| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's pretty much the crux of the situation, a Fighter/Martial character needs to delve into system mastery to do something that, frankly, should be fine with the system already. Has anyone tried just eliminating Full-Attack action altogether? Seems like an easy thing to do and one of the "fixes" I did for our E6 games. Works great IMO.'Easy' being two feats, skill investment, and whatever Hurtful is.
As opposed to just having that be something all martial character do.
This is actually crippling to the game balance.
You are aware that any martial who gets a full attack off with any amount of decent optimization at ant level above 10 will, I don't mean might, but will, obliterate any opponent of even relative CR?
Nyet. Non. No.
It is not, at all, crippling to game balance. I know because I've been allowing characters (to include monsters) to mix attack and move actions however they choose for years (ie. move, attack, move, attack, move...and so on, up to their full movement and full iterative attacks).
As a DM, you do need to adjust your CRs upwards a bit to account for the greater effectiveness of the martial classes, but it cripples nothing, and it adds tactical options that weren't there before. When adjusting the CR upwards, it's important not to simply pick bigger boss monsters with even MOAR AWESOME SLAs!, but rather to add more depth to encounters, with additional lieutenants (not mooks, but not bosses), environmental hazards, maybe adding mobility to the mooks, etc.
It does take some experimentation and experience as a DM to "unchain" martials in this way, but the game is still perfectly playable (and, in fact, more fun) once one gets the balance worked out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's pretty much the crux of the situation, a Fighter/Martial character needs to delve into system mastery to do something that, frankly, should be fine with the system already. Has anyone tried just eliminating Full-Attack action altogether? Seems like an easy thing to do and one of the "fixes" I did for our E6 games. Works great IMO.'Easy' being two feats, skill investment, and whatever Hurtful is.
As opposed to just having that be something all martial character do.
This is actually crippling to the game balance.
You are aware that any martial who gets a full attack off with any amount of decent optimization at ant level above 10 will, I don't mean might, but will, obliterate any opponent of even relative CR?
Nyet. Non. No.
It is not, at all, crippling to game balance. I know because I've been allowing characters (to include monsters) to mix attack and move actions however they choose for years (ie. move, attack, move, attack, move...and so on, up to their full movement and full iterative attacks).
As a DM, you do need to adjust your CRs upwards a bit to account for the greater effectiveness of the martial classes, but it cripples nothing, and it adds tactical options that weren't there before. When adjusting the CR upwards, it's important not to simply pick bigger boss monsters with even MOAR AWESOME SLAs!, but rather to add more depth to encounters, with additional lieutenants (not mooks, but not bosses), environmental hazards, maybe adding mobility to the mooks, etc.
It does take some experimentation and experience as a DM to "unchain" martials in this way, but the game is still perfectly playable (and, in fact, more fun) once one gets the balance worked out.
This runs similar to my experiences with E6 and removing the stipulation of move or full-attack. Warriors and monsters with multiple attacks are more credible threats but it doesn't really mess with "balance".
yeah a wizard can break the game post lvl 10 but he'd never reach that lvl without the big bad fighter watching his backI have a 10th level Conjurer from RoTRL whose party members were an Alchemist and two Rogues that would love to have a word with you about that.
I'm running RotRL with four wizards. I'm planning on posting the results when I'm done. Kyrt-rider is doing the same. I suspect they'll do just fine.
|
Again if one class can play just fine without a specific build, magic items, specific feats such as a Wizard. Then tell me that their nothing wrong with the Fighter except needing to take a specific build, magic items, specific feats. Is highlighting the strength of wizards while doing the same for the flaws of the Fighter class. It's not a positive selling point imo. The no disparity side of the argument either or ignore or don't want to accept that imo.
It's not to say it's not good advice. It is but once again your trying to unsuccessfully mask the flaws of a class. The Fighter needs more than I swing and I hit. Thier capestone ability is boring imo. Bravery is a joke imo. Armor and weapon training while useful just don't scream interesting to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again if one class can play just fine without a specific build, magic items, specific feats such as a Wizard. Then tell me that their nothing wrong with the Fighter except needing to take a specific build, magic items, specific feats. Is highlighting the strength of wizards while doing the same for the flaws of the Fighter class. It's not a positive selling point imo. The no disparity side of the argument either or ignore or don't want to accept that imo.
It's not to say it's not good advice. It is but once again your trying to unsuccessfully mask the flaws of a class. The Fighter needs more than I swing and I hit. Thier capestone ability is boring imo. Bravery is a joke imo. Armor and weapon training while useful just don't scream interesting to me.
The "unchained Fighter" I created does a WHOLE bunch of fun stuff without resorting to things like Path of War (which, honestly, I think is one of the best supplements for Pathfinder out there). The class I created (with the help of some online research) allows the Fighter to remain competitive without relying heavily on magical items to keep up.
Healthy: When the fighter receives any sort of healing, add the Fighter’s level to the hit points healed.
Larger Than Life (Ex): Starting at 1st level, when making Strength-based checks (not attacks) or any other roll where size matters such as when initiating a combat maneuver, you may treat the Fighter as if he were the indicated size (see chart).
Bonus Feats: At the indicated levels, Fighters get an assortment of bonus feats. Some of these are combat-focused. The fighter gains any Combat feat even if he does not meet the ability prerequisites of that feat. These feats may be changed as a standard action. As these feats can change, they do not act as prerequisites for Prestige Classes and other character feats. When the Fighter reaches 6th level, he gains Any feat. These function like Combat feat except that the fighter gains any possible feat even if he doesn’t meet the ability prerequisites of that feat. These feats may also be changed as a standard action.
Deflect Damage (Ex): If an adjacent ally or the Fighter is injured in combat, the Fighter may make an opposed attack check (adding and shield bonus and enhancement bonus to his attack). If successful, the opponent’s attack does minimum damage (treat any die rolls as 1’s) and any additional effects do not apply.
Tricky (Ex): When a Fighter uses a combat maneuver, such as Disarm, he may do so as a swift action that does not provoke Attacks of Opportunity. If the maneuver fails, the Fighter receives no penalties and triggers no retaliation.
Sentinel (Ex): The Fighter gains innate enhancement bonuses to armor he wears and shield’s he wields, becoming an even more formidable warrior. These bonuses do not stack with existing magical item [enhancement] bonuses.
Enhanced Warfare (Ex): By tapping into his inner strength, his attacks lend more might than your average warrior. These enhancement bonuses apply to attack and damage rolls but do not stack with any existing magical item [enhancement] bonuses.
Warrior’s Path: The path of the Fighter lies in specific styles and approaches to combat. Some adopt a varied path, taking feats and weapons that accommodate a multitude of situations. Some like to become more focused, putting added emphasis on a specific path. Below select a path that best describes the style you most commonly apply. You can change your style with 1 week of physical training.
Dervish: Warriors choosing dual-attack style like the versatility that comes with wielding two weapons, often using a matched pair or two separate ones for utility.
• Double Slice: You gain the double slice feat as a bonus feat so long as you meet the prerequisites. If you already have double slice you may choose another combat feat you already meet the prerequisites for.
• Whirling Blades: Your ambidexterity and aptitude for the dual-style allows you unparalleled precision. From now on you may wield any combination of light or one-handed weapons in each hand and reduce the penalties for fighting with two-weapons by 1.
Great-Weapon: Warriors choosing the great, two-handed weapons emphasize power and might over defense and ranged attacks.
• Focused Frenzy: You gain the focused frenzy feat as a bonus feat so long as you meet the prerequisites. If you already possess focused frenzy you may choose another combat feat you already meet the prerequisites for.
• Reaping Strike: Whenever you miss with a melee attack while using a two-handed weapon, you still deal damage equal to your Strength modifier so long as you can reach the target. Your weapon’s enhancement bonus to damage does not apply nor to any added effects due to making a successful attack.
Shield Warden: Warrior’s choosing the shield know that the best offense is a good defense and can use their shield as both.
• Shield Bash: You gain the shield bash feat as a bonus feat. If you already possess shield bash you may choose another combat feat you already meet the prerequisites for.
• Shield Attack: You add your innate enhancement bonus from shields to attack and damage rolls when you initiate a shield bash or fight with it using Two-Weapon Fighting.
Surging Resistance: You gain an almost supernatural defense against magic, as it persists in being one of your biggest threats. At 5th level you gain the ability to roll 2d20 when making a saving throw and take the better of the two rolls. This can be done once per encounter (or every 10 minutes outside of combat). You gain an additional use per encounter at 11th level, and a 3rd usage at 17th level.
Wade In (Ex): Starting at 6th level, the Fighter may make a Full Attack as a Standard Action so long as he is able to make at least one attack in a round.
Hustle (Ex): If the Fighter moves as a full round action, he ignores all movement penalties due to armor and shield.
Weapon Mastery (Ex): Any feat which applies to any single weapon now applies to all weapons.
Dominate Weapon (Ex): When picking up any magical weapon, the Fighter is considered to meet all the prerequisites for wielding that magical weapon.
Death Stroke (Ex): The Fighter has nearly reached the pinnacle of his training, giving him supreme advantages in the field of war and combat. They know just the right way to twist a sword or adjust a shot to make the very best of a critical moment. From now on, when you succeed on a critical hit the creature must make Fort save or die (DC = 10 + damage done). The creature must be at least under half their full Hit points for this to take place. Like other death effects creatures without discernable anatomies’, most undead, and constructs are immune to this feature. Specific undead creatures, like Vampires, can be slain but the critical hit must come a source that is consistent with the manner in which these creatures can be slain.
|
|
I'm running RotRL with four wizards. I'm planning on posting the results when I'm done. Kyrt-rider is doing the same. I suspect they'll do just fine.
It all depends on the level of system mastery of the players imo as well. Chances are like you say they will be just fine. Yet poor spell selections can ruin a pc playing a caster.
I had one in my current group who was enamored of casting True Strike. Refused to take magic missle. While the spell offers a good chance of success to hit with a ranged attack the DM plays his npcx/creatures smartly. So more often than not because of cover and firing into melee he missed. Not to mention "I fire and reload, fire and reload" when a simple magic missle while doing less damage is a better alternative imo. Taking a feat that allows a animal companion then forgetting or mostly refusing to cast protection spells on it and himself. Then wondering why the AC was so fragile. Now of the group are experienced with system mastery. Then yes chances are nothing to worry about imo.
I was recently called a liar on the boards because I said that I had built a crafter type Wizard who was still overshadowing the Fighter. Most of my feat, skill selections and most but not all my spells were devoted to crafting. At the same time I still took one or two defensive spells like Mage Armor and Shield. Some offensive spells sucj as fireball, lightening Bolt. With some higher level Summon spells later on. I might have been a one trick pony. I was not dumb enough to make the class useless outside of crafting. Not to mention being a crafter I has wands and scrolls. While I was not dominating like a pure blaster caster. I was in most cases overshadowing the Fighter. THe DM was experienced and knew what he was doing. It was a table of players who while not optimizers had decent system mastery. who when need be worked as a team So we could not put the blame on the DM. Nor us the players. Which pretty much left the system.
|
|
The "unchained Fighter" I created does a WHOLE bunch of fun stuff without resorting to things like Path of War (which, honestly, I think is one of the best supplements for Pathfinder out there). The class I created (with the help of some online research) allows the Fighter to remain competitive without relying heavily on magical items to keep up.
I was referring to the regular Fighter from core. I read up on the UF saw some things I liked but wanted to hear feedback about it. To see if it was worth taking. Thanks Diffan my next class will be the UF if the DM allows it. I'm still planning to buy POW when I get a chance.
|
You ever played through RotRL? More than once you have a 4 on 1 encounter and they can be nasty.
Yeah, I'm running RotRL right now. And if by "nasty" you mean "nasty for the bad guy," you're right. All the party vs one dude fights have been complete steamroller fights (I think Malfeshnikor lasted for 3 rounds, and that was only because I bumped up his HP significantly). The Skinsaw Man was even more one sided
The only time I've ever seen a really "balanced" Party v one dude fight is when the DM was basically just making it a narrative fight rather thana rules one. If you make the 1 dude strong enough to really challenge the party, the party will get creamed because the individual parts aren't strong enough. If you make it more "balanced" the fight will generally be laughably easy.
I'm running RotRL with four wizards. I'm planning on posting the results when I'm done. Kyrt-rider is doing the same. I suspect they'll do just fine.
I've got two wizards in mine...actually, two wizard/cleric/mystic theurges at this point, and they pretty much dominate everything but direct damage (though they're still responsible for a good chunk of it) even with their less than optimal builds. The Paladin is responsible for essentially 66% of the damage the party deals. We also have a rouge who someimtes is useful, but rarely. Then the monk, who has done nothing of any use that I haven't completely contrived in order to let them do something.
|
|
Not to mention APs are not good indicators of what s class can do IMO. They are designed for new players with no knowledge of the hobby. Let alone system mastery. With major npcs/bbegs poorly designed. I had a Gunslinger who until I tripled the hp of giant enemies was one shoring enemies on a crit with his musket. Yes I know as a DM I can alter and modify encounters. Then why bother using a AP in the first place. I might as well make my own. In the above example the Skinshsw man minions took out the revanent in my game. Otherwise even for a inexperienced beginners group of players too easy.
|
|
Not to mention APs are not good indicators of what s class can do IMO. They are designed for new players with no knowledge of the hobby. Let alone system mastery. With major npcs/bbegs poorly designed. I had a Gunslinger who until I tripled the hp of giant enemies was one shoring enemies on a crit with his musket. Yes I know as a DM I can alter and modify encounters. Then why bother using a AP in the first place. I might as well make my own. In the above example the Skinshsw man minions took out the revanent in my game. Otherwise even for a inexperienced beginners group of players too easy.
They systematically thrashed everything. I even threw more ghasts with class levels at them. Didn't help that all the Skinsaw Man's flunkies are undead...clerics nuked them.
The problem with bumping up encounters is that you reach the "11th skeleton" and suddenly it goes from easy to ball-crushingly hard. It's tough to balance.
|
|
RoTL reportI know RoTL is a very old AP, but there are still some of us who are playing it and haven't read it and are trying to avoid spoilers. Dunno for sure if any of that is truly spoilery [this stuff about a Skinsaw Man and a Revenant sort of seems like it might be] but do please be careful in the future.
Beyond that, are you treating the mostly useless Monk and Rogue as one character and running the AP unaltered? Because that seems like it might actually work out. The casters [and the martials with actual class features like a Paladin or Barbarian or Ranger or Bloodrager] would still make the individual character feel underwhelming/useless, but the party wouldn't be dragged down.
Hey, I put the rev behind a spoiler tag, so don't put that one on me.
As for the party balance, the problem is that if I run it unaltered the monk and the rogue will barely get to do anything. The paladin alone could've taken all the unaltered BBEG encounters, to say nothing for the singleton monsters that the AP likes to toss in
|
|
Honestly, when it comes to singletons unless there is a special circumstance I don't even bother to run it.
The only time the monk and rogue really got to shine was SPOILERS
And it's too late to edit my response to implement your edit. Sad panda.
|
When we ran RotRL, our elven Void school wizard was actually giving our fighter archer a run for his money during the first two levels (due in no small part to a fair bit of bad luck on the fighter's part, but still...). During the first level she didn't cast much other than gravity bow and mage armor, with the occasional color spray for dropping groups of living opponents. She had the same to-hit as the archer (since he'd put 14s into Strength and Wis so he could eventually use a composite bow and have a bit of a boost on Will saves and Perceptions checks), was actually consistently dealing more damage per round except for when he got really lucky and the enemies were squishy enough that both his Rapid Shot attacks could connect reliably, and she had actually had the same AC most of the time. There was never a "fighter protecting the squishy wizard" dynamic during those levels, though there were a few times the wizard saved the fighter's bacon with a well placed spell or two (like dropping an entire swarm of 5 goblins that were turning him into Swiss cheese with a single casting of color spray). By the time the fighter could legitimately deal more damage than the wizard, the wizard had attained her next level of spells and was now rarely bothering to shoot things with a bow when there were so many other handy options available.
Rise of the Runelords was the AP that really brought it home for me how inaccurate the belief that fighters start out strong to protect the squishy wizards is. Our wizard did more protecting than anyone else in that group, and by the time the fighter was consistently out-hitting the wizard, she'd already moved on to having enough magical power that trying to compete at direct damage dealing was just a pointless exercise.
|
|
Rise of the Runelords was the AP that really brought it home for me how inaccurate the belief that fighters start out strong to protect the squishy wizards is. Our wizard did more protecting than anyone else in that group, and by the time the fighter was consistently out-hitting the wizard, she'd already moved on to having enough magical power that trying to compete at direct damage dealing was just a pointless exercise.
We started the campaign with a fighter as well who left due to OOG drama. He was only slightly more useful than the rogue/monk in that he could carry more stuff and occasionally did some damage. He left about halfway through Burnt Offerings.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
[...]
It's also worth noting that in 1st ed, wands and scrolls were rare random treasure, and a massive pain forwizardsMagic-Users to make for themselves. So all that "carry around A library of scrolls for contingencies" you see these days wasn't really common.It's not to say it's not good advice. It is but once again your trying to unsuccessfully mask the flaws of a class. The Fighter needs more than I swing and I hit. Thier capestone ability is boring imo. Bravery is a joke imo.At 20th level, it's STILL less useful than the class feature a Paladin got at level 3. :(
Diffan: I like the abilities your modiFighter gets, but it still doesn't fix the basic problem: while the fighter's hitting things with a stick really well, the wizard is flying, predicting the future, controlling minds, and summoning demons.
[...]
The wizard's ready access to scrolls and wands is a pretty huge part of their power escalation from the early editions of the game, definitely. I never wizards without at least half a dozen scrolls on hand anymore to cover things like basic utility and buffing. Combine that with all the other power escalation wizards got in Pathfinder (school abilities, removal of all meaningful restrictions on spell access for specialist wizards, etc.), and it's not too hard to see how drastically the dynamic of OD&D/AD&D where casters truly were limited in scope and effectiveness has shifted. Combine that with the fact that the modern Fighter is actually pretty inferior to the early edition Fighters who had the best saves in the game outside of splat book materials and virtually no spell effects that could bypass those excellent defenses, and you've got the modern dynamic pretty spot on, with continuously escalated casters and progressively limited non-casters.
On another note though, I think the Fighter's capstone is a really good example of what the Fighter should get for abilities if he's really intended to be the easy access class. Weapon Mastery is just about the best damage multiplier in the game, pushing the Fighter's flat damage potential past even the Barbarian, and it's a static ability that doesn't require a lot of math or thought at the table to use. Sure, it's a little boring, but it works, and is an appropriate ability. What I'd like to see is other abilities that have same level of effectiveness and unobtrusiveness. Take Bravery, and then make it closer to Favored Terrain only using its current scaling and not being situation specific, granting the Fighter a bonus to Climb, Intimidate, and Swim checks, all saving throws, and initiative checks. Make a version of Armor Training that doesn't make the character more MAD if he wants to get full use out of it. Make Weapon Training a general buff to any weapon the Fighter wields, not just one grouping. Add in narrative abilities, like the ability for the Fighter to use his reputation to quickly gather together an army with appropriate resources, including scaling progression to different types of mounts. The Wizard can cast fly, the Fighter may have to plan ahead a day, but he can get cheap access to a griffon or hippogryph just by putting the word out that "that awesome dude who slew Dracolichicus the Undead is looking for flying cavalry".
The only time I've ever seen a really "balanced" Party v one dude fight is when the DM was basically just making it a narrative fight rather thana rules one. If you make the 1 dude strong enough to really challenge the party, the party will get creamed because the individual parts aren't strong enough. If you make it more "balanced" the fight will generally be laughably easy.
Uh, really? Maybe my GM us just good, but he usually has no problem making a 1vparty fight interesting - granted there ARE times when we do steamroll them, but usually only when we scout them out and are able to get the drop on them. Other times they use their own buffing, or prepare the room in their favor, windwall/resist energy spells etc.
BBEG's are fine if they don't use stupid tactics like sitting still to let the fighter full attack them with no tricks up their sleeve.
In fact the only really tough battle I ever hade in Runelords was versus the Naga in the second book. And at that, only because we didn't think to use something like Dispel Magic to remove its buff spells (also I rolled a nat 1 versus flesh to stone and was the party heavy hitter).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not to say it's not good advice. It is but once again your trying to unsuccessfully mask the flaws of a class. The Fighter needs more than I swing and I hit. Thier capestone ability is boring imo. Bravery is a joke imo.At 20th level, it's STILL less useful than the class feature a Paladin got at level 3. :(
Diffan: I like the abilities your modiFighter gets, but it still doesn't fix the basic problem: while the fighter's hitting things with a stick really well, the wizard is flying, predicting the future, controlling minds, and summoning demons.
Right, a Fighter probably won't (or shouldn't?) have those sorts of capabilities because they're not a spellcaster. But where a wizard can summon a Demon the fighter can jump onto the demon and decapitate it with ease of they can drop its HP over half in a round or two.
I don't think the disparity will ever be bridged without significant overhaul of the magic system OR giving the Fighter near superhuman/spell-like abilities. Unfortunately that sort of kills the flavor of the Fighter IMO.
You can easily get near superhuman or even superhuman without genuinely giving spell-like abilities...
Hells. Yeah.
|
|
The only time I've ever seen a really "balanced" Party v one dude fight is when the DM was basically just making it a narrative fight rather thana rules one. If you make the 1 dude strong enough to really challenge the party, the party will get creamed because the individual parts aren't strong enough. If you make it more "balanced" the fight will generally be laughably easy.Uh, really? Maybe my GM us just good, but he usually has no problem making a 1vparty fight interesting - granted there ARE times when we do steamroll them, but usually only when we scout them out and are able to get the drop on them. Other times they use their own buffing, or prepare the room in their favor, windwall/resist energy spells etc.
BBEG's are fine if they don't use stupid tactics like sitting still to let the fighter full attack them with no tricks up their sleeve.
In fact the only really tough battle I ever hade in Runelords was versus the Naga in the second book. And at that, only because we didn't think to use something like Dispel Magic to remove its buff spells (also I rolled a nat 1 versus flesh to stone and was the party heavy hitter).
Or maybe your GM made it a narrative fight. By narrative fight I mean he dictates how much damage the enemy deals, how much HP they have, and what spells they have access to irregardless of rules, allowing the GM to tailor the fight exactly how they want it.
And your last paragraph is kinda my point, the party essentially rolled over everything. I'm glad that SPOILERS
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact the only really tough battle I ever hade in Runelords was versus the Naga in the second book. And at that, only because we didn't think to use something like Dispel Magic to remove its buff spells (also I rolled a nat 1 versus flesh to stone and was the party heavy hitter).Those fights can be incredibly nasty, most GMs though are too used to powering through. Xeneshia, for example, can bum rush someone off of the tower. She can use her spear and the terrain to her advantage.
Nothing like seeing someone get bull rushed/repositioned off of the tower and watch them plummet to their doom.
I can tell you exactly why most GMs don't reposition players off the tower. It's against the rules.
You cannot use this maneuver to move a foe into a space that is intrinsically dangerous, such as a pit or wall of fire.
You cannot use this maneuver to move a foe into a space that is intrinsically dangerous, such as a pit or wall of fire.
Gated by Int 13 and Combat Expertise, of course.
Gated by Int 13 and Combat Expertise, of course.Seeing as how she doesn't have combat expertise...
But, yeah, I generally let players and NPCs do it anyway. Because I like it.
Indeed! That was more of a general information bulletin. :)
Truth be told I usually rebuild most NPCs in APs. They tend to be a little undertuned for my players.
Something funky is happening with the replies...I had to fugger with mine and it looks like the same thing happened to you.
Indeed! Fixed. :)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can tell you exactly why most GMs don't reposition players off the tower. It's against the rules.You cannot use this maneuver to move a foe into a space that is intrinsically dangerous, such as a pit or wall of fire.
You learn something new everyday. I thought one could reposition enemies. Surprise surprise it requires a feat with a feat tax to actually do it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really have to wonder about stuff like that and not bull rushing someone into things. It's like, generally speaking you're not shoving a dude around in a fight just for kicks and avoiding pushing him into objects or something hazardous. Usually in a fight when someone tackles a dude and pushes him around instead of stabbing him with his dangerous weapon, it's because you can maneuver him into something dangerous or slam him into something.
And yet, you need to spend another feat to do anything INTERESTING with Reposition and Pathfinder seems quite unwilling to reprint Dungeon Crasher from 3.5 even though that by itself would be an option that put bull-rushing fighters on the map as a tactical and offensive option.
It's part of those nice things martials want. Gotta have a feat tax, otherwise they'd be totes OP /snark
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You learn something new everyday. I thought one could reposition enemies. Surprise surprise it requires a feat with a feat tax to actually do it.
I can tell you exactly why most GMs don't reposition players off the tower. It's against the rules.You cannot use this maneuver to move a foe into a space that is intrinsically dangerous, such as a pit or wall of fire.What's even worse is it doesn't matter whether or not the characters KNOW the space is intrinsically dangerous.
There could be a pitfall trap placed in the space by a third party and the rules technically forbid it because that space is 'intrinsically dangerous.'
Wait wait.... Are you saying that we've discovered a fullproof substitute for trapfinding? Are you telling me that a two man team can reposition themselves across a dungeon and insta fail the moment they come across a dangerous space they didn't know was dangerous, then BAM trap discovered?
You can catch the flu anywhere. That can be quite dangerous.
You can easily get near superhuman or even superhuman without genuinely giving spell-like abilities.
The only time that really comes up is with people who are convinced that anything a spell can do is automatically spell-like ability in a game where spells do everything.
A Fighter who can move 300 feet per move action and leap that high and can achieve greater feats within limitations based on Stamina and can cleave through armies as he moves isn't Spell-Like. He's badass.
Just because a Magus can emulate this badassery through magic doesn't make the fighter's badassery magic.
I would point out that what you are describing is obviously superhuman. Unless you want to invent some other fluff (eg. he's a mutant android alien!) to make these abilities explicitly non-magical, it's a good bet that the source of this power is, in fact, magical. Achilles wasn't casting spells, but you're damned right that his supernatural prowess was magical in nature.
This does not, however, make the abilities, themselves, "spell-like abilities". I personally have no problem handing out passive or at-will magical abilities to my martials with the justification that "you are slowly becoming a god". But it's still magic because magic is the default font of all supernatural power in most fantasy settings, mine included.