She doesn't absolutely need wings. I just as easily could have made an Air Walking or Flying Mount more integrated into the character's powers.
In fairness Kurt i seized on this which was unfair, I appreciate it could be done in other ways. I understand what you're trying to do, and I really don't have any problem with your changes being options in the existing system or part of a new class.
I just don't want them forced on a core fundamental, long standing character class. My primary hatred of 4e was that I was forced to play a fighter in a way that now longer fit my image of how a fighter character played (the way it had for 30 years, does under pathfinder and does again in 5e).
I want a range of classes that can do a range of things. As DM I'll adapt the challenges the PCs face to match their preferred party make up - whatever that is.
Give people options that's one of pathfinders strengths. Forcing wuxia on fighters is removing options not granting them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part 1, Astrid of the Valkyrie Which, regrettably, wound up more magical than The Sword desired by virtue of me following the Valkyrie theme. I imagine the player may possibly have loved it but there's no way to tell without them present.
Henry Avery was a swashbuckler, captain of the Wormwood who was incredibly mobile did large amounts of damage and debuffed enemies. He defeated several BBEG's single handed because of high AC/Dex and debuffs. Including a magus who was several levels higher than him.Tier 1: Pretty standard buckler of swashes, stabs, repositions, trips, dirty tricks and disarms and doesn't afraid of anything.
Tier 2: Mobility and trick moves continue to escalate, reaching levels of great renkown. Enemies frequently find themselves comletely clowned and at the mercy of Henry and his allies. Beginning in this tier and escalating as he grows in level, Henry begins to develop and later master the art of interrupting enemies and intercepting them from whatever task they were attempting.
Tier 3: It all continues to escalate, now with Henry capable of running up walls, balancing on the very tips of tree branches and lightly leaping off the surface of water before gravity can pull him into it. His bladework is incredible, capable of deflecting swarms of arrows coming his way and shattering incoming energy attacks [be they spells, supernatural abilities or something else.]
Tier 4: Fancy footwork has become ghostly perplexing tracks, moving in the space when the enemy blinks, Henry can almost appear to teleport with his incredible speed. Injuries caused by his blade resist closing even with magical healing and the excess force of his thrusts carries beyond any enemy slain by them, injuring enemies behind the target if desired. Balance has become so good that even water will support him, and he is capable of making one...
These are great to read.
I'm really trying to understand you here The Sword... why are you unhappy playing low level stories at low levels?
I'd suggest it's because interesting feats and class features don't kick in until really late for most classes in Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM selects the challenges that players are faced with. The narrative is in the dramatic tension between the characters and the events that the PCs undergo.
Oh, that's not entirely true at high level pathfinder. If you are a high level fighter and you encounter an hostile dragon odds are you have to fight it, if you are a spellcaster with your own demiplane you don't.
The PCs can chose the path but what is on the path is determined by the DM.
Also high level spellcasters can choose many paths, high level martials mostly go with the flow.
The Sword... how much work do you expect a GM to put in?
I am far, far, far too lazy to customize encounters to the party. I roughly try to keep things within the general daily CR budget, but aside from that they get whatever the environment gives them, and those things act with 100% efficiency according to their motivations and dispositions and objectives and understanding [or lack thereof] of the party.
I think that depends on your players. Each DM knows their party better than an adventure writer will. That's why in a lot of home games DMs add, remove and alter all sorts of bits of Published adventures. We've had our DM cut a whole book out of an AP because he didn't like the premise and replace it with something else or even just skip to the next book because we could handle it at the level we were at. I frequently double monster numbers, add advanced templates, increase class levels or remove 'filler' encounters depending on what my players will enjoy. I also remove encounters that aren't relevant. As DM one of my key challenges is to balance difficulty to hit that sweet spot between challenge and success. It will be different for every group.
You can run them out of the box, of course and have a lot of fun. I respect other DMs choices and styles of play, super tough campaigns, super easy campaigns and somewhere inbetween. If your players keep coming back then that's good enough for me.
You might wonder why I'm still arguing my point when clearly outnumbered. I know there are others out there who feel the same way. I think both sides need to be represented.
CM/D used to about people saying fighters couldn't have nice things. Some people didn't think it was a problem, others did. The law of supply and demand kicked in and Pathfinder released a book of nice things that could be added in and as has been pointed out so did other 3pp. I have no doubt more will follow if the demand is there.
The debate across the last five or six pages of posts has now morphed into a group of people saying it's not enough that we have the options to do the nice things we wanted. Now the basic class has to be changed because when people play them the way they have for 30+ years it spoils our games because they're a drain and those people aren't rational enough to realize they playing something that isn't as good. As if goodness or coolness in a role playing game could ever be purely reduced to one subset of mechanics. It's not enough to have he choice - now that choice has to be mandatory.
Unfortunately tolerating plurality of opinions means tolerating the view that people shouldn't have plurality. I respect people's right to think that way - but don't expect me to stay quiet when that opinion tries to drown out the others. I asked the question why is Pathfinder better than 5e and the answer is loud and clear - choice. Don't try and take that away from people.
Apologies for the long post but I felt it was important to clarify what I'm arguing, so as not to be misrepresented.
Not wondering at all, this discourse has been both entertaining and enlightening. I hope you enjoy the swashbuckler I posted near the top of this page.
You have some great ideas. They draw on a wide range of inspirations and I particularly like injuries not closing as a really interesting ability idea. You see the game in a dramatic epic way that makes me think of crouching tiger hidden dragon, a film I loved.
All those things could be part of an archetype or feat chain of some description that could be selected for those that wanted it.
Can you see that I might want to play in a campaign where those abilities were not standard though. I might have a wizard player who wants to be a blaster or who loves the mordenkainen's sword spell so ignores limited wish. So there's is no need to balance martials against the power of the wish, teleporting, simulacrum spamming, monster summoning mage god.
Give me choice. Paizo accepted that some people have an issue with a disparity so came up with some solutions. Some feel there aren't enough solutions the market will take care of that. Isn't that enough?
[incidentally you should try and translate those ideas into one of those solutions] there is clearly still more demand for these things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the neat thing: you don't have to use every feature of a class.
I had a player who wanted to make a Shield Champion Brawler so she could be a heroic city watchman. She never used Martial Versatility even once the entire game. She still had fun smacking things around with her shield.
If the Fighter was improved by adding more options, you could still play it as a simple class that just hits stuff. That's okay. People who want more could have it as well, and that okay too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The debate across the last five or six pages of posts has now morphed into a group of people saying it's not enough that we have the options to do the nice things we wanted.
I see it as more "Those things which you're calling nice aren't actually as good as you imagine them to be, and that we want actual nice abilities". So far when it comes to "nice things" we have feats which make bravery suck "slightly less", advanced weapon training which puts fighters on around the same level as barbarians, and being able to cut spells in such a way that he can use it as fake saving throws.
Yes, recently a small number of nice things have been published. But there are not many of them, and they only really actually get the fighter working "acceptably" till around 10th level so far.
edit: Though I should say that I do think the core identity of the fighter should be maintained, and believe it's possible to improve the fighter without turning it into something unrecognisable.
How is the Fighter recognizeable now?
It's literally the 'create your own martial combatant' class and could be anything from a Knight to a Commando to a Bouncer to a Marine to an Archer to Light Infantry........
Yes, and it should be able to cover a variety of different generic warrior types while also remaining simple to play.
Fighter is a Johnny class by now.
Almost every part is now interchangeable for something else and there is so much customization it can lead to very quirky builds.
I mean, that along has value.
then get new, better balanced and varied archetypes.
Eh, I really should get around to making improved versions of fighter's archetypes for my unhinged fighter... but there are just so many fighter archetypes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda feel like basically everything else you can customize the fighter to do still boils down to "kill enemy with stick of choice."
Sometimes it is two sticks. Sometimes it is a lot of little sticks at a distance. Sometimes it is one really big stick. Sometimes it is a stick and a plate on the other arm, used in a very similar manner to the aforementioned two sticks.
But it is still nothing but "kill enemy with stick."
Part of the reason I stopped playing melee classes that aren't spellcasters in PF is that the game falls down hard at trying to portray any form of martial arts.
Well, speaking as someone with some experience of martial arts,.... there's not a lot of variety there, either. It's largely "kill enemy with your hands" or "kill enemy with your feet." It's very hard to play a guitar using karate.
I've seen some games that try to provide more interesting ways of running combat, where you can, for example, specifically throw a jab, cross, hook, or uppercut (or a forward snap kick, or an inside crescent kick, or whatever). Yeah, I suppose that we could argue that a jab has a better chance to hit but does less damage than a hook,.... but that slows the game down and doesn't actually add anything much in terms of fun.
You full attack or you do a combat maneuver. That is the beginning and end of melee combat in this game. Everything else is just the numbers involved. And if that's how things are gonna be, I'd rather play a magus and be able to feel like I'm actually learning something new by getting more spells and ways to mix them into Spell Combat rather than just paying feat taxes on the idea I had at level 1.
The problem, though, is that a better understanding and representation of martial arts won't help with that. I mean, all Spell Combat is is "kill enemy with a stick" and "cast a spell" at the same time, and the vast majority of useful spells are simply rolling more dice for damage.
The problem gets back to narrative power. The story is the same irrespective of whether I punched the BBEG with a jab or a cross. The story is a lot different when I can put a wall of iron in between the BBEG and his henchmen so that he has to fight alone and unaided.
Let's put it this way...If Aragorn were level 20, a Balor should be a fair fight for him. If he where level 20, then he should make sense in a narrative where his oppoonents can teleport at will, fly, control minds, cause enemies to implode, strike people defenseless with a word, undo magical wards, rain storms of flames and summon demons. Aragorn simply does not fit that narrative. He does however fit the kind of a narrative a campaign might have at level 5.
And you're assumption is wrong. A Balor is supposed to be a fight for a PARTY of level 20's not some idiot on his own. In the source material you're thinking of... Aragorn would have been meat for the table. And the only reason Gandalf prevailed, was that he sacrificed his own life to do so.
reactionary combat options
How often and to what effect did you find those 3 options used? From my reading of them, I don't know that I'd personally use them....ever. You're spending both an immediate and your next standard action for a chance at 1) doing a standard attack (instead of the full round you probably could do in the given circumstance) or 2) making a combat maneuver mid attack.
These only really seem useful mid-full attack (except the first), and even then means you sacrifice your retaliatory full attack next round. It's arguably better than waiting to do a maneuver on your initiative step, but even then....
And you're assumption is wrong. A Balor is supposed to be a fight for a PARTY of level 20's not some idiot on his own. In the source material you're thinking of... Aragorn would have been meat for the table. And the only reason Gandalf prevailed, was that he sacrificed his own life to do so.
Okay, easy thought experiment. We know that a character with full player class levels & wealth has a CR equal to its level (ie a level 20 fighter npc is cr 20). Put 2 of those against each other. Who wins? 50 / 50 chance. Hence, fair fight. They are evenly matched. Etc.
And you're assumption is wrong. A Balor is supposed to be a fight for a PARTY of level 20's not some idiot on his own. In the source material you're thinking of... Aragorn would have been meat for the table. And the only reason Gandalf prevailed, was that he sacrificed his own life to do so.
Let's put it this way...If Aragorn were level 20, a Balor should be a fair fight for him. If he where level 20, then he should make sense in a narrative where his oppoonents can teleport at will, fly, control minds, cause enemies to implode, strike people defenseless with a word, undo magical wards, rain storms of flames and summon demons. Aragorn simply does not fit that narrative. He does however fit the kind of a narrative a campaign might have at level 5.
A balor is supposed to be a fight for a party of level 20s -- a fight that a party of level 20s can handle with relatively little risk or expending resources. And there's no assumption that "party" means fighter-mage-cleric-rogue. Especially in PFS, "party" can just as easily mean "fighter-swashbuckler-rogue-brawler-core monk-slayer.
Do you really think that the second party could handle a balor at all, let alone "with relatively little risk or expending resources"?
And you're assumption is wrong. A Balor is supposed to be a fight for a PARTY of level 20's not some idiot on his own. In the source material you're thinking of... Aragorn would have been meat for the table. And the only reason Gandalf prevailed, was that he sacrificed his own life to do so.
Let's put it this way...If Aragorn were level 20, a Balor should be a fair fight for him. If he where level 20, then he should make sense in a narrative where his oppoonents can teleport at will, fly, control minds, cause enemies to implode, strike people defenseless with a word, undo magical wards, rain storms of flames and summon demons. Aragorn simply does not fit that narrative. He does however fit the kind of a narrative a campaign might have at level 5.
A balor is supposed to be a fight for a party of level 20s -- a fight that a party of level 20s can handle with relatively little risk or expending resources. And there's no assumption that "party" means fighter-mage-cleric-rogue. Especially in PFS, "party" can just as easily mean "fighter-swashbuckler-rogue-brawler-core monk-slayer.
Do you really think that the second party could handle a balor at all, let alone "with relatively little risk or expending resources"?
A Balor is supposed to be a resource expending knuckle-dragging fight for a balanced party. A party of the one you described is going to have major problems.. just as a party of wizards is not going to finish the fight without casualties, assuming they finish it at all. Especially under a GM who does not allow cheats or exploits. And running away does not constitute a victory.
But then again if a party of fighter-swashbuckler-rogue-brawler has survived progressing 20 levels together as a group, they'll have done so because they've learned to adapt to a variety of challenges... and have become masters of the arts of adaptability and prepration. That's the difference between earning your 20 levels honestly and being told to make up 20 levels on the spot.
@Drahliana: A Balor is supposed to be a resource expending knuckle-dragging fight for a balanced party...
...at level 16 or 17
I remember a blog post (the series that went on about party tactics) at Wizards site during 3.5 where a prepared party took a balor out at 15th. I think they had a casualty but revivify fixed it.
Well, speaking as someone with some experience of martial arts,.... there's not a lot of variety there, either. It's largely "kill enemy with your hands" or "kill enemy with your feet." It's very hard to play a guitar using karate.Part of the reason I stopped playing melee classes that aren't spellcasters in PF is that the game falls down hard at trying to portray any form of martial arts.
I think though that there's something to be said that how Pathfinder (rightly) does not give a toss about what happens in real world Thelemic magic or any other occult tradition, because we want wizards to throw fireballs because fireballs are cool. Plus we saw it in a show once, and that was neat.
You could pretty much do the same thing with martial arts, where you stop caring what happens in the real world and just let people do something interesting and fun instead.
The problem arises when we let magic people do things because "that's fun" but we don't let non-magic people do fun things because "that's not realistic." At the point where it's got Orcs and a Dragon in it, we've already given up a lot in the way of realism.
I invented an E6 Balor in case it was ever need: It was made back in 3.5, hence Kelgore's Grave Mist (which is a 3.5 spell that deals area damage of 1/rd 1d6 cold and fatigues target; his is Fiore version) is listed.
Balrog
Large (C, E, Extraplanar)
HD: 8d12 (52+48=100 average)
Init: +5
Speed: 30 ft, Fly 60 (poor)
Armor Class: 24 (-1 Size, 5 Dex, 10 NA), FF: 19, Touch: 14
BAB/Grapple: +8/+16
Attack: +1 Flaming Longsword hit +13 (2d6+6+1d6 fire/19-20), +1 Flaming Whip hit +13 (1d4+6+1d6 fire plus entangle), or Slam Hit +13(1d10+5)
Full Attack: +1 Flaming Longsword hit +11/+6 (2d6+6+1d6 fire/19-20) and +1 Flaming Whip hit +6 (1d4+3+1d6 fire plus entangle), or 2 Slam Hit +13 (1d10+5)
Space/Reach: 10 ft reach/10 ft (20 ft with whip)
Special Attacks: Armory, Entangle, Spell-like abilities, Fire and Steel
Special qualities: Damage reduction 10/cold iron and magic, darkvision 60 ft., flaming body, smite, immunity to electricity and poison, resistance to acid and cold 10, Fire 20, spell resistance 18, telepathy 60 ft., see invisibility 60 ft
Saves: +11/+10/+8
Abilities: Str 20, Dex 20, Con 22, Int 18, Wis 16, Cha 20
Skills: Disguise +13, Concentration +14, Diplomacy +13, Hide +13, Intimidate +13, Listen +11, Move Silently +10, Search +12, Sense Motive +11, Spell Craft +12, Spot +11, Survival +11
Feats: (B) TWF, Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave
CR 8.
Qualities:
A balrog’s natural weapons, as well as any weapons it wields, are treated as chaotic-aligned and evil-aligned for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction.
Armory: As a swift action, a Balrog can create a whip and one other weapon out of shadow and fire. These weapons have a +1 enhancement bonus. They last for 1 hour. It can't use this power again till 1 hour passes.
Fire and Steel: Any weapon a Balrog holds gains the flaming enhancement if it lacks it. These weapon gain sinister appearance.
Entangle (Ex) A Balrog's whip entangles foes much like an attack with a net. The whip has 20 hit points. The whip needs no folding. If it hits, the target and the balrog immediately make opposed Strength checks; if the balrog wins, it drags the target against its flaming body (see below). The target remains anchored against the Balrog's body until it escapes the whip
Flaming Body (Su): The body of a balrog is wreathed in flame. Anyone starting their turn within 10 ft of a balrog receives 3d6 fire damage each round.
See invisibility: Constantly as the spell within 60 ft.
Smite (Su):Three times per day a balrog can create a nimbus of unholy light. When the demon triggers the ability, rainbow-colored beams play around its body. One round later they burst in a 60-foot radius. Any creature within this area must succeed on a DC 19 Will save or be dazed for 1d10 rounds as visions of its worst fears hound it. The creature receives its full Dexterity and shield bonuses to AC if attacked but can take no actions. Other demons are immune to this effect. The save DC is Charisma-based.
Spell-like abilities: At will— Kelgore's Grave Mist (but fire), darkness (DC 17), dispel magic; 1/Hour -- teleport (self plus 50 pounds of objects only), ; 1/day—Call lightning (DC 18), fire storm (DC 22), Caster level 8th. The save DCs are Charisma-based
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you're assumption is wrong. A Balor is supposed to be a fight for a PARTY of level 20's not some idiot on his own. In the source material you're thinking of... Aragorn would have been meat for the table. And the only reason Gandalf prevailed, was that he sacrificed his own life to do so.
Let's put it this way...If Aragorn were level 20, a Balor should be a fair fight for him. If he where level 20, then he should make sense in a narrative where his oppoonents can teleport at will, fly, control minds, cause enemies to implode, strike people defenseless with a word, undo magical wards, rain storms of flames and summon demons. Aragorn simply does not fit that narrative. He does however fit the kind of a narrative a campaign might have at level 5.
My assumption is correct. If Aragorn is a level 20 Ranger with PC wealth he is the same CR as a Balor. That means he is supposed to be the same level of narrative threat as the Balor and his abilities should show that. Sadly, Aragorn does not live up to be a being a the same kind of threat a Balor is from a narrative perspective. This is because Aragorn is does not fit the CR20 narrative of mind controlling, teleporting, person imploding narrative. And that is the narrative of high level Pathfinder.
Aragorn more accurately fits in the narrative of low level Pathfinder as previously described.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even a level 20 Mystic 1 Pathfinder Raw Ranger probably doesn't match up tp the PF Balor even though an ordinary level 20 should. Let alone Aragorn the awesome low level ranger.
And lets not forget that Balors are the weak CR20 Outsider. Pound for pound a Pit Fiend is way scarier and Pleroma Arons make both look outright harmless. I really want to know for those who think Aragorn is 20th level how exactly he fits in the same narrative as a creature that can literally create something from nothing, raise the dead, create gates between worlds, and make a sphere of annihilation impression 3/day. And here's the thing, that's barely scratching the surface of the things it can do.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Balor is supposed to be a resource expending knuckle-dragging fight for a balanced party. A party of the one you described is going to have major problems.. just as a party of wizards is not going to finish the fight without casualties, assuming they finish it at all. Especially under a GM who does not allow cheats or exploits. And running away does not constitute a victory.
You just seem to not have a clue of what you are talking about.
Straw man argument. We aren't arguing the LOTR character Aragon is a 20th level character, merely that players that want to player a character who shares his traits shouldn't be limited to 20th level.
The beauty of Pathfinder is that they don't share the same narrative unless the fighter goes Pleroma hunting or the DM chooses to throw one in their path.
There are thousands of different campaigns out their and only a small number will include a Pleroma.
The Pleroma's existence does not necessitate that all 20th level characters be able to kill one.
A Balor is supposed to be a resource expending knuckle-dragging fight for a balanced party. A party of the one you described is going to have major problems.. just as a party of wizards is not going to finish the fight without casualties, assuming they finish it at all. Especially under a GM who does not allow cheats or exploits. And running away does not constitute a victory.You just seem to not have a clue of what you are talking about.
Perhaps try again but be a little less insulting?
A CR = APL is an 'average' encounter. Not easy, not hard average. Of course Drahliana Is right that resources would be expended - spells, and HP most likely maybe a consumable item or two.
I'm not sure what knuckle-grating means in this context lol but the fight should certainly generate a certain amount of tension. Most do in high level play stakes are high as are saving those DCs to hit modifiers and intelligent creatures should be played to their intelligence.
And you're assumption is wrong. A Balor is supposed to be a fight for a PARTY of level 20's not some idiot on his own. In the source material you're thinking of... Aragorn would have been meat for the table. And the only reason Gandalf prevailed, was that he sacrificed his own life to do so.
Let's put it this way...If Aragorn were level 20, a Balor should be a fair fight for him. If he where level 20, then he should make sense in a narrative where his oppoonents can teleport at will, fly, control minds, cause enemies to implode, strike people defenseless with a word, undo magical wards, rain storms of flames and summon demons. Aragorn simply does not fit that narrative. He does however fit the kind of a narrative a campaign might have at level 5.
Gandalf thought he had the Balor beat, one on one, Until the Balor pulled him into the pit.
So, why endanger the rest of the party, when they could have gotten hurt? Especially the Ringbearer?
And once the Balor pulled Gandalf in, Gandalf knew all the rest of them could do was get dead, so he told them to get away.
Sure, if it had just been Gandalf and Aragorn and a couple of the others, maybe it would have been a party battle. But the idea wasnt to hunt balrogs, it was to get the Ring to Mt Doom.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Straw man argument. We aren't arguing the LOTR character Aragon is a 20th level character, merely that players that want to player a character who shares his traits shouldn't be limited to 20th level.
What are "his traits" that the 20th level PC should be sharing? That's the problem.
What has Aragorn actually done?
* Heroically managing to track the orcs across Rohan? Given the size of the orc band, that's maybe a DC 15 Survival check.
* Fighting against an army of orcs at Helm's Deep? Look at Valeros' numbers; he basically auto-hits a standard orc (+13 on his secondary attack against AC 13); normally one-shots them (1d8+13 damage against 18 hit points before death), and can't be touched (AC 29 against an orc's +5 attack). At level 12, Valeros could carve through an army of orcs.
* Command a group of undead warriors? That's a plot point.
* FIght off (but not kill) five spectres? Those are CR 7 creatures, CR 12 total -- a 20th level character would chop them into hamburger.
None of those would be "heroic" at 20th level.
A CR = APL is an 'average' encounter. Not easy, not hard average.
Yes, but what does "average" mean?
In this game, remember that by design, the party is supposed to win. CR=APL encounters are just there to burn off daily resources.
There shouldn't be any real risk of PC death with a CR=APL encounter.
Straw man argument. We aren't arguing the LOTR character Aragon is a 20th level character, merely that players that want to player a character who shares his traits shouldn't be limited to 20th level.
The beauty of Pathfinder is that they don't share the same narrative unless the fighter goes Pleroma hunting or the DM chooses to throw one in their path.
There are thousands of different campaigns out their and only a small number will include a Pleroma.
The Pleroma's existence does not necessitate that all 20th level characters be able to kill one.
No, but in general that's the kind of thing a 20th level challenge is in PF. Pleromas may be on the top end, but it's not ridiculously out of line.
That's the kind of thing high level characters need to be able to handle.
They don't need to handle them unless they are selected as the challenge there are literally dozens of CR20 challenges. You don't get to pick a creature that one particular class would struggle with as say for that reason the class needs to be completely changed.
If tomorrow a monster was created that drained and consumed divine magic in a 100ft radius sphere around it, you wouldn't go back to the cleric and oracle classes and say OMG we must re-write them.
As if fighters go round in groups of four anyway. Parties are almost always mixed in some way.