PDA

View Full Version : D&D 3.x Other Rebalancing Classes (And Spells), would like some input!



Jane_Smith
2014-03-05, 06:51 PM
Essentially, as long ago, I am going to attempt to redo the classes to fix some issues with balance problems. Nerfing some spells, adding or removing class features, making the base-classes more multiclass friendly, buffing many of the prc's, stuff like that.

But before I begin, I would like to hear everyone's opinions on all of pathfinders core classes - all of them listed in the SRD. +Cookies on reveiws of classes by other publishers, such as the Vanguard, Archon, Godlings, etc, and proof/math of evidence to back up any statements if possible.


For example, my own personal opinions of fighter to get the ball rolling (subject to change, I ain't unreasonable);

Vital Strike was a step in the right direction, but I feel the fighter should have better combat action economy for his kit. Allowing him to charge and make full attacks, whirlwind or great cleave as standard actions as he reaches higher levels, make standard attacks, vital strikes and the like as move actions, and perhaps giving him access to attacks or actions he can perform as immediate and swift actions. Its true the fighter is over-generalized, but there is nothing wrong with giving a fighter general bonuses to combat besides attack and damage rolls like action economy, damage reduction. I feel these should be made class features - as there is to many ways for other classes such as magus to take these feats and abuse them or gain access to them.

I have always envisioned giving the fighter a form of "Metacombat" feats like metamagic, taking a penalty to ones base attack bonus as a resource to gain some additional effect to your standard attack. I always thought vital strike, cleave, and the like should have fit under such a catagory. Lunge was also a nice touch. Power attack from 3.5 was a good example of this, if a bit strong for its time.

I have also found other feats that allow you to X/day use, say, reflex saves instead of fort/will saves, or gain the effects of haste for a number of rounds - so long as you have no ability to cast spells. I liked the idea of such feats, and the ones for strength to initiative and the like. Its because of these new options I think fighter deserves more respect (and awe) then people give him credit for.

So tell me what class irks you, why, is it to strong, is it to weak, is it just poorly written? Any ideas on how to fix it? I have been considering just making a "base classes revised" pdf with general errata and rebalanced fixes, inspired by treatmonks guides, etc for class options. I hold a great deal of respect for the people who go threw all the time and effort to literally take a class apart and review it piece by piece, and how each piece synergies with others as a whole, so I hope I can take such work, and use it to make classes were "every choice" is a green-blue choice.

Hanuman
2014-03-05, 07:23 PM
I'm no design expert, I like complicated homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=320374) and inventive systems but I'll say a few things.

Utility
Knowledge
Choice
Action Economy
Focus (BAUS)
Macro

Utility means how many different scenarios can a player solve, or how many things can one power deal with. If one character has a really good way of solving a problem it perhaps isn't as good as a lesser power that can barely do the same job but conserve something more useful or allow for more options.

Knowledge means how aware you are of a situation, this is pretty clutch as it allows the players to solve problems, and it allows their characters to make informed decisions within their world.

Choice means the amount of scenarios where a player can choose (or more successfully attempt to choose) what happens. Power is kind of a relative term where as choice is more of an encompassing term. A powerful character may defeat a monster with a single blow in their best case scenario but a character with good choice preserves their future options while enabling their present ones.

Action economy means how quickly in combat a character can usefully act, this also considers initiative to be a factor.

Focus or BAUS (Beautiful and Unique Snowflake) means how much camera time your character will attract. If you solve 30% of the issues in a 4 player party on an off-day and 60% of the issues on a good day then you're overpowered in terms of focus simply because your ability to attract spotlight is too strong and you will need to sandbag yourself so the other characters can have their time to shine.

Macro means how much you actually effect things, diplomancers, gramarists and other such talents may greatly effect the world so you have to consider how powerful a character is in combat vs how powerful they are behind the black curtain.

This is my personal favorite melee mashup:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192596

NeoSeraphi
2014-03-05, 11:46 PM
Ah, Pathfinder. Where the rogues actually feel like thieves, the paladins have class features, and the half-elf is not an unseen race.

The major problem I have with Pathfinder is the Summoner. Oh, the Summoner. A class I love to hate, it is permanently banned at my tables. Honestly, if giving a druid an animal companion broke casters and action economy in 3.5, giving the Summoner an Eidolon in Pathfinder completely destroyed it and then defiled the corpse.

Eidolons are tankier, more accurate fighters than animal companions, with a larger feat selection, intelligence, and spells/slas and supernatural abilities. Eidolons can also have pounce from level 1, with 3 natural attacks. Meanwhile the summoner himself gets lots of good spells from a good list, including haste as a 2nd level spell, dimension door as a 3rd level spell, and the ability to cast enlarge person on his 8-jawed outsider spider companion.

Dienekes
2014-03-06, 12:22 AM
Alright

Pathfinder Fighter: Generic class just gives bigger numbers that don't really mean anything. The designing a class around feats concept has all the same problems it did in 3.5; namely they're pretty weak and don't scale well nor are they as strong as spells are. The skill points are still ridiculously low. If you decide to take archetypes you have a grab-bag of mostly mediocre abilities, most of which probably should just be feats anyway. And some depressingly stupid decisions: the Archer Fighter's 19th level ability is... the Snatch Arrows feat. Are you kidding me? They also seem to have a problem just giving the fighter pounce.

Now, there isn't anything wrong with designing a class off of feats. But as a whole the feat changes aren't particularly good. The Vital Strike line is pretty weak. Unless some size shenanigans are in place you'll be seeing 7 damage increase per feat. Breaking up the Improved Maneuver feats just makes it take longer for the fighter to do something cool, and often the level they finally get the neat trick it is past when it would have been useful.

Rogue: The Ninja class does everything the Rogue class does, but better. Because of the skill changes, rogues are really just a one level dip. There's a lot of potential with this class, but the Rogue Talents are mostly pretty weak. The only thing that a rogue really gets that isn't available to other classes, better and easier, is Trapfinding.

Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid: Spells are often overpowered and they can do other classes jobs better than them. We know the drill.

Monk: Most of the problems with the class remain. Though with Qinggong + Hungry Ghost + Master of Many Styles you can probably make this a pretty good class. Honestly, I've never been particularly interested in the monk class, so I'm not the best one to bring up problems here.

Basically the big problem with Pathfinder was they had some really good ideas:
Hey, lets let the Fighter have something every level
Hey, let's get the Rogue and Barbarian some cool talents to make them versatile and customizable
Hey, let's make skills easier to get cross-class.
Hey, let's nerf some spells

But they never really went far enough to get real balancing changes, except for arguably the Paladin. Most of the real gamebreaking spells still break the game (though I will admit some of the nerfs they made were good and in the right direction), and many of the new abilities that are tied onto the old classes are not particularly good. If the playing field is to be leveled, spells need to be gutted. The ability of casters to behave like two completely different classes on two consecutive days needs to go, unless mundanes get the same options (good luck rationalizing that). Feats and class abilities need to be buffed, or spells nerfed. Prerequisites either need to be simplified for feats, or added to spells.

Vadskye
2014-03-06, 01:18 AM
Pathfinder has several fundamental problems.

It makes no flipping sense
Consider the barbarian's "No Escape" rage power. It gives you the ability to move double your movement speed as an immediate action. Yes, it's "flavorful" in that it's an interesting solution to the problem that enemies can escape the barbarian. It also shatters suspension of disbelief and creates bizarre situations where it's beneficial to consider an ally to be a "foe". Unlimited cantrips can wreak strange consequences on the game world. This is a common problem in Pathfinder, where "rule of cool" has a little too much of a hold.

It's not remotely balanced.
The famous Tier List from 3.5 didn't actually change much at all in Pathfinder. There are a few nerfs to egregiously overpowered abilities like Polymorph and Wild Shape - but more often than not, those have simply been replaced with other overpowered abilities. (Hello, Eidolon. Also, metamagic... and casters in general are still staggeringly good.)

The "peanut butter problem".
There are a staggering number of redundant options. In theory, options are good: they help you flesh out a character. But Pathfinder is full of options which all support the exact same concept, and differ merely in mechanics. I call this the peanut butter problem because it's like going to the grocery store and choosing between ten different kinds of peanut butter. It's not a meaningful choice anymore; it's just frustrating.

To illustrate this, consider the fairly specific concept of "barbarian that fights like an animal". That means you can choose between the following options: Animal Fury, Beast Totem (Greater/Lesser), Bestial Climber, Bestial Leaper, Bestial Swimmer, Boar's Charge, Disemboweling Tusks, Lesser Fiend Totem, Primal Scent, and Scent. Okay, let's try another one. What about "barbarian that is harder to kill while raging"? I hope you're ready to read through Beast Totem, Chaos Totem (Greater), Eater of Magic, Energy Absorption, Energy Resistance (Greater), Flesh Wound, Guarded Life (Greater), Guarded Stance, Hive Totem, Hive Totem Resilience, Increased Damaged Reduction, Regenerative Vigor, Renewed Vigor, Rolling Dodge, Spirit Totem, and Staggering Drunk. That was even ignoring anything that didn't deal directly with physical damage - there are a small army of effects which help other defenses. And heaven help you if you want to do hit things better while raging.

I'm picking on barbarian because it's especially easy, but this is a problem throughout Pathfinder. These are not meaningful choices that add to the game; this is just what happens when you let a bunch of designers loose and don't tell them to stop.

There are traps. Everywhere.
Maybe you think the peanut butter problem isn't such a big deal. I mean, they're all peanut butter, right? Why not just pick one and stop worrying about all the others? You can't do that, because you might pick the peanut butter which has ants in it! There are some really, really useless abilities. Consider the awe-inspiring power of the Hive Totem barbarian rage power, the Merciful Healer archetype, the Vow of Poverty archetype, the Prone Shooter feat, the Ragechemist archetype, the Elephant Stomp feat... I could go on indefinitely. But we don't have to go to obscure places to find painfully useless things; many of 3.5's most useless things were retained unchanged: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (90% of the time), the Run feat, the Daze Monster and Daylight spells, and the unbelievably bad Crushing Despair spell... it's all just as bad as it ever was. So you have to spend the time to evaluate all of the dozens of options, because some are vastly better than others. It's just a mess.

Also, the overpowered things make this worse. If you just pick an ability without worrying about which one is the best, you'll get the tar beaten out of you by the guy that took Dazing Spell, Spell Perfection, Greater Invisibility, or any number of even more powerful options.

This isn't a class-based analysis like you asked for... but the specific design of the classes isn't really the point. Good class design (which Pathfinder has only sparingly) would be icing on the cake, but the cake is full of peanut butter. And the peanut butter is full of ants. It's just not good.

random_guy
2014-03-06, 01:44 AM
On feats, I house rule feat chain collapsing for certain feats. For example, vital strike, improved vital strike, and greater vital strike are rolled into one feat. It automatically scales once you meet the BAB requirement.

One issue I see with spells is DC and saving throw scaling. It's essentially a numbers game and a matter of targeting the weakest saving throw, since spell DCs scale faster. I think providing options might help a little

An idea I've played with, but have not had the opportunity to test its practicality, is the ability to ready move actions. It can help a character move out of the range of an area of effect spell, or dodge a ray or other spell that has line of sight (it can also be used to dodge arrows or other ranged attacks). Another possibility is for reflex saves against spells to let you make a free move action (or partial move), so characters without evasion can still gain a similar benefit.

For fortitude saves, I was thinking of something similar to total defense. A person can brace themselves in order to improve their chances of making a fortitude save. This could be an option that has room for improvement based on level scaling, class abilities or feat selection. Maybe a person can improve his ability to endure pain and can gain damage reduction or energy resistance when bracing himself against an attack. It could also be an either or type of option: gain a bonus to improve your chances of successfully making a saving through, or gamble on the chance of success and choosing to further reduce the effects of an attack or spell.

I cannot think of anything for will saving throws at the moment. The general idea is to make spells less one sided where the caster picks his option, and the target has to deal with what's available. This gives the target an opportunity to attempt to anticipate a caster's action and prepare himself for it. A potential target can also shore up his weakness in order to reduce a caster's effectiveness.

@Vadskye
I just saw your post and couldn't help but look at your sig. I did not look through all of your homebrew materials, but I like the change to skill points. My idea was to split athletic skills from mental skills. Your idea involves separate categories based on ability scores. I think that's a great change, since the idea that a low int fighter is potentially worse than a high int wizard at climbing and swimming did not sit well with me.

Vadskye
2014-03-06, 02:41 AM
On feats, I house rule feat chain collapsing for certain feats. For example, vital strike, improved vital strike, and greater vital strike are rolled into one feat. It automatically scales once you meet the BAB requirement.
Absolutely. Abilities which are "the exact same thing, but slightly better" is common in Pathfinder, and I'm not a fan. But I felt like the post was already too long.


One issue I see with spells is DC and saving throw scaling. It's essentially a numbers game and a matter of targeting the weakest saving throw, since spell DCs scale faster. I think providing options might help a little.
Or change the fundamental saving throw math.


@Vadskye
I just saw your post and couldn't help but look at your sig. I did not look through all of your homebrew materials, but I like the change to skill points. My idea was to split athletic skills from mental skills. Your idea involves separate categories based on ability scores. I think that's a great change, since the idea that a low int fighter is potentially worse than a high int wizard at climbing and swimming did not sit well with me.
gleeeee!
Not to derail the thread, but I would happily agree that Rise has good ideas if you're looking to take each class and mechanic apart and review them piece by piece!

random_guy
2014-03-07, 08:47 AM
I guess one thing to focus on here is: what are we trying to balance? Is it overall utility of a particular class as players work their way through a campaign? Or are we trying to balance combat prowess?

Jane_Smith
2014-03-07, 03:02 PM
Specifically, my personal goal is to fix the peanut butter effect as mentioned above, in addition to fix badly worded abilities, "well crap i should not have taken this" abilities, while still giving characters options and customization.

For some examples of my work so far;

Fighter gains talent points like a rogue or barbarian's rage powers at every even level. Bonus feats are granted every odd level. I removed abilities like bravery, weapon training, etc A fighter has level requirements on several of its new class features, and it gains several abilities such as;


"Invisible Blade" - Can make a single attack as a swift action at a -5 penalty to hit. The enemy must make a perception check against the fighters attack roll in order to defend themselves against this attack. If the perception check fails, they are treated as flat-footed against this attack.
Fighter Level 6 required

"Quick Assault" - Can make a single standard attack or use any combat feat or fighter talent that requires the use of a standard action as a move action.
Fighter Level 6 required

"Full Assault" - Can make a full attack action at the end of a charge, or use any combat feat or fighter talent that requires the use of a full turn action as a standard action.
Fighter Level 12 required

"Unbroken Resolve" - Can make a will save at the beginning of each turn to end any mind-affecting effect with a duration, regardless of the initial save or if the ability has a partial effect. On a successful save, ends the effect immediately.
Fighter Level 4, Iron Will required

Etc. Other abilities make the fighter act as cover for allies, others allow him to give his own standard/move actions to allies (or take some from them), or sunder a targets weapon, armor or shield automatically as a free action whenever the fighter confirms a critical hit.


On the part about fixing badly written abilities or just poor ones? I like how on my list 50% of it is about monk problems. >_> And natural attacks, touch attacks, and unarmed attacks in general and how poorly written/balanced they are. Like, oh, a rogue at level 20 can make 6 attacks as a full action with two weapons with the right feats, but if he/she became say, a were-tiger, they cant make multiple attacks with claws? Wtf? And then of course there is the endless debate about why you cant deliver touch attacks with unarmed or natural attacks such as slam... or use, say, a foot or tail to deliver such effects. Its just a giant can of worms that apparently paizo and wotc never got around to giving a solitary f--- to ironing out.

Vadskye
2014-03-07, 05:07 PM
Specifically, my personal goal is to fix the peanut butter effect as mentioned above, in addition to fix badly worded abilities, "well crap i should not have taken this" abilities, while still giving characters options and customization.
so happy people are talking about the "people butter problem" like it's an actual thing


Fighter gains talent points like a rogue or barbarian's rage powers at every even level. Bonus feats are granted every odd level. I removed abilities like bravery, weapon training, etc A fighter has level requirements on several of its new class features, and it gains several abilities such as;

abilities abilities abilities
I'd challenge an assumption here. What makes these fighter class features as opposed to combat feats? It would be thematically appropriate for a ranger or rogue to have Invisible Blade, and Full Assault is something that makes sense for any melee character. (Actually, I'd just make full attacking a standard action, but that's a separate discussion.)

What makes a fighter thematically distinct from other classes? It's not pure martial skill; many people can have martial skill. If you call "martial skill" the core of the fighter class, you really hurt the system's flexibility. It will become much less interesting to martial classes not named Fighter. The core concept of a class must be something which no other class does. That's why approaches which just give the fighter martial abilities will always fail.

You need to find some core concept which makes the fighter distinct, so you can assign unique abilities. I chose "discipline"; that is what sets him apart from the barbarian, who is an undisciplined berserker, and the paladin and ranger, who blend their martial abilities with other abilities. Thus, my fighter gains "weapon discipline", "armor discipline", and "combat discipline" (which lets him mitigate or ignore debuffs and negative conditions). You can choose a different core concept, but it needs to be something general enough to encompass all of the different kinds of fighter, while not being so general that it overshadows other classes.


Other abilities make the fighter act as cover for allies, others allow him to give his own standard/move actions to allies (or take some from them), or sunder a targets weapon, armor or shield automatically as a free action whenever the fighter confirms a critical hit.
These are all great ideas - for combat feats, not fighter class features.


Its just a giant can of worms that apparently paizo and wotc never got around to giving a solitary f--- to ironing out.
YES. Thank you. This is not a problem that most people seem to care about, but it's absolutely true. I think a character using two claws should have the exact same attack mechanics as a character using two short swords. That leads to a complete redesign of monster attack mechanics - which absolutely needs to happen anyway, because math.

random_guy
2014-03-08, 01:56 AM
The problem with natural attacks is their ability to allow multiple attacks without penalties (whether its an iterative attack penalty or two-weapon fighting penalty). One solution is to treat them as lethal unarmed strikes. As your BAB increases, you gain iterative attacks, just like with unarmed strikes. Use multiple natural attacks, then gain the -2 penalty, just like with unarmed strikes. The possibility that training allows you to wield a manufactured weapon more efficiently and make multiple attacks, while natural attacks that you are born with do not improve over time does not make sense.

Class features and feats are not mutually exclusive for fighters. Getting bonus combat feats is a fighter class feature. That said, I agree that these are more suited as combat feats and are viable options for other martial classes.

I think the core concept behind fighters is not so much the martial skill, but rather the formal training in arms and armor. Other classes can use arms and armor, but they lack the same institutional education that a fighter has. A barbarian experiences the use of weapons as he goes on a rampage against his enemies. A rogue learns about weapons as he observes opponents' weaknesses and finds ways to stick his weapon in a place that would hurt. A fighter is trained in the history, use, and maintenance of his weapons. A fighter is formally trained in the use of weapons, not just for attacking, but in alternative uses as well. Their background makes learning how to disarm, trip, and so on come naturally to them compared to others who have to learn on their own.

Some features a fighter can benefit from is something similar to the duelist's parry ability. Fluff-wise, I see no reason why it cannot be something a fighter is familiar with.

Another ability a fighter should have is the ability to take advantage of an opponent's opening. During a failed attack, an opponent should be an easier target for a fighter. Under normal circumstances, a character can recover from a failed attack quickly enough, but a fighter could be trained to look out for such openings. An ability similar to the false opening feat, except it applies to regular attacks, not just attacks of opportunity that you intentionally trigger. This could be something that even allows fighter to make an attack of opportunity against an opponent that failed to attack an ally.

Vadskye
2014-03-08, 02:16 AM
One solution is to treat them as lethal unarmed strikes.
Essentially, yes! Also set the damage die and type based on the natural weapon being used.

Use multiple natural attacks, then gain the -2 penalty, just like with unarmed strikes.
What do you mean?

I think the core concept behind fighters is not so much the martial skill, but rather the formal training in arms and armor. Other classes can use arms and armor, but they lack the same institutional education that a fighter has.
This is also an excellent core concept. I partially used this (weapon and armor discipline), but you could make this the center of the class. Just don't force all fighters to be specialists!

Another ability a fighter should have is the ability to take advantage of an opponent's opening.
Still sounds like a combat feat to me, not a fighter-specific thing. I can imagine paladins in particular attacking enemies that failed to attack an ally.

Jane_Smith
2014-03-08, 02:50 AM
An ideal for natural attacks/unarmed attacks, so on;

I bought several years ago the 'Everquest' RPG book, which is basically 3.5 that was gutted in a few spots, 30-level base classes were pre-epic levels, and spell tiers went up to 15 (while i enjoyed there spell system, where 15th tier was the equivalent of pathfinders tier 9, to many of there spells were HORRIBLY written, or did set effects that never scaled - thats a rant for a different day.)

But, 1 thing I LOVED about there system, and apparently i am the only person who enjoyed it, I guess its a bit of a guilty pleasure? Was the weapon speed rule. See, in everquest rpg, every weapon in the game acted like a natural attack. Having a high base attack bonus did not grant you extra attacks with that weapon or iterative attacks, so on. Instead, weapons, speed enchantment, masterwork, haste/slow, and the like all influenced the weapons base speed value of 2-9.

Speed values worked like this, if a claw says 4, then you get extra attacks with that claw with a full attack for every 4 base attack you got. So, level 4 fighter werewolf would have +4/+0 with both claws. If a great hammer had a speed value of 7, he would not get an extra attack until level 7. Strength and dexterity of course had a role to play in this, as well, with several str and dex based feats reducing attack 'speed' penalties or boosting attack speed in general. Also, they redid the base damage of all weapons completely, I think the great hammer did something along the lines of 3d8, while a dagger still did 1d4.

No matter what however, your maximum number of attacks was 5 with a single weapon. Also they got rid of hastes +1 bonus to attack rolls, for the +1 speed value.

So, instead of 'fixing' natural attacks, we could just 'drag down' everything else to its level. Make base attack no longer give extra attacks, and slap a speed value on weapons based on there base damage/handiness, buff damage on slow weapons, nerf damage on fast weapons, cap maximum possible attacks to 5 a weapon, period.

Though it would likely just be easier to make unarmed attacks and natural attacks function identically to manufactured weapons, with innate immunity to traditional disarm and sundering (with called shots counting as a 'sunder' on them). So if a player ever acquires or starts with natural attacks, they can just list them on there sheet like a piece of equipment they can later enchant, or keep track of if say, a barbarian decides to rip it off, just like any normal weapon.

random_guy
2014-03-08, 06:21 PM
What do you mean?

When you use two unarmed strikes, you use two-weapon fighting and take the -2 penalty accordingly (I assumed the hypothetical character has the feat for the purpose of the discussion, otherwise the penalty is higher). The same should apply to a character that uses multiple attacks. Two claw attacks should each be made with a -2 penalty, similar to two punches.

I agree that taking advantage of an opening is more of a feat than a class feature. What if, instead of trying to come up with all new ideas for fighters, we try to take existing concepts and tweak them in a way that makes them unique to fighters? Any class can take the two-weapon fighting feats. Only a two-weapon archetype fighter can make two-weapon attacks as a standard action. Going off of this example, what if something like weapon focus were to be utilized by fighters in a different way? Instead of applying it to one weapon, the fighter can apply it to one weapon class, since the knowledge and training from different weapons in the same class are more easily transferable for the fighter.

I like the Everquest RPG idea. Having light weapons faster than heavier weapons will make things more realistic. Also, choosing to make weapons out of mithril will have another consequence beyond overcoming DR.

Although, wouldn't sundering a natural weapon essentially be amputation?

Dienekes
2014-03-08, 08:54 PM
I like the Everquest RPG idea. Having light weapons faster than heavier weapons will make things more realistic.


Please no. Unless it's absolutely needed for game balance purposes. Weapons do not work the way you think they work.

Razanir
2014-03-08, 08:57 PM
One change that I don't think is considered nearly often enough: A psionics-like magic system, instead of Vancian casting.

Oh, and while you're at it, pare down the spell list. Still give them a variety of in- and out-of-combat options, but don't let them step on everyone else's feet.

Vadskye
2014-03-08, 09:44 PM
Instead, weapons, speed enchantment, masterwork, haste/slow, and the like all influenced the weapons base speed value of 2-9.

Speed values worked like this, if a claw says 4, then you get extra attacks with that claw with a full attack for every 4 base attack you got.
I'm going to strongly agree with Dienekes here, for two reasons. First, it's essentially impossible to balance. Damage scales with level in D&D, which means that low speed factor weapons become better and better with level. This approach been tried in other systems as well, such as Exalted, and it had that exact same result. It's a development nightmare.

Second, it also makes very little sense. Weapons are complex things that D&D/PF dramatically simplifies (for good reason; check out the earlier editions of D&D), and the speed factor system actually makes suspension of disbelief harder because it starts arbitrarily adding in one part of reality while ignoring the rest of it. This is a longer and less productive debate, so I'd rather focus on the "it's grossly and unfixably imbalanced" problem.


Though it would likely just be easier to make unarmed attacks and natural attacks function identically to manufactured weapons, with innate immunity to traditional disarm and sundering (with called shots counting as a 'sunder' on them). So if a player ever acquires or starts with natural attacks, they can just list them on there sheet like a piece of equipment they can later enchant, or keep track of if say, a barbarian decides to rip it off, just like any normal weapon.
Yup, this is a much better idea! Though I'd be careful about "sundering" natural weapons... things get weird. D&D/PF usually avoids dealing with dismemberment.


When you use two unarmed strikes, you use two-weapon fighting and take the -2 penalty accordingly (I assumed the hypothetical character has the feat for the purpose of the discussion, otherwise the penalty is higher). The same should apply to a character that uses multiple attacks. Two claw attacks should each be made with a -2 penalty, similar to two punches.
Makes sense. And "claw/claw/bite" would be represented by the first iterative attack being made by dual-wielding claws, while the second iterative is used for a bite. (I would actually prefer to rewrite 2WF mechanics in general for many reasons, but that's a separate discussion; either way, natural weapons use 2WF mechanics.)


What if, instead of trying to come up with all new ideas for fighters, we try to take existing concepts and tweak them in a way that makes them unique to fighters?
Interesting in principle, and you're not wrong. In practice, that means writing two feat benefits for every feat, which only one class will use. Very difficult to do, and also hard to make all of these secondary effects easily understandable. Also, you'd have to specify a level of fighter required for each benefit, or else everyone could dip fighter 1 and get all the combat feats like fighter feats. More standard class features are probably a better approach - but I bet that a properly implemented version of this system would be very interesting.

random_guy
2014-03-09, 11:17 AM
I realized I did not think things through with the speed factor issues. A dagger looks smaller than a sword, so it would seem logically for it to be faster. The reality is, both weapons are lighter than five pounds, so an weight differences would be negligible.

In a real fight, opponents would trade blows with each other, with the person on the defensive switching to the offensive when they see an opening or to retaliate against the other person's attack. A rapier wielder, for example, would not be able to just walk up to an axe wielder and riddle him with holes without at least one retaliatory strike from the axe wielder.

I think I have gone off topic. The focus is balance and class changes, not realism, so I'll get back to that.

A balance problem comes with making the factors run from 2-9. Going with the extremes of 2 and 9, there is a weapon that can hit four times more than another weapon. At mid-level one class of weapons is clearly better than another, and this would start to reverse once you hit the five attack cap. Narrowing the range of speed factors can reduce this problem. Limiting the speed factors to 3 and 4, for example, would have the speed 4 weapons have the same number of attacks for half of the levels, and one less attack for the other half of the levels. This creates a difference, but it is not severe enough to make low speed factor weapons superior to high speed factor weapons. On the flip side, it can also be argued the benefit is not worth the hassle of introducing it.

One side effect (that may be unintentional) of introducing speed factors is the ability for 3/4 or 1/2 BAB characters to gain the full range of iterative attacks. Even when limiting the speed factors to 3 and 4, 3/4 BAB classes still get five iterative attacks, and 1/2 BAB classes would get four iterative attacks. A rogue would potentially stick with speed factor 3 weapons to get in that one extra iterative attack. A rogue that's high enough level to get a fifth attack would also have a sneak attack bonus higher than any weapon damage adjustments for the different speed factors. This might not necessarily be a bad thing, but it is something to consider.

These are just a few observations based on quick calculations. I am unfamiliar with Exalted and older versions of D&D, so I cannot make a more detailed analysis of how it would affect balance.


Interesting in principle, and you're not wrong. In practice, that means writing two feat benefits for every feat, which only one class will use. Very difficult to do, and also hard to make all of these secondary effects easily understandable. Also, you'd have to specify a level of fighter required for each benefit, or else everyone could dip fighter 1 and get all the combat feats like fighter feats. More standard class features are probably a better approach - but I bet that a properly implemented version of this system would be very interesting.

It would definitely lead to a complete overhaul of a large number of feats. Considering that some feat choices are a trap for the unwary, it may be necessary. It would work out similar to the fighter only feats, and there would be a level prerequisite. A fighter that otherwise qualifies for the feat can take it, but the fighter related benefit does not kick in until he has enough fighter levels. It might even be interesting to make the feats scale with level.

Speaking of fighter only feats, there are some that could be general feats for other classes. Weapon specialization, for example, is something a paladin can work with. A champion of a specific deity who devotes herself to emulating that deity's example may choose to specialize in that deity's favored weapon. It might be a good idea to take these feats and turn them into general combat feats with different benefits for other classes.