Same with thieves. Get a good magic weapon, and they could hold their own remarkably well. Plus, things let bows letting you get 2 shots/rd even at low levels off a high dex character worked out just fine.
Yeah, skills were a problem for thieves at low levels, but if you had a good dex, by Name level they were basically 'auto-pass', espec if you were playing a halfling. When 2e let you pour points into a skill, you could basically make 2 skills 'auto-pass' every 4 levels or so (95%) by just maxing out that skill allocation. And when you were the ONLY class that could do all sorts of stuff like that (you know, like cough, spellcasters), you were still valuable, even if you weren't the best in a stand up fight.
This, and...the alpha strike capabilities of a high level thief were truly terrifying. Multiplicative damage was no joke. 2e was probably the high water mark for martials, though in exchange for that, clerics were still awful to play, paladins were all milk-drinkers, monks basically couldn't ever use magic items, yada yada.
There's clearly a coyote vs road runner disparity.
I'm pretty sure the Roadrunner was a Sorcerer.
Someone mentioned that the XP needed to level used to be a balancing factor in old D&D. I never really looked at it that way before, but they have a point. Instead of having a party where everyone is pretty much the same level, you'd have Rogue significantly higher level, followed by your Fighter, with the Wizard coming in last. It used to drive me nuts to need 2-3x the experience of other party members to gain a level, and felt like I was falling further and further behind. But, while I was really fragile as a magic-user (and needed those fighters!), my spells did make up for it.
Not that anyone wants to go back to that system of unequal leveling. But what was implemented in its place?
I loved Druids for this exact reason. As I recall they had one of (if not THE) fastest progressions until, like, level 15?
Gross.
This, and...the alpha strike capabilities of a high level thief were truly terrifying. Multiplicative damage was no joke. 2e was probably the high water mark for martials, though in exchange for that, clerics were still awful to play, paladins were all milk-drinkers, monks basically couldn't ever use magic items, yada yada.I'd suggest BECM, actually. Saving throws carried on going up, casters had a narrower range of spells, weapon mastery was far more useful than weapon specialisation from AD&D, the 'strongholds' the fighter and thief got were notably useful, and there were workable routes to Immortality for all classes.
Didn't the "strongholds" carry over to 2nd Ed, or am I mixing up the editions, now? That's definitely one mechanic I really liked from earlier editions because it gave martials serious "narrative power", and one that I have ported (in a more scaling fashion) to Pathfinder through house rules.
Strongholds, while cool, offer zero combat contribution. That being said, I would totally take one if offered.
I _LOVE_ designing/running them... The bookkeeping doesn't bother me at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I use the "stronghold" idea in my own games in a more scaling fashion to give the martial classes more narrative power (wall of text incoming). Please note that this is setting-specific stuff. There are no prepared casters in my game world (which is a sort of Roman/Greek mythology setting), and sorcerers and oracles are rare and isolated creatures who exist outside of the power structure of normal society. I should also note that there are limits on the availability for purchase of magic items beyond standard +X arms/armor and +X [Stuff]_of_Resistance.
Here it is:
INFLUENCE:
- Characters from the martial classes (Fighter and Rogue) grow in social power as they progress in level. This can move along one of three tracks: political, commercial and criminal.
POLITICAL:
Spoiler:- 4th level: you are most likely a member of a patrician family. You are either a bureaucrat of considerable power within a specific sphere (the courts, tax collection, etc.) in a major city, or a knight of some renown in charge of large personal holdings covering approximately 100 sq. km. If a knight, you can occasionally call up and command small forces of well-disciplined troops (approximately 80 - or a Roman century). You receive diplomatic advantages when dealing with other nobles/aristocrats, and may gain access to areas and audience with people that are otherwise closed to "commoners".- 8th level: in a republican government, you have the power of a Roman senator (one of 300). In a feudal government, you have the power of a local lord or count, with executive control over territory covering approximately 800 sq. km. Your influence is such now that you are accorded considerable public respect, and you have virtually unimpeded access to the halls of power, both at home and abroad. You may occasionally call up and command considerable forces of well-disciplined troops (approximately 800 - or a Roman "first cohort"). If a republican, you will have to justify this call-up to the Senate. If a feudal lord, these troops constitute your own local soldiers, and cannot be easily replaced if they are lost in battle. Local lords may find it difficult to deploy troops in foreign territory, depending on the specifics of the situation.
- 12th level: in a republican government, you have the power of a tribune (one of 3), a consul (one of 2), or proconsul. In a feudal government, you are a baron, with control of territory covering approximately 3,000 sq. km. On account of your position, no door is closed to you. You may occasionally call up and command large forces of well-disciplined troops (approximately 5,000 - or about a Roman legion). If a republican, you will have to justify this call-up to the Senate. If a feudal lord, these troops constitute your own local soldiers, and cannot be easily replaced if they are lost in battle. Local lords may find it difficult to deploy troops in foreign territory, depending on the specifics of the situation.
- 16th level: in a republican government, you are emperor, sole consul or dictator for life. In a feudal government, you are king. Simply put, you rule. You may call up and command massive forces of well-disciplined troops (approximately 100,000 - 20 legions, or rather, an entire army). These troops are yours to do with as you please, though defeat in the field can have serious consequences for the commander.
COMMERCIAL:
Spoiler:- 4th level: you are either the owner of a successful small business (a blacksmith's shop, importer/exporter, hotel/tavern, etc.), or a mid-level lieutenant in a major trading organization. You have either substantial contacts within a single city/region or limited contacts in a province. Your contacts give you a source of general information, and the potential to acquire rare materials, secure transport, and find an audience with NPCs who are in some way related to the business in question. You can marshal liquid resources totaling approximately your WBL x 3, which may be used to acquire equipment, buy services, hire mercenaries, etc. If you are sole owner, this represents the entire savings of your firm, so blowing it all is foolish (and can result in bankruptcy) without a plan to recoup your money (recouping money does not require simply finding piles of gold - profit can be made in a variety of ways). If you are part of an organization, this is company cash, items will belong to the corporation (essentially, you take them out on loan), and wasting resources for personal use may result in loss of status or expulsion from the organization. **you may never have company accounts in excess of WBL x 3 open at any given time. Company money will be tracked as a separate form of wealth. For most purposes, your WBL is essentially quadrupled, provided that you attend to the needs of the firm.**- 8th level: you are either the owner of a medium-sized local business or an important player in a major trading organization. The quality of your contacts and ability to secure resources improves. You may bid on magic items at auction in neighboring cities (three times as many randomly generated items at auction). You can marshal liquid resources totaling approximately your WBL x 3, with the same restrictions as above.
- 12th level: you are either the owner of a major local business (one of the largest in a given city) or joint partner in a major trading organization. The quality of your contacts and ability to secure resources improves. You can bid on items up for auction anywhere in the known world (ten times as many randomly generated items at auction). If local, you may have the power to monopolize a given trade good in a city/region, and exert limited political pressure in this way. If part of a trading organization, you have the executive power to start new ventures on your own, and move vast quantities of material and men. You can marshal liquid resources totaling approximately your WBL x 3. You can no longer be punished/expelled from a major trading organization, but you can still drive it into bankruptcy through mismanagement.
- 16th level: you are the head of a commercial empire, with substantial contacts throughout the known world. You can secure nearly any magic item found in the wild without having to go through the auction process (you get first dibs). You can shut off or re-route major supply chains, threaten states/regions with famine, and generally wield substantial, although indirect political power. You can marshal liquid resources totaling approximately your WBL x 3.
CRIMINAL:
Spoiler:- 4th level: you are a captain in a local mafia (in charge of one region in a city), or a lieutenant in a major criminal syndicate. You can contract for the theft of articles of minor value (your WBL -2) within your sphere of influence, and temporarily raise small forces of irregular troops (up to 15 troops). Your access to information and ability to plant rumors is either at a moderate level (~50%) within your city, or at a low level (~25%) all over the known world.- 8th level: you are either commander of a city-level mafia, or an important player in a major criminal syndicate. You can put out hits on local businessmen and low-level bureaucrats (4th level characters and below), contract for the theft of articles of moderate value (your WBL -2) within your sphere of influence, and temporarily raise moderate forces of irregular troops (up to 50 troops). Your access to information and ability to plant rumors is either at a high level (~75%) within your city, or at a moderate level (~50%) all over the known world.
- 12th level: you are either don of a regional criminal enterprise (covering an entire province), or part of the inner circle of a major criminal syndicate. You can arrange assassinations of mid-level targets (8th level or below), contract for the theft of articles of considerable value/rarity (your WBL -2) within your sphere of influence, and temporarily raise considerable forces of irregular troops (up to 200 troops). Your access to information and ability to plant rumors is either nearly perfect (~95%) within your province, or at a high level (~75%) all over the known world.
- 16th level: you are the head of a major criminal syndicate. You can arrange assassinations of major targets (12th level or below), contract for the theft of articles of great value (your WBL -2) anywhere in the known world, and temporarily raise substantial forces of irregular troops (up to 1,000 troops). Your access to information and ability to plant rumors is nearly perfect (~95%) everywhere in the known world.
This stuff obviously requires a good deal of DM adjudication in terms of determining precisely what each influence track can accomplish, but it has generally worked out (at least in my setting) as a method for giving the martial classes more narrative power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strongholds were an achievement, as were followers, and the ability to craft magic items. I liked Name Levels, and feel that Pathfinder made characters too powerful too early - to the point where few people play past 11th or 12th, if that.
Strongholds were an achievement, as were followers, and the ability to craft magic items. I liked Name Levels, and feel that Pathfinder made characters too powerful too early - to the point where few people play past 11th or 12th, if that.
My group considers level 12 mid-level... we usually play to 18+ and sometimes as high as 40.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The powers that be are very satisfied by the status quo, and I think that asking them to try and address things that would drastically alter the status quo is asking for disappointment when those things play it safe and follow the party line and therefore change nothing in the long run.
^ This right here is why these threads keep popping up, IMO. And the reason Status Quo Is God (or a Level 15 Highgod Paragon) is because Paizo's making oodles of money from Pathfinder.
I feel like it'd be a mistake to equate that with quality, though. At this point, Pathfinder's ubiquitous because it's ubiquitous. It's like PHP, if you're familiar with web code; it was in the right place at the right time, and was considered good enough when it came out. But now we're all stuck dealing with its tangled "spaghetti code," and basically having our imaginations held back by the assumptions made for this one game.
Like that martials need to be "realistic," and have maximum scrutiny applied to their actions, while casters can do whatever they want because magic.
Third-party fixes are an option, but they don't scale. How many people are you going to get to use them? How do you share them with people? Which one do we standardize on? What about people who are stuck in someone else's game ... like, say, Pathfinder Society?
I think we're going to start to see more and more games like D&D 5e, Dungeon World, and Fate take off and get popular. Not just because they don't have this problem (or don't have it as bad), but because the time and money it takes to start playing them -- or even introduce all your friends to them -- is less than it takes to fix Pathfinder. Whether it's your game, your character, or the system itself that we're talking about fixing, here.
Paizo might fix things eventually, but as long as they've built their whole business model on standing athwart progress -- and as long as the people who love their game, and feel empowered by it, have more free time and money than those who'd play anything else if they could -- they're going to keep rejecting it. And cede this design space to other people.
I'm kind of iffy about martials gaining exclusive organizations or leadership. Primarily because I have a thing against mandatory pets let alone entire NPCs. I'd rather handle it a different way especially when a campaign doesn't follow the same game assumptions as 'kick down door of dungeon and occasionally retreat to sell/buy loot'. Some situations simply call for different kind of groups and I think it's better to think of these characters as being powerful as individuals even with the assumption that magic items don't exist to some extent. Also Leadership always irked me because it can easily be replicated with roleplay decisions. All it does is effectively entitle you to rewards that should be represented by bonds you make with NPCs with most players expecting cohorts to simple appear in mid dungeon. I don't mind getting bonuses to aid in forming a stronghold and featless leadership rules like in Everyman Games Ultimate Charisma, but not strongholds as a class feature.
I do like the angle of amazing feats of physical prowess because I don't think that's actually represented in the game, even magically.
I do like the angle of making skills worth while but there's always the lingering situation of Wizard and Fighter where Fighters gain 2 skills per level and while Wizards also gain 2 skills per level he might as well gain 8 per level, one reason why When I went with removing INT from skills per level when I use the consolidated skill list. MAD causes uneven skill gains because of it and worsens the effects ability dependency. If we make skills worthwhile then I think we'd need to do something similar to deal with INT-based arcane casters, the ones that need skills the least, getting in on the skill action and effectively getting at-will spells.
The king of 1e rapid xp advance is the druid. IT was picking up 12th level at the same time other classes were 8th! Of course, it only went to 14, and afterwards, at 500k per level, advanced slower then ANY other class.
Rogues were kings of advancing to HIGH level. I think a f/20 was about equal to a Theif 23 or 24.
30 actually.
Fighter got full THAC0, Cleric 3/4, Rogue 1/2, Wizard 1/3.
A Fighter at 20 would have the same THAC0 as a rogue at 30.
Not quite. Fighters increased 2 every 2 levels, not 1 every level. Clerics 2/3, Rogue 2/4, and wizard 2/5. Saves also increased on that progression.
Combat is one of the few places where fighters don't need so much help. But while a 15th level fighter might be treated as muscle for hire, the Knight Commander of the Order of the Scarlet Lady is fairly equal to a peer of the realm if that order is even moderately powerful. For social situations that's a boon. As is being the Running Man with the reputation that comes with for a thief.Strongholds, while cool, offer zero combat contribution. That being said, I would totally take one if offered.
I _LOVE_ designing/running them... The bookkeeping doesn't bother me at all.
That's true. OTOH, so is being the guy who took down the dragon that was burning the city. He's the hero and savior, even if he didn't get an official title out of it.
And having that kind of social structure built into the mechanics implies a lot of things about the campaign you're playing that we may not all want to be true. It implies a campaign structured around a home base with plenty of downtime to devote to building up both physical structures and organizations.
Works well in Kingmaker, though there's it's already built in, since you're building a kingdom already. Less so in Reign of Winter.It also implies that the fighter is that kind of fighter and more obviously that the rogue is actually a thief.
I still apply those stereotypes to the classes, yep. :D
Stuff!
1) I said high level, not high THACO. A fighter/20 xpwise was about equal toa Theif/23 xpwise.
2) I'm talking a 1E dragon, not a 2E. 1E Huge Ancient Reds were AC -1, which is a 21.
3) Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Double Weapon Spec, a +2 Weapon, and doing 3-18 dmg vs size L with a greatword is 22 hp/swing on auto-hit, for 44 dmg a round. A hill giant is 8d8+1-2hp, or ~38 HP. basically, auto-kill.
An Ogre is 4d8+1, or 19 HP. Also an Autokill per hit, on average.
4)+2 and +3 was not Epic Level gear. in 1E, your paladin was expected to have a 50% chance of having a +5 holy avenger by 10th level. WBL guidelines were, well, whatever. I'm reminded of the 4th level fighter in the FR AMn book with +4 weapon, armor and shield daddy got for him. Sure, YMMV, but a +2 weapon for a f/7 is totally within the paradigm, as is the Gauntlets.
5) Save or dies were there, sure. And fighters could totally have 2x thief HP if they managed to get a 19+ Con score. Thieves didn't 'average' a 15 Con. And 'could' have twice the HP didn't mean they 'did' have twice the HP.
Note that if you gave a Fighter COn 18 and max hp, he had 132 HP at level 11.
If you gave a wizard max hp and Con 16, at level 11 he had exactly 66 HP...half the fighter. The Rogue would have 81.
6) I did note that this was a 2E example specifically. 1E, thieves basically had to be high dex demi-humans and wait until about 10th level to be uber.
But seriously, nobody EVER played a straight thief in our parties, it was always a Fighter/thief demi-human, for exactly the survivability reason above.
As for saves, fighters started bad, improved the fastest, and ended up the best. I think clerics started best, ended up second best, but I'd have to see the table again. Thieves definitely averaged the worst.
1E didn't have much of a skill point system because the only skills that counted were thief skills to an adventurer, and they were tied to Ranger and Thief classes. Everything else was basically just fluff.
==Aelryinth
You're looking at 'ranking'. Saves are absolute numbers. A 'ranking' could be 'everyone has great numbers for this save, and he's the best' or 'everyone has lousy numbers for this save, and he's the worst', without actually saying what the numbers ARE.
Absolute Numbers:
Fighter: 3, 5, 4, 4, 6
Clerics: 2, 6, 5, 8, 7
Thief: 8, 4, 7, 11, 5
Mage: 8, 3, 5, 7, 4
I think we can all agree that the best combination up there Is the fighter, with mage and cleric roughly equal, and thief worst.
Add on a ring of Prot +3, and a fighter is only missing on a 2 for one save (Spells). For anything else, only an auto-fail of 1 is going to stop him.
Basically, for high level play, if you got to a base 5 you were pretty 'safe' as far as saves went. Fighter does that with 4 saves.
Fighters Rawked.
==Aelryinth
Fighters actually don't level up fast. They have the most stable of xp flows, basically doubling xp required until 9th level, when it settles in at 250k xp/level.
Even a mage out levels a fighter until 14th or so.
paladins and rangers are the 'slow' levelers, but generally aren't more then a level or two back, and have enough toys to make up for it.
==Aelryinth
All things considered didn't the fast leveling translate to 3rd edition in the form of BAB? If its an artifact of that would it be reasonable if saves were naturally along the same track?
For example; Full BAB would mean +1 BAB per level, 1d10 hit points, and +1/2 to saves per level (in this scenario classes would recieve a +2 class bonus to their favored save) The other classes would follow but at 3/4 the rate and the same goes for 1/2 BAB classes except monks who get an exception due to having a lot of pseudo full BAB abilities and just gain full BAB to saves.
While we're at it, since we're connecting advancement and general prowess to BAB why not go the full mile and link Skills per level to it as well. Full BAB gets 6 skills per level, 3/4 BAB gets 4, (except Rogues because they're special,) and 1/2 BAB gets 2.
As I recall, Rolemaster (don't hold me to that!) gave you XP for every step that you took. Might have been every mile, but I do recall it being based on movement. This was A Long Time Ago.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All things considered didn't the fast leveling translate to 3rd edition in the form of BAB? If its an artifact of that would it be reasonable if saves were naturally along the same track?
For example; Full BAB would mean +1 BAB per level, 1d10 hit points, and +1/2 to saves per level (in this scenario classes would recieve a +2 class bonus to their favored save) The other classes would follow but at 3/4 the rate and the same goes for 1/2 BAB classes except monks who get an exception due to having a lot of pseudo full BAB abilities and just gain full BAB to saves.
While we're at it, since we're connecting advancement and general prowess to BAB why not go the full mile and link Skills per level to it as well. Full BAB gets 6 skills per level, 3/4 BAB gets 4, (except Rogues because they're special,) and 1/2 BAB gets 2.
BAB and Skills should definitely offset against magic. If you're a full caster, you're not mastering skills, you're mastering magic. Same thing with full power 3/4 caster.
There's really NO excuse for Inquisitors, Bards and the like to have as many skill points and as much magic as they do. Sure, you can make the argument of being spon casters for the bards, so they don't have to study, and divine casters for Inqs, so again they don't have to study much..But Fighters, Rogues and Barbs don't need to study spellcasting at ALL. That should give them at absolute advantage with pure skills. The Barb does get Rage Powers that give him probably the highest skill bonuses from a class in the game if he chooses to take them.
Fighters get nothing, and Rogues get inferior Talents.
Let's be truthful here, if Rangers deserve 6 skill points a level, and are casters with a magical animal companion, then fighters deserve AT LEAST the same amount. And Rogues should have more then either of them, and be better at them, because skills, not sneak attack, is the 'spells' of their class.
Furthermore, Rangers get bonuses from Terrain and FE that can stack all the way to +10. INqs and Bards get a similar benefit. That means that Fighters and ROgues should get something of similar quality.
They get nothing.
Remember, it's not just how many skills you get, it's HOW GOOD you are with those skills. Having 14 skill points a level sounds great, but if you're the worst person in the party at all of them, so what?
And with a bard or Inq around, that's probably exactly what is going to happen.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All things considered didn't the fast leveling translate to 3rd edition in the form of BAB? If its an artifact of that would it be reasonable if saves were naturally along the same track?
For example; Full BAB would mean +1 BAB per level, 1d10 hit points, and +1/2 to saves per level (in this scenario classes would recieve a +2 class bonus to their favored save) The other classes would follow but at 3/4 the rate and the same goes for 1/2 BAB classes except monks who get an exception due to having a lot of pseudo full BAB abilities and just gain full BAB to saves.
While we're at it, since we're connecting advancement and general prowess to BAB why not go the full mile and link Skills per level to it as well. Full BAB gets 6 skills per level, 3/4 BAB gets 4, (except Rogues because they're special,) and 1/2 BAB gets 2.
BAB and Skills should definitely offset against magic. If you're a full caster, you're not mastering skills, you're mastering magic. Same thing with full power 3/4 caster.
There's really NO excuse for Inquisitors, Bards and the like to have as many skill points and as much magic as they do. Sure, you can make the argument of being spon casters for the bards, so they don't have to study, and divine casters for Inqs, so again they don't have to study much..But Fighters, Rogues and Barbs don't need to study spellcasting at ALL. That should give them at absolute advantage with pure skills. The Barb does get Rage Powers that give him probably the highest skill bonuses from a class in the game if he chooses to take them.
Fighters get nothing, and Rogues get inferior Talents.
Let's be truthful here, if Rangers deserve 6 skill points a level, and are casters with a magical animal companion, then fighters deserve AT LEAST the same amount. And Rogues should have more then either of them, and be better at them, because skills, not sneak attack, is the 'spells' of their class.
Furthermore, Rangers get bonuses from Terrain and FE that can stack all the way to +10....
I made a chart to see what it would look like.
After glancing at some classes I think this works out for the best. I completely agree with you, physical prowess and education outside of magic or worship should be reflected in more than just BAB. Ranger has always irked me as being a Full BAB character that had 6 skills per level. Its ridiculous, there's no justification for Fighters to have no spells AND no skills along with not being able to bypass feat prerequisites while the Ranger is doing all three, plus one-uping fighters on action economy.
The class I like getting helped by this the most though is the Paladin. Basically forced to be the charming dumb brick due to Madness and a lack of skills. This does give him the best saves ever but he's already virtually immune to anything that lets him make a save if not literally immune so there's no real difference.
And at that rate Bravery may be actually worth somethingas having a natural +15 progression against fear effects instead of an embarrassing 11. (not even 'good' progression.
It doesn't exactly solve Rogue's or Fighter's situation completely but it sets up the ability to manage those without accidentily making casters stronger. One of the biggest problems with potential solutions for me is that one slip up when helping a monk and all of a sudden Druids get startlingly powerful too taking you back to square one.
Personally I prefer to ignore the rogues existance and replace it with Ninja...
The ninja is just an all around better rogue... if it wasnt for the dex to damage thing, it would be better than the unchained as well...
Not quite. Fighters increased 2 every 2 levels, not 1 every level. Clerics 2/3, Rogue 2/4, and wizard 2/5. Saves also increased on that progression.The king of 1e rapid xp advance is the druid. IT was picking up 12th level at the same time other classes were 8th! Of course, it only went to 14, and afterwards, at 500k per level, advanced slower then ANY other class.
Rogues were kings of advancing to HIGH level. I think a f/20 was about equal to a Theif 23 or 24.
30 actually.
Fighter got full THAC0, Cleric 3/4, Rogue 1/2, Wizard 1/3.
A Fighter at 20 would have the same THAC0 as a rogue at 30.
Actually it was the reverse on saves, Wizards had far better saves than Fighters on average.
And no Fighters lowered THAC0 1 per level.
You are confusing the chart (which showed the levels by 2's) and the class (which had its own indicator) and Rogues were ALWAYS terribad in combat.
No, I had it right. Wizards started with great saves but they only increased every 5 levels. Fighters had lousy saves but increased every 2 levels.
There is also the thing that fighters will level up faster, so their saves improved quicker too.Not at all.
Remember in 2nd Edition characters gain experience for everything.
Wizards for every spell they cast, regardless of the effect.
Rogues every time they use a skill.
Then everyone gets experience for everything killed, every item found, every quest completed.
Wizards can grind out their first few levels without ever seeing a battle or even being in danger. Rogues can by picking locks. Fighters... Fighters have to fight...
Rangers and Paladins are slooooooooooooooooooooooooow though.
You forgot that everybody gets XP for treasure. 1GP equals 1 XP. And rogues get double. +10% if they have that 16 Dex.
You forgot that everybody gets XP for treasure. 1GP equals 1 XP. And rogues get double. +10% if they have that 16 Dex.There is also the thing that fighters will level up faster, so their saves improved quicker too.Not at all.
Remember in 2nd Edition characters gain experience for everything.
Wizards for every spell they cast, regardless of the effect.
Rogues every time they use a skill.
Then everyone gets experience for everything killed, every item found, every quest completed.
Wizards can grind out their first few levels without ever seeing a battle or even being in danger. Rogues can by picking locks. Fighters... Fighters have to fight...
Rangers and Paladins are slooooooooooooooooooooooooow though.
In 2nd Ed both of those were optional rules.
Lets try to stay on Pathfinder though folks, not discuss the sins (or successes) of the fathers of the game.
:D
I do like the idea of martials progressing faster. Even if Fighters leveled twice as fast as casters, they still wouldn't 'be as good' (though I would FOR SURE play one).
I'm convinced that a good fix is to gestalt Rogue with Fighter, grant them Fast Heal (but make it conditional, if they gain caster levels they lose it)...
Maybe slap all good saves on them too. Some extra rules regarding getting additional saves VS stuff (get to roll again if they fail etc)... just make them TANKY.
Um... yup. That might be enough for me. Fighters and Rogues aren't AWFUL, they just are awful compared to casters.
Narrative power be damned, throw enough combat ability at them and I'll play them. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rangers get 6 skill points a level because they MUST have Stealth and Survival as legacy skills. The 4 points a level left are for 'anything else'. Remember they used to only have 4? ANd people whined because Wild Empathy (to command their companion), Hide in Shadows, Move silently, and Survival (to track) took ALL those skills points, and they were ALL iconic to the Ranger.
Now we have Pathfinder, where skills were compressed, saving a point, and 2 more handed out, and the Ranger isn't suffering at all. After paying for 3 mandatory skills, he's still got more then the fighter, and his spellcasting is even better then before!
The fighter never had legacy skills, so he was never given extra skill points, and magic was a non-issue. The problem was that the fighter, with weapon spec, was always the ranger's superior in combat with anything other then giants, because he got more attacks and generally wore better armor.
The flexibility of favored enemy kinda renders that moot, now.
Also...remember that Rangers had to be Good alignment!! It's something that doesn't come up, but the unique skills of the ranger were due to a mystical tie with nature. lose the good alignment, lose them all.
not so, not so anymore. The ranger now takes from nature more then he bonds with it.
==Aelryinth
Personally, I'd like for mythic, at least, to have given the martials some cool stuff. The far jump ability is a step in the right direction, but why are they handing out boring fiddly stuff like 'mythic deadly aim' (yawn) and 'you can move and full attack'.
Why didn't I see stuff like 'pick up an object at least your character level*your body weight heavy, and throw it with long range as an area attack for character level*d10+str mod, ref half, costs 1 mp'?
Or even this: 'you throw a foe at a wall or barrier so hard, it makes a giant hole through the wall, and all the ones after that wall. Make a touch attack to pick up a foe, can't be larger than you, and make a cmb check vs his cmd to throw him. If successfull, he flies through anything with a hardness smaller than your strength score/2, and takes 1d6 damage per 5 ft. traveled through solid material. creatures leave behind square holes, the sides of which are large enough for a creature of similar size to walk through without squeezing.'
That's just about mythic fireball, powerwise, but allows you to actually do mythic stuff.
But noo... boring ass full attacking stuff.
I dunno, seven league leap is pretty cool, and is Ex, so it works even without magic...
The vital strike chain really opens up with mythic...
Especially since you can use it twice per round. I realize it's just damage, but DAMN can it be a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno, seven league leap is pretty cool, and is Ex, so it works even without magic...
The vital strike chain really opens up with mythic...
Especially since you can use it twice per round. I realize it's just damage, but DAMN can it be a lot.
Yeah, yeah. MVT is good, but "I kill a foe in a single strike with a two-handed weapon!" is not a mythic ability. This is the regular ass result you expect in the real world when someone gets hit with a two-handed weapon. Obviously, fantasy environment, exceptions exist etc. I wouldn't be against it if it was one ability between a bunch of things like Seven League Leap.
I also think they shot themselves in the foot. MOAR DAMAGE is pretty much all the good abilities you get as a martial in mythic. This is an excellent syndrome of the problem. If they'd given them nice things instead of damage, WotR wouldn't be as much of a cakewalk as people are reporting it being.
That said, it was poorly written enough that the natural interpretation of the text gives an absurd result - RAI is painfully obvious, but if I wanted to have arguments like "No, that's not how that ability is meant to be used," I'd be creating homebrew, not paying paizo to do it for me.
Isn't there a mythic ability to use a grappled creature as a club?
There is a Rage Power that does it.