progression casters cap out at lvl 7 spells. All spells with a power of 8+ are moved or used in mythic levels...ect...
Second CAP out raw stats to 17 with the racial bonus.

The next problem is ranged combat. Low level characters with little strength feel completely useless. Take out the penalty to firing into melee if within thirty feet. That way the wizard with a crossbow can feel decent when he runs out of spells and the two handed fighter is still destroying everything.
Next is Piazo needs to take a good look at equipment and perhaps even create a few new items and give martial characters proficiency. A grappling hook is an exotic weapon? I mean really? I was in the army and part of the training was learning to climb. You shouldn't need to spend a feat for this one thing. All the mundane crazy good fighters...weren't good fighters because they had magic or some anime ability. Batman as a tool kit...if they are invisible throw a smoke bomb and see where the smoke is blocked; throw some flour. Fighters were good because they were smart. Where this breaks down somewhat in game is pathfinder counts wealth towards CR. The fighter can have a weapon for most situations but they aren't going to be those epic weapons. He only has 1 of those. Two at best.
Next is skills. Skills need to be consolidated like 5E and this would change the amount of skill points classes receive.
Wizards have spells to get around things easily. Mundanes should get equipment that helps them get around things but not as easily as magic. Well, those are my two cents...and when I say fighter I just mean non-casting classes or the ones with weak progressions.

Casting classes need to be reworked. It's not bad that the wizard can transform into a dragon, the problem is that he didn't pay for it by limiting him to transmutation spells only. The problem is that he can still cast from everything else. The problem isn't that the druid can wildshape and have a better AC than the paladin. The problem is he has almost an unlimited option unless the GM controls it. GM's need to control it and I think piazo should endorse that. Piazo makes great products...what we do at our table is up to us.


chaoseffect wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:

I like Cavalier. It's fun and you get to charge things for a ton of multiplied damage and you crit big, and you can get cool mounts...

and it's mostly a wasted effort. Unless you're one of those Emissary Cavaliers who jump off the 'horse' and fight alongside it like a Hunter, you're just a Fighter with a shtick that takes up 4 squares. Like I said, I enjoy charging headlong into everything we see and forcing my party to deal with it, but it's just another way to be a beatstick.

Daring Champion though. Oh hell yes.

...is also a beatstick, just an agile one instead of a strog one.

Samurai is slightly better. Resolve really helps a lot.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
Technically, it already did. It's called ToB/Psionics.
Much as I love ToB and Psionics (and much prefer them to the core classes' design), I think completely redoing the magic system and all the classes doesn't exactly qualify as a "quick and simple" fix.

It qualifies as quick and simple, since you don't need to completely redo anything. You just google the pfsrd and done. All the work done for you.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Bandw2 wrote:
hmm? i thought we ANIMATED the corpse, and they had no soul...

PF, it has a spark of the original soul, hence why you can make undead out of the unwilling with the unwilling's memories. And they will always be evil.

Also why you can't raise/resurrect them once animated. They're 'not dead' anymore.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, you can just remove alignment from the game... fixes tonnes of issues.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
Also, you can just remove alignment from the game... fixes tonnes of issues.

been using loyalty since unchained, paladins are fun now ;-;


Bandw2 wrote:
been using loyalty since unchained, paladins are fun now ;-;

I was fun being able to shout Smite Terrorist! at my enemies.


Ancient Black Dragon wrote:
Freesword wrote:

Also let them move and full attack. Casters can do huge amounts of damage or even bypass hp altogether as a standard action and still move 30 feet. Martials don't need to be penalized in the action economy.

Yessss! Let's all move and full attack, that will be fun!

Casts haste for 230' fly speed and 8 attacks per round...

More seriously, move and full attack makes martial characters overpowered for their APL/CR. It creates more problems then it fixes.

This has not been my experience. I've used Full Attack as a standard action since 3.5. It doesn't result in overpowered martials, just ones that don't have to pretend they're trees.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Scythia wrote:
Ancient Black Dragon wrote:
Freesword wrote:

Also let them move and full attack. Casters can do huge amounts of damage or even bypass hp altogether as a standard action and still move 30 feet. Martials don't need to be penalized in the action economy.

Yessss! Let's all move and full attack, that will be fun!

Casts haste for 230' fly speed and 8 attacks per round...

More seriously, move and full attack makes martial characters overpowered for their APL/CR. It creates more problems then it fixes.

This has not been my experience. I've used Full Attack as a standard action since 3.5. It doesn't result in overpowered martials, just ones that don't have to pretend they're trees.

Am I not the only one that has named martial characters after sacred celtic trees?

I've had Ash, Elder, and Yew (Yew was in text game, I imagine it would have been confusing verbally).


But what about Rowan? Especially the cultivars that have been bred for pleasant fruit...


I dislike full-attack as a standard action because I want pounce to mean something.
But I don't want pounce to mean nearly as much as it does.

Eventually I reached a compromise:
--At BAB +6, you get an extra move action every round in addition to your normal actions.
--A 'full round action' takes one standard and one move action. Spells with a casting time of 'one round' still consume a full round (E.g., the 3.5 versions of summoning spells, which I strongly suggest you use. 'Course I suggest using 3.5 over PF for everything except polymorph and 0th level spells.)

Hence, if your BAB is +6 or higher, you can triple move. Or you can move and full attack. Or you can double move and single attack.
([ooc]This change makes Spring Attack near useless, so I rewrote it, and made it part of a scaling feat encompassing Revised Spring Attack, Mobility, and Dodge)


Pounce DOES mean something with Full Attack as a Standard Action.

You can pounce from twice as far away as you can Full Attack. That's a pretty big deal. [Also Pounce gives you an extra +2 to hit and if-lancing-and/or-Spirited-Charging multiplies the first hit's damage.]

EDIT: psssst, Pathfinder Summon Monster/Animal is still a 1 round casting.


Deranged_Maniac_Ben wrote:

I dislike full-attack as a standard action because I want pounce to mean something.

But I don't want pounce to mean nearly as much as it does.

Eventually I reached a compromise:
--At BAB +6, you get an extra move action every round in addition to your normal actions.
--A 'full round action' takes one standard and one move action. Spells with a casting time of 'one round' still consume a full round (E.g., the 3.5 versions of summoning spells, which I strongly suggest you use. 'Course I suggest using 3.5 over PF for everything except polymorph and 0th level spells.)

Hence, if your BAB is +6 or higher, you can triple move. Or you can move and full attack. Or you can double move and single attack.
([ooc]This change makes Spring Attack near useless, so I rewrote it, and made it part of a scaling feat encompassing Revised Spring Attack, Mobility, and Dodge)

To me, invalidating one very niche ability in order to make the rest of the game better is an acceptable trade. I like a game where not every mobile warrior has to be a beast totem barbarian. There are several other totems.


Ssalarn wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Give 20th level wizards the typical power of a 5th level caster in the current system.
Yeah, I was hoping for something more along the lines of "Here's a couple quick house-rules..." and not quite so much "Here's how to destroy half of the CRB and 2/3 of all the Advanced Guides and 3/4 of all the Bestiaries..."

If it was that easy, someone probably would have already done it.

Its a fundamental problem with the system. I wouldn't hold out for any "quick fix".

If one assumes that the game is supposed to start out "Lord of the Rings" and eventually be "Naruto: Shippuden" (which if you're a 2/3 or full caster, it does), then the issue is less the system itself and more that there is a fundamental disconnect in the way the game currently values at-will and limited use abilities that causes characters with exclusively at-will or "always on" options (primarily feats) to never be able to ascend out of the Lord of the Rings phase.

Not necessarily "Naruto" as it is "Mythology/Folklore". A 12+ level Martial should be able to hack down trees with a single swing of his axe, tunnel through mountains with nothing more than a pair of hammers, hurl boulders like a giant, hurl a dagger across a river and hit his target between the eyes, tame any animal through sheer force of will, or swat away/slash through spells with his blade. Not through magic or magic items, but just because he's that badass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Right now martials can move and do one attack or full attack while casters can cast and move as much as they want.
How about a rule that gives casters two option for casting: Use a standard action for 1/2 CL* casts or a full round action for full CL casts. That doesn't help with quadratic vs. linear but at least both have to "pay" for moving.

minimum 1*


Petty Alchemy wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Ancient Black Dragon wrote:
Freesword wrote:

Also let them move and full attack. Casters can do huge amounts of damage or even bypass hp altogether as a standard action and still move 30 feet. Martials don't need to be penalized in the action economy.

Yessss! Let's all move and full attack, that will be fun!

Casts haste for 230' fly speed and 8 attacks per round...

More seriously, move and full attack makes martial characters overpowered for their APL/CR. It creates more problems then it fixes.

This has not been my experience. I've used Full Attack as a standard action since 3.5. It doesn't result in overpowered martials, just ones that don't have to pretend they're trees.

Am I not the only one that has named martial characters after sacred celtic trees?

I've had Ash, Elder, and Yew (Yew was in text game, I imagine it would have been confusing verbally).

Daniel Jackson: "Don't. Every joke. Every variation. Done to death."


Aelryinth wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Cavall wrote:
Just end the 8 minute day. Problem solved.
Wizard: What my Bloody Skeletons can keep going, why are you slacking off Fighters? Is your HP really such an important resource? We shouldn't have to stop just cause you are out of resources, I say we keep going.
I love how no NPCs ever question the person who cast an obviously evil spell, and the other party members just accept him doing it.

lord don't make this an alignment discussion

because there's nothing inherently evil about using undead minions, except maybe in that you desecrate a corpse.

Sorry, in PF animating undead involves recalling a spark of their soul, enslaving it, and then infusing it with negative energy in a torturous manner while binding it to servitude.

Yes, quite evil in PF.

==Aelryinth

Humor me here. Show me the text in a rulebook that states that this is a case because I've never been able to find it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Yes, quite evil in PF.

==Aelryinth

Humor me here. Show me the text in a rulebook that states that this is a case because I've never been able to find it.

There isn't one. It's another one of those unwritten rules the design team is supposed to follow when creating new mechanics.

It's been extrapolated by the fact that every single undead creature in the game is evil, including the mindless ones. That means that even though a skeleton is mindless, when uncontrolled it will mindlessly do evil things. You don't have to commend a skeleton to kill things. You have to command it not to, or at least carefully clarify it's choices of targets.

The only exception to the "undead are always evil" rule is the Ghost, which is almost always evil. I think there's been one fairly unique non-evil undead in an adventure path.

James Jacobs has been quoted stating that all undead are inherently evil in Golarion.

It's part of the setting whether we like it or not. Luckily it's a pretty easy thing to house rule if you feel that mindless things can't have an alignment other than neutral.

Personally, I find either to be valid, depending on the tone you want to set for your campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:


Fergie wrote:

...

  • Consider crafted items the same as purchased when determining Wealth By Level.
    ...
  • This is a terrible idea.

    The reason why is that when a wizard crafts themselves a new cloak you cut back incoming wealth for the whole party. This effectively means that when the wizard spends 500gp making a 1000gp cloak, you as the GM take out 125gp from the treasure that the wizard would receive, and 375 gp for the other 3 players. The wizard is still ahead, since 625<1000, but the fighter and rogue are down 125gp through no fault of their own. You literally hand some players a tool to give themselves an unequal share of the treasure. Even worse, in character the other characters lose nothing, since in universe what someone does in their spare time has no impact on the amount of pocket change the orcs down the road have. Unless you as the GM plan to order players and their PCs to distribute loot a fair way instead of splitting it how they want to, which can vary from group to group but almost always consists of "everyone gets a fair share", which goes against what you want to accomplish....

    Bold added by Fergie.

    You are getting it backwards. The current item creation feats are "the tools to give themselves an unequal share of the treasure". The rules encourage a wizard* to have about 125% - 175% WBL once you pass the mid levels. Considering wizard is probably the most powerful class in the game already, increasing that characters power with items is detrimental to the balance of the game.

    (* or other caster, but wizards get the feats almost free, and have the whopping Int to pass any spellcraft checks)

    Snowblind wrote:
    It seems that a lot of people tend to assume that WBL has some mechanical significance. It doesn't. It is a GM tool and an assumption of the CR system. Players don't have to know about it, don't have to care about it, and most certainly don't have to try to abide by it. That's the GM's problem, if they even want to follow it themselves (not following it creates issues with the system math, but nonetheless it is still just a guideline).

    I understand that WBL is a guideline, but a characters wealth = magic items = individual power in Pathfinder. Giving the casters more wealth/items/power is the opposite of balancing the game. When the GM looks at an individual characters WBL it is to determine his power level within the CR system. If a character is 50% ahead of where he should be, that character has too much stuff, and having spent a bonus feat or two on craft wondrous item and craft wand are an insignificant price to pay for all that additional power.

    I personally would make all item crafting more difficult, make martials able to effectively craft weapons/armor, and remove the economic incentive from crafting. Crafting should be something you do to get the item you want, not have more then everyone else in the group.


    Fergie wrote:


    You are getting it backwards. The current item creation feats are "the tools to give themselves an unequal share of the treasure". The rules encourage a wizard* to have about 125% - 175% WBL once you pass the mid levels. Considering wizard is probably the most powerful class in the game already, increasing that characters power with items is detrimental to the balance of the game.

    But the proposed fix won't address that.


    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    Fergie wrote:
    But the proposed fix won't address that.
    "I personally would make all item crafting more difficult, make martials able to effectively craft weapons/armor, and remove the economic incentive from crafting. Crafting should be something you do to get the item you want, not have more then everyone else in the group."

    I would propose crafting an item costs close to full price.

    EDIT: Note that according the the current rules (See Spoiler below), when the wizard crafts the fighter a magic item, that item is treated as market price when calculating the fighters WBL. When the wizard makes himself the same item, it is 1/2 WBL.
    I don't think it should matter who made what when calculating WBL.

    Crafting and WBL FAQ:
    PC Wealth By Level: If a PC has an item crafting feat, does a crafted item count as its Price or its Cost?

    It counts as the item's Cost, not the Price. This comes into play in two ways.

    If you're equipping a higher-level PC, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise the character isn't getting any benefit for having the feat. Of course, the GM is free to set limits in equipping the character, such as "no more than 40% of your wealth can be used for armor" (instead of the "balanced approach" described on page 400 where the PC should spend no more than 25% on armor).

    If you're looking at the party's overall wealth by level, you have to count crafted items at their Cost. Otherwise, if you counted crafted items at their Price, the crafting character would look like she had more wealth than appropriate for her level, and the GM would have to to bring this closer to the target gear value by reducing future treasure for that character, which means eventually that character has the same gear value as a non-crafting character--in effect neutralizing any advantage of having that feat at all.


    Bandw2 wrote:
    i'm keeping this

    Feel free to steal as much of my stuff as you like. Houstonderek noted that Paizo has already ripped off some of it for Unchained.

    A lot of what I posted for the ranger and rogue, in Orfamay's challenge thread, is already there.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Bandw2 wrote:
    i'm keeping this

    Feel free to steal as much of my stuff as you like. Houstonderek noted that Paizo has already ripped off some of it for Unchained.

    A lot of what I posted for the ranger and rogue, in Orfamay's challenge thread, is already there.

    So has that site actually been updated with the current rules?


    kyrt-ryder wrote:
    So has that site actually been updated with the current rules?

    No, they're still the Beta -- close enough to get an idea of where they were headed, but not where the "final" October 2012 rules were.


    bypassing a ton of posts, and possibly missing stuff already said,:

    a)give EX abilities of higher levels the oomph of high tier spells
    b)repeat a

    p.e.:
    general feat:
    perfect kill (EX)
    prerequisites: bab +16
    rules text:
    Creatures you kill become impossible to be raised except by miracle or wish. If miracle or wish is used to raise them, the caster needs to roll a caster level check (DC:10+bab+str/dex whichever is higher), if succesful, the target is raised but permantly reduce all of his stats by 2

    combat feat:
    follow through/karma (SU)
    prerequisites: bab +15, dimension door (or abudant step and etc)
    fluff text:
    your hits follow through the astral plane, hitting any incarnations of the target.
    rules text:
    if your target is in any way connected with another creature, or derived from another creature (like a clone or a simulacrum or a blood contracted devil and etc) then any damage your target suffers from your hits the original body suffers it too.

    those seem equal in power to the most prestigious 9th level spells

    but give a bit of high level options (bab 14+) for martials that equal in power to the best 8th and 9th level spells, and give a few options for mid-high level martials (bab 9+) that equal in power to stuff like teleport, overland flight and etc and you get a good power up.

    they don't really need to be godly number wise, just giving them UNIQUE (i.e. not replicate existing spells) options that only they can do to give them some utility.

    p.e.
    crushing blow
    prerequisites: bab +11, weapon focus in a blunt weapon
    rules text: as a standard action make a melee attack roll with a blunt weapon you have weapon focus with. That attack does no damage but if the target fails a fort saving throw (dc=the attack roll) he is stunned for 1d4+1 rounds or until he is hit with an attack. You are excausted afterwards. This stun bypasses any immunities to stun the target might have.


    Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Bandw2 wrote:
    i'm keeping this

    Feel free to steal as much of my stuff as you like. Houstonderek noted that Paizo has already ripped off some of it for Unchained.

    A lot of what I posted for the ranger and rogue, in Orfamay's challenge thread, is already there.

    where's the actual rules on the WBL mojo? equipment? i told my player's about it and they seem interested, though one of them doesn't like the idea of randomly making magic items, i'm wondering if i had it all codified it would make him understand it more.


    Squirrel_Dude wrote:
    Aelryinth wrote:
    Bandw2 wrote:
    Caineach wrote:
    Anzyr wrote:
    Cavall wrote:
    Just end the 8 minute day. Problem solved.
    Wizard: What my Bloody Skeletons can keep going, why are you slacking off Fighters? Is your HP really such an important resource? We shouldn't have to stop just cause you are out of resources, I say we keep going.
    I love how no NPCs ever question the person who cast an obviously evil spell, and the other party members just accept him doing it.

    lord don't make this an alignment discussion

    because there's nothing inherently evil about using undead minions, except maybe in that you desecrate a corpse.

    Sorry, in PF animating undead involves recalling a spark of their soul, enslaving it, and then infusing it with negative energy in a torturous manner while binding it to servitude.

    Yes, quite evil in PF.

    ==Aelryinth

    Humor me here. Show me the text in a rulebook that states that this is a case because I've never been able to find it.
    Raise Dead wrote:
    A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be raised by this spell.

    Resurrection requires the undead to have been destroyed

    resurrection wrote:
    You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.

    Therefore, something is preventing the soul from returning to the body because the person has been animated.


    Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

    I just always took that to be because his allotted mortal coil was in use. nothing to do with souls.


    Bandw2 wrote:
    where's the actual rules on the WBL mojo? equipment? i told my player's about it and they seem interested, though one of them doesn't like the idea of randomly making magic items, i'm wondering if i had it all codified it would make him understand it more.

    Equipment. Scroll past the weapons section (all weapons have simple, martial, and exotic proficiency uses, btw). There are price structures and stuff for custom items (which have since been refined and hard-coded with an order-of-operations approach, but what's there should get you started). There's also a bunch of explanatory text that might help.

    Explain it this way: instead of just hoping that you leave them loot they want, or trading unwanted stuff for money and so on and then buying the stuff they want, we save a lot of time by instead having them tell you what magic loot they find, within clearly-defined guidelines. It's an intentional shifting of creativity from the DM (who has enough to do already) to the players.


    Bandw2 wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Bandw2 wrote:
    i'm keeping this

    Feel free to steal as much of my stuff as you like. Houstonderek noted that Paizo has already ripped off some of it for Unchained.

    A lot of what I posted for the ranger and rogue, in Orfamay's challenge thread, is already there.

    where's the actual rules on the WBL mojo? equipment? i told my player's about it and they seem interested, though one of them doesn't like the idea of randomly making magic items, i'm wondering if i had it all codified it would make him understand it more.

    You can also request a copy of the updated rules in the Kirthfinder thread and someone will probably send you one. The Beta rules are pretty good, but there's been a lot of cleaning up done for the later versions, especially the organization.


    <<posted on the other thread, may have been in the wrong place, so cross-posting here as well.>>

    I'd think a class ability that makes the target more resistant to magic would go a long way. Whether it is sheer perseverance, understanding/seeing the flow of magic and moving out of its way or any other sort of handwaving, the idea is the same: the martial becomes more resistant to magic baked into the class.

    Further that with feats to amplify that ability and magical attacks become something to be watched for, but not a game ender.

    Grant various classes ways to disrupt magical fields, reflect/deflect types of magical attacks, kick summoned beings back to where they came from and in general have ways to make spell casters more wary to engage them with the usual tactics.


    A simple fix, if not total, for Fighters is to allow them some reshuffling of Fighter Bonus feats when they pick up a new Fighter Bonus feat. At my table, Human Fighters can do this every Level.

    If it matters, when we instituted this rule some 4-5 years ago, we suddenly had players choosing more than a 'dip' Level of Fighter. Now that I'm shifting to PF, rather than a 3.5 with PF add ons, and running an Undead RotRL, I have two Fighters in a pool of 6-10 players. That's as many as I had after 3.5 came out!


    Fergie wrote:
    Orfamay Quest wrote:
    Fergie wrote:
    But the proposed fix won't address that.
    "I personally would make all item crafting more difficult, make martials able to effectively craft weapons/armor, and remove the economic incentive from crafting. Crafting should be something you do to get the item you want, not have more then everyone else in the group."

    I would propose crafting an item costs close to full price.

    EDIT: Note that according the the current rules (See Spoiler below), when the wizard crafts the fighter a magic item, that item is treated as market price when calculating the fighters WBL. When the wizard makes himself the same item, it is 1/2 WBL.
    I don't think it should matter who made what when calculating WBL.

    ** spoiler omitted **

    While I don't see it has helping martials except in possibly not making them as reliant on casters for gear, I can get behind scrapping the existing item creation rules.

    (Note: This is just a draft and not fully completed)
    Make it a straight roll (to determine progress toward completing the item) with no modifiers except negative ones for inadequate equipment. No bonuses from anything, not stats, not skills, and definitely not spells. The only costs are gold and time, with the prerequisite of having enough skill ranks in an applicable skill to craft the item. Anyone can craft magic items, no spellcasting is required. This prerequisite would be something like 10000gp value per rank of skill (10000gp is a random amount I pulled out of thin air to use as an example and no math has been to to determine an appropriate value). No feat needed and none to make it faster/cheaper. Materials cost remains 1/2 total value.

    Everyone is equally able to make magic items.

    As for WBL, since martials are more gear dependent than casters, anything that lets them get ahead there helps level the playing field.

    Yes, both can benefit from gear, but the difference is for a martial not having gear is "I can't do that" where for a caster it's "I have to expend a spell resource to do that". For the martial it is a yes/no situation, for a caster it is just opportunity cost.


    Caineach wrote:
    Squirrel_Dude wrote:
    Humor me here. Show me the text in a rulebook that states that this is a case because I've never been able to find it.
    Raise Dead wrote:
    A creature who has been turned into an undead creature or killed by a death effect can't be raised by this spell.

    Resurrection requires the undead to have been destroyed

    resurrection wrote:
    You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed.
    Therefore, something is preventing the soul from returning to the body because the person has been animated.

    Or magic in Pathfinder could be arbitrary. But that is a nice find/implication. Personally I do run Undead as being powered by souls, but that's always been more of a way to justify the otherwise very silly standpoint that Undead are always evil. I've never found a firm statement on the matter in a rulebook, and I ignore unwritten rules, specifically setting specific ones.

    Anyway, this is getting a bit off topic, and seems like something for another thread.

    In terms of fixing fighters: Doing it properly would probably require rebuilding the system from the ground up. i would start by changing the way feats (specifically feat chains), class skills, and CMB/CMD work.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    One simple fix I used for the Fighter Class was increasing their bonus feats to two per level [along with all good saves and more skill points, and all Weapon Training having the best value rather than a downward ladder]

    Despite the massive backlash on the boards it worked out fairly well without overpowering it compared to Barbarians and Paladins. Doesn't do anything for their lack of narrative power [aside from making it easier to take non-combat-related supplementary feats with their level-based feats, such as Master Craftsman or Skill Focus or whatnot] but it certainly helps with their flexibility.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Petty Alchemy wrote:
    DM_Blake wrote:
    Petty Alchemy wrote:

    Honestly, I'd like a hard definition of "nice things" in the context of this topic.

    Are bigger numbers a "nice thing"? Is extreme combat competency (such as pre-errata Crane Wing) a "nice thing"? Is built-in narrative power/control a "nice thing"?

    The first two are things people probably enjoy when playing martials, but not everyone will agree whether they are as nice as the third.

    I prefer the term to be undefined - let each (contributing) poster make suggestions based on his or her own personal opinion as to what that means.
    Therein lies the derailment, I suspect. How can we fix the problem when the problem is undefined? Everyone is fixing the problem as they perceive it, and disagreeing on the problem as others perceive it.

    No, what is happening is that everyone is fixing individual symptoms, while circling the actual problem.

    The actual problem is that martials and casters are working on two distinctly separate rule sets:

    Martials are limited by reality (or a reasonable facsimile thereof). They are not allowed to transcend physical limitations (at least those imposed on a 'normal mundane' by the game mechanics).

    Casters get to unlock wish fulfillment. I want that target to lose, save fails and they do. I want to be on top of this cliff, and I am there. Whatever I want, there is an app a spell for that.

    There is a lot of focus in the discussion on combat because a lot of the game mechanics live there. Skills are an area where this problem shows up very blatantly (sneak v invisibility, climb v fly). But the real issue is that casters get to bypass things that martials need to grind their way through, and at a certain point they grind to a halt because the math starts working against them.

    And we are all acknowledging the problem. We just don't want to to face the problem with solving the problem - solving this problem requires sweeping fundamental changes to the game.

    Sovereign Court

    Freesword wrote:
    Skills are an area where this problem shows up very blatantly (sneak v invisibility, climb v fly).

    The easiest way to fix that without getting rid of them - would be to increase the cost of such things greatly, either in terms of character build or resource use.

    Build example: If to fly a sorcerer needed to take Feather Fall and Levitate in order to qualify for Fly, they may not take it. At least not until higher levels. (A wizards would - but that's because knowing spells is practically an infinite resource for them.)

    Resource example: Each round that a character was flying in the air, they had to use up another point from their 'magic pool' or what have you, it's limiting. Sure - they can fly right up The Cliffs of Insanity, but they'll have spent half of their 'magic pool' to do it, and then probably won't have the juice to fight the Spaniard and the giant, and then after tricking the mastermind make their way through the Fire Swamp.


    Charon's Little Helper wrote:
    Freesword wrote:
    Skills are an area where this problem shows up very blatantly (sneak v invisibility, climb v fly).

    The easiest way to fix that without getting rid of them - would be to increase the cost of such things greatly, either in terms of character build or resource use.

    Build example: If to fly a sorcerer needed to take Feather Fall and Levitate in order to qualify for Fly, they may not take it. At least not until higher levels. (A wizards would - but that's because knowing spells is practically an infinite resource for them.)

    Resource example: Each round that a character was flying in the air, they had to use up another point from their 'magic pool' or what have you, it's limiting. Sure - they can fly right up The Cliffs of Insanity, but they'll have spent half of their 'magic pool' to do it, and then probably won't have the juice to fight the Spaniard and the giant, and then after tricking the mastermind make their way through the Fire Swamp.

    Too bad we are locked into Vancian casting and not using a mana system.

    Sacred Cow says : "MOO!"

    Sovereign Court

    Freesword wrote:

    Too bad we are locked into Vancian casting and not using a mana system.

    Well - those are both examples of how to do it in an entirely new system. I already gave my KISS fix early in this thread.

    Besides - you could always just make them eat a different spell's slot every 5 rounds or so


    Charon's Little Helper wrote:
    Freesword wrote:

    Too bad we are locked into Vancian casting and not using a mana system.

    Well - those are both examples of how to do it in an entirely new system. I already gave my KISS fix early in this thread.

    Besides - you could always just make them eat a different spell's slot every 5 rounds or so

    You are still just looking at the symptom with this suggestion.

    At high level skills are either irrelevant because - magic, or level appropriate DCs are so high that anyone who doesn't have the skill maxed is unable to participate.

    The "irrelevant because - magic" just illustrates casters bypassing what martials(mundanes) have to grind through, which is the root problem.

    I'm not saying ongoing magic drain doesn't help with this symptom.

    You will pardon me if I don't sift through 9 pages to find your previous post.


    again:

    give martials UNIQUE things. Things that not even wish can replicate for their highest level feats (bab18+ p.e.)

    martials don't lack in "damage", they lack in doing anything else. They are locked into a build that requires them to "move and attack" one way or another. call this pounce, dimension dervish, spring attack, buff and whack. they still do the same thing all over.

    they need things that will make a group go "jeez, i wish we had a fighter now". atm, everything, EVERYTHING they can do can be replicated, with a spell.

    Simple example No2:
    you integrated skill unlocks. You made intimidate skill unlock frighten (with a dc) something. A fear spell can do the same thing.
    Instead of panicked, make it so that at rank 15 you don't panic, you still frighten, but now you can frighten things immune to fear. because you are THAT awesome at lvl15 that even undead and vermin shy away when you growl at them.

    wizard at lvl9 can teleport a whole group?
    make it that fighter at lvl9 can lock down a caster. No concentration check, nothing. He is that good, that when he is next to a caster he can disrupt 100% of his spells.

    spell sunder was good exactly because it was something unique. No one could dispel stuff better than a spell sundering barbarian. He could go on it for days, and most things would crumble under a strength surged spell sunder. AS IT SHOULD.

    instead, we have fighters at lvl 12 having the unique ability of... +2 damage. big whoop. Change greater weapon specialization to:
    your weapon is considered +2 above what it is already, bypassing the +5 maximum restiction for those purposes. Refluff it as "you are so awesome at wielding a magic weapon that you squeeze every bit of magic at 150% efficiency".

    penetrating strikes:
    change those to: after you hit and deal damage, you shatter the monster's defences, lowering it's DR by X for 1 minute.

    give them utility


    Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

    a paladin should be able to pray himself and party members to another plane
    i mean even 1/2 casters need a little love

    401 to 450 of 938 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / If we were to "fix" the system so martials do "get nice things", what would we do? All Messageboards