I'm once again looking for interesting character concepts and stumbled upon a problem. I can't imagine playing a martial character for a long time. I've played them in one shots and short modules in the past but how do you keep them interesting over a whole campaign spanning all 20 levels?
Casters get new spells/slots every level, switching up their main tricks somewhat regularly. By comparison, martial characters feel like they're doing mostly the same for all their career. Monks will Flurry from level 1 to level 20. Rogues will move into flank and attack as often as possible. Rangers Hunt their Prey and kill it before moving on to the next. And so on.
It feels like martials get very few tricks during their career and mostly stick with them. Dedications add a thing or two but usually end up either very sub-par or outright replacing your original shtick, leaving you with only a few tricks yet again.
Note that this is NOT a "Martials are bad" post. I know they are powerful and I've seen them being very effective on multiple levels of play. But they still end up doing the same 3-4 things every round in every combat.
Look up the Swashbuckler. All the styles work. Every round you will be trying to strike with panache then do one of two things to regain your panache. Ok maybe that is just the 3 things. It still plays a lot different to the other martials.
Understand the uses of Shove/Trip/Disarm/Grab and Feint/Intimidate/Bon Mot in combat
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look up the Swashbuckler. All the styles work. Every round you will be trying to strike with panache then do one of two things to regain your panache. Ok maybe that is just the 3 things. It still plays a lot different to the other martials.
And there's the problem right there. ;)
I know all martial classes play differently. But this is about playing ONE martial for a long, long time. Without doing the exact same things nearly every round in every comat. Due to it's heavy reliance on the Penache and Finisher rotation, I'd even say the Swashbuckler might be even less flexible than most other classes.
Understand the uses of Shove/Trip/Disarm/Grab and Feint/Intimidate/Bon Mot in combat
I do. Those things are already included the 3-4 things most martials do. And they are not exactly character or class specific, as pretty much anybdy can pick them up. Admittedly, martials are better at them in some regard.
I think it depends on context.
Yes, most martial classes will have a routine of actions they will do as their default. You don't have a plethora of options with any one class such that you have competing choices on your turn (typically). As you gain feats (which mostly give you options) it's really just building on what you can already do, not giving you brand new options. That's just how PF2 works.
This apply to casters too, it just that their sub-option of "I cast a spell" has more possible effects than the martials range of options.
But in general a casters turn will be "I move and cast a spell" or "I cast a spell and do skill action (like Bon Mot)".
So spells do have more variety, but they also tend to be less "effective" than the martial damage options when you account for limited use and reduced effect on saves.
So that's the trade off, efficiency vs variety.
There is a lot there but OK fine.
The fighter can change some of its feats everyday. That can lead to new approaches.
But any martial character should have a couple of tactics in combat. Just by feat choice.
Perhaps is up to the casters in the group to mix up some of their spells rather than do the one standard buff up and charge in. This should cause the martials to react differently.
After that well tactically then its up to the GM/module to provide different elements, terrain and strategy.
Change your GM/Module writer. Play with Optional Rules. Free Archetype is popular, and that would directly address your concerns. I'd like to try Proficiency without Level. Buy a new edition of the game :)
But really the answer is in the roleplaying. Doing things a different way just because that is what your character will do.
Ordinary D&D is very plain in terms of its options. Yet there are still people playing the game decades later.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with a few premises.
Must an interesting character concept rely on how much versatility that PC has in battle? Reviewing my own set of wacky RPG characters and most of the favorite characters of my players (many of which were played into high levels), I find this untrue. Nearly all had a default shtick.
Now that I think about it, I had one player who (after playing an overburdened Cleric/party leader through a long arc) made the most straightforward and simplest character he could, and twenty years later he still reminds me how much he liked playing that guy.
Do martials have an especially limited a range of options? Not IMO.
Maybe it's because I played back when martials had two options: long sword or bow. :) Still, I'm not seeing PF2 martials as limited to "the same 3-4 things every round in every combat".
PF2 makes it pretty easy to build a diverse set of tactics, and Gortle's lists above are available to all plus there are all the magic items.
Yes, you could make a vanilla PC that only flurries or only flanks for Sneak Attack, just as you could make a caster that only blasts or only heals. Or you could make a Barbarian that flies and breathes fire or a Ranger that sets traps while his hawk is biting out enemy eyes. Unlike previous 3.X/PF versions (and even plenty of classless rival RPG systems), there are many routes to effective, versatile builds. And those builds can be made with a range of maneuvers. Or not.
And I think martials in a way have more freedom. A prepared caster gets to make lots of choices off the field which give them options in battle (which they have to spend!), but martials IMO can improvise better because of physical stats combined with Athletics & Acrobatics. It also helps that martials are more durable so as to survive foolhardy exploits!
And it still puzzles me that one could put Rogue in the "uninteresting" category as if they had little versatility. Those skill feats make it like having a second class.
----
That said, I understand if martials don't suit your playstyle.
It's a good thing you discovered this before investing heavily into one. But it's not a systemic flaw.
ETA: Realized the concept I was trying to impart was agency.
Martials IMO can have as much agency as casters on the battlefield and off. And that enables tons of interesting PC concepts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm once again looking for interesting character concepts and stumbled upon a problem. I can't imagine playing a martial character for a long time. I've played them in one shots and short modules in the past but how do you keep them interesting over a whole campaign spanning all 20 levels?
The martials with the less actions spent in their main schtick are the Precision Bow Ranger and the Monk. Both use one action to attack, the Monk often has to move and sometimes to activate a Stance, the Ranger often has to Hunt Prey and sometimes to move. Overall, you'll have 1 to 2 available actions each round to do whatever you want. In my opinion, the Ranger is better as he can attack from any position and as such will have easier time using abilities like Battle Medicine without the need to move back to melee afterwards.
Also, both the Monk and the Ranger can be built as Dexterity-based characters and allow you to increase one attribute of your choice between Charisma and Intelligence (Strength is useful for damage but doesn't have many uses outside Athletics).Then, you just have to take skill and class feats to add new abilities to your character.
If I can give examples:
Precision Bow Ranger
Str 10, Dex 18, Con 12, Wis 12, Int 10, Cha 16
1: Hunted Shot
2: Swashbuckler Dedication
4: One For All
6: Antagonize
8: Leading Dance
9: Rogue or Investigator Dedication
10+: Skill Mastery
So, your character will have multiple available actions between One For All to buff allies, Demoralize + Antagonize to debuff enemies and force them to attack you, Leading Dance to move enemies, Bon Mot to debuff their Will saves. At high level, with the extra skill feats and increases, you can go for Assurance Medicine + Battle Medicine. Or Assurance(Athletics) against low Reflex/Fortitude enemies.
You won't be as versatile as a caster, but you can use a pretty darn amount of combat actions and you have the available actions to do so.
Monk
Str 12, Dex 18, Con 12, Wiz 10, Int 16, Cha 10
1: Whatever Stance you like
2: Alchemist Dedication
4: Alchemical Familiar (Valet)
6: Expert Alchemy
12: Master Alchemy
You Flurry of Blows in the middle of the battlefield while providing Elixirs to you and your companions. Compared to the previous build, you have less focus on skills (even if you can still choose the ones you like and even take Rogue/Investigator Dedication) but more out of combat utility with your Elixirs.
There are a lot ways to make a Martials that can do 10+ things in a round.
Make sure to have skills that spice up combat so diplomacy/intimidation/athletics/medicine are all good choices. Stealth/Deception can also add some fun.
Spellcaster archetypes really add a lot at high levels. Early on they are quite slow.
There are lots of other archetypes that work too to add fun like blessed one...
Here is a quick build.
Champion with Dragon Disciple every single round you can demoralize/bon mot/trip/grapple/shove/disarm/strike/breath fire/shapeshift/raise shield/dragon wings/lay on hands/cast a domain spell/use champion reaction... there is even more you can do with ancestries to even add more variety.
Now if your campaign has the free archetype rule you even have more options.
I thank you all for your input!
@Claxton: "Cast a Spell" does indeed have an unmatched variety of things you can do. I wouldn't even expect a non-caster to come anywhere near that. But if you're used to playing casters, the martial classes do seem to fall very short in comparison. Not only on a specific level (except maybe the earliest levels when spell slots are scarce) but also over the whole career of an adventurer. The improved efficiency - paired with the "new" feeling of playing a martial - might make up for it.
-------------------------------------
@Gortle: My GM is great and I wouldn't change him over something like this. In fact, I'm pretty certain he would let me switch character anytime if I'm not liking where it's going. come to think of it, this might be a good opportunity to try something new.
-------------------------------------
@Castilliano: I'm specifically asking about combat flexibility. Any character can be interesting if played correctly. But I also want him to be non-boring in combat. Skill and Skill Feats are nice and all but ultimately also available to casters, with the possible exception of Athletics, which is a bit ard to pull off for pure caster. Much more feasible on a Warpriest or other Hybrid, though.
Magic items are a good point and can add some versatility. I'm a bit wary because it seems like most of them will be useless after 2-ish levels because their DC doesn't scale. But they might be worth a second look.
And I DO want to play a martial. Just trying to figure out how to keep things interesting in the long run. It might even be much less of a problem than I make it out to be. Never played one longer than 2 levels before. I'll give it a shot at the next opportunity and see how it goes.
-------------------------------------
@SuperBidi: Seems a bit weird to have a ranged character pick up melee stuff like Leading Dance and Athletic maneuvers. But multiclassing to something with many good individual actions like the Swashbuckler might be interesting. Ironically, I think having multiple of those things works better when you're "just" multiclassed since that doesn't pressure you into gaining Penache all the time.
I tried a Fighter/Alchemist with a similar setup in a campaign once, which was unfortunately cut rather short. Worked decent enough, even though handing out Elixirs mid-combat wasn't an effective option since he was wielding sword+shield. Probably works better for a Monk. Will keep that in mind.
-------------------------------------
@cavernshark: So basically "I got an ideal set of actions but I'll often end up doing something else to adjust for a given situation"? That's a good mindset, I must say. Probably works better for martials as failing at a single action is much less painful than failing with a spell. So in a way you could play a martial less optimal without him being borderline useless. Some good food for thought. Thanks!
-------------------------------------
@RPGnoremac: It's easy to build a character with lots of options. But since I'm used to playing casters which have very limited resources in their spell slots and rarely many actions to spare, I think I might have a problem seeing the full value of some of this stuff. Guess I'll just take the leap of faith, try it and see how it goes.
I thank you all for your input!
@Claxton: "Cast a Spell" does indeed have an unmatched variety of things you can do. I wouldn't even expect a non-caster to come anywhere near that. But if you're used to playing casters, the martial classes do seem to fall very short in comparison. Not only on a specific level (except maybe the earliest levels when spell slots are scarce) but also over the whole career of an adventurer. The improved efficiency - paired with the "new" feeling of playing a martial - might make up for it.
My limited experience watching others play PF2 casters was that a majority of their spells were saved against when it actually mattered.
Sure, the spells landed against the monster we knew were lower level, but the martial characters could easily mop them up anyways. It was the high level monster that we wanted magic to take care of...and it can't.
And the problem there is that the dynamic changed for magic use between PF1 and PF2. Magic used to be so limited in quantity that you would never waste it on lower level enemies and reserve it for the boss instead. Now bosses almost always save, but because save DC isn't dependent on level anymore low level spells can be effective and aren't "wasted" by using them on lower level mounters. In fact that's when they tend to shine. For boss monsters you have to debuff their saves and then magic can be useful. It's a real change in the dynamic of the game.
I feel like martials had more effective turns on average, but when casters and martials worked together and enemies were debuffed magic could really shine.
Oh, and I guess I just say this to elaborate on the whole efficiency/effectiveness vs variety thing.
I thank you all for your input!
@Claxton: "Cast a Spell" does indeed have an unmatched variety of things you can do. I wouldn't even expect a non-caster to come anywhere near that. But if you're used to playing casters, the martial classes do seem to fall very short in comparison. Not only on a specific level (except maybe the earliest levels when spell slots are scarce) but also over the whole career of an adventurer. The improved efficiency - paired with the "new" feeling of playing a martial - might make up for it.
My limited experience watching others play PF2 casters was that a majority of their spells were saved against when it actually mattered.
Sure, the spells landed against the monster we knew were lower level, but the martial characters could easily mop them up anyways. It was the high level monster that we wanted magic to take care of...and it can't.
And the problem there is that the dynamic changed for magic use between PF1 and PF2. Magic used to be so limited in quantity that you would never waste it on lower level enemies and reserve it for the boss instead. Now bosses almost always save, but because save DC isn't dependent on level anymore low level spells can be effective and aren't "wasted" by using them on lower level mounters. In fact that's when they tend to shine. For boss monsters you have to debuff their saves and then magic can be useful. It's a real change in the dynamic of the game.
I feel like martials had more effective turns on average, but when casters and martials worked together and enemies were debuffed magic could really shine.
Oh, and I guess I just say this to elaborate on the whole efficiency/effectiveness vs variety thing.
Fun fact: I'm actually looking at martial characters because my current caster didn't work out as well as I had hoped. Our GM is great, but his encounters tend to be either pushovers not really worth using spell slots on or absolutely bonebreaking boss fights against stuff 3 levels higher than we are. Which means my spells are mostly useless in many encounters.
I do have other thing to do (yay, archetypes!) but my main thing was supposed to be offensive spells. If I can't use those effectively, I might as well play something else.
Strangely enough, I had no such problems with my last caster in another GM's campaign, even in boss fights. Maybe my current GM just has above average luck on his saving throws or something. Or maybe failing just feels worse this time because he actually rolls openly on roll2. So when a boss succeeds on a save, I can see the modifier and notive that he might have had only 20% chance of failure.
@SuperBidi: Seems a bit weird to have a ranged character pick up melee stuff like Leading Dance and Athletic maneuvers. But multiclassing to something with many good individual actions like the Swashbuckler might be interesting. Ironically, I think having multiple of those things works better when you're "just" multiclassed since that doesn't pressure you into gaining Penache all the time.
It actually works very well, as long as you are not facing AoO enemies. At melee range, an archer can benefit from Flanking. Also, it's easier to shoot at enemies without suffering from lesser cover because your allies are on the way to the enemy.
And Rangers have martial AC and hps, so it's better to play at close range to split the damage than to play like a chicken.
My limited experience watching others play PF2 casters was that a majority of their spells were saved against when it actually mattered.
I did want to say yes monsters save your spells quite a bit for the most part though you just have to choose your spells wisely for boss encounters that are impactful on a successful save and try not to target a monsters best save.
Fear/Goblin Pox/Slow etc... are all very impactful on a save and feel a failure/crit save is just a bonus. If they fail these save of course it is even better.
Even though Martials are super cool in this edition I still say I do prefer casters because I just love casting spells lol. Martials are still super fun because of all the different combat actions they can do and combining them with skill actions though.
My Goblin Sorcerer > Champion Dedication with a horsechopper has just been too fun. Being able to Trip+Demoralize+Cast Spell is just such a fun combination.
Fun fact: I'm actually looking at martial characters because my current caster didn't work out as well as I had hoped. Our GM is great, but his encounters tend to be either pushovers not really worth using spell slots on or absolutely bonebreaking boss fights against stuff 3 levels...I thank you all for your input!
@Claxton: "Cast a Spell" does indeed have an unmatched variety of things you can do. I wouldn't even expect a non-caster to come anywhere near that. But if you're used to playing casters, the martial classes do seem to fall very short in comparison. Not only on a specific level (except maybe the earliest levels when spell slots are scarce) but also over the whole career of an adventurer. The improved efficiency - paired with the "new" feeling of playing a martial - might make up for it.
My limited experience watching others play PF2 casters was that a majority of their spells were saved against when it actually mattered.
Sure, the spells landed against the monster we knew were lower level, but the martial characters could easily mop them up anyways. It was the high level monster that we wanted magic to take care of...and it can't.
And the problem there is that the dynamic changed for magic use between PF1 and PF2. Magic used to be so limited in quantity that you would never waste it on lower level enemies and reserve it for the boss instead. Now bosses almost always save, but because save DC isn't dependent on level anymore low level spells can be effective and aren't "wasted" by using them on lower level mounters. In fact that's when they tend to shine. For boss monsters you have to debuff their saves and then magic can be useful. It's a real change in the dynamic of the game.
I feel like martials had more effective turns on average, but when casters and martials worked together and enemies were debuffed magic could really shine.
Oh, and I guess I just say this to elaborate on the whole efficiency/effectiveness vs variety thing.
Sounds like your experience lines up with mine.
So while caster's have versatility, in practice their spells often don't work when you really want them to.
To me that is the trade off of variety vs efficiency.
And martials can get some versatility, but it'll never really match what a prepared spell caster can do.
Have hammer, find nails (read: skulls of my enemies). Straight forward isn't bad.
I think that dedications are likely a solution if you have this problem. It is easier to go into sidepaths like this if you want variety in this edition. There are even martial classes that get their own spell DCs, so you don't have to keep up the dedication for it to be useful.
I've been working on a monk that grabs the bard dedication to take advantage of the great action economy of flurry. I was looking at stumbling stance's feints, and combined with a performance, you are getting fairly good attacks rolls. Cantrips also provide an option for ranged attacks when you have a restrictive stance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look up the Swashbuckler.
FWIW, I'd say stay away from swashbuckler, actually.
It's a neat class, but it definitely has one of the more action-heavy combat routines and despite having those different paths, once you pick one that's your character.
I like SuperBidi's suggestion of precision ranger and monk personally, those definitely put the highest value on your first action, which makes it easier to diversify the rest of your turn.
Must an interesting character concept rely on how much versatility that PC has in battle?
I mean, if you're playing in a campaign that has a lot of combat and one of your core complaints is that combat is boring... absolutely yes?
Look up the Swashbuckler.FWIW, I'd say stay away from swashbuckler, actually.
It's a neat class, but it definitely has one of the more action-heavy combat routines and despite having those different paths, once you pick one that's your character.
I like SuperBidi's suggestion of precision ranger and monk personally, those definitely put the highest value on your first action, which makes it easier to diversify the rest of your turn.
Must an interesting character concept rely on how much versatility that PC has in battle?I mean, if you're playing in a campaign that has a lot of combat and one of your core complaints is that combat is boring... absolutely yes?
Yes the Core of the Swashbuckler is fixed . Which is gain panache via Tumble or your subclass specific way, then attack with finisher every round. If that is all you want to do that is all you do.
But there is a lot of other things that you can do if you want to go there. You have enough skills to maximise a third skill. Antagonise and move away. Really get into wrestling, so Gymnast is trapped there - but it is still 4 different manoeuvres. Leading Dance works no matter how you gain panache. In many respects a SwashBuckler is close to a Rogue, in others it is more of a control fighter.
Well, for what it's worth, I get to play a martial character for some time due to some story-based absence of my actual (caster) character. Started yesterday and even had a combat. Dealt some pretty impressive damage - or at least it felt that way becaue the party always lacked a dedicated heavy-hitter.
Now, half a play session is obviously not enough to feel bored with the character. I don't know how long I'll get to play him but maybe it'll be long enough for me to re-evaluate martials and my view of them.
|
@Blave: As I understand the question, you basically don't want to have one single routine that you use all the time in combat?
I would say, take a good look at hand-and-a-half style fighter builds. Let's start with a one-handed weapon with the Two-Hand trait, like a katana or broadsword. Being able to use it with only one hand gives you some options, like "all those things that need a free hand". There's a lot of those, such as:
- Any maneuver, assuming you boosted Athletics nice and high.
- A thrown weapon, like your trusty backup cold iron returning javelin.
- Alchemical bombs and holy water
- Battle Medicine
- Potions and elixirs
- Scrolls, if you're multiclassed into some kind of caster
- Opening doors, picking up stuff and whatnot
You get to have all those things, but when you don't currently need them, you can go 2H for more damage.
There are also some neat fighter feats that work with it:
- Snagging Strike
- Combat Grab (leads to Dazing Blow)
- Dual-Handed Assault
- Dueling Parry
I've seen people play Snaggging Strike -> Combat Grab as well as Dual-Handed Assault -> Combat Grab. Even Sudden Charge -> Combat Grab is pretty nice to cross the battlefield and suddenly pin down an enemy.
Lunge is also neat when combined with a Trip weapon, because any flying creature trying to kite you can get pulled down to the ground. Although you might need a gnome hooked hammer for ideal synergy for that.
Alternatively, you might pick an agile weapon. If you used Snagging Strike with an agile weapon and followed with a Combat Grab, that second attack would still be at the same odds as a barbarian's first attack.
---
This isn't quite the highest possible damage build, and the defense isn't the top either. But the damage isn't bad either (Two-Hand weapons can pack a wallop) and you could still wear a buckler or even combine Dual Handed Assault with Dueling Parry.
But what you gain is a lot of versatility. Sudden Charge and Lunge expand what you can attack, while having a hand free opens up a lot o different kinds of attacks.
I have a Dragon Barbarian who is one of my favorite characters I've ever made (and I normally play casters).
At low levels his shtick was 'Rage',' Sudden Charge' in round one. In later rounds often 2 attacks and 1 step to try to help get better flanking. Or replace one of those attacks with a trip. Or a demoralize attempt.
At mid levels (where he is now), after picking up the Champion dedication and a few other feats. He has lay on hands and the paladin's retributive strike. So its now a lot of decisions -- run off to engage a backline opponent or stay close to protect people (and trigger a rage boosted champion's reaction) both of which lead to different tactics. Sure he often wants to swing twice, and if flanking or other party boosts, that's still a good idea. but he has a number of useful third actions.
We always say its important to have a range of valuable third actions -- I'd say its also important to have at least one reaction as well. Having a reaction keeps you a bit more engaged when its not your turn, and can greatly influence how you want to plan your turn. If your reaction is triggered by movement (AoO/Stand-still, etc) you want to make sure you're pressuring an enemy into wanting to move. If your have the champion reaction you want to make sure you're in range of opponent and allies, etc. All of these typically mean you're looking/adjusting to the battlefield more than simply getting into position and swinging.
Ascalaphus's suggestion for the 1=hand combat styles probably would have worked even better, but my guy's a dual wielder -- pick (tooth) and battleax (claw), so typically once he's drawn the second weapon, combat maneuvers are out of the question, but he usually waits until there's a target that benefits from sweep to draw the battleax to keep the maneuver flexibility.
Outside of combat, the lay on hands offers a very strong non-combat healing. The MC dedication + Elven lore, means he's trained in the majority of skills, etc. From memory, basically all he doesn't have is deception, performance, stealth, thievery. Guess he should probably get a (PFS) "archeologist" themed hireling to cover thievery for when the party has no one better.
|
OTOH, barbarians can be tricky when it comes to 3rd actions. Rage prevents Recall Knowledge, Demoralize (without a feat), casting Shield, and if you use two weapons, a two-handed weapon, or maneuvers you don't have a shield to raise. If playing a barbarian, think about the 3rd action at character creation.
|
|
From playing a Double Slice fighter, I can say that while the damage is pretty nice, it makes it harder (not impossible) to be versatile in combat. Always having your hands full is a real hindrance. It can be done though;
- I took a wizard dedication so I'd have some cantrip ranged attacks that didn't require me to switch between a bow and my melee weapons.
- I'm using a kukri which lets me trip.
Still, I really wish shields had the Shove trait. That's a house rule I'll certainly be using.
I'm once again looking for interesting character concepts and stumbled upon a problem. I can't imagine playing a martial character for a long time. I've played them in one shots and short modules in the past but how do you keep them interesting over a whole campaign spanning all 20 levels?
Casters get new spells/slots every level, switching up their main tricks somewhat regularly. By comparison, martial characters feel like they're doing mostly the same for all their career. Monks will Flurry from level 1 to level 20. Rogues will move into flank and attack as often as possible. Rangers Hunt their Prey and kill it before moving on to the next. And so on.
It feels like martials get very few tricks during their career and mostly stick with them. Dedications add a thing or two but usually end up either very sub-par or outright replacing your original shtick, leaving you with only a few tricks yet again.
Note that this is NOT a "Martials are bad" post. I know they are powerful and I've seen them being very effective on multiple levels of play. But they still end up doing the same 3-4 things every round in every combat.
What sort of things are you wanting martials to do that they can't do now? Use two weapons together without feats? Alter or create terrain by attacking it? Bend reality by slicing it open with a sword? Perform some crazy Wuxia shenanigans?
Martials have always been defined as swinging a weapon repeatedly until the threat is dead or subdued. It hasn't changed since the genre first came out, it hasn't changed here. Adding bold flairs of flavor or crazy feat stunts to your attack routine, reaching the same exact goal, doesn't really change that. It brings to mind a certain modern adult-oriented cartoon that categorized the creation and coercion of a microscopic species to power a custom vehicle as being labeled something, but when adding specifics to it still became that something, but with extra steps added.
I mean, it's fine that you don't find martials appealing, but I really don't think there is much that can be done to make them different without them becoming something completely different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm once again looking for interesting character concepts and stumbled upon a problem. I can't imagine playing a martial character for a long time. I've played them in one shots and short modules in the past but how do you keep them interesting over a whole campaign spanning all 20 levels?
Casters get new spells/slots every level, switching up their main tricks somewhat regularly. By comparison, martial characters feel like they're doing mostly the same for all their career. Monks will Flurry from level 1 to level 20. Rogues will move into flank and attack as often as possible. Rangers Hunt their Prey and kill it before moving on to the next. And so on.
It feels like martials get very few tricks during their career and mostly stick with them. Dedications add a thing or two but usually end up either very sub-par or outright replacing your original shtick, leaving you with only a few tricks yet again.
Note that this is NOT a "Martials are bad" post. I know they are powerful and I've seen them being very effective on multiple levels of play. But they still end up doing the same 3-4 things every round in every combat.
What sort of things are you wanting martials to do that they can't do now? Use two weapons together without feats? Alter or create terrain by attacking it? Bend reality by slicing it open with a sword? Perform some crazy Wuxia shenanigans?
Martials have always been defined as swinging a weapon repeatedly until the threat is dead or subdued. It hasn't changed since the genre first came out, it hasn't changed here. Adding bold flairs of flavor or crazy feat stunts to your attack routine, reaching the same exact goal, doesn't really change that. It brings to mind a certain modern adult-oriented cartoon that categorized the creation and coercion of a microscopic species to power a custom vehicle as being labeled something, but when adding specifics to it still became that something, but with extra steps added.
I mean, it's fine that you don't find martials...
Did you not want to name Rick & Morty for some reason?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, it's fine that you don't find martials appealing, but I really don't think there is much that can be done to make them different without them becoming something completely different.
That's uh, a pretty circular conclusion you've got there.
...I'm once again looking for interesting character concepts and stumbled upon a problem. I can't imagine playing a martial character for a long time. I've played them in one shots and short modules in the past but how do you keep them interesting over a whole campaign spanning all 20 levels?
Casters get new spells/slots every level, switching up their main tricks somewhat regularly. By comparison, martial characters feel like they're doing mostly the same for all their career. Monks will Flurry from level 1 to level 20. Rogues will move into flank and attack as often as possible. Rangers Hunt their Prey and kill it before moving on to the next. And so on.
It feels like martials get very few tricks during their career and mostly stick with them. Dedications add a thing or two but usually end up either very sub-par or outright replacing your original shtick, leaving you with only a few tricks yet again.
Note that this is NOT a "Martials are bad" post. I know they are powerful and I've seen them being very effective on multiple levels of play. But they still end up doing the same 3-4 things every round in every combat.
What sort of things are you wanting martials to do that they can't do now? Use two weapons together without feats? Alter or create terrain by attacking it? Bend reality by slicing it open with a sword? Perform some crazy Wuxia shenanigans?
Martials have always been defined as swinging a weapon repeatedly until the threat is dead or subdued. It hasn't changed since the genre first came out, it hasn't changed here. Adding bold flairs of flavor or crazy feat stunts to your attack routine, reaching the same exact goal, doesn't really change that. It brings to mind a certain modern adult-oriented cartoon that categorized the creation and coercion of a microscopic species to power a custom vehicle as being labeled something, but when adding specifics to it still became that something, but with extra steps added.
I mean,
I imagine a lot of things from that series isn't appropriate to show or discuss among the forums, so yes, I was apprehensive to directly reference it, so I had to paraphrase it.
I mean, it's fine that you don't find martials appealing, but I really don't think there is much that can be done to make them different without them becoming something completely different.That's uh, a pretty circular conclusion you've got there.
It is a parallel to the problem being described.
"I don't like martials because they do the same thing every level," has been around since Day 1 of its conceptual inception, and both them and the paradigm they were built for has not fundamentally changed. Back in the old red box days, to today, you're still stabbing goblins and demons in the face, even if the mechanics and math have changed between then.
Martials don't turn people to stone or banish them to other planes of existence or cause them to spontaneously bleed to death from every orifice of their body. That's a caster's realm of function. Martials beat things until they die, go unconscious, or surrender. The way in which they beat things doesn't change the fact that they beat things. This is something that they are designed to do best, and in this edition, beating things to death/unconsciousness/submission is much more palatable a solution to resolving encounters, since save/suck is, for the most part, dead, or relegated strictly to further help the beating.
Once you utilize spells or abilities to resolve encounters that isn't beating things to death/unconsciousness/submission, or because you otherwise lack that ability, you cease to be a martial in that sense. And even in this edition, a lot of those things aren't particular to martials (except maybe Athletics), but to any character whom voluntarily invests in the skill, which makes it not particularly a martial schtick. Beating things is, though, and only exclusively. And if it's flavored with cool action scene stuff or augmented with baseline abilities like Power Attack, it's just a new coat of paint on an otherwise old house whose foundation was built long, long ago. In short, the house is different, but hasn't particularly changed. Hence the circular argument.
From playing a Double Slice fighter, I can say that while the damage is pretty nice, it makes it harder (not impossible) to be versatile in combat. Always having your hands full is a real hindrance. It can be done though;
- I took a wizard dedication so I'd have some cantrip ranged attacks that didn't require me to switch between a bow and my melee weapons.
- I'm using a kukri which lets me trip.Still, I really wish shields had the Shove trait. That's a house rule I'll certainly be using.
I've been contemplating a somewhat similar approach for an Investigator: light hammer + whip with Wizard MC. That gives me the option of lethal melee attack, non-lethal melee attack, ranged attack, athletic maneuver, or spell - using Int for any of them.