They only thing they can do is hit point damage, and they are not even always the best at that.
Barbarians are right with them and sometimes ahead, and they have out of combat utility without having to go into archetypes.
Barbarians can also have a decent AC, and if they go with the cookie-cutter build that boost DR they are ahead better in hit point defense. They can also get higher saves with superstition. They also have more hit points.
The fighter is better at archery, but that is not "everything". It might be the only thing they can claim as being consistently better at than a barbarian.
Overall the fighter is behind rangers, especially when you know hat enemies you will be fighting. Paladins are also ahead, unless the GM goes out of his way to mess with them.
From my perspective that just means Barbarians need toning down a tad.... perhaps a "Chaining"?!
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a small list of what fighters lost going from 2e to 3e.
1) Exclusive access to high Str score bonuses.
Everyone can get as strong as a fighter.
2) Exclusive access to high Con score bonuses. Other classes limited to +2!
Now everyone gets the same bonuses.
3) Stat bonuses started at 15. Maybe.
Before, it took MAJOR investment in a stat to be good at it. A 15/14/13/12/10/8 character literally had NO bonuses if that 15 was in Str. To be a fighter or ANY kind of melee, you had to have serious investment in the appropriate stats.
4) Stats were limited, and stat boosters were rare.
Seriously, when you're limited to 18, and +Stat items aren't everywhere, hit die and what bonuses you DO have become very important.
5) Everyone else's BAB improved.
Wizards went for 1/3 to 1/2. Rogues went from 1/2 to 3/4, and clerics went from 2/3 to 3/4.
6) Saves crashed and burned.
Everyone knows this one. They didn't have the best starting out, but were neck and neck at 'Name' level, and the best at the end.
7) Got to move and full attack.
Not anymore, they can't.
8) Exclusive access to multiple attacks.
Only TWF allowed other classes to do the same.
9) The only class to get reliable damage bonuses via Weapon Spec
10) 'Unlimited' Dex in armor. ACP? What's that?
11) Monsters were given more hit points. Hugely more. Devastatingly more. Which makes fighters that much less effective against them (and direct damage in general).
12) Stats are Uncapped.
Similar to 1, but not only can other classes be as strong as fighters, they can be HUGELY MORESO, via magic. +3/+3 Double weapon spec was awesome, back in the day. ++16 Str from turning into a grizzly bear is moreso.
13) Loss of class abilities.
Main one for a fighter, the ability to found a keep and gather followers. Major impact on the narrative possibilities.
14) The most weapon proficiencies.
Back in the day, you actually had to choose what you were proficient in. Now everybody and their brother gets access to martial weapons.
15) Weapons were relatively stronger.
d8/d12 longswords. d10/3d6 Greatswords. Combined with lower monster hit points, weapons were simply stronger.
16) Spellcasting got sped up.
used to be, you could interrupt a caster anytime during the period his spell was being cast. Now, you have to hit him ON HIS ACTION to stop it, unless it's a rare full-round casting.
17) You hit a caster, he lost the spell.
One hit. No concentration checks, thanks.
18) Just as many skills as everyone else, no more.
Class skills, what? Major shafting here.
19) Fighter only magic items went away.
Tellingly, Girdles of Giant Str.
20) Less Healing magic.
If there's less healing magic around, the guys with the most hit points are the best to have. With healing magic, the main difference is how well you recover between fights, not how many you have in this one.
Basically, Wands of CLW made it easy to ignore having 20 less hit points then the guy next to you, if you all just got healed back up by the next fight.
21) Everyone now gets hit dice for all levels.
Like monsters getting more hit dice, and everyone getting the high Con bonuses, getting more Hit Die just made the HP advantage fighters used to have get sucked away.
22) The best hit die.
Wizards and rogues both got HD improvements in PF. Instead of making fighters better, they intro'd barbarians.
23) Potion miscibility.
Yeah, this. You were very careful of taking potion buffs, because you couldn't suck down a potion of healing while under a potion of giant strength, you know?
24) Magical armor had no move restrictions and was half weight.
Now? Unless it's made of mithral, suck it for some levels.
25) Bastard swords were awesome.
Bastard swords now suck.
26) Haste aged you a year.
When other classes get easy access to multiple attacks, it devalues the fighter types having them. Haste is everywhere now. Everyone gets multiple attacks at full BAB!
27) Casters couldn't move and cast. They had to sit on their butt and be a target until their spell went off.
28) Multiple attacks were all at the same hit rate.
Now, multiple attacks are less and less likely to hit.
29) Varying xp advance tables. Weak classes tended to advance faster.
Everyone advances the same in level, but not the same in power now.
30)Spell Resistance worked!
Spell resistance is now a small impediment with the right build, or not at all.
31) Save or suck spells got less and less effective with level.
Save and suck now gets more effective with level. This means Fighters having crappy saves is now doubly damning...at high levels, save-or-die spells were a loser's game. Now, it's ALL the game. Fighters cannot inflict these, and find it hard to defend against these.
32) Spells took a LONG time to get back.
Spells take an hour to get back...or less, with the right feats. This removes another limitation on casters.
I'm sure there are others, but that's all I could come up with in 15 minutes.
==Aelryinth
Also back in 1st and 2nd edition fighters had the second best saves at high levels (not so good at lower ones), beaten only by the paladin, who had....fighter saves with a plus 2 bonus. While each class had one save on the tree where they were king, a high level fighter was normally one point behind them, except they had those numbers for all their saves. Now, fighters have some of the weakest saves in the game.
And while the skills systems has certainly grown, back in 2E the skill disparity wasn't there either.
3rd edition, and by extension 3.5 and Pathfinder have not been kind to the class.
It's true, and very unfortunate. The Fighter should have no less than 4 + Int. modifier skill points and at least two good saves. Further I'd say 3rd/3.5/PF haven't really been kind to any weapon-based class compared to spellcasters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We don't always see eye-to-eye but this was a VERY impressive list Aelryinth.
Varying xp advance tables. Weak classes tended to advance faster.
Everyone advances the same in level, but not the same in power now.
This one made me think, you could introduce Pathfinder's own slow/normal/fast XP progression based on classes. Full-Casters (wizards, summoners, clerics, druids, etc.) would progress Slowly, Half-Casters (Bards, Paladins, Rangers, Magus, etc.) would progress normally, and non-Casters (Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, and Rogues) would advance on the fast pace. This might level the playing field a bit. But it would wreak havoc on the CR system because it would be harder to judge how difficult an encounter would be if you had a Level 8 Fighter, Level 8 Rogue, level 5 Cleric and Wizard.
I dunno, thoughts?
The low level impact would be too huge.
The dif xp advances didn't really have that much impact at the low levels. It was when you got into Name level, and wizards took almost twice the xp to advance as Rogues did, that you started to see level difference.
I think I ran the math once, and a Fighter/20, Rogue/22, and Wizard/17 ended up around the same xp totals.
Slow vs fast is probably too big a gap. But medium vs Fast? Probably well doable. The problem is that they are still supposed to be 'equal', so what's the standard for gold and gear?
Just ugh. The system is too invested in levels now for calculating balance in the party. Your only alternative is to mess with the classes to restore equilibrium.
==Aelryinth
In home games I have spontaneous 9th-level casters gain spells levels at the same rate as the prepared casters. If spontaneous casting is such a boon that it warrants a slower progression then the spontaneous 2/3 casters would have it too. Similarly, classes that gain spells based on a bloodline, domain, patron, etc gain those spells as soon as they can cast them. Bloodlines are done on a case-by-case basis.
Fighters in my games get a new feature every 4 levels called Stamina Training that reduces the cost of Stamina Tricks by 1-5 and considers them as always having paid that many for tricks with variable Stamina costs. Other than that, most issues were fixed by the AWT and AAT options. There are a number of feat fixes I want to try as well.
I give every non-INT class a minimum of 4 skill points per level. All creatures can use the feats Power Attack, Deadly Aim, Piranha Strike, and Combat Expertise without choosing them as long as they qualify for the feat. Combat Expertise also no longer requires INT 13 because anything with a modicum of self-preservation should know how to be more cautious in combat.
The low level impact would be too huge.
The dif xp advances didn't really have that much impact at the low levels. It was when you got into Name level, and wizards took almost twice the xp to advance as Rogues did, that you started to see level difference.
I think I ran the math once, and a Fighter/20, Rogue/22, and Wizard/17 ended up around the same xp totals.
Slow vs fast is probably too big a gap. But medium vs Fast? Probably well doable. The problem is that they are still supposed to be 'equal', so what's the standard for gold and gear?
Just ugh. The system is too invested in levels now for calculating balance in the party. Your only alternative is to mess with the classes to restore equilibrium.
==Aelryinth
Maybe Slow vs. Fast is too great a disparity. As for standard gold and gear, it would mess with the Wealth By Level but that's not exactly something everyone adheres to anyways. I mean, I only made some nods towards it when I DM 3.5/PF and I never really encountered problems with the early levels. Also, maybe gear and the like can be more geared towards the respectable characters?
But if the alternative is to mess with class features, I'm thinking the Fighter needs more ways to impose status effects. Some of the best wizard builds take creatures out of the fight or stop their actions, thus making them MUCH easier to handle than just churning through their Hit Points by attacking AC. A Fighter should be able to daze, stun, dazzle, nauseate, blind, etc. monsters with specific weapon attacks in addition to dealing damage.
|
So, does anyone think the Fighter or Sorcerer classes both need some retooling? Just wondering.
I think the Fighter could do with an Unchained version, particularly in the realm of taking band-aid options like those presented in Ultimate Intrigue and Weapon Master's Handbook and baking them directly into the class chassis so the class isn't paying for things it should have gotten up front (improved version of Bravery, more non-damage-centric benefits for wielded weapons and armor, etc.).
For the Sorcerer, I'd like to see the class get its iconic bloodline spells at the levels other full casters gain those options; it has never made sense to me that someone for whom that magic is an inherent part of their being is often accessing that magic multiple levels after the wizard. Honestly though, beyond that I've never had any real issues with the sorcerer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my perspective that just means Barbarians need toning down a tad.... perhaps a "Chaining"?!They only thing they can do is hit pointWalk away from the group... At lesst 'til the other players reach their 16th birthday. :P
Alternatively, if you really, really don't want to leave... Do the suggested advice of calling them silly/embarassing nicknames and kill anyone who has a problem with it. Not a very mature solution, but when in Rome... damage, and they are not even always the best at that.
Barbarians are right with them and sometimes ahead, and they have out of combat utility without having to go into archetypes.
Barbarians can also have a decent AC, and if they go with the cookie-cutter build that boost DR they are ahead better in hit point defense. They can also get higher saves with superstition. They also have more hit points.
The fighter is better at archery, but that is not "everything". It might be the only thing they can claim as being consistently better at than a barbarian.
Overall the fighter is behind rangers, especially when you know hat enemies you will be fighting. Paladins are also ahead, unless the GM goes out of his way to mess with them.
Right... How dare those martials have fun, useful features... Only casters are allowed to do stuff other than hit enemies with a pointy stick...
You know, I've never heard anyone ever tell a high level caster "well, you should have weakened your spellcasting if you wanted to do other things!"
I didnt say that high level casting couldnt do with a tweak did I ?
I have commented several times on martial vs caster imbalance debates.
My general point is that the fighter is not as useless as people make out... yes it takes a degree of system mastery but then as I've said before... you cant have everything! And from an RP perspective can be played in just about anyway you like unlike a Paladin for example.
But hey I'm not here to go on and on.... so if you think different then cool.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right... How dare those martials have fun, useful features... Only casters are allowed to do stuff other than hit enemies with a pointy stick...From my perspective that just means Barbarians need toning down a tad.... perhaps a "Chaining"?!They only thing they can do is hit pointWalk away from the group... At lesst 'til the other players reach their 16th birthday. :P
Alternatively, if you really, really don't want to leave... Do the suggested advice of calling them silly/embarassing nicknames and kill anyone who has a problem with it. Not a very mature solution, but when in Rome... damage, and they are not even always the best at that.
Barbarians are right with them and sometimes ahead, and they have out of combat utility without having to go into archetypes.
Barbarians can also have a decent AC, and if they go with the cookie-cutter build that boost DR they are ahead better in hit point defense. They can also get higher saves with superstition. They also have more hit points.
The fighter is better at archery, but that is not "everything". It might be the only thing they can claim as being consistently better at than a barbarian.
Overall the fighter is behind rangers, especially when you know hat enemies you will be fighting. Paladins are also ahead, unless the GM goes out of his way to mess with them.
Barbarians are not considered overpowered.
As far as melees go, they are excellent. Good damage, mobile, excellent defenses, not weapon dependent, decent skill points. They can't heal themselves very well, and they've got little narrative ability, but they can even give away rage at high level.
It's not that barbs are too good, but their base chassis is better at what the fighter does then the fighter, mostly because of better defenses.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my perspective that just means Barbarians need toning down a tad.... perhaps a "Chaining"?!
They only thing they can do is hit point damage, and they are not even always the best at that.
Barbarians are right with them and sometimes ahead, and they have out of combat utility without having to go into archetypes.
Barbarians can also have a decent AC, and if they go with the cookie-cutter build that boost DR they are ahead better in hit point defense. They can also get higher saves with superstition. They also have more hit points.
The fighter is better at archery, but that is not "everything". It might be the only thing they can claim as being consistently better at than a barbarian.
Overall the fighter is behind rangers, especially when you know hat enemies you will be fighting. Paladins are also ahead, unless the GM goes out of his way to mess with them.
The thing is, similar statements can be made about Rangers, Paladins, Slayers, Vigilantes, Samurai, etc. It's not the Barbarian who's the odd man out, it's the Fighter. You'd need to "chain" so many classes when it's simpler and more efficient to simply bring one class up to par.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll admit, I hate seeing 2+Int as skill points. Right now as it stands our party's barbarian is outsmarting the CLERIC. And not just because she's got a 13 Int versus his 10. And I dread thinking of finding some way for a fighter to ... well, do much of anything out of combat. Skill point starvation is not a fun thing.
I do kind'a like seeing a class where you can just bolt things on you want to do. It can be overwhelming, tho, and 'system mastery' is one of those things I'd rather not make new players rely upon.
That said ... does it say something about the fighter's main benefit (lots of feats) that last year we got Dirty Fighting as a feat to kill some of the old feat taxes? I initially thought it was an overpowered feat, but now that I think about it, how many fighters would trouble themselves to pick up IUS and Combat Expertise?
{. . .}
22) The best hit die.
Wizards and rogues both got HD improvements in PF. Instead of making fighters better, they intro'd barbarians.
{. . .}
1st Edition AD&D Unearthed Arcana already introduced the Barbarian with d12 hit dice (although with SLOW level progression by XP). It called the Barbarian a subclass of the Fighter, but for all practical purposes, the Barbarian was already a separate class.
Speaking of different level progression by XP, this would be a nice idea except for one problem: Good luck trying to figure this out when multiclassing in D&D 3.x/PF style instead of the way 1st Edition did it.
Edit: Fix broken quotes.
From my perspective that just means Barbarians need toning down a tad.... perhaps a "Chaining"?!
They only thing they can do is hit point damage, and they are not even always the best at that.
Barbarians are right with them and sometimes ahead, and they have out of combat utility without having to go into archetypes.
Barbarians can also have a decent AC, and if they go with the cookie-cutter build that boost DR they are ahead better in hit point defense. They can also get higher saves with superstition. They also have more hit points.
The fighter is better at archery, but that is not "everything". It might be the only thing they can claim as being consistently better at than a barbarian.
Overall the fighter is behind rangers, especially when you know hat enemies you will be fighting. Paladins are also ahead, unless the GM goes out of his way to mess with them.
All of the martial(full-BAB) classes are overall better than a fighter. The fighter needs help. The other classes down't need to be brought down. It is not just an issue of system master because even the people here who know the rules well question the fighter. If you have some fighter build that can do extremely better than the other classes(full BAB) at damage, and have out of combat utility(from the class) then post it.
The slayer is close enough to it in damage to be the main damage dealer, and beats it in utility, and the slayer is behind the ranger in against some enemies and doesn match the ranger in utility.
It is fine to feel a certain way, but without objective proof its just words on the screen
{. . .}
22) The best hit die.
Wizards and rogues both got HD improvements in PF. Instead of making fighters better, they intro'd barbarians.
{. . .}Speaking of different level progression by XP, this would be a nice idea except for one problem: Good luck trying to figure this out when multiclassing in D&D 3.x/PF style instead of the way 1st Edition did it.
That's a good point too. One option is to just nix multiclassing altogether. There are, quite frankly, MORE than enough base classes to cover anything multiclassing would accomplish and also remove things like level-dipping. You'd have to rate PrCs based on a number of factors to figure out where they would progress though
I would love to see an unchained fighter. I like the class as the "pure" martial, but right now it is embarassing. Yes, it got some new toys since unchained, but the problem is that the core of the class is lacking.It can fight well, though other martial characters like paladins or rangers can match or even exceed it, and it can't do anything else all that well.
I think the core of the class is really lacking. You have 3 class feature before lvl 19, one of which is pretty lackluster (bravery gives you no more than a trait until level 10 and is no better than being near a paladin until almost the end of the game) , 1 good save, 2+int class skills, and no casting (which could simulate no class features). Yes, you have a lot of feats, but many features are as good or better than feats. The vigilante was pretty much the last straw, having class features that give more than one feat on a chassis better in almost every way.
An unchained sorcerer can restructure the class slightly - it has a few issues such as very few spells known early on (notably fewer than a bard or summoner,which imo is strange and frustrating for the player), and would be nice, but not necessary. However, an unchained fighter is a must.
Paizo, please. I appreciate the effort into patching the fighter piecemeal, but the problem goes deeper than that.
I did an unchained version of the Fighter last autumn, which is possibly a shade too powerful, but it's certainly better than the default class.
Anyone whose earliest experiences with the game are 2nd Edition could easily miss that - the Barbarian went to being a fighter kit in that edition, rather than a specific class.
Nope, nope, you totally missed the VERY FIRST LINE.
"Here's a small list of what fighters lost going from 2e to 3e."
Is 1e in there? No? Didn't miss anything. Yes, 1e barbs with their 8d12 +4 HP/level afterwards, double dex and con bonuses, and can't use magic weapons until 6th level or something; poster boys for Method 6 dice rolling because even Gygax said you needed 18/17/16 for them to be really effective, yes yes.
Weren't in 2e.
==Aelryinth
|
Give sorcerers more skill-points. 4+ Int would be fine; wizards would still get far more in practice, but at least sorcerers could actually get Spellcraft/Knowledge: Arcana and have a couple points leftover.Honestly, Cleric needs an Unchained version more than the Sorcerer. But since they're both 9-level casters, they don't need an unchained version *that* bad. 4+INT skillpoints on either of those classes would be great.
I don't think that the cleric needs it nearly as much. Sure, it's a bit annoying for both, but the cleric isn't competing with a class which is a SAD Int based class for a group slot.
My problem with the fighter now is that they are "fixing" the fighter by offering feats to help it. Which begins to be a problem, cause now you have a half-dozen feats to patch the fighter up to effectiveness, but you're not delayed on any feat chains cause you need to spend everything just getting some basic class features.
Counterpoints! They weren't 'horrific imbalances'. They were design intentions! And, overall, you're arguing 'reason for the change'. I'm informing you of the 'effect' of the change, not the reasons for it.
1) of course it did. And guess what? Most video games where you have a melee specialist...he can get stronger then other classes, too!
You may as well argue restricting spellcasting to caster classes hurts non-caster classes!
2) More hp/health/vitality for the melee classes is a hallmark of a lot of the video games I play where stuff has specialized roles. having more hit points was a class benefit, as surely as having spells.
3) Stats required investment in the class and the role. You didn't make 'all-arounders'. You made people that specialized in their class. For fighters, it meant the investment for performance went from a minimum 16 to a 12. That's huge.
4) You're not seeing it again. Casters didn't have many stat boosting spells, either, and the ability score limits were STILL in effect. If you can get +6 to Con from a magic item, it doesn't matter as much if you start with a 10...you're still getting where you want to go. Seriously, if I have a 17 with no buffs, or a 13 with a Belt +4, who has the advantage? The guy who didn't point spend to hit 17.
5) You're focusing VERY specifically on the rogue. And it doesn't matter that it's a balance issue...this is focused on the fighter!
Making other classes more combat worthy means you rely less and less on the classes that already are. And so it goes...from 3e onwards, dispensing with the fighter entirely is a completely viable strategy. You don't NEED a melee-centered class in the party...everyone is much better at fighting.
6)----
7) It might be necessary, and it might be by design. But what it did is eff over melee classes, since they couldn't move and full attack. You're an archer, you have pounce, or you can't deal your full damage anymore. It effs up melees bad.
8) When everyone gets multiple attacks, it devalues those who already have it. Period. AC relevance has no bearing on this. IT's strictly damage calculation.
9)Don't care about 'necessity'. It still F'd the fighter by giving away his toys. No more need for fighters.
10) No, the point is it devalued the ability to wear full armor and keep your dex, and thus a high AC. Other classes would either have to spend resources to gain heavy armor prof, or couldn't wear it at all. Now, the advantage to heavy armor over light is +2. It used to be +4 or better.
11) Again, I'm not arguing reasons, I'm arguing EFFECT. I don't care about the 'reasons' at this point. I'm showing what it DID.
12) Eh, no, I'm not. Stats were limited to 25 in the old system. Fighters have no way of raising their stats. Spellcasters can raise Str and Con to astronomical levels, and in doing so, since there's no class cap, either, they end up with far more HP or TH dmg bonuses then a fighter. A melee-centered Druid turning into a Huge Dire Bear gets a +16 size bonus to str...+8/+8 Th dmg, and alchemists can abuse mutagens like no tomorrow. When the guy next to you can bulk up to a 40 Str, and you can hit a 26, it looks bad when he hits more and does more dmg then you do.
It may be a 'corner case', as MOST people don't try to overshadow the melees this way...but they can, it's part of the system, and it's another nail in the coffin.
Not only NOT the strongest, but way, way worse.
13) You only got the keep if you WANTED one, and was willing to settle down. Would have no impact on an AP whatsoever, except maybe Kingslayer. Loss of any narrative ability related to getting that keep and command of your own army.
14) It devalued skill in weapons tremendously. Again, EFFECT, not reason. Loot? What? 3e is totally customizable in loot, and encouraged to be so. You can buy anything.
15) Skill in weapons became less damaging. Effect, not reason. And fairly logical, really.
Hitting something big with a blunt weapon did not have as much effect as hitting something small. Sticking a sword through a human creates a foot long would. Sticking a sword through a hill giant creates a 3 feet long wound.
Combine less effective weapons with more hit points for monsters, and fighters were shorted again.
16) Casters now DOMINATE. THere's no balance against the power of the spells. They were harder to play, and required different tactics, yet could still turn the tide of play. They can do the full shtick of their class and still move around.
Fighters no longer can. Huge shift in power focus.
17) They went from needing skill and tactics to play to needing to roll a die for an auto-pass. Hugely facilitated a shift in power.
18) Didn't say it was done well. Said they were as good as everyone else.
Now, they aren't.
19) Eh, no. There are PLENTY of caster-specific magic items. Why can't fighters have some?
And those items, tellingly, were more powerful then any magic spells, and catered specifically to powerful melee roles, including exclusive access to post-18 Str scores. Let's just do away with such things.
It'd be like doing away with wands and staves for casters.
20) Again, effect, not reason. Easy healing means having more hit points/bigger Hit die is less important. Just look at the paladin. His LoH now effectively gives him twice his health per day, or more, as he levels. THe fighter can't match that. He can't even use a CLW freely.
21) Levels always meant something. They meant the fighter always had more hit points, that stats didn't rule the world, and now their advantage in hit points is absolutely gone.
22) Again, you're arguing reason, not effect. More hit dice means other classes can tank more, which reduces the need for fighters.
23) If chugging potions for buffs is what makes you competitive with a fighter...it makes a fighter less usable. i.e. if it's easy to buff up to a fighter's level, being a fighter is not valuable.
24) I said 'suck for some levels'. but in this case, it is also discrimination against other melee classes, who didn't have move restrictions in magic armor, and now they do.
25) They were a great weapon then. And now they suck. That's a nerf. Along with other weapons.
26) Haste is a spell that lets you buff to perform like a melee person. It grants AC, more attacks and movement. It is EXTREMELY common, and can totally dominate a combat encounter. And before, you never used it unless there was an absolute emergency.
Haste means you don't need a melee around to be a combat badass. "I can buff to be equal to a fighter" means you don't need a fighter.
27) Being able to get spells off easily means you don't need fighters around, you can just buff instead or avoid, or whatever. It's a nerf to fighters if it's one less thing you need them for.
28) It's totally irrelevant, it's just math. 20/15/10/5 is mathematically equal to 5/2 attacks. It was a needless complication, and it catered to Haste users. Haste is more powerful then your last two iteratives. So, it's more important to be able to cast haste then to get multiple attacks, because of that decreasing utility. a f/20 who could cast Haste every combat could get rid of his 10/5 attacks, and still do more damage.
it helps the shift from class abilities to spells.
29) XP tables are not complicated at all. You just look it up. The XP provides another basis of comparison for class power.
30) And are not offensive casters. Not sure what you're trying to argue, here. Casters being less successful with spells meant using more reliable means to kill stuff, i.e. melee classes.
31)------
32) Again, reason, not effect. Another drawback of being a caster done away with. Casters being able to completely swap spells everyday is a hallmark of their power and ability to adjust to any play style. That being more difficult spread the load around more.
==Aelryinth
I wasn't responding to YOUR post, but someone else's. Which you apparently TOTALLY MISSED.Anyone whose earliest experiences with the game are 2nd Edition could easily miss that - the Barbarian went to being a fighter kit in that edition, rather than a specific class.Nope, nope, you totally missed the VERY FIRST LINE.
"Here's a small list of what fighters lost going from 2e to 3e."
Is 1e in there? No? Didn't miss anything. Yes, 1e barbs with their 8d12 +4 HP/level afterwards, double dex and con bonuses, and can't use magic weapons until 6th level or something; poster boys for Method 6 dice rolling because even Gygax said you needed 18/17/16 for them to be really effective, yes yes.
Weren't in 2e.
==Aelryinth
No, just quoted the wrong person. Heh. I thought you quoted the original, and you didn't.
==Aelryinth
My problem with the fighter now is that they are "fixing" the fighter by offering feats to help it. Which begins to be a problem, cause now you have a half-dozen feats to patch the fighter up to effectiveness, but you're not delayed on any feat chains cause you need to spend everything just getting some basic class features.
Because otherwise they would have to fix the very class. Can't have that happen.
I mean, seriously, it's taken how many years for them to JUST put in some basically fighter-only feats? Which are just forcing them to spend already scarce class resources to get stuff they should have by Default.
==Aelryinth
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My changes are below:
Sorcerers should get 4 skill points a level plus they should get their bonus spells when they get that level of spells. Not huge changes but rather quality of life improvements.
Fighters need a bit more. I did like the stamina system from Unchained but it would need to be flushed out a bit.
The low level impact would be too huge.
The dif xp advances didn't really have that much impact at the low levels. It was when you got into Name level, and wizards took almost twice the xp to advance as Rogues did, that you started to see level difference.
I think I ran the math once, and a Fighter/20, Rogue/22, and Wizard/17 ended up around the same xp totals.
Slow vs fast is probably too big a gap. But medium vs Fast? Probably well doable. The problem is that they are still supposed to be 'equal', so what's the standard for gold and gear?
Just ugh. The system is too invested in levels now for calculating balance in the party. Your only alternative is to mess with the classes to restore equilibrium.
==Aelryinth
You could do effective level and actual level. Effective level for fighters is fast progression and actual level is medium. Wealth by level and APL is based actual level but effective level is what your class is based on. Going slow/medium or medium/slow the class that use the faster XP chart would be 1 level high at 5th level.
Also depending how the GM awards XP you could have those classes a level ahead sooner too. That's how we used to do it in 2E. Rogues were and cleric were shooting up in power fast at the low levels.
well, from 4-8 wizards ruled the roost in speed in 2e. At 11+ they started to go slooooow.
Druids were the kings of fast advancement, getting to 12th before any other class.
Someone made up a chart somewhere of the crazy differences in how fast classes advanced over levels. It was really kind of funny.
==Aelryinth
Remember the highest level druid I ever played (13th) hitting an xp wall yes.well, from 4-8 wizards ruled the roost in speed in 2e. At 11+ they started to go slooooow.
Druids were the kings of fast advancement, getting to 12th before any other class.
Someone made up a chart somewhere of the crazy differences in how fast classes advanced over levels. It was really kind of funny.
==Aelryinth
Yeah, that +500k a level was a pain.
Of course, you got d8's all the way through level 15, so hit points were never something a druid worried about. Only the 1e bards had more.
==Aelryinth
He only had a snippet in there for me to go from. Sorry if I came across as to angry in the response.I wasn't responding to YOUR post, but someone else's. Which you apparently TOTALLY MISSED.Anyone whose earliest experiences with the game are 2nd Edition could easily miss that - the Barbarian went to being a fighter kit in that edition, rather than a specific class.Nope, nope, you totally missed the VERY FIRST LINE.
"Here's a small list of what fighters lost going from 2e to 3e."
Is 1e in there? No? Didn't miss anything. Yes, 1e barbs with their 8d12 +4 HP/level afterwards, double dex and con bonuses, and can't use magic weapons until 6th level or something; poster boys for Method 6 dice rolling because even Gygax said you needed 18/17/16 for them to be really effective, yes yes.
Weren't in 2e.
==Aelryinth
No, just quoted the wrong person. Heh. I thought you quoted the original, and you didn't.
==Aelryinth
s'fine, you were actually defending me and it looked like I was correcting you. No worries.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, come on, 4 attacks for 8-32 at high level was VERY impressive. Low levels, not so much. and they got those d4's all the way through, as I recall?
Of course, nobody used the classic 1e monk once Oriental Adventures came out. Karate monks could end up with 6 attacks doing 5-30 damage each at top level!...and other such fun stuff.
But, talk about qualifying for a class...hehe, yep, monks were pretty bad, right up there with the 17 Cha req for the paladin. Only the 1e bards were worse then that (15 str, 17 Dex, and bard reqs, too!).
==Aelryinth
The low level impact would be too huge.
The dif xp advances didn't really have that much impact at the low levels. It was when you got into Name level, and wizards took almost twice the xp to advance as Rogues did, that you started to see level difference.
I think I ran the math once, and a Fighter/20, Rogue/22, and Wizard/17 ended up around the same xp totals.
Slow vs fast is probably too big a gap. But medium vs Fast? Probably well doable. The problem is that they are still supposed to be 'equal', so what's the standard for gold and gear?
Just ugh. The system is too invested in levels now for calculating balance in the party. Your only alternative is to mess with the classes to restore equilibrium.
==Aelryinth
You could do effective level and actual level. Effective level for fighters is fast progression and actual level is medium. Wealth by level and APL is based actual level but effective level is what your class is based on. Going slow/medium or medium/slow the class that use the faster XP chart would be 1 level high at 5th level.
Also depending how the GM awards XP you could have those classes a level ahead sooner too. That's how we used to do it in 2E. Rogues were and cleric were shooting up in power fast at the low levels.
What you would probably have to do is set up a 3rd rating system that was not tied to class level.
So, monsters and CR and loot would be figured on an A, B, C, D scale, instead of 1,2 3 4 etc. Then you tie A to a certain xp level, B to another, and so forth.
Then class level becomes less relevant, as you are working off xp total instead...a different 'scale'.
Then you set one class as the baseline, probably PF bard or Inquis, and then assign rapid or slower advancement to classes based against them. The less magic you have, the faster you advance. Then just run the xp tables so expected levels of power are appropriate.
I do remember in 1e, the 7/11 f-mu's had no problem adventuring alongside the level 13+ main characters in our parties. Of course, a lot of that was due to easier monsters. Still, if you keep improving gear and spell selection, casters can pull WAY above their levels, and buffs never go out of style.
==Aelryinth
Has there been a official comment from a Paizo rep on the boards why there was no new Fighter in unchained or if anything like that may be in the works, btw?
I am surprised that the fighter and sorcerer are only ones mentioned to be unchained. How about unchained cleric, bard, samurai, ninja, magus, swashbuckler, shaman, cavalier, slayer, etc.
I wouldn't mind Ninja Unchained (why didn't it get this along with the Rogue?) Or Cavalier Unchained (actually most need Cavalier Orders Unchained, but I also remember one of the Paizo people saying that if they had space for 1 more Unchained class in Pathfinder Unchained, Cavalier was next on the list; in any case, when doing Cavalier, do Samurai at the same time). From both what I've heard on these boards and seen in a PbP, Swashbuckler seems to have some difficulty being effective, so this is another valid candidate. And as noted above, I would like to see a Cleric Unchained not for more power overall (except add more skill ranks per level), but to make it more interesting.
Most of those classes you listed are in a good place right now. They get good and interesting class features.
barb was unchained because they wanted simpler rage, and I think a dev had a personal problem with rage-cycling.
Rogue was needed, it had little class features and had a hard time doing it's job.
Monk was needed, some didn't like what they did to it, But I think it's designed better now at least.
summoner was their chance to put in the correct spell list, and they decided to tone down the Eidolon in the process.
cleric, sorcerer, wizard, and fighter are all classes that have few class abilities, but the casters are doing their jobs so they don't really need unchaining. And the fighter has been "unchained" by AWT, AAT and feats to get them.
^For the Summoner, calling the Unchained Summoner by its official name sounds like one of those names that George Orwell warned us about -- I don't mind the nerfs to the spell list and the availability timing and cost of Evolutions for the Eidolon, but they really constricted the Eidolon design space, so much so that I would say that they really put it in chains, except that would confuse people . . . Even with the Classic Summoner, you had very little room to adjust the ability scores of your Eidolon (why do ALL of them have to dump Intelligence?).
Has there been a official comment from a Paizo rep on the boards why there was no new Fighter in unchained or if anything like that may be in the works, btw?
Here's where I asked James Jackobs that question scroll down for the answer and later the follow up.
Honestly... All the Summoner needed was the revised spell list and some change to evolution point cost...
Instead, they took a very creative class and made it rather restrictive. Eidolons even have freaking alignment restrictions now!!! WTF do they insist on adding alignment restricitons to anything? They add nothing to the game!