What do we want Martial characters to be capable of?


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Madame Endor wrote:

Level 20 fighters: Lancelot, Julie d'Aubigny, Batman, Captain America, Bruce Lee, River from Serenity

Level 20 ranger: Robin Hood
Level 20 barbarian: Conan, Ghengis Khan

These sorts of examples often come up, and usually way too high; compared to a PF character, Conan is not even 10th level, neither Aragorn, nor Lancelot. Ghengis Khan would not even be level 5, nor Bruce Lee, by D&D/PF standards.

It was popular back in the day to give literary heroes absurd stats (1st Ed Deities & Demigods, Lancleot is 20th level Fighter with pretty much 18s across the board...no).

Captain America and Batman, now they would be in the higher power (comic-book), tons of hit points deal.

As for Chuck Norris, I heard he was a piece of Bigfoot's beard that escaped.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want a level 20 fighter battling an evil dragon to have as much scale and style, might and mayhem coming from both sides as a level 20 good dragon battling a level 20 evil dragon.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want a 20th level martial actually and practically capable of 20th level things, without outside help of any kind (like required buffs or magic items).
Just on what kind of scale are 20th level things on, then? You should take a look at those 10th-level spells.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
Madame Endor wrote:

Level 20 fighters: Lancelot, Julie d'Aubigny, Batman, Captain America, Bruce Lee, River from Serenity

Level 20 ranger: Robin Hood
Level 20 barbarian: Conan, Ghengis Khan

These sorts of examples often come up, and usually way too high; compared to a PF character, Conan is not even 10th level, neither Aragorn, nor Lancelot. Ghengis Khan would not even be level 5, nor Bruce Lee, by D&D/PF standards.

It was popular back in the day to give literary heroes absurd stats (1st Ed Deities & Demigods, Lancleot is 20th level Fighter with pretty much 18s across the board...no).

Captain America and Batman, now they would be in the higher power (comic-book), tons of hit points deal.

As for Chuck Norris, I heard he was a piece of Bigfoot's beard that escaped.

english lancelot or french lancelot? i remember one being much more... embellished than the other


11 people marked this as a favorite.

For a non glib response though, I want equivalency which ultimately means Paizo needs to make a clear decision if they want gonzo high power or something more constrained rather than the PF1 model where they do both while expecting both sides to equally contribute as party members and adversaries.

You want to keep magic as eminently reliable and calling down meteors from the sky, dominating the minds of crowds, and summoning angels? Yeah, I thoroughly expect my swordsman to be doing Hulk jumps for fast travel, bouncing fireballs back at people like it's a Ganon fight, and inspiring armies with a single rallying cry.

Constrained magic where just being able to fly is the high water mark? Yeah, you can stick with Captain America for brute capabilities.

Just don't give me a wizard bottling cities and tell me my equivalent level fighter can't do a 10ft vertical jump because of realism.


AndIMustMask wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
Madame Endor wrote:

Level 20 fighters: Lancelot, Julie d'Aubigny, Batman, Captain America, Bruce Lee, River from Serenity

Level 20 ranger: Robin Hood
Level 20 barbarian: Conan, Ghengis Khan

These sorts of examples often come up, and usually way too high; compared to a PF character, Conan is not even 10th level, neither Aragorn, nor Lancelot. Ghengis Khan would not even be level 5, nor Bruce Lee, by D&D/PF standards.

It was popular back in the day to give literary heroes absurd stats (1st Ed Deities & Demigods, Lancleot is 20th level Fighter with pretty much 18s across the board...no).

Captain America and Batman, now they would be in the higher power (comic-book), tons of hit points deal.

As for Chuck Norris, I heard he was a piece of Bigfoot's beard that escaped.

english lancelot or french lancelot? i remember one being much more... embellished than the other

Ah, yes, and here is another problem with these comparisons/conversions, which Conan, book, comic-book, film? Which Batman, again; TV, film, or comic-book, and if comic-book, what era, which writer, Miller, etc. Same with Robin Hood, and as you say, Arthurian action, etc, etc.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really like Tarik's take. Pick a power level, stick to it.

If someone, anyone, is allowed to rip apart reality at level 16+, everyone should be able to do that kind of thing at level 16+, or where is the balance? It may not be precisely the same mechanic, and why should it be, but it should be in the same league.

Are these super humans, gods in flesh, or just 'exceptional people'. Pretty sure, even in their nerfed state, spellcasters exceed 'exceptional people'.

Let's bring martials up.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
I don't think your realize how many times I just have to pass it over for my own sanity.

Great! Now hold on to that feeling for a moment and you have some idea how I'm seeing the new edition... :P

As to what I wrote... Barbarians can already DO that in pathfinder classic, Body Bludgeon... I'm not sure what's there that's blowing your mind. Care to elaborate?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:

I really like Tarik's take. Pick a power level, stick to it.

If someone, anyone, is allowed to rip apart reality at level 16+, everyone should be able to do that kind of thing at level 16+, or where is the balance?

TO be fair, rangers can make snares for free at 18th level. SO reality bending in the most uninteresting and boring way possible but they can create something out of nothing: it only takes them 18 levels to catch up to the prestidigitation cantrip in power.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Glad you brought that up. Why can a level 1 kobold scout create a trap AND move as an action, but rangers have to blow a feat and wait for level 8 to be able to make a trap in 3 actions, still unable (and always so) to replicate the feat of the level 1 kobold?


David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:

I really like Tarik's take. Pick a power level, stick to it.

If someone, anyone, is allowed to rip apart reality at level 16+, everyone should be able to do that kind of thing at level 16+, or where is the balance? It may not be precisely the same mechanic, and why should it be, but it should be in the same league.

Are these super humans, gods in flesh, or just 'exceptional people'. Pretty sure, even in their nerfed state, spellcasters exceed 'exceptional people'.

Let's bring martials up.

That should really help AP writers of parts 5 & 6, the longevity of PF2 overall, and make the game easier to GM while simultaneously closing off even more of the game to those of us who don't want everyone breaking reality.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Then you should stick to lower levels.


David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:
I really like Tarik's take. Pick a power level, stick to it.

A supremely impressive system would support a wide range of power levels for play, with actual, delineated distinctions between them, and mechanics for defining them before the campaign begins.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed, but at no point should some of the players be on one power level and others be at a completely different power level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moro wrote:
David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:
I really like Tarik's take. Pick a power level, stick to it.
A supremely impressive system would support a wide range of power levels for play, with actual, delineated distinctions between them, and mechanics for defining them before the campaign begins.

This is VERY hard when the extremes are 'angel summoner and BMX Bandit' vs games with mythic martials like hercules and gilgamesh. The best way to have both might be for the first group to stop leveling when the power curve has martials with more mundane abilities. The only other way would be to make 2 entirely different classes and/or set of feats: one for generic mundane mortals and one for a hero.


Or... use level ranges? Have level 1 be BMX bandit, 2-7 be lancelot, 8-16 be angel summoner, and 17+ be demigods.

I don't understand the idea from the fan of very mundane non-magic non-anime physics based realism players that such a character should have a notable advance in power 19 times and still follow all of those restrictions. That feels like a contradiction. E6 rules or some PF2 version can work fine for that style. Leave our crazy fun high-power high-level characters and worlds alone :(

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lyee, that's totally fine. Now tell me how to be a demigod fighter. Or an angel summoner-tier ranger.


Hopefully, by using the awesome high level racial feats, skill feats, and class feats that really open up how you can play and let you accomplish superhuman things!

Just wait 6 splatbooks to have them. Because they'll come out eventually, and Paizo wants the CRB to present an entirely different game than will be played for 90% of the product's lifetime. I wish they had more interesting options in the CRB :(


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My main concern is that they should be, or have the option to be, easy to play. Burdening the class with stuff like stances and maneuvers goes against what I want out of a martial class and makes them far less appealing.


Lyee wrote:
Hopefully, by using the awesome high level racial feats, skill feats, and class feats that really open up how you can play and let you accomplish superhuman things!

I really wouldn't add racial and skill feats into that as that what ANYONE can do at that level and not specific to a "a demigod fighter. Or an angel summoner-tier ranger". You should be an awesome fighter or ranger and not first and foremost a 18th level character that happens to be a fighter or ranger.

Crayon wrote:
My main concern is that they should be, or have the option to be, easy to play. Burdening the class with stuff like stances and maneuvers goes against what I want out of a martial class and makes them far less appealing.

I not seeing the 'burden'. Martial classes have the option in pathfinder classic to take stances and maneuvers: they aren't forced to take them. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we remove mundane selections, just that there be non-mundane selections to take too.

And quite honestly, most any class can be built to be easy to play: a caster with a set list they have every day isn't really tough. A barbarian can take abilities that are numerical boosts instead of more complicated ones. heck in the new system, if all you're looking for is move, swing, swing almost any class can do that: just pick non-exciting abilities and you're a go.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:
Then you should stick to lower levels.

Ok, so setting aside you being fine with closing off most of the game to "lower levels" for many, address the issues that increased "reality breaking" will introduce for adventure writing and making the game more difficult to GM, both of which will contribute to PF2 having a shorter lifespan/publication run.

I guess if you switch RPG systems every few years so long as you had your run you're cool with moving on to something else. However, some of us don't relish edition treadmills or switching systems frequently. I also fail to see how making the game harder to GM (and thus attract new players) or write high-level adventures (which would directly impact AP sales) makes sense from a business perspective. I have to think it would also negatively impact PFS from both a play and adventure-writing perspective.


graystone wrote:
And quite honestly, most any class can be built to be easy to play: a caster with a set list they have every day isn't really tough. A barbarian can take abilities that are numerical boosts instead of more complicated ones. heck in the new system, if all you're looking for is move, swing, swing almost any class can do that: just pick non-exciting abilities and you're a go.

As long as there is an option, great, 5th Ed went about this with the Champion and Battlemaster, to greater or lesser success, depending on who's asked.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
BPorter wrote:
Ok, so setting aside you being fine with closing off most of the game to "lower levels" for many, address the issues that increased "reality breaking" will introduce for adventure writing and making the game more difficult to GM, both of which will contribute to PF2 having a shorter lifespan/publication run.

Look at it from the other side once. Isn't leaving everything 100% mundane closing off the game to lower levels for people that want more from martials and result in all the things you suggest will happen for them?

PS: and how does increasing the number of classes with "reality breaking" cause an issue? The game/adventure should be able to manage if you take 4 clerics, all "reality breaking PC's", so what makes everything spiral out of control if the fighter can join in on the fun?

EDIT: Vic Ferrari, I know I'm not advocating that every option be 'anime'. I hope there is enough of every kind of option to make everyone happy.

Grand Lodge

BPorter wrote:
David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:
Then you should stick to lower levels.

Ok, so setting aside you being fine with closing off most of the game to "lower levels" for many, address the issues that increased "reality breaking" will introduce for adventure writing and making the game more difficult to GM, both of which will contribute to PF2 having a shorter lifespan/publication run.

I guess if you switch RPG systems every few years so long as you had your run you're cool with moving on to something else. However, some of us don't relish edition treadmills or switching systems frequently. I also fail to see how making the game harder to GM (and thus attract new players) or write high-level adventures (which would directly impact AP sales) makes sense from a business perspective. I have to think it would also negatively impact PFS from both a play and adventure-writing perspective.

Not grasping where you're trying to go.

Are you saying you don't want anyone to reach those levels? They'll need to nerf spellcasters harder than they have. It's not there yet.

Even at their reduced level, they gain more narrative power than their non-casting counterparts.

With the system, as it is, you can only avoid it by not advancing in levels. If you get too high, any caster will destroy your desire for not 'breaking reality'.


graystone wrote:
EDIT: Vic Ferrari, I know I'm not advocating that every option be 'anime'. I hope there is enough of every kind of option to make everyone happy.

I know, right on, Anime never entered my mind, there are other ways of making nonmagical classes powerful and interesting without sleeves through the clouds.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
graystone wrote:
EDIT: Vic Ferrari, I know I'm not advocating that every option be 'anime'. I hope there is enough of every kind of option to make everyone happy.
I know, right on, Anime never entered my mind, there are other ways of making nonmagical classes powerful and interesting without sleeves through the clouds.

I think the difficult part is fitting in the people like BPorter. Personally, I want all the options to be cool, fun and interesting, even the mundane ones. That, IMO, is at odds with simple and easy. For instance, Improvised Snare is as easy as you can get but it isn't "cool, fun and interesting".

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Anime as an adjective is annoying outside of describing animation styles. There are few things done in anime that aren't done outside of anime.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

... Oh hey David. Fancy meeting you here!

As for my thoughts... near bed time, so I'ma make it quick:

The Rogue ability to phase through walls? That should be level 16 at least, if not level 14, instead of level 20.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

A wizard, druid, or sorcerer or other spellcaster can do it at level 9.

Narrative power.

Can martials keep up? I say they can not.


Fuzzypaws wrote:

I think Alexander is a 5th level, Hawkeye is a 10th level, Xena or RotK movie Legolas is a 15th level, and Cloud as of Advent Children is a 20th level.

I am completely okay with flashy awesome moves, and feats that defy Earthly physical reality. It's a supernatural setting with dragons and demons and flying meteor flinging wizards. Reality starts checking itself at the door around 5th-7th level.

I think EVERYONE should benefit from magic gear and NO ONE should require it.

I think extra damage dice should come from level and that magic weapons should be about properties rather than pluses. They won't get rid of pluses because legacy but do it in a more interesting way. Maybe what a +3 sword does is it lets you reroll an attack roll and take the better result 3 times a day; that'd still be awesome and useful but not mandatory.

Kind of sounds like what you want is 13th Age. Heck, now *I* want to play 13th Age.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
graystone wrote:
What do we want Martial characters to be capable of?: I want them to start an 'anime' and get better from there. I could care less what is realistic. What I want is what would look awesome in a movie/show I was watching. 'move, swing sword, swing sword' isn't exactly nail biting, edge of your seat excitement. Now let me grab a goblin by the neck and beat another goblin to death with the still struggling first goblin and that's something I'd want to watch.
I swear like 95% of what you say makes me want to argue with you. I don't think your realize how many times I just have to pass it over for my own sanity.

Welcome in the club.

Here is your member card.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

99% of mythical Heroes have either god blood or magic artefact to support them.

Yet somehow people here seems to think that "Mundane should be doing stuff without magic at all"

It's kind of weird.
Like asking "my fat Mormont should be deadly than the dude who use technology and have a AK-47"

Technology is to make people more efficient.
Magic is Golarion technology.
Use it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:


Yet somehow people here seems to think that "Mundane should be doing stuff without magic at all"
.

It's hardly mundane if magic is involved.

Scarab Sages

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:


Yet somehow people here seems to think that "Mundane should be doing stuff without magic at all"
.
It's hardly mundane if magic is involved.

Magic is so common on Golarion that you could call it mundane. There are low level cleric / mage / druid everywhere. Not even counting racial inate magic.

People on Golarion probably saw magic as we saw cars or cellphone. Expensive but usefull. And (nearly) anyone that can have it use it.

Powerfull magic is rare though.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

From the top of mind:

A) Intimidation needs to be Str based. Period.

A hulking fighter or barbarian should be more intimidating than a scrawny bard/sorc

This will open up more stuff for pure martials to do both inside but also outside of combat.

Make a level 7 or something skill feat to use Cha if you feel that force of personality is scarier. but the default needs to be Str

B) Give martials some sort of non-combat Leadership at high levels.

Casters are tradionally recluses, Fighters aren't. Having it be non (effectively) combatants to avoid cheese, but big enough to make a difference Narrative wise.

A wizard may be able to teleport all over the place, but a barbarian leading a tribe can influence a whole region just with a single command.

C) Item expertise.

Martials rely on magical items a lot more than casters. Over the course of their experience it's thus natural to learn to use them better than others. Item mastery feats were a nice way to emulate this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:


Yet somehow people here seems to think that "Mundane should be doing stuff without magic at all"
.
It's hardly mundane if magic is involved.

Magic is so common on Golarion that you could call it mundane. There are low level cleric / mage / druid everywhere. Not even counting racial inate magic.

People on Golarion probably saw magic as we saw cars or cellphone. Expensive but usefull. And (nearly) anyone that can have it use it.

Powerfull magic is rare though.

Magic may be common in certain world but I can't off the top of my head think of one where it is universally present in all creatures.

What about people who want abilities that don't fail in an AMF?
What about those who want to play a magic-hating person who can get by only on innate skill, strength and sheer bloody-mindedness?
What about those who want to play people like classical heroes, the ones not divinely originated or magically enhanced?

Side note, I don't actually care about Golarion all that much so arguments about what goes on there are largely irrelevant to me except as P2 doesn't work for it yet still wants to be used to run it. I argue from the position of using D%D/PF as a toolbox to run a wide variety of games and settings, from gritty low-powered low-magic to gonzo high-level adventures, from Dark Sun to Dragonlance to Spelljammer to Mystara.

Golarion is interesting enough, but it isn't what I play or expand upon. I run Mystara, which did pretty much everything Golarion does 30 years ago and is more extreme on both ends of the magic, science, power and sheer wackiness spectra.


shroudb wrote:

From the top of mind:

A) Intimidation needs to be Str based. Period.

A hulking fighter or barbarian should be more intimidating than a scrawny bard/sorc

This will open up more stuff for pure martials to do both inside but also outside of combat.

Make a level 7 or something skill feat to use Cha if you feel that force of personality is scarier. but the default needs to be Str

This is why I like untying Skills from ability scores, or at least loosening, so you may use Con instead of Str for an Athletics check to swim for an extended period of time, or, as you say, flex muscle to Intimidate (Str), etc. 5th Ed has a variant rule for this, which I like and use.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

While I personally prefer reduced magic in my games, I fear that genie's long out of the bottle, and I would never call for a reduction in caster powers. However, I really don't want to see mundane classes elevated to mythical levels. I'd say absurd action hero movie is the most I'd want, with a heavy emphasis on survivability. Fighters who are made of hit points and rogues near impossible to hit. That ail sounds very passive, so maybe something like extra actions per round that allow them to do more per turn, especially when compared to the 1 spell per turn casters.

Essentially, a mundane character wouldn't be able to run on water or punch through mountains, but they could shrug off dragon fire and stab everyone in a 20' radius.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

the problem with that is that damage scales incredibly high against players (so even with a ton of hp, your AC wont be high enough to really avoid just eating damage all day), and endgame usually involves HP very little (high DC debilitating spells/SLAs from monsters), since monsters become more and more magical (and martials become more and more... lackluster in comparison)

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

And when the fight is over? When your problems are past 'deal damage to the thing and not die', what then? That is where I point at as a problem.

Narrative power, I repeat.

Combat power, we all have that. It's not the bone of contention, at least for me.


David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:

And when the fight is over? When your problems are past 'deal damage to the thing and not die', what then? That is where I point at as a problem.

Narrative power, I repeat.

Combat power, we all have that. It's not the bone of contention, at least for me.

That's why my solution for that pesonally was (non combat focused) Leadeship as an ability.

If you have a keep (fighter), or a tribe (barbarian), or even a thieves guild (rogue, but not sure rogues need help with so many skill points in the edition) that allows you to shape the world through narrative power.

Who cares if your diplomacy isn't high enough when you have a full armed garrison on your back to simply dictate that "nope, this is how it'll happen" to the neighboring city/warlock/tribe

who cares if you're not that good at bypassing a ravine when your troops may have given you already a fully mapped passage of the whole mountain region.

who cares if you can't teleport when... well... ok, Leadership wont help you there, better find a wizard^^ but you get my point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:

And when the fight is over? When your problems are past 'deal damage to the thing and not die', what then? That is where I point at as a problem.

Narrative power, I repeat.

Combat power, we all have that. It's not the bone of contention, at least for me.

That's why my solution for that pesonally was (non combat focused) Leadeship as an ability.

If you have a keep (fighter), or a tribe (barbarian), or even a thieves guild (rogue, but not sure rogues need help with so many skill points in the edition) that allows you to shape the world through narrative power.

Who cares if your diplomacy isn't high enough when you have a full armed garrison on your back to simply dictate that "nope, this is how it'll happen" to the neighboring city/warlock/tribe

who cares if you're not that good at bypassing a ravine when your troops may have given you already a fully mapped passage of the whole mountain region.

who cares if you can't teleport when... well... ok, Leadership wont help you there, better find a wizard^^ but you get my point.

Kind of reminds me of Rogue Trader in a way. Mind bullets are cute and all, but it feels less a big deal when you can radio your orbiting frigate and tell them you don't want to see that particular continent anymore in addition to the standard perks of having wealth along the lines of merchant combines and a private army on your ship alone.


shroudb wrote:


Who cares if your diplomacy isn't high enough when you have a full armed garrison on your back to simply dictate that "nope, this is how it'll happen" to the neighboring city/warlock/tribe

Which then leads to war with the neighbors because you are a warmongering jerk who can't talk things through. Not very fun if the other guy is bigger than you.

shroudb wrote:


who cares if you're not that good at bypassing a ravine when your troops may have given you already a fully mapped passage of the whole mountain region.

"Sir, we sent three groups of scouts down this way and none have come back. I think there's something that way that we can't handle."

Don't get me wrong, I love Leadership and all but it isn't a solution to all problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
shroudb wrote:


Who cares if your diplomacy isn't high enough when you have a full armed garrison on your back to simply dictate that "nope, this is how it'll happen" to the neighboring city/warlock/tribe

Which then leads to war with the neighbors because you are a warmongering jerk who can't talk things through. Not very fun if the other guy is bigger than you.

shroudb wrote:


who cares if you're not that good at bypassing a ravine when your troops may have given you already a fully mapped passage of the whole mountain region.

"Sir, we sent three groups of scouts down this way and none have come back. I think there's something that way that we can't handle."

Don't get me wrong, I love Leadership and all but it isn't a solution to all problems.

sure, also:

damn, it rained, all your material components are wet and ruined. Also, your god is absent at this moment, no divine spells for you today.

The point of it being an ability is to give more power to the one having it, not to give him more headaches.

so, yeah, if your DM is a jerk that can't balance s~%&, then every ability is terrible.

so, in short:

Quote:


leadership: level 12 ability.
A small amount (about a village) of competant people follow your lead. This increases to a medium amount of people (the size of a city) at 15 and to a large (the size of a capital) at 18.

You can relegate tasks to them according to their expertise.

You can pick up 2 tasks out of *this list* at 12. At 15 you can pick 2 more and the list is expanded to *this*. At 18 you can pick 4 more and the list is expanded to *this*.

there you have it. If you picked "scouting"* from the list, your GM can't say "nah, they died" anymore than he can say to the cleric "nah, your god doesn't asnwer you, he's busy this time".

at 18, you're basically a King.

*"Scouting* (as well as the rest of the "tasks" can be something like this:
Scouting:
Time: 1 week. Duration: 1 month.
You can sent a team of people to scount a specific region the size of a/b/c (depending on the tier of your ability). They can map the general layout of the place (walls, routes, rooms, but not what's inside of them) and they can mark traps and secret doors with a CR equal to your level-3 on the map. They provide general information of the place like you have sucedded on 4/5/6 recall knowledges checks for the place or it's inhabitants (your choice).
It takes 1 week for the map to be complete, and it's only valid for 1 month.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is this a unique thing to some martial class? An edge they have that, say, a wizard couldn't get without multiclassing feats?

It used to be a thing. Get to high enough level fighter, you got respect, and people just kinda showed up, eager to be led by you.

Doesn't really help my ranger though, still, sure, that's a step in the right direction. I'd still recommend such a leader plunk down a skill-up in diplomacy and other things to actually lead his folks to victory and around problems that will arise. Even Conan took the time to learn how to use his voice to effect when his sword wouldn't cut the problem alone.


David Silver - Ponyfinder wrote:

Is this a unique thing to some martial class? An edge they have that, say, a wizard couldn't get without multiclassing feats?

It used to be a thing. Get to high enough level fighter, you got respect, and people just kinda showed up, eager to be led by you.

Doesn't really help my ranger though, still, sure, that's a step in the right direction. I'd still recommend such a leader plunk down a skill-up in diplomacy and other things to actually lead his folks to victory and around problems that will arise. Even Conan took the time to learn how to use his voice to effect when his sword wouldn't cut the problem alone.

yeah, it's a class ability, not a class feat, at level 12+.

don't see why a ranger couldn't get it as well.

at this point, i'm just brainstorming.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Ranger in editions where Fighters got a holding and leadership of an army got a territory of their own (generally somewhere wild) and a variety of potential creatures as friends/allies - that included satyrs, pixies, bears and others (and I remember at least once a player getting a Unicorn to some amusement from other players who wanted to know if he could ride it).


I've never really been fond of that as a basic way of giving martials narrative power. It can work, but it's very constraining on what kinds of campaigns can be run.

You've got to be settling down with a holding and land and spending time to build all that up. Doesn't work so well if you're riding a magic hut between continents and planets to stop an endless Winter, just to pick one AP.

It's all well and good, if that's the kind of campaign you're playing. Those can be loads of fun. But I'd hate for that to be the only kind of campaign the game supported.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:

99% of mythical Heroes have either god blood or magic artefact to support them.

Yet somehow people here seems to think that "Mundane should be doing stuff without magic at all"

It's kind of weird.
Like asking "my fat Mormont should be deadly than the dude who use technology and have a AK-47"

Technology is to make people more efficient.
Magic is Golarion technology.
Use it.

problem: when those "technologists" responsible for doing all the big world-shaping things and making all the cool technology/artifacts are playable and (previously) good fun regardless of optimization/specialization level, why NOT play them over the more boring options?

sure, you can say "i want to play a normal dude", and that's fine, but a "normal" dude gets killed by every random goblin, orc, and gnoll that points a spear at them, to say nothing of elder gods and dragons. your adventurer badass IS superhuman and supernatural to some degree (swimming in lava, skydiving without equipment, being able to lift and carry an average sedan), and you can't really deny that. i simply want that range of supernatural and fantastical to be expanded to the same scope that spellcasters already enjoy without censure (and without a wagonful of magical equipment to accomplish!).

i'll also note that the majority of my own examples here and previous AREN'T gods/demigods (the only major "artifact" hero being arthur, and the only major "demigod" listed being perseus, and possibly achilles depending on the infinite variants of his myth), and many aren't bound by their equipment (cu chulainn did most of his physical shenanigans with or without the gae bulg/bolg(a)), specifically to avoid people trying to move that particular goalpost.

and they are EXACTLY the types of archetypical badass that people sit down, think up, and attempt to play in tabletop games. having those arbitrarily thrown out the window because they're "too magic" is a slap in the face. especially while playing merlin or gandalf is totally acceptable, playing a "legolas" ranger as he was in the movies (firing multitudes of arrows at extremely far and close distances WHILE executing superhuman acrobatic maneuvers WHILE looking damn pretty, all in a fairly low-level campaign) would in fact be "too anime" by most definitions i've seen around (since tolkein elves were hilariously overpowered, to the point of trivializing mortals' efforts in their presence).

EDIT: to add, it's a vicious double-standard that i see no reason for it to exist, especially when it can be accomplished WITHOUT punishing spellcasters for what they already currently enjoy.

EDIT-EDIT: and i'll also note that i'm not expecting all these mythical powers to be granted immediately--just at around the same rate that casters get equally worldbendy stuff already, since between class abilities, feats, skills, and WBL, all of those are now largely equally distributed between classes under PF2's rules... except that casters get spells (a huge toolkit of means to impact anything from the battlefield to the cosmos at large) on top, while as it is now--and has been for far too long--martials get to try and emulate a small fraction that toolkit by diverting resources from those pools that were initially equal between the two.


shroudb wrote:


The point of it being an ability is to give more power to the one having it, not to give him more headaches.

so, yeah, if your DM is a jerk that can't balance s~+@, then every ability is terrible.

so, in short:

Quote:


leadership: level 12 ability.
A small amount (about a village) of competant people follow your lead. This increases to a medium amount of people (the size of a city) at 15 and to a large (the size of a capital) at 18.

You can relegate tasks to them according to their expertise.

You can pick up 2 tasks out of *this list* at 12. At 15 you can pick 2 more and the list is expanded to *this*. At 18 you can pick 4 more and the list is expanded to *this*.

there you have it. If you picked "scouting"* from the list, your GM can't say "nah, they died" anymore than he can say to the cleric "nah, your god doesn't asnwer you, he's busy this time".

at 18, you're basically a King.

*"Scouting* (as well as the rest of the "tasks" can be something like this:
Scouting:
Time: 1 week. Duration: 1 month....

If you think being the leader of a village, city, or kingdom is all sunshine and rainbows, and everyone is falling all over themselves to follow your commands, and that they never have any problems that could affect you, you are welcome to that opinion. A DM using the fact that your followers are mortal (and can fail, starve, be killed, etc.) to give you headaches is just doing their job within the framework of the game.

Take your example of scouting. What happens when they meet a challenge that is higher than your CR-3? Do they all survive to come back and report? Does some number survive and get back and report? Do other scouts get to that area, find mangled corpses, retreat and report? You are saying that these scouts are immortal, and none of them die ever? Is there some magical force field that stops them from finding things higher than your CR-3?

If you, as a leader, treat your followers as expendable and continually send them off places they can and will die, eventually you shouldn't just have a headache. You should have a full scale revolt/coup attempt on your hands. At least you would if the DM is doing their job.

I guess what I am trying to point out here is that any ability has a limitation. A limitation of leadership is that it is influence over "real" people in your game world that have their own lives, fears, and problems. And they have to deal with yours on top of that.

I probably should end with saying I like and approve of leadership, but I don't think everything followers can do should be treated as an auto success. Obviously that is just my opinion. I would point to people thinking the RAW making the followers basically immortal and infallible while doing something for their leader may be why a lot of DMs ban leadership.

101 to 150 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / What do we want Martial characters to be capable of? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.