Why do Martials need better things?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

901 to 950 of 1,265 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

Ssalarn wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Um... fighter fairly similair proficiencies as Pally and Cavalier... only diff is that fighter can use a towershield,.. BIG WHOOP lol. Sadly tower shields.suck hard...
And the Paladin and the Cavalier both have superior class features to the Fighter, so my point about the suggested change doing nothing but raising the floor universally while further marginalizing the Fighter continues to stand.

Oh I agree, I was commenting about how.someone said the fighter has the best proficiencies.


Ssalarn wrote:


Toughness, Nimble Moves, and proficiencies aren't combat feats, so the Fighter has just as many of those as anyone else, even under your proposed change. In fact, since the Fighter has the best starting proficiencies, it actually means that classes like the Rogue who start with relatively terrible proficiencies benefit more than the Fighter, since they can grab their Improved Dirty Trick for free and snag feats that would otherwise not be worth it, like Toughness or Armor Proficiency (Medium or Heavy). The Fighter also already has the issue of most feats he can grab at high levels being hot garbage anyways, unless he's using a really feat-intensive style like sword and board or archery. Those combat maneuver and variant attack option feats are generally the type of feat he can grab with his bonus feats, and represent his one real advantage. Generally, Fighters are the only character that can afford to effectively master more than 1 type of combat maneuver. By handing them out for free, you remove that advantage by giving it to everyone else, and take away the Fighter's low level "supremacy", leaving no area of the game at all where he gets to have an edge.

True enough in some ways... but I feel I should remind you this was a martial-caster fix, not a fighter only fix... the rogue also happens to be a martial.

I honestly hadn't seen combat expertise as applicable for transition, though surely the fighter would still be able to create really unique and devastating attacks unique to their class, maximize both ranged and melee options, and still have room to play the rogue wouldn't have.

I also think the fighter should get more skill slots... like rather than a static 2+Int they get 2+Int(any skill), "muscle memory"(+Str and/or +Dex ranks only to those skills that have them as a base) as fighters rarely dump one or both of those stats and generally max one or the other that change alone would change them from skill less to skilled... even when dumping Int.


Pendagast wrote:

So between three and five encounters

And that's if you memorize only that spell
Which almost never happens

No shield? No Mage armor? No nothing else?

In reality you have 1 or 2 battle stopping opportunities

Solution: bring more casters. Another Wizard, a Sorceror or some of the other casters, will provide more "battle stopping" opportunities than a Fighter ever can.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I remember someone testing the idea of an all Wizard/Sorceror party, it actually didn't go too well.

The all (base) Cleric party though.... Thoroughly stomped every single encounter that it... encountered... yeah that was an awkward statement.

So yeah, a party of all Wizards is super scary if they can somehow make the uphill climb of levels 1-10. A party of all Clerics would fair much better.


It never got off the ground. So never tested.


Fighter was my first class back to the D&D red box, it was the idea of having a character that fight in front line, getting hurt in order to protect the rest of the group from, still fighting until his last drop of blood...
In second edition, I was still interested by the Fighter due to the addition of Weapon Specialisation and Mastery...
In 3.X edition, I have a strong felling that fighter was the bottom of the barrel of the class, getting nothing except few feats and no longer all the options of fighting ( trip, grappling,....) and to be efficient has to specialize in one thing, this continue in Pathfinder, even if you have some nices abilities, you still have to specialize...
I'm still a fan of Fighters, I play one in my Carrion Crown adventure ( Two Handed Archetype with a greatsword), but in order to have a bit of survivability, I have to take a level of inquisitor (spellbreaker archetype).
In this campaign, we have a lot of additionnal encounters, and the other characters (a cleric, a blaster mage and an bomb alchemist) quickly runs out of spells or bombs, and rely to me to neutralize the opponent...
So yes, I have less options, less flexibility but, when spells run low, I still can swing my greatsword to slay the opposition, for me that's the meaning of playing a Fighter, be sometimes the last man standing over a pile of dead ennemies...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Yondu wrote:
So yes, I have less options, less flexibility but, when spells run low, I still can swing my greatsword to slay the opposition, for me that's the meaning of playing a Fighter, be sometimes the last man standing over a pile of dead ennemies...

For me it's like to say that fight with swords in modern warfare is a valid because you can run out of bullets. :p

I got your point, but unfortunally this is bad balance. Options is never a bad thing, because in the end you are limited by the economy action. It's a shame that the class supposed to be the "master of war" is little more that a one trick poney.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

I remember someone testing the idea of an all Wizard/Sorceror party, it actually didn't go too well.

The all (base) Cleric party though.... Thoroughly stomped every single encounter that it... encountered... yeah that was an awkward statement.

So yeah, a party of all Wizards is super scary if they can somehow make the uphill climb of levels 1-10. A party of all Clerics would fair much better.

I actually have had an all Wizard/Sorcerer party in a group before, and it went really well.

There was an elven Diviner who doubled as the "Ranger", using a bow at low levels, a half-orc Sorcerer with (if I recall correctly) the Draconic bloodline who fought with a falchion and used his non-bloodline spells for combat buffs and transmutation magic, a gnome Illusionist, a human Necromancer, and a half-elf Enchanter. They actually managed to knock out the first two books of Council of Thieves before deployments, school, and other things caused the game to fall apart.

I think racial proficiencies and abilities can matter a lot more for a low level party of Wizards than for other groups, since getting a few decent weapons in the mix without having to burn feats and having some other non-class options like races with keen senses, elven sleep immunity, gnomish speak with animals, orc ferocity, etc. all ended up playing larger roles than I'm used to seeing during that game.

M1k31 wrote:


True enough in some ways... but I feel I should remind you this was a martial-caster fix, not a fighter only fix... the rogue also happens to be a martial.

I honestly hadn't seen combat expertise as applicable for transition, though surely the fighter would still be able to create really unique and devastating attacks unique to their class, maximize both ranged and melee options, and still have room to play the rogue wouldn't have.

I also think the fighter should get more skill slots... like rather than a static 2+Int they get 2+Int(any skill), "muscle memory"(+Str and/or +Dex ranks only to those skills that have them as a base) as fighters rarely dump one or both of those stats and generally max one or the other that change alone would change them from skill less to skilled... even when dumping Int.

The thing is, you're not really fixing anything. The Rogue maybe gets a boost and the other martial classes get a maneuver or trick they wouldn't otherwise have access to, but you haven't changed any of the actual in-game dynamics. Casters still have capabilities the martials can never access, Fighters are still at the bottom of the barrel, Rogues still struggle in combat with their 3/4 BAB and no way to meaningfully boost it, etc.

Your suggested fix essentially gives everyone the Brawler's Martial Versatility, which is nice, but it doesn't actually address the core problems in the system that cause martial/caster disparity in the first place. You need meaningful abilities that break away from the current dynamics, things like martials being able to move and attack without sacrificing their effectiveness, alternative movement options that allow them to quickly and efficiently pursue teleporting/flying enemies, or detect invisible or supernaturally hidden opponents before they're right on top of them. You can't fix the system by giving martials a few more feats, unless those feats are better than the kind currently found in the core product line.


Ssalarn wrote:

The thing is, you're not really fixing anything. The Rogue maybe gets a boost and the other martial classes get a maneuver or trick they wouldn't otherwise have access to, but you haven't changed any of the actual in-game dynamics. Casters still have capabilities the martials can never access, Fighters are still at the bottom of the barrel, Rogues still struggle in combat with their 3/4 BAB and no way to meaningfully boost it, etc.

Your suggested fix essentially gives everyone the Brawler's Martial Versatility, which is nice, but it doesn't actually address the core problems in the system that cause martial/caster disparity in the first place. You need meaningful abilities that break away from the current dynamics, things like martials being able to move and attack without sacrificing their effectiveness, alternative movement options that allow them to quickly and efficiently pursue teleporting/flying enemies, or detect invisible or supernaturally hidden opponents before they're right on top of them. You can't fix the system by giving martials a few more feats, unless those feats are better than the kind currently found in the core product line.

Now I just feel like you're objecting "In a perfect world..." which is a fallacy, Martials will not, and cannot get to the exact same level of versatility as wizards... we cannot expect them to flex their biceps and a limited wish pops out. This idea was to get martials that much closer... a "first step". If(as you say), the current feats cannot get you there even with access to a far greater number of them, then more need to be created regardless.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Your 'first step' is like falling forward. Technically you're a bit ahead but in a way that basically doesn't matter.

Martials don't need Wizard-level versatility, but Bard/Inquisitor/Alchemist level versatility is where they need to reach.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
M1k31 wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

The thing is, you're not really fixing anything. The Rogue maybe gets a boost and the other martial classes get a maneuver or trick they wouldn't otherwise have access to, but you haven't changed any of the actual in-game dynamics. Casters still have capabilities the martials can never access, Fighters are still at the bottom of the barrel, Rogues still struggle in combat with their 3/4 BAB and no way to meaningfully boost it, etc.

Your suggested fix essentially gives everyone the Brawler's Martial Versatility, which is nice, but it doesn't actually address the core problems in the system that cause martial/caster disparity in the first place. You need meaningful abilities that break away from the current dynamics, things like martials being able to move and attack without sacrificing their effectiveness, alternative movement options that allow them to quickly and efficiently pursue teleporting/flying enemies, or detect invisible or supernaturally hidden opponents before they're right on top of them. You can't fix the system by giving martials a few more feats, unless those feats are better than the kind currently found in the core product line.

Now I just feel like you're objecting "In a perfect world..." which is a fallacy, Martials will not, and cannot get to the exact same level of versatility as wizards... we cannot expect them to flex their biceps and a limited wish pops out. This idea was to get martials that much closer... a "first step". If(as you say), the current feats cannot get you there even with access to a far greater number of them, then more need to be created regardless.

martials don't need more feats since for the most part this will just lead to higher DPR and not more versatility.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Martials don't need more COMBAT feats.

Training feats? They could use PLENTY of.

===Aelryinth


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

Martials don't need more COMBAT feats.

Training feats? They could use PLENTY of.

===Aelryinth

I don't ultimately see the difference

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What do fighters need?

More skills and skills that are effective. Okay, feats can help with that. feats to add class skills and boost feat results.

Movement options. Feats can help with that, IF they are allowed to scale. For instance, if Fleet scaled with armor training, it could eventually be a +20 Move bonus. That is EXCELLENT.

Leadership options. Leadership is a feat. If, for instance, you gave fighting/defensive options to your followers as well, and maybe your allies, as part of a Leadership change, that's an option.

Defensive options. Many of these are General Feats. If they are allowed to scale, could be quite useful.

These are what I call 'training feats'. Not Combat feats. They are all 'General feats', most of them don't scale, but since the fighter can't take them as bonus feats anyways, it doesn't matter.

Now, if Iron Will scaled with Bravery, wouldn't that be a GOOD feat? If Mobility scaled with Armor Training? If Skill Focus scaled with your Expertise bonus?

Stuff like that. It would HAVE to scale to be equal to other classes stuff, however.

==Aerlyinth

Paizo Employee Design Manager

As an example, something like one of the options I've proposed would allow all martial characters to gain options for dynamic combat, effectively dealing with flying opponents, even overland flight. That's a real step forward, because you're not just throwing on additional subpar options, you're actually taking that step up to level the playing field.

Or you could take smaller steps, and those start with improving the nature of feats in general. When I wrote The Genius Guide to Bravery Feats, my big goals were to make the feats scale appropriately and to introduce options that didn't exist previously but which make sense in the context of the world of the game. The other big thing was avoiding feats that just tried to pile on more static bonuses, but which instead create actual utility and versatility. A problem with martial characters is that they can often stack on more than enough static modifiers, but then they lack the tools to make those modifiers meaningful in any significant way. For example, a Fighter is neck and neck with a Barbarian in theoretical damage potential at virtually all levels of play, until his Weapon Mastery capstone actually pushes his damage out of the Barbarian's reach (except for weird corner cases, like mounted pouncing lance-wielding Barbarians). Despite that, the Barbarian is generally regarded as being a much more viable class than pretty much any class that doesn't get spellcasting or Alchemy during the latter half of the game thanks to abilities like Spell Sunder, Superstition, Pounce, the flight granted by the Dragon Totem line, and other options. That's why in the supplement I mentioned above, the Fighter gets options like swinging his sword with such force he actually bats away a spell or clears a safe swath in an AoE effect, or the ability to attack the rent reality created by a teleporting enemy and follow them to their destination (a version of Step Up that reacts to magical movement, if you will), or even just something as simple as leaping 20 feet into the air and executing an attack action against a flying opponent (remarkably hard to do, if possible at all, under the current system without a ton of magical aid).

"More of the same" just isn't the answer to resolving the problems in the system.


Bandw2 wrote:


martials don't need more feats since for the most part this will just lead to higher DPR and not more versatility.

By "create more" in this instance I was referring to making better feats than currently exist, or updating those currently in place.

That is why I think adding this kind of system would work as is to really boost a fighter, essentially you would still need to build one towards a proficient style, however it would remove current possible attack styles that are prerequisites from "have to take X to do all day, even if I never use it but rather like Y" to "I don't like X much, so I can only do X so many times a day, while doing Y all day with Z that I couldn't take before" & "O dang, Y + Z won't work... glad I can still use U to make the combo work, even if I can only do that twice today"

The limits of a Fighters "bonus feats" would also be something that would need revising with the system.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tier 1 wrote:
Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules.

I would like to see a tier 1 Fighter, but thats not going to happen


Eh, really the game shouldn't HAVE anything that qualifies as true Tier 1... although it does and barring a new edition that's never going to change.

Tier 2 on the other hand- I could really dig Pathfinder becoming a pure Tier 2 game.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

5 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Eh, really the game shouldn't HAVE anything that qualifies as true Tier 1... although it does and barring a new edition that's never going to change.

Tier 2 on the other hand- I could really dig Pathfinder becoming a pure Tier 2 game.

Tier 3 is my preferred balance point. It's where the Alchemist, Bard, and Inquisitor (amongst others) sit, and that seems to be the sweet point.


Yeah Tier 3 and Tier 4 seem pretty popular overall. My personal preference remains Tier 2 though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The teir 3 classes are all also the most recognized as the best written classes in balance and flavor. Thw bard, inquisitor, magus, achemist, amoung others..


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
M1k31 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


martials don't need more feats since for the most part this will just lead to higher DPR and not more versatility.

By "create more" in this instance I was referring to making better feats than currently exist, or updating those currently in place.

That is why I think adding this kind of system would work as is to really boost a fighter, essentially you would still need to build one towards a proficient style, however it would remove current possible attack styles that are prerequisites from "have to take X to do all day, even if I never use it but rather like Y" to "I don't like X much, so I can only do X so many times a day, while doing Y all day with Z that I couldn't take before" & "O dang, Y + Z won't work... glad I can still use U to make the combo work, even if I can only do that twice today"

The limits of a Fighters "bonus feats" would also be something that would need revising with the system.

Still probably just ways to improve DPR, they need abilities to shape the course of a campaign, and anyone can get feats. They need something like my badass talents that i proposed a while ago or the path of war stuff.


they need actual class features that enable them to do USEFUL and POWERFUL things (i.e. not replicated with lvl1-3 spells) for OUT OF COMBAT stuff.


Tier three also suffers from 4e balance by everything being the same with few exceptions. 3/4th casters with 3/4ths bab. Bonus to hit from class features. One or two unique mechanics to set them apart.

I feel like a 2 tier game keeps things different enough. So tier 1-2 or 2-3 or 3-4.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, what would be the hardest things for a Fighter to replicate of higher Tier classes?

Long-distance movement, including extraplanar.
Divination effects/long range senses.
Sources of information.
Variety of friends/allies on command, or over the long term.
Movement modes.
Defenses against specific kinds of attacks.
Defenses other then AC against attacks.
Energy-based offense.
Offense that targets other then AC.
Buffing allies or self.
Creation of magical items.
Getting high value from class abilities (just what does it cost to hire a f/10, anyways?).
Stopping/interfering with abilities of others (such as dispel magic and condition removal).
The ability to prepare for fights against specific foes without spending massive amounts of gold on magical items.

The fighter can't do ANY of this with his class abilities or combat feats. Rangers and Paladins can do over half of this with spells. Barbs can do about half of it with Rage Powers. The 3/4 classes can pull off most of it, and the full casters pretty much all of it.

The counterpoint is that virtually EVERY class can be made into a decent, if not stellar, martial combatant class if they feel they must.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Well, what would be the hardest things for a Fighter to replicate of higher Tier classes?

Long-distance movement, including extraplanar.

Tearing open rifts between dimensions. Might require Knowledge: The Planes for accuracy.

Quote:
Divination effects/long range senses.

Scout and Spies and crazy powerful senses [Superman can hear across the vacuum of space, just because. Same logic lower level here.]

Quote:
Sources of information.

See above.

Quote:
Variety of friends/allies on command, or over the long term.

this one seems obvious to me, doesn't seem difficult at all to design into a martial.

Quote:
Movement modes.

Extreme Athleticism to the point of absurdity, culminating in Sky Dancing where the gravity can no longer impede the fighter when he wishes otherwise. [Or in-class magical mounts/equipment]

Quote:
Defenses against specific kinds of attacks.

pure awesomeness

Quote:
Defenses other then AC against attacks.

Aside from incorporating reactions into the game I'm not sure this one's necessary. That being said I could see some fighter options opening up concealment or whatnot.

Quote:
Energy-based offense.

Agreed

Quote:
Offense that targets other then AC.

Also agreed.

Quote:
Buffing allies or self.

Sure, lets kill the entire cavalier class and integrate awesome buffing stuff [and mount options] into Fighter.

Quote:
Creation of magical items.

Forget fighter, the freaking Expert Class aught to be able to do this. Magic Item Crafting should be about crafting not spells

Quote:
Stopping/interfering with abilities of others (such as dispel magic and condition removal).

Agreed.

Quote:
The ability to prepare for fights against specific foes without spending massive amounts of gold on magical items.

How much preparation level are you looking for here? I'm not sure exactly what this one is about.


"Killing off a class" is not a bad thing if it's done by folding it into another class when both needed the help.

YES, the cavalier is no longer worth taking if the fighter can do most or all of what the cavalier could do.

HOWEVER: You get a better cavalier, just happens to be named fighter now (it doesn't have to be named fighter either anyways)

This is where the usual suggestions of "just use the PoW classes and rename them" come from. There's nothing you can do about the mechanics of your chosen class doing everything they can to screw you out of ever being truly worth your weight, but when all you need to do is slap the old name on a different set of mechanics that do everything you'd want and more, you fixed your entire problem by changing a single word. No house-rules, just roleplay.


Jamie Charlan wrote:

"Killing off a class" is not a bad thing if it's done by folding it into another class when both needed the help.

YES, the cavalier is no longer worth taking if the fighter can do most or all of what the cavalier could do.

HOWEVER: You get a better cavalier, just happens to be named fighter now (it doesn't have to be named fighter either anyways)

This is where the usual suggestions of "just use the PoW classes and rename them" come from. There's nothing you can do about the mechanics of your chosen class doing everything they can to screw you out of ever being truly worth your weight, but when all you need to do is slap the old name on a different set of mechanics that do everything you'd want and more, you fixed your entire problem by changing a single word. No house-rules, just roleplay.

The only problem I have with that is that both classes operate rather differently... I could not justify a full combination if it, which would mean specializing in less skills/abilities than either build... which solves nothing.


Ssalarn wrote:


I actually have had an all Wizard/Sorcerer party in a group before, and it went really well.

There was an elven Diviner who doubled as the "Ranger", using a bow at low levels, a half-orc Sorcerer with (if I recall correctly) the Draconic bloodline who fought with a falchion and used his non-bloodline spells for combat buffs and transmutation magic, a gnome Illusionist, a human Necromancer, and a half-elf Enchanter. They actually managed to knock out the first two books of Council of Thieves before deployments, school, and other things caused the game to fall apart.

I think racial proficiencies and abilities can matter a lot more for a low level party of Wizards than for other groups, since getting a few decent weapons in the mix without having to burn feats and having some other non-class options like races with keen senses, elven sleep immunity, gnomish speak with animals, orc ferocity, etc. all ended up playing larger roles than I'm used to seeing during that game.

This.

I once played a half-orc earth wizard with an alternate racial trait that gave him flail proficiency. He had some strength and con besides his int and with his bonus to hit from earth mastery he could fight melee quite well (especially with mage armor up) and used his acid cloud school power to great effect. He was the overall most powerful PC in the party at level 1 despite being mainly build for the fluff of looking like a peasant with his straw hat, pig familiar and flail, wearing cheap clothes and stuff.
With a bonded item or a "better" familiar choice he could have been even stronger.


Again... Blade Adept Arcanist with vmc Battle oraclr into Eldritch Knight...

Or a Eldritch scrapper Sorcerer with the Ghoul Bloodline and focus on Transmutation spells... get EH abyssal for inherent Str bonus as well...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:

they need actual class features that enable them to do USEFUL and POWERFUL things (i.e. not replicated with lvl1-3 spells) for OUT OF COMBAT stuff.

Skills need to do more and better things at lower levels. They need to be better than spells at things they can do, instead of spells being the better solution. Sherlock Holmes should be better at noticing invisible things than a wizard forced to resort to True Seeing because the wizard's skill is inadequate; the Yawner should be able to hide better than someone with an Invisibility spell running; a master of planar knowledge should be able to find that space in reality where a little application of skill lets them slip through into another plane without needing to brute force a hole with magic. Magic is fine if you can be a Jack of All Trades through it, but it shouldn't also make you Master of Some. It doesn't work that way when it comes to things that aren't possible for humans without spells (you don't use Fly to be better than a hawk or Fireball to beat dragon's breath). Why should the fact that a human is doing it mean that a magic spell has to be better?


Metal Sonic wrote:
Yondu wrote:
So yes, I have less options, less flexibility but, when spells run low, I still can swing my greatsword to slay the opposition, for me that's the meaning of playing a Fighter, be sometimes the last man standing over a pile of dead ennemies...

For me it's like to say that fight with swords in modern warfare is a valid because you can run out of bullets. :p

I got your point, but unfortunally this is bad balance. Options is never a bad thing, because in the end you are limited by the economy action. It's a shame that the class supposed to be the "master of war" is little more that a one trick poney.

Unfortunately, you're right, Economy Action is a point for fighters because if you want to do something to the enemy, you need a complex action where a caster need a standard action ( or faster sometimes..), and if you want to do something different than damage, you need a bunch of feats in order to be efficient...

The Master of War is clearly not the Fighter... sadly. Rethinking the combat system for the Fighter only maybe a good idea, like they have made for Armor Mastery, at 10 level, making full attack as a standard action, with no BAB decrease, an access to combat manoeuvers without the feat line following the same progression than Weapon Mastery ( Level 5 improved in one manoeuver/ 9 greater in the first manoeuver,improved in the second and so on) will be close to a Master of Combat I saw in the Fighter Class...


Bluenose wrote:
shroudb wrote:

they need actual class features that enable them to do USEFUL and POWERFUL things (i.e. not replicated with lvl1-3 spells) for OUT OF COMBAT stuff.

Skills need to do more and better things at lower levels. They need to be better than spells at things they can do, instead of spells being the better solution. Sherlock Holmes should be better at noticing invisible things than a wizard forced to resort to True Seeing because the wizard's skill is inadequate; the Yawner should be able to hide better than someone with an Invisibility spell running; a master of planar knowledge should be able to find that space in reality where a little application of skill lets them slip through into another plane without needing to brute force a hole with magic. Magic is fine if you can be a Jack of All Trades through it, but it shouldn't also make you Master of Some. It doesn't work that way when it comes to things that aren't possible for humans without spells (you don't use Fly to be better than a hawk or Fireball to beat dragon's breath). Why should the fact that a human is doing it mean that a magic spell has to be better?

While I agree with that, it won't help the fighter with his pathetic skill pool. Plus, skills are a rogue's playthings mostly.

Hence I said class features.

PS:

On the topic of skills: it is ABSURD that skill ranks have the same impact as stat bonuses.
To give an easy example, bab.

A lvl 2 fighter with 18 str has +6 attack
A lvl 6 fighter with 10 str has +6 attack BUT ALSO AN EXTRA ATTACK.

Similarly, skills should work the same:
A lvl 1 with class skill and high ability modifier should in now way be the same with someone who spend 5-6-7-8 skill RANKS into the same skill

While an untrained dexterous man may jump as easily as an old athlete, he can in no way or shape perform complex aerials because he simply lacks the knowledge of how to do so


shroudb wrote:

While an untrained dexterous man may jump as easily as an old athlete, he can in no way or shape perform complex aerials because he simply lacks the knowledge of how to do so

Well, d20 skill system is a bad joke, unfortunally...


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

a wizard benefits from skills more than a fighter does, so making skills more useful doesn't fix the disparity.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Bandw2 wrote:
a wizard benefits from skills more than a fighter does[...]

I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find a class that isn't true of, unless the skill-based fix does some very amazing things to the Climb and Swim skills ;P

Maybe if you started with something like giving every class a free Skill Unlock at 1st level and every two levels thereafter (3, 5, 7, etc.), but then subtracted the highest level of spell you're capable of casting from that number? The Skill Unlocks aren't great, but they're s a step in the right direction. Assuming that that formula works out in a reasonable manner, step 2 would be going through and grooming the skill unlocks a bit to make them more meaningful and effective, and maybe adding an extra tier of abilities granted by the unlocks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You start with pulling bonus skills off of the Wizard/Witch casting stat.

Then you make a choice, further condense skills until each one is roughly on par with one another, or split the skills back up even more granular than 3.5 did.

Whatever choice you make, you proceed to distribute skill points to classes in part according to their level of magic access. And whatever you do, do NOT let protecting the Rogue's Niche [unless his Niche is to be the skill master with double the skills of the next class down the list] get in the way of giving plenty of skills to the Fighter.

[Honestly, I've never been fond of the Rogue as a separate class, the Fighter and Rogue look to me like two separate facets of the same class, the mundane badass. They just took two different specializations.]


3 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

You start with pulling bonus skills off of the Wizard/Witch casting stat.

Then you make a choice, further condense skills until each one is roughly on par with one another, or split the skills back up even more granular than 3.5 did.

Whatever choice you make, you proceed to distribute skill points to classes in part according to their level of magic access. And whatever you do, do NOT let protecting the Rogue's Niche [unless his Niche is to be the skill master with double the skills of the next class down the list] get in the way of giving plenty of skills to the Fighter.

[Honestly, I've never been fond of the Rogue as a separate class, the Fighter and Rogue look to me like two separate facets of the same class, the mundane badass. They just took two different specializations.]

I've often considered just gestalting fighter and rogue. That, as a class, looks pretty playable to me.


It is a lot better. Heck it almost is viable if you're using Unchained Rogue but leaving access to the rare decent chained rogue talents.

If instead of Rogue Talents the class had 'Hero talents' [Hero being my go-to term for a martial class intended to subsume at least two existing martial class] on par with rage powers, we'd be just about where we need to be.


Bandw2 wrote:
a wizard benefits from skills more than a fighter does, so making skills more useful doesn't fix the disparity.

Spells do everything skills do but better. Making skills better won't increase the power of the spellcasting classes.

That said, I advocate skills to be related to BAB. Learning Magic should be something that takes the majority of your time and effort I would think.

I would also advocate a slightly reworked class skill system, so thematic skills for certain classes get bonuses.


Kaouse wrote:


Spells do everything skills do but better. Making skills better won't increase the power of the spellcasting classes.

That said, I advocate skills to be related to BAB. Learning Magic should be something that takes the majority of your time and effort I would think.

I would also advocate a slightly reworked class skill system, so thematic skills for certain classes get bonuses.

I got a idea reading this: What if your max rank in a skill is tied to your BAB? Of course, the lower BAB classes have one or more skills where they receive +1/2 level on it (Like Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcane) to Wizards).


Kaouse wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
a wizard benefits from skills more than a fighter does, so making skills more useful doesn't fix the disparity.

Spells do everything skills do but better. Making skills better won't increase the power of the spellcasting classes.

That said, I advocate skills to be related to BAB. Learning Magic should be something that takes the majority of your time and effort I would think.

I would also advocate a slightly reworked class skill system, so thematic skills for certain classes get bonuses.

That doesn't exactly work out well.

A bloodrager would potentially be better than a rogue at picking locks and making friends. They would also potentially be better at recognizing spells than a wizard. Same thing for a ranger, who actually gets quite a few skill points.

Technically making skills better helps spellcasting classes. It just helps non-spellcasting classes disproportionatelly more. If for example a high stealth lets you not care about concealment the wizard with a high stealth score doesn't need to bother with invisibility sometimes. The rogue on the other hand can actually function as a stealthy class. The wizard benefits. The rogue benefits more, since they don't have a way to bypass the issue using a small but significant amount of resources.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you expand skills so that you can do really cool stuff with them -- if and only if you have "x" number of ranks as a class skill, then class skills mean a whole lot more than just +3 to the check. You can then tailor the class skill lists based on which cool abilities you want each class to have access to.

The spider climb spell could then be rewritten as follows: "For the duration of the spell, the target treats Climb as if it were a class skill. If it is already a class skill, the subject treats it as if he/she had an additional 3 ranks," or something like that. Same with invisibility vis-a-vis Stealth, and freedom of movement for Escape Artist, and charm person for Diplomacy, and doom, cause fear, scare, fear, etc. for Intimidate, and so on.


i dont see bab and skills as related, i mean we dont need to further nerf the rogue, monk, and etc mundanes that get skills but are not full bab.

that being said, giving relevant, and actually powerful skill tiers similar (and stacking) with skill unlocks could help give more the feel of training

for that purpose, "powerful" is NOT what rank 5 skill unlocks are.

things like perception adding exra senses as you level it up, acrobatics allowing stunts, climb giving speed, swim allowing you to hold your breath for ages, and etc, all at LOW 5-10 tier

at 15-20 tier i would expect (sp) abilities, like intimidate working on mindimmune creatures, acrobatics allowing someone to do things similar to movies with aerial combat, sense motive acting as a 6th sense, stealth allowing one to vanish from plain sight and etc


Snowblind wrote:
Kaouse wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
a wizard benefits from skills more than a fighter does, so making skills more useful doesn't fix the disparity.

Spells do everything skills do but better. Making skills better won't increase the power of the spellcasting classes.

That said, I advocate skills to be related to BAB. Learning Magic should be something that takes the majority of your time and effort I would think.

I would also advocate a slightly reworked class skill system, so thematic skills for certain classes get bonuses.

That doesn't exactly work out well.

A bloodrager would potentially be better than a rogue at picking locks and making friends. They would also potentially be better at recognizing spells than a wizard. Same thing for a ranger, who actually gets quite a few skill points.

Technically making skills better helps spellcasting classes. It just helps non-spellcasting classes disproportionatelly more. If for example a high stealth lets you not care about concealment the wizard with a high stealth score doesn't need to bother with invisibility sometimes. The rogue on the other hand can actually function as a stealthy class. The wizard benefits. The rogue benefits more, since they don't have a way to bypass the issue using a small but significant amount of resources.

Like I said, thematic skills for certain classes will get bonuses. For a Wizard this might be Knowledge & Spellcraft. For a Rogue it might be Disable Device and Sleight of Hand.

These bonuses can get altered for the half caster classes who might have multiple thematic skills.

That's along the lines of the system I propose.

And yes, helping non-spellcasting classes disproportionately more is my goal, as that reduces some of the caster-martial disparity.

Similar to making full attack a standard action, you could say. Sure a wizard of levels 11-20 could get 2 attacks off in a standard action and we can say that helps him, but it definitely helps the Fighter a lot more.

Giving casters options that are subpar compared to what they already have access to isn't really an issue I would say, especially when it gives options to the people who didn't have any previously.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:

If you expand skills so that you can do really cool stuff with them -- if and only if you have "x" number of ranks as a class skill, then class skills mean a whole lot more than just +3 to the check. You can then tailor the class skill lists based on which cool abilities you want each class to have access to.

The spider climb spell could then be rewritten as follows: "For the duration of the spell, the target treats Climb as if it were a class skill. If it is already a class skill, the subject treats it as if he/she had an additional 3 ranks," or something like that. Same with invisibility vis-a-vis Stealth, and freedom of movement for Escape Artist, and charm person for Diplomacy, and doom, cause fear, scare, fear, etc. for Intimidate, and so on.

I may have to steal this concept for my homebrew rule set.

The idea of tying class skills into skill unlocks is excellent, and then tying skill based spells into that rather than just numerical bonuses offers some real possibilities.

Granted the fighter still needs more than 2 skill points. (maybe some day an Unchained Fighter will get some love in Unchained II)

Shadow Lodge

kyrt-ryder wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Well, what would be the hardest things for a Fighter to replicate of higher Tier classes?

Long-distance movement, including extraplanar.

Tearing open rifts between dimensions. Might require Knowledge: The Planes for accuracy.

Quote:
Divination effects/long range senses.

Scout and Spies and crazy powerful senses [Superman can hear across the vacuum of space, just because. Same logic lower level here.]

Quote:
Sources of information.

See above.

Quote:
Variety of friends/allies on command, or over the long term.

this one seems obvious to me, doesn't seem difficult at all to design into a martial.

Quote:
Movement modes.

Extreme Athleticism to the point of absurdity, culminating in Sky Dancing where the gravity can no longer impede the fighter when he wishes otherwise. [Or in-class magical mounts/equipment]

Quote:
Defenses against specific kinds of attacks.

pure awesomeness

Quote:
Defenses other then AC against attacks.

Aside from incorporating reactions into the game I'm not sure this one's necessary. That being said I could see some fighter options opening up concealment or whatnot.

Quote:
Energy-based offense.

Agreed

Quote:
Offense that targets other then AC.

Also agreed.

Quote:
Buffing allies or self.

Sure, lets kill the entire cavalier class and integrate awesome buffing stuff [and mount options] into Fighter.

Quote:
Creation of magical items.

Forget fighter, the freaking Expert Class aught to be able to do this. Magic Item Crafting should be about crafting not spells

Quote:
Stopping/interfering with abilities of others (such as dispel magic and condition removal).

Agreed.

Quote:
The ability to prepare for fights against specific foes without spending massive amounts of gold on magical items.
How much preparation level are you looking for here? I'm not sure exactly what this one is about.

I agree with almost all of this.

Bluenose wrote:
shroudb wrote:

they need actual class features that enable them to do USEFUL and POWERFUL things (i.e. not replicated with lvl1-3 spells) for OUT OF COMBAT stuff.

Skills need to do more and better things at lower levels. They need to be better than spells at things they can do, instead of spells being the better solution. Sherlock Holmes should be better at noticing invisible things than a wizard forced to resort to True Seeing because the wizard's skill is inadequate; the Yawner should be able to hide better than someone with an Invisibility spell running; a master of planar knowledge should be able to find that space in reality where a little application of skill lets them slip through into another plane without needing to brute force a hole with magic. Magic is fine if you can be a Jack of All Trades through it, but it shouldn't also make you Master of Some. It doesn't work that way when it comes to things that aren't possible for humans without spells (you don't use Fly to be better than a hawk or Fireball to beat dragon's breath). Why should the fact that a human is doing it mean that a magic spell has to be better?

Definately agreed.

alexd1976 wrote:
I've often considered just gestalting fighter and rogue. That, as a class, looks pretty playable to me.

I did this a while back, with a few extra bonuses. (Although I did it before the Unchained Rogue.) I think it's a much more balanced class than either of the two alone (and it hits some of the literary archetypes more, like Conan).

Kaouse wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
a wizard benefits from skills more than a fighter does, so making skills more useful doesn't fix the disparity.

Spells do everything skills do but better. Making skills better won't increase the power of the spellcasting classes.

That said, I advocate skills to be related to BAB. Learning Magic should be something that takes the majority of your time and effort I would think.

I would also advocate a slightly reworked class skill system, so thematic skills for certain classes get bonuses.

I'd make any SAD Int-focuses class get 0 skill ranks as the base for their class. I'd also cut their list of class skills down to the bare minimum (for example, the wizard class skills would be Knowledge: Arcana and Spellcasting).

Shadow Lodge

Kthulhu wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
I've often considered just gestalting fighter and rogue. That, as a class, looks pretty playable to me.
I did this a while back, with a few extra bonuses. (Although I did it before the Unchained Rogue.) I think it's a much more balanced class than either of the two alone (and it hits some of the literary archetypes more, like Conan).

Warrior-Rogue


Kthulhu wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
I've often considered just gestalting fighter and rogue. That, as a class, looks pretty playable to me.
I did this a while back, with a few extra bonuses. (Although I did it before the Unchained Rogue.) I think it's a much more balanced class than either of the two alone (and it hits some of the literary archetypes more, like Conan).
Warrior-Rogue

that just seems down-right OP in the extreme... gestalting both together and giving better skills than the rogue(12+Int), while maintaining feat and armor progression and sneak attack seems OP enough, but then adding more of the rogue abilities... that just seems ridiculous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not. Put that in the same party with any Tier 3 or higher characters and he's getting crazy outshone.

Might be about on par with PF Barbarian and Paladin.

901 to 950 of 1,265 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why do Martials need better things? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.