Ryan Freire wrote: Bob Bob Bob wrote: Oh, I fully agree that high level characters aren't realistic. Specifically HP, BAB (and combat maneuvers), saves, and skills. Basically anything with auto-scaling. But I'm specifically talking about class design (and more specifically class abilities).
The 19th level Fighter ability is DR 5/- while wearing armor or using a shield. At the same level 9th level spells are getting slung around the Fighter gets "can use armor or a shield to take less damage". Literally identical to an optional subsystem they made that gives access to everyone at all levels. That's not a high level ability. In fact, all evidence is that even the developers think it's a 1st level ability.
1 feat and a suit of adamantite plate and that turns into dr 11/- now A feat and a suit of fantastic armor should provide total immunity to most damage, at minimum, to even start to approach what a couple of spell slots can accomplish.
Heather 540 wrote: Name Violation wrote: Heather 540 wrote: There were actually 2 characters in my last campaign that had bonuses to their Stealth rolls that were over 60. The only reason the GM had them even roll for it at all was the chance of a Nat One. I kept thinking, what feats did they take?! but on a nat 1 nothing special happens. It's still a 61 to find them House rule for the group. Like I said, it was the only way those two could possibly fail a Stealth check at all. Of course, even then it became mute once the one that was a Rogue took a talent that let him Take Ten on Stealth at any time. Or was it a feat? Either way, he just took ten and no one could ever find him. why didn't the DM just start using characters with higher perception scores?
Cavall wrote: Bob Bob Bob wrote: Oh, I fully agree that high level characters aren't realistic. Specifically HP, BAB (and combat maneuvers), saves, and skills. Basically anything with auto-scaling. But I'm specifically talking about class design (and more specifically class abilities).
The 19th level Fighter ability is DR 5/- while wearing armor or using a shield. At the same level 9th level spells are getting slung around the Fighter gets "can use armor or a shield to take less damage". Literally identical to an optional subsystem they made that gives access to everyone at all levels. That's not a high level ability. In fact, all evidence is that even the developers think it's a 1st level ability.
What makes them equivilant is the fighter uses that DR. So to him its needed. Please indicate the 9th level spell to which you believe DR 5/- is equivalent.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Just having hit points makes you superhuman! If somebody hit me in the belly with an axe, I wouldn't be losing hit points! I'd be losing blood, viscera, and bile. I'd be losing consciousness. In other words, you would be most level 1 martial characters. The wizard, of course, would never be hit in the first place.
allisonkaas wrote: Bob Bob Bob wrote: allisonkaas wrote: I don't care if it's realistic; I prefer unrealism in my games, but this has no bearing on what's good for the base game. What I'm confused about is the inconsistency. Why did the devs ever think it was okay to use the capabilities of aging, out of shape game developers as the basis for experienced, skilled heroic fantasy warriors that don't exist in real life? Assuming that this makes sense, why did they not use that same basis for every class, given that all the classes represent characters which are equally imaginary? That's actually how they did rules for a lot of early stuff and I don't think they ever stopped. I swear a developer (I think 3.0) actually put down lines and did standing long jumps to figure out what an average person could jump.
Again though, it's not inconsistent. High level Fighting Men are unrealistic. Unrealistic things require magic (or SCIENCE!) or the divine. Therefore Fighting Men without one of those are limited to real world things. It's bad, sure, but the logic is consistent. There's a reason the fancier abilities tend to be tagged SU and all the monk powers work off of Ki (SU). It is inconsistent. Why should unrealistic things necessarily be magical? This is an assertion which requires support, not a tautology. My assertion is the developers have decided that unrealistic abilities require a magical, divine, or supernatural basis. That makes the statement "unrealistic abilities are magical" a tautology. To be inconsistent with that your thread title would need to be incorrect. So no, still not inconsistent.
|
7 people marked this as a favorite.
|
@allisonkaas:
If you actually want feedback on your ideas you have to frame it in a way that people want to discuss things with you.
1. Start a new thread. Resurrecting all your old threads confuses people ... especially when you raise the thread by replying to 7 individual posts without offering anything new.
2. You don't need to reply to every post. If you start replying to every line then the argument loses it's point and people end up just contradicting and one-upping each other. If you have a main point that's strong enough you shouldn't need to direct your replies 100 times, just state your case and move on.
3. Don't keep posting about the same thing. If you have a problem then feel free to share it, but complaining about the same problem in 4 different threads is just telling people that you're upset, not that there's a problem.
4. Be polite. If you just tell people they're stupid and they're wrong they're going to respond with hostility. If that's what you're looking for then troll away, but expect to have your posts removed and your threads locked. If you're looking for support then ask for it, don't demand it.
allisonkaas wrote: Please indicate the 9th level spell to which you believe DR 5/- is equivalent. 5. Don't use false dichotomies like this to prove a point. Nobody thinks DR:5/- is worth a 9th level spell. Nobody said it was worth a spell. Again, if your point is strong enough then you don't need to twist people's words to prove a point. If you're confident in your position then use the Fairest comparisons to prove yourself, unfair tactics like this are the last resort of someone who knows they've lost the argument, and they make you look like the losing side.
So here's my challenge to you: Take a few days to put your thoughts in order, and start a new thread about this topic. Make it as consise as possible. An example or two is fine, but the point itself is fairly self explanatory.
If (when) people disagree don't just contradict them. Try to actually see things from the other perspective. If you think you can change their mind, then do just that, but if you truly don't think you'll ever agree then just agree to disagree.
I think you'll find that more people agree with you than you think, you're just not seeing them because the way you post attracts arguments.
Finally, Be Polite. I've said this twice because you need to hear it. We've seen some of your worse posts deleted in the last few days, but name-calling isn't welcome here.
MrCharisma wrote: @allisonkaas:
If you actually want feedback on your ideas you have to frame it in a way that people want to discuss things with you....
I have to admit to being at least partially curious as to what has brought about a spate of necroing nasty attacks on... well, everyone... in the last week or two.
But I'm not curious enough to really be invested.
It's more like one of those TV shows where you've heard it's good, but it never really grabbed you.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
allisonkaas wrote: Contribute to the thread or don't post. You're not my real mum.
Why are you necroing all your old threads lately?
allisonkaas wrote: At 1st level, a wizard can win an encounter in 1 round with color spray. Therefore, every character should be capable of winning an encounter in 1 round, or magic should be removed from the game. At first level, 20 point buy, a Power Attacking human fighter can deal minimum of 9 (2d6+7 [4 attribute, 3 PA] damage with a greatsword. Average damage is 14 per attack.
Let's give her Cleave as her human bonus feat.
We're not even going to look at the fighter bonus feat yet.
She's just beaten the ever-loving-urine out of two colour spray wizards in one round.
I agree with your basic premise, but at least make an effort to argue honestly, for the sake of the children....
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
@ Carrauntoohil: just 'cuz I'm "that guy" I feel like I should point out you could easily build a Humanoid (Human) Fighter 1 with a Greatsword possessing the feats Power Attack, Cleave and Furious Focus, then start with a 20 Str in a 20 point buy, and finally gift this fighter a masterwork greatsword with a trait such that their Melee while attacking 2h is:
mstrwrk greatsword +6 (2d6 +9)[5 x 1.5 Str, 2 x 1.5 Power Attack damage]
This PC gets the full +6 on their first attack, only a +5 on their Cleave attack, but could be doling out an average of 16 damage per hit.
Also, that's not even the worst. You COULD, in THEORY, build the same human as a Barbarian instead, with the same trait, that instead a few rounds/day at level 1 has a +8 to hit on the first attack, +7 on the Cleaving attack, and deals an average of 20 damage each.
As for realism, I'd like to point out that the barbarian here, in this example, is taking an enormous Scottish Claymore and dealing enough damage to perma-kill 2 foes with 6 HP each and a 13 Con, or the equivalent to what PF1 says is a common trained soldier (Warrior 1), simply by being REALLY mad.
… this game is not based on realism. It is based in fantasy, with a nod and a wink at realism for the purposes of drama and story.
Consider that level 1 martials with no magic abilities can
1. Be bitten by HIGHLY infectious giant rats who are very obviously carrying a deadly disease and not only survive but not come down with ANY diseases
2. Dodge magical bolts of energy (traveling, I'd presume, far faster than the human senses and nervous system are typically able to react to)
3. Survive a Critical hit, the equivalent of being impaled on a foot of razor-sharp steel
4. Control a personal rage so powerful they COULD, presumably, punch straight through a solid dungeon door (wood that's 10" thick, possibly reinforced with iron) WITHOUT taking any significant damage to their own body
I mean, there isn't a lot of realism in even some of the most basic stuff in the game. Now, PLENTY of people have made some permutation of the argument "why can't Martials have nice things like full spellcasters" and I still think that's a valid debate, but that doesn't have anything to do with martials being more "real" than full spellcasters.
About the only thing that martials get that spellcasters don't consistency. Even a 9th level wizard can CONCEIVABLY be caught unawares and gearless, or eventually runs out of spells. In other words, this wizard is to SOME degree tied to a finite amount of power.
I have a 6th level Unchained Monk in my game who works from rolled stats instead of a point buy. However, with the way this PC has arranged their stats, along with a permanent +2 stat enhancer that came as a Boon from an NPC, this monk is rarely surprised and, without a stitch of gear on his person, has a 21 AC and can punch for 1d8 +4 damage.
Just rolling out of bed? 21 AC. Caught Flat Footed? Still a 17 AC. Naked in a jail cell? 21 AC.
And the thing is, this u-monk, or a fighter with feats, or a ranger using class abilities, likely has access to a lot of their very unrealistic skills all day. 6th level wizard shot through all his level 3 spells the first few rounds of fighting against a dragon that escaped, and now the paladin says "let's get after it"? The wizard is SOL; his best spells are tapped out for another 23 hours, 59 minutes and 42 seconds. The u-monk however is gonna have that base 21 AC all day.
So the only thing a martial type has over a spellcaster is time. GM puts out 4 fights a day; the caster types will eventually overpower and outshine ANY martial, no matter how well built. The GM tosses a couple handfuls of combats out there, more than one of which the casters need to "nova" on to help the party win? Well, hopefully they have their wills updated.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: @ Carrauntoohil: just 'cuz I'm "that guy"... Oh, absolutely. That only serves to further support my suggestion that using a colour spray wizard as our standard isn't quite the win it was expected to be. I wanted to go with a fairly straight forward easy non-strings build.
I still agree that mundane classes don't get the same nice things as magic classes do which I think is our angry friend's main point.
But being able to colour spray once per day is not quite at the INFINITE POWER!!! stage just yet.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Carrauntoohil wrote: Mark Hoover 330 wrote: @ Carrauntoohil: just 'cuz I'm "that guy" I feel like I should point out you could easily build a Humanoid (Human) Fighter 1 with a Greatsword possessing the feats Power Attack, Cleave and Furious Focus, then start with a 20 Str in a 20 point buy, and finally gift this fighter a masterwork greatsword with a trait such that their Melee while attacking 2h is:
mstrwrk greatsword +6 (2d6 +9)[5 x 1.5 Str, 2 x 1.5 Power Attack damage]
Oh, absolutely. That only serves to further support my suggestion that using a colour spray wizard as our standard isn't quite the win it was expected to be. Also, your math is off.
mstrwrk greatsword +6 +7 (2d6 +9 +10)[5 x 1.5 Str, 2 x 1.5 Power Attack damage]
+1 (+1 BAB) +5 (20 STR) +1 (Mwk weapon) = +7 to hit (and Power Attack and Furious Focus cancel each other out).
20 STR = +5, ×1.5 = 7 damage
Power attack = +2, ×1.5 = 3 damage
7 + 3 = +10 damage.
Then instead of Furious Focus take Weapon Focus and you get the benefit on every attack (both cleave targets, rather than just the first)
So that's +7 to hit for 2d6+10 (~17) damage on 1-2 targets per round (possibly 3 with AoOs), even better than you thought.
As for a Barbarian, we could switch that to an Id-Rager Bloodrager with the Anger focus (+6 STR and free Power Attack while raging) and take Weapon Focus and Cleave you can get to +10 to hit and 2d6+15 (~22) damage for a few rounds per day ... with cleave (although it does drop to +8 to hit and 2d6+7 damage when you run out of rage).
So yeah, Colour Spray is nice, but ...
Well, the martial PC invested a lot into this high damage: Race choice, ability score points, class choice, feats and equipment. Side effects are limited skill ranks, no healing, little utility etc..
Now the color spray user had to invest some ressources also, granted. But they have a relatively easy time to switch to something else, so these investments are not specific for color spray.
As a GM, I am not entirely happy with martials one-rounding creatures, introducing rocket-tag at level 1 and weakening strategies like debuffing. But for the player it's fun and investment should be rewarded.
Yeah but +10, 2d6+15 is waay overkill.
You don't msed to onvest all of that.
Willy the Gardener wrote: Och, I'm bad at this! I used to know how to do basic math. I even have framed pieces of paper to prove it. I think they say the first thing to go as you get older is the... the... eh, I forget.
To the OP: please help us understand what you're actually frustrated with. I personally still don't get it, and I've followed the links at the beginning and re-read the thread a couple times now.
If you're mad at the "realism" of martials, martial characters by their very nature are classes designed to end conflict with generic methods open to all (non-combat such as Diplomacy, Intimidate, or fleeing) or specifically by attacking foes to deal damage with some kind of weapon.
This reliance on a weapon and training is a simulation of reality, certainly, but quickly enters the unreal territory IMO with HP, Fort saves, a total lack of a "combat fatigue" mechanism, etc. Did you ever stop to think that, technically by RAW, the only thing stopping a martial from dealing their basic weapon attack damage, without using up special Class abilities like Rage or Smite Evil is their HP?
Seriously: a fighter could conceivably just keep going room by room and slaying monsters for 8 hours before the "Forced March" rules kicked in. A wizard could too, incidentally, but their weapon attacks would be much weaker and thus leave them more vulnerable to HP loss than the fighter.
Anyway, if that's why you're mad, that martials have to swing weapons and deal with some of the RL issues of relying on hands, speed, weapon training and accuracy, etc in order to win fights while full spellcasters just toss a spell and do the same thing, well... I don't know what to tell you other than spells run out; murderous weapon attacks don't.
If you're instead frustrated that martials feel LIMITED in their utility outside of attacking when compared to full spellcasters, as suggested by the comparison of a level 1 fighter's attack to a wizard's color spray, there's a fundamental flaw in that logic: martials aren't meant to have world-bending utility.
Like, the whole reason for martial characters existing is that they deal damage with some kind of weapon. Period. They don't get divination spells, or utilities to empathize with animals and so on. I mean, SOME do but these classes are more of a blend between the martial and the full caster types. The method of creating something preternatural or supernatural in this game is housed in a character being able to use and manipulate preternatural or supernatural forces.
If that's the frustration, that martials don't get magic powers while other classes do... play those blended character classes. There's TONS of them. Heck, there's even a fighter type that gets access to a familiar.
Said familiar could take the Sage archetype and instead of being a combat aid it now uses Use Magic Device to cast spells from wands and maybe even low level scrolls. Bam; magical resources.
My point is only that there are ways to make martial types more magical, just as there are ways to make magic types more martial. However at their core the fundamental difference between these two types of classes is that the martials are specifically designed around weapon use while full spellcasters are designed around a finite resource with near limitless possibilities on how they're used/specialized in.
MrCharisma wrote: Yeah but +10, 2d6+15 is waay overkill.
You don't msed to onvest all of that.
Overkill at level 1, yes. Thinking of my 5 HP kobolds right now...
But opponents' HPs scale quickly (55 at CR 5) and their AC increases faster than the PC's BAB. Since the martial (usually) doesn't gain a reliable big DPR increase until level 6, there is an increasing gap at level 2 to 5. And starting strong helps with covering the gap, at least.
SheepishEidolon wrote: MrCharisma wrote: Yeah but +10, 2d6+15 is waay overkill.
You don't msed to onvest all of that.
Overkill at level 1, yes. Thinking of my 5 HP kobolds right now...
But opponents' HPs scale quickly (55 at CR 5) and their AC increases faster than the PC's BAB. Since the martial (usually) doesn't gain a reliable big DPR increase until level 6, there is an increasing gap at level 2 to 5. And starting strong helps with covering the gap, at least. It's overkill until you realise than an Ogre or a Brown bear is something you might have to take down at first level.
Also, i feel like the problem with martial isn't realism, cause as other have pointed out, they are not. The problem, imo, is that they lack out of combat utility.
I also find them boring as hell to play, but that's just me.
Oh about that first level wizard color spray thingy. Sure it's strong, very strong, but i sure hope for those wizard's sake the ennemies don't make their save, cause they are gonna have fun having done basically nothing next to a melee focused ennemy. Color Spray is a 15 ft. cone pretty dangerous for a wizard to get into melee. If the fighter miss, they can really on their higher AC and bigger HP pool.
Algarik wrote: Also, i feel like the problem with martial isn't realism, cause as other have pointed out, they are not. The problem, imo, is that they lack out of combat utility. Well, I read that all the time here. But I wonder: What would you call enough out of combat utility?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
So I think allisonkaas's problem comes in 2 parts.
1. Balance.
Classes have different strengths and weaknesses, and this changes at every level and with different levels of class optimization. The problem is that as you get higher in levels the casting classes get more and more options to deal with problems. Martial classes get options, but not nearly as many.
2. Developer bias.
There have been some decisions made that were ... questionable. Often the developers will allow magic to break the cosmos, while restricting "mundane" options to what they themselves can achieve. Some examples off the top of my head are:
A) You can't drink potions under water (not difficult in real life)
B) WEAPON CORDS require a move action to recover your weapon. This decision was (and again, this is from memory) apparently made by one of the devs trying to catch something while sitting at his desk and deciding that it was harder than a swift action.
This is obviously a bit silly, since Hercules could easily perform some tasks that the average office-worker with a middle-aged-spread would ... let's say "struggle with". High level Martials should be Batman or The Hulk, they should be able to perform feats that most of us would find impossible.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
MrCharisma wrote: So I think allisonkaas's problem comes in 2 parts. 1. Balance.
Personally I don't see this as a problem. The more you try for balance the more homogeneous the game becomes. I prefer variety.
2. Developer bias.
This IS a problem, but in my experience it's not much of one. Some of these are easily house-rule-able, and if you can't do that (maybe your table are sticklers for Rules As Written) then build around them. If an option is sub-optimal - and you know this in advance - then you don't have to use that option.
EDIT: That's not to say that people's complaints are entirely without merit. It's more that I don't see these problems as hame-breaking, and certainly not enough to warrent the abuse that they've received over the years. If you have a problem then discuss it, but be civil.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
SheepishEidolon wrote: Algarik wrote: Also, i feel like the problem with martial isn't realism, cause as other have pointed out, they are not. The problem, imo, is that they lack out of combat utility. Well, I read that all the time here. But I wonder: What would you call enough out of combat utility? I'm not Algarik, but the following was my enjoyable experience as a martial. My group plays with Spheres/Psionics for context.
Martials should have access to some or many of the following:
Climb/Jump/Swim good, beyond just having a good skill bonus.
Special Senses
Social skill boosts beyond just having a good skill bonus.
Condition Removal, either for just themselves or others.
It's also integral that a martial does not sacrifice efficacy in combat for these things.
Gadrick was an Armiger in Carrion Crown and by the end of the campaign he could(If given some time):
Hit hard as a standard action.
Use a bow more than passably well.
Find Traps
Make a few salves to keep his hp up, emergency resuscitate people who died within a round or condition removal.
Jump really good(basically flight)
Force someone who lied to speak the truth
Spell Sunder
See through Illusions
Get angry and punch a hole in reality to teleport out of combat
Force enemies to target him first
Take absurd amounts of punishment
He was the 2nd weakest character in a party of 5 after:
A Winter Witch/Winter Witch
A Juju Oracle
A Warpriest of Pharasma
Gadrick
A revised Monk
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
SheepishEidolon wrote: Algarik wrote: Also, i feel like the problem with martial isn't realism, cause as other have pointed out, they are not. The problem, imo, is that they lack out of combat utility. Well, I read that all the time here. But I wonder: What would you call enough out of combat utility? I think Scavion made a good account of what martial lack, but i'm gonna to answer what i think they also lack.
- Skill points. Most martials, outside of Slayer, Rogue and Ranger, have a very low amount of skill points. 2+int should just not exist on any martial outside of Paladin.
- Better Mobility. As Scavion mentionned, better mobility regarding climbing, swimming, jumping. Why not allow martial to run on wall for a movement with climbing or acrobatics? Oh and while we're at it, maybe reducing the armor speed penalty? It's quite hefty to lose 1/3rd of your speed for wearing armor. Sure armor check penalty make sense, but armor didn't reduce your speed by THAT much. Armor is generally though cause of the heat and exhaustion.
-Herbalism&Alchemy. Those should be expanded. We have a few cool herbs with neat ability in Ultimate Wilderness, but that's about it. Brew Potion should not require you to be a caster even if you don't have the alchemist class. Herbalism & Alchemy should be a time-consuming way of dealing with magic for those who can't afford to cast spells. I would say it should even be able to ressurect the dead with the proper ingredients and recipes.
Scavion wrote: It's also integral that a martial does not sacrifice efficacy in combat for these things. And this, so much this. Martials have to deal with so many feat taxes that they can't afford to specialize much outside of their combat niche. Meanwhile casters can switch what they are good at on daily basis thanks to their spell list.
In the end, it's a bit of a futile discussion as we all know pathfinder 1e is not gonna be printing new rules in the future, we all have to rely on hombebrew and 3rd party books to amend our games in ways we feel is right. I personally like E6 as it's, in my opinion, the best level at which everyone is kinda balanced and it allows people to get a bit more creative with their feat choice (especially since i give 1 feat on every level instead of even level before epic level.)
MrCharisma wrote: 2. Developer bias.
There have been some decisions made that were ... questionable. Often the developers will allow magic to break the cosmos, while restricting "mundane" options to what they themselves can achieve. Some examples off the top of my head are:
A) You can't drink potions under water (not difficult in real life)
B) WEAPON CORDS require a move action to recover your weapon. This decision was (and again, this is from memory) apparently made by one of the devs trying to catch something while sitting at his desk and deciding that it was harder than a swift action.
This is obviously a bit silly, since Hercules could easily perform some tasks that the average office-worker with a middle-aged-spread would ... let's say "struggle with". High level Martials should be Batman or The Hulk, they should be able to perform feats that most of us would find impossible.
That I agree is frustrating. Level 1, PCs don't need to be superhuman. By level 20 I feel like they should be cutting the very air to make sonic booms or something. Real Anime level martial power.
I also agree with the solution. Houseruling some of this can take some of the edge off. Another thing is using optional rules or 3PP stuff. Then again, if you like gritty realism in your games play by RAW and houserule some kind of spell system that makes full casters less reality-breaking I suppose.
As far as the non-combat utility of martial types by RAW as it stands today...
Spells will always beat skills and stats, given enough time and levels. That is simply the reality. A wizard 3 with no real specializations and a familiar is a PC with at least a +3 on their Perception that can also, y'know... turn invisible. Even a u-rogue can't hit that high of a Stealth check for many levels.
Outside of spells however, character build is about choice. You CHOOSE to take a 20 point buy PC and make a Full BAB martial whose primary focus is on DPR. Fine, that's your choice.
Even within THAT space however, you still have opportunities for someone with a robust out-of-combat experience in PF1, you just need to BUILD for it. A Full BAB martial focused on DPR could be a vanilla fighter. This is the worst possible option for non-combat utilities. However, a 20 point buy human fighter focused on DPR might mean Str 20 (18 +2 Race), Dex 12, Con 12, Int 7, Wis 15, Cha 7 and you'd STILL have opportunity to have SOME out of combat utility.
This PC could choose to spend their 2 skill ranks/level on Profession: Woodcutter and Survival. At level 1, taking a 10 they could answer questions about the woods, trees, and so on or make money with a Profession check of 16. I have seen in some PFS modules where Profession skills can be subbed for social ones if a PC is talking to someone within their profession. I've ALSO seen where some PFS modules allow someone with a Profession skill to craft items that might fall under their profession.
So, this PC could ALSO craft wood items with a 16, sub a 16 in for a Diplomacy check talking to other woodcutters, and so on. Not to mention that taking a 10 on Survival they could keep their entire party in basic food and water while in ANY wilderness area, at level 1.
With a Str of 20 they begin with a +5 on any Str check. The break check on a standard dungeon door is 18 meaning this PC could Kool-Aid Man their way through nearly 1/3 of most wooden doors they encounter. Not very stealthy but they could pull it off.
However, if you were willing to simply take a -1 hit to this PC's starting Str mod, you could just as easily build a human fighter as Str 18 (16 +2 Race), Dex 12, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 14, Cha 10. This PC now has double the amount of skill ranks with the same Wis bonus.
Assigning their ranks as follows: Craft (Stonemasonry), Knowledge: Dungeoneering, Profession: Miner and Survival, this character is a professional "dungeon-delving enthusiast." They aren't necessarily a rogue that disables every trap, but they know lots of lore about dungeons and underground dwellers, stone, and crafting with the stuff.
In their spare time they're researching the various rare stone Special Materials to make items from; they go spelunking; they mingle with miners, dwarves and gnomes on a regular basis. This PC can still find their party food and water underground, but can also help with monster lore checks there, identify common hazards and so on.
AND they can still try to break down doors, AND while they're taking a hit to DPR they're still very combat effective, AND they've still got 2 Traits and 3 Feats to add to their fighting prowess... and so on.
If you BUILD for out of combat utility, and you intend to USE your out of combat utility, the options are there without eating into your combat utility. Will it be AS MUCH utility as a full spellcaster? No, because spells trump skills plus stats. However, this does NOT mean that spells REPLACE your out of combat utility.
I have a level 6 megadungeon campaign. The only full caster is a Human Wizard (Fire Wizard) 6. The player has spent all their money during Downtime on item crafting, creating a Business, or buying items they can't make. This means their spellbooks are full of fire damage spells.
This party comes to a locked door... the wizard does nothing. They need to scout ahead... the wizard does nothing. They need to talk their way past some city guards... the Wizard uses their skills plus Cha just like everyone else.
Meanwhile this wizard is obliterating groups of gnolls, searing the flesh from anything not resistant to Scorching Ray and generally owning ranged combat when the u-rogue decides to enter melee.
My point is that this player doesn't really build with ANY non-combat utility in mind. The only thing they ever use Knowledge checks for is monster lore. They have 1 rank in 1 Craft skill. This character SHOULD be bursting with out-of-combat utility but they have very little and the player ignores those encounters, deferring to other, more skilled PCs to handle them.
Martials can have a rich, rewarding life outside of combat if you choose to build and play them that way. Otherwise they can be as wooden and 2-dimensional as the Fire Wizard in my megadungeon game. The choice is yours.
Re: mobility without sacrificing combat efficacy - play a different race than the typical "optimal" types.
Grippli for example gives you a 20' Climb speed. Taking alternate racial traits you could always be considered to have a running start with a jump using Acrobatics and gliding wings that add +5' to your horizontal movement for every 10' of vertical distance you're starting from. In a single round you could, with a Dex of 10, still Climb 20' straight up (without losing your Dex bonus, even though you don't have one), jump off the wall with a 10 and thus moving 10' feet horizontally from that, while then descending back down to the ground and clearing ANOTHER 10'. Congratulations; you just took a 10 for a 20' horizontal jump (normally a DC 20 check).
Barbarians and other martial types gain a boost to their base speed. If you only get 2 +Int mod skill ranks on your martial, consider playing a martial class that gets more (like barbarian, monk/u-monk, ranger, cavalier, gunslinger, brawler, swashbuckler, bloodrager, and so on). Going back to grippli, did you know that taking their FCB for 8 levels in Ranger gives them a 10' Swim speed permanently? It might not be a very FAST Swim speed, but with a Dex-based grippli ranger 8 you could have a PC with a Climb and Swim speed that routinely takes 10 on Acrobatics to make standing horizontal jumps of 27'; 37' if you can climb 20' beforehand.
I mean, there are WAYS to make highly mobile PCs. There are ways to get a decent amount of skill ranks. You can achieve all of these with some builds, or you can compromise those out-of-combat utilities for combat accuracy and damage.
Crafting Feats require spellcasting. That does stink, I agree there. I too wish that Craft: Alchemy or Profession: Herbalist would deliver more utility but I suppose if EVERYONE could make potions with 1 rank in a Craft skill, that would invalidate some of the utility of some classes/archetypes right?
Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I know that martials are limited by PF1 and I get that it is frustrating that SOME classes get cool supernatural abilities while other classes just get a special horse or something.
All I'm trying to say is that with as much build freedom as their is in PF1 along with the baked in gulf between PCs and the standard, vanilla monsters and NPCs from the beastiaries (PC stats are almost always better arrays than the foes they face), I'm only suggesting that martial types require MORE attention when being created if you want out-of-combat utility as well as in combat.
There are ways to do it. You just need to be willing to pursue those ways and play them when you get them.
Its funny but this brings me back to another PC in my megadungeon game. He's a half-dwarf paladin 6 who chose a Mount as his Divine Bond. The PCs got to roll stats so he has a very decent Int score that doesn't detract from his combat stats.
So, over the past 6 levels this player has put ranks into Knowledge: Religion and Nature (got that through a Trait), has double digit bonuses in Handle Animal and Ride, and he has this Int 6 divine Mount right? The player a few sessions ago complained to me about his out-of-combat utility being so low.
I mean, he's got crazy high Cha based skills, a couple Knowledge skills, a Profession he put a rank into, and a mount for added mobility, but he doesn't actually USE any of them. He ignores the mount b/c while the dungeon is built to accommodate Large and Huge sized creatures, some of the doors are Medium and there are narrow spiral staircases. The only time he rolls a Knowledge check is for monster lore. He has not trained a single animal despite these PCs taking months of Downtime between the 6 levels they've gained.
I guess I'm just saying that if you know you want such utilities, remember to USE those utilities. Martial types have to make a conscious effort to build for non-combat abilities so once you have them, using them is up to the player. Just because they're not as foolproof or easy to use as, say, an arcane spell doesn't make them worthless.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: That I agree is frustrating. Level 1, PCs don't need to be superhuman. By level 20 I feel like they should be cutting the very air to make sonic booms or something. Real Anime level martial power. Yeah hard agree. We often conflate martial with mundane, but it shouldn't be. Pathfinder, 3.5, 5e, they all operate on the assumption that adventurers starts with powerlevel barely above your small town guard and finish with godlike level abilities.
This is my main gripe with those system in general. The game tries to be lord of the ring for the first five level, then it switches to classic epic fantasy for level 6 to 10, then it jumps into superheroes with fantasy cosmetics. However, it is poorly assumed as we can see with martial being restricted by ''realistic'' standard even at high level.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Martials can have a rich, rewarding life outside of combat if you choose to build and play them that way. Otherwise they can be as wooden and 2-dimensional as the Fire Wizard in my megadungeon game. The choice is yours Any character can be two-dimensionnal, martial just have a harder time finding uses outside of combat. Find any unconventionnal situation and you're probably better with magic than without. It's not like skills was a pure martial thing either, casters get those too and they generally end up being better.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
If you want realism, join the freaking military... now you will know what it is like to carry your own body weight until you collapse from exhaustion... you will now exactly what your "Will save" against fear is... you will know exactly how realistic damage and pain are... how hard it is to bust through a door... all your questions about real life adventuring will be answered, just sign the dotted line.
If you want to sit down and enjoy a nice session of DnD, a freaking fantasy game, then forget realism... and enjoy the fantasy.
The developers developed a game to be played, not compared to real life. Some things might be based in "reality" like the concepts of gravity, some basic physics, and that living things can die... but that's it. You are only going to hurt yourself thinking about it any further than that.
As for people going back and necro'ing their old threads... trolls have regeneration. Lol. Reminds of that classy fellow that got called out for hitting the favorite button on their own posts... could be the same person for all I know or care... can't remember the thread where the person got called out for favorite'ing their own posts, and I'm way too lazy to look for it, right meow.
I think the list would be WAY shorter if we listed things that actually align with reality, instead of all the things that are not realistic.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Mark Hoover wrote:
I guess I'm just saying that if you know you want such utilities, remember to USE those utilities. Martial types have to make a conscious effort to build for non-combat abilities so once you have them, using them is up to the player. Just because they're not as foolproof or easy to use as, say, an arcane spell doesn't make them worthless.
Yes, but they shouldn't have to make a pointed decision to build for. Level ups, feats, talents etc should be more organic "what do I want now?" Vs I need to go this specific route constantly to get to where I want.
I know what's possible in Core and your example really drives it home. Take 8 levels in Ranger, be a frogman, and gear yourself towards this and you can get a vague semblance of what you ask for.
That nonsense is why I frequently use 3pp stuff.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I always found it hilarious that people say "martials are not fantastical enough"
A Fighter with Advanced Weapon Training can add any magic ability they want to their sword. Or make it do incredible amounts of damage (ala Warpriest). They have feats to cut down arrows, siege weapons, or even spells from the air. They have ways to use maneuvers on creatures much larger than them. Intimidate entire rooms to become panicked. Etc.
All I mentioned were just a handful of fighter things. Anyone who doesn't know what a extraordinary things a martial can do, has not looked hard enough and only skimmed the "how do damage" guides.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Temperans wrote: I always found it hilarious that people say "martials are not fantastical enough"
A Fighter with Advanced Weapon Training can add any magic ability they want to their sword. Or make it do incredible amounts of damage (ala Warpriest). They have feats to cut down arrows, siege weapons, or even spells from the air. They have ways to use maneuvers on creatures much larger than them. Intimidate entire rooms to become panicked. Etc.
All I mentioned were just a handful of fighter things. Anyone who doesn't know what a extraordinary things a martial can do, has not looked hard enough and only skimmed the "how do damage" guides.
If all you can do is fight, thats a pretty boring character. But more annoyingly is it takes super late to get to that point. Maneuver scaling is extremely jank too and take it from someone who actually excel sheeted like 4 bestiaries worth of CMDs.
The whole point is "Yes, you can fight good,but what else do you bring to the table?"
Archery is a quintessential martial style/role. Being such a heavily relied on fighting style, and a very popular one, at that, despite its mechanical benefits... it [archery] has developed a standard for the feats "required" to make the style work/be effective...
Point Blank Shot is understandable from a realistic point of view... 10m is fine bow range, allowing even the oldest of eyes to still aim true, and that extra damage is evidence of better shot placement... or whatever.
Rapid Shot is starting to push it for your average clown dabbling in archery, but it has prerquisites, so they assume a basic level of dedication to your chosen craft. Sure, two aimed shots in 6 seconds at the expense of not being quite as precise. Pretty sure you weren't considered fit for service if you COULDN'T shoot more than one arrow every 6 seconds... or at least wiki says a minimum of 10 per minute for military service, that's as far as I cared to look into that, right meow.
Manyshot... GTFOH... what are you, Robin Hood? Realism is over.
Three feats into one of the quintessential martial techniques and we are beyond what can reliably be done in real life. Martials, or at least archers, are IN NO WAY leashed to realism.
Martials, even without archery, or any other weapons for that matter, can break reality in two feats... Improved Unarmed Strike and Deflect Arrows. Don't try this at home, kids.
I think it is a matter of not figuring out how to build a character that does what you want it to do, or building one dimensional characters that run out of relevance... nothing, at all, to do with martials being restricted or bound to realism.
Is magic blatantly more powerful EVERY FREAKING TIME? Yeah. Is the answer ALWAYS to be a Wizard? Yes.
But are martials in PF1 "realistic"? F!ck no...
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scavion wrote: Yes, but they shouldn't have to make a pointed decision to build for. Level ups, feats, talents etc should be more organic "what do I want now?" Vs I need to go this specific route constantly to get to where I want. At level 1: "what do I want now?" Answer: (a summary of other posters in this thread) I want a martial type character that's fully optimized for combat in the style I want to optimize for, no compromises, plus increased mobility beyond racial base speed, at the very least 4 skill ranks +Int mod/level, the ability to use mundane ingredients to do fantastic things, such as herbalism or alchemy, and also to feel "supernatural" when using my special abilities.
So, how would one achieve ALL of this at level 1? I'm guessing you can't, not under PF1. So, you'll have to build for it.
Now, I don't know 3pp stuff so maybe you CAN have literally everything on this list right out the gate from level 1 on a PF1 character but if using Paizo stuff these would all have to happen gradually, over the course of many levels. Since I don't have that 3pp experience/knowledge I'll proceed from what I know and please help me with examples from other developers if all of this can be achieved faster, there's always room for me to learn!
Anyway... Paizo stuff.
Well, the easiest benchmark to clear is a combat optimized martial class. We're talking full BAB. Right off the bat that removes 3/4 BAB PC classes that also get partial casting.
Then let's combine that with the skill needs: at least 4 +Int mod. Ok, well, since we're ONLY using full BAB martial classes, this limits us to Barbarian, Unchained Monk, Ranger, Cavalier, Gunslinger, Samurai, Bloodrager, Brawler, Slayer and Swashbuckler.
Mobility types beyond racial base speed: this one gets tricky at level 1. You either take a race (Strix, Grippli, an aquatic race with a Swim speed, etc) that grants other mobility types, take a Mount of some kind, or spend 50 GP of starting gold on a potion of Monkey Fish or something. I don't know that there are Paizo character classes that grant other mobility types for free at level 1 unless you play a spell caster AND spend one of your starting spells for something, again, like Monkey Fish. However, without compromising race for your build, let's explore mounts or spell use.
You could play a Cavalier or Samurai for a mount at level 1. Barbarian or Monk will, over time, increase your base speed and with Monk you can spend ki on super jumps, so that's something. Ranger eventually gets an AC which could double as a mount.
Now of course beyond all of this, you could also just have a positive mod in Cha and put ranks into Handle Animal. Several of those classes gets it as a Class skill or you could pick it up with a Trait since you can only have 1 Combat trait. Still, if that would compromise your combat optimization then this option is out.
Using mundane ingredients to make supernatural stuff is just right out. This is not something PCs are capable of in Paizo books. The closest you could get would be to put 1 rank in Craft: Alchemy and then craft alchemical splash weapons and such.
Finally, there's the idea of doing supernatural stuff with a martial character. Well, look back at that list of core classes. Barbarians, Bloodragers, Rangers, U-Monks, and Swashbucklers get at least 1 kind of supernatural, otherworldly power that makes them a better combatant. Spell use, ki powers, Panache and Deeds, certain Rage Powers, all of these evoke preternatural abilities.
But here's the thing: many of these don't FEEL magical.
Think about it: when you watch an over the top anime movie you get some characters so skilled with a weapon they can create whirlwinds, or shoot fireballs with their blade, or deflect necromantic death effects purely by "techniques" they learned training with their weapons.
In PF1 under the Paizo books, no martial gets THESE kinds of powers. Instead they get martial-focused, combat enhancing powers. Spell use, obviously, gives you spells of course but otherwise you get ki powers that make you jump super high or punch harder; Panache and Deeds increase your offense or defense numbers; Rage Powers let you connect with an ancestor for a +4 boost to a skill.
Spells are the sole realm of flashy magical energy type stuff. That part of the game is specifically reserved for spell use in the Paizo material. Again, I'm actually asking if there's 3pp stuff that gives a level 1 martial a fire bolt or something b/c I don't know.
The core rules make the distinction that being able to call forth magic energy to literally bend or break reality is in the hands of spellcasters. Every Paizo spellcaster though gets the trade off that their spells and powers only work a handful of times/day.
So yeah, a high level full spellcaster might deal more damage in a full attack round with their best spells/abilities vs a martial, and then ALSO they get tons of non-combat utility to boot, but the martial character is designed such that after 12 rounds of the caster type going nova and now their good powers are burnt out, on round 13, so long as the martial type has 1 HP and isn't currently suffering any Conditions, literally ALL Of their heightened combat prowess is still available to them while the full casters need to go recharge.
And yet, even still, at level 1 right out the gate you COULD have a character that gets a lot of what you want.
Building a Dex-based martial as a grippli ranger you could have a PC with Str 10 (12 -2 Race), Dex 18 (16 +2 Race), Con 12, Int 12 (10 +2 Race), Wis 13, Cha 13 who takes a longbow and the feat Point Blank Shot. At close range this character can deal 4.5 avg damage with +6 to hit. They also spend 2 of their skill ranks on Craft: Alchemy and Handle Animal so that they can make cheap flasks of Acid or Tanglefoot Bags to throw around until their spells kick in. Finally, at level 1, you tell your GM you're specifically looking for setting-appropriate Animal type creatures you might be able to train that you can use as guard pets, until you get an Animal Companion.
Now all of this ignores archetypes, I know. However, this character as written ticks off all of the boxes right at level 1, except 1: they don't get flashy, supernatural abilities. Again, this can be something you're building towards when the PC finally gets spells.
Finally, a note about making "anime" style martials with flashy combat techniques: if you want this, work with your GM. I mean, Traits exist for a reason and there's TONS of ways to customize your characters.
There's Monk Weapon Skill that gives you a +1 Trait bonus to damage with a monk weapon. There's a Campaign trait from Reign of Winter that lets you resist Cold. How much of a stretch would it be for a kind GM to give you a single, homebrewed trait that delivers +1 Cold damage under a specific condition, like on a Crit or with a specific weapon that normally deals small damage, like a dagger?
As you level, work with your GM more. Design a homebrewed feat that's like Arcane Strike but works off BAB instead of Caster Level and delivers Energy damage bonuses to your attacks on a Swift.
Last but not least, DESCRIBE your attacks as supernatural even if they don't have the SU descriptor next to them. A rage power that gives you a Bite attack? What if you literally grew fur and fangs around your face when raging? The fur doesn't DO anything mechanically and the Bite is still a 1d6 damage Secondary attack, but when you rage you partially transform into some terrifying beast-person!
Anyway, that's all I got. Let me know how 3pp folks correct this disparity so I get caught up. Thanks for the education so far!
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Stylistically, a lot of people don't want flashy magic. A game which requires people to play characters with obvious spellcasting will lose those people right off the bat. A bunch of abilities which may be extraordinary but don't qualify as supernatural is required to keep them happy.
In some ways the problem is both being able to throw every character resource into archery (or whatever) and to some degree being required to if you want to have a character comparable to others at the table. If there was a limit of spending half your feats on one thing, and you'd get a competent archer (etc.) by doing so that'd make a better game IMO.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Every Paizo spellcaster though gets the trade off that their spells and powers only work a handful of times/day. Well now there's the kineticist that fills the niche that warlock does in D&D, which is : a Blaster with infinite blast. Pretty well made imo.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Finally, a note about making "anime" style martials with flashy combat techniques: if you want this, work with your GM. I mean, Traits exist for a reason and there's TONS of ways to customize your characters. An anime swordsman is just a Magus. It has good sword abilities, spell and it can channel magic through their sword.
avr wrote: Stylistically, a lot of people don't want flashy magic. A game which requires people to play characters with obvious spellcasting will lose those people right off the bat. A bunch of abilities which may be extraordinary but don't qualify as supernatural is required to keep them happy. I feel like this is true, or at least i definitly agree with it. I don't want the ''mundane'' to be fantastical, this is why i stick with E6, it gets heroic enough for my tastes.
That being said, i feel like there's no reasons to expect any class to stay mundane at higher level. If you like realistic play, core Pathfinder is just a bad game for this. Hence the original complaint and the million existing threads of martial vs caster disparity.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Well there is your first problem
Level 1 is literally the worst level as you have very few feats or abilities to do anything. Not to mention ignoring archetypes, if you had not you would hadd noticed multiple Fighter archetypes give 4+int skills. Also yeah you wont get a lot of "supernatural things" even Wizards struggle to get a few 1st level spells and cantrip. But you want a full BAB martial to also have multiple?
As for anime/wuxia. None of the ones with attack like you describe are low level. If they are they are usually Gestalt, Mythic, or both. Aka you are looking for failure if you want everything at level 1, and of course you will find it.
That there is where the problem seems to be. People wanting everything at level 1, and then complaining that they can't have it after not spending anything on those things.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I liked the direction they took with the Tome of Battle. It gave martials lots of powers, but made it clear that the powers were supernatural.
I always thought that it would be easy to adapt that book to Pathfinder. I don’t think the power levels would be out of line.
Same for the un-nerfed warlock.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Waterhammer wrote: I liked the direction they took with the Tome of Battle. It gave martials lots of powers, but made it clear that the powers were supernatural.
I always thought that it would be easy to adapt that book to Pathfinder. I don’t think the power levels would be out of line.
Same for the un-nerfed warlock.
Waterhammer, there is a 3pp version of the ToB rules available called the Path of War that's out there for PF1e. ;)
allisonkaas wrote: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q8ei?OMG-I-cant-speak#13
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pvkj&page=4?False-Options-in-Pathfinder#1 64
You might be pleased to know that Mr. Reynolds hasn't been part of the Paizo development team for many years now; he's currently working under the auspices of Monte Cook Games, last I've heard. ;p
That being said, it isn't necessarily just "the developers" that would be insistent upon "realism" for martial characters- there's plenty of people on both the GM side of things and actual fellow PF1e players who would strongly agree with such a position. ;)
Of course, if you're interested in checking out PF2e, there's plenty of talk that purely Martial Characters could fare quite well there. :)
MrCharisma wrote: B) WEAPON CORDS require a move action to recover your weapon. This decision was (and again, this is from memory) apparently made by one of the devs trying to catch something while sitting at his desk and deciding that it was harder than a swift action. Heh, heard the same mentioned too but I hear tell that the real reason for the change in Weapon Cords was made to account for the use of firearm weaponry in PF1e. Also kinda similar to the PF1e Crane Wing feat changes in that many of the negative feedback for the non-errata versions was from plenty of participants in the Organized Play system. ;)
Carrauntoohil wrote: Why are you necroing all your old threads lately? Haz we mentioned that there's a very special necromancy-based guild out there? ;p
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
TriOmegaZero wrote: That was the prompt for this post, just posted here instead of adding negativity to JJ's thread. I'm a long time gamer, but massively ignorant of media, business, and publishing trends. If they're not Gary Gygax, I don't know them. That being said, could someone give me a quick skinny on who James Jacobs is?
Also, why are people who work on RPG's named like comic book characters? ;P
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
James Jacobs is the boss of Paizo, and Golarion is based on his home campaign.
I take no responsibility for your nation's naming trends.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
avr wrote: James Jacobs is the boss of Paizo, and Golarion is based on his home campaign.
I take no responsibility for your nation's naming trends.
This might be my favourite post on the entire site ^_^
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
MrCharisma wrote: avr wrote: James Jacobs is the boss of Paizo, and Golarion is based on his home campaign.
I take no responsibility for your nation's naming trends.
This might be my favourite post on the entire site ^_^ Thanks for the answer avr.
I don't know if we can hold all of the U.S. to account, but we might need to hold a seance with Stan Lee (God bless his soul). Raj's rant from Big Bang Theory sums it up best :p
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
