What do you want from melee? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

ngilop

2015-05-22, 09:34 PM

Personally, I'm quite a fan of ToB/PoW. I thought most were.

In another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416700-3-5-Classes-that-Broke-Your-Heart) I saw Jormengand and Chronos voiced their distaste for ToB/PoW. I can see how Sword Magic is an unsatisfactory ``fix'' for melee. I mean, it's like magic.

So in 3.5 (or 3.0 or PF), what would make melee satisfactory? More options like trip and bullrush? Big static bonuses? Other abilities which make up for their shortcomings?

For me what I expect form melee is summed up in Zeigander's thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?276366-The-Fighter-Problem-amp-How-to-Fix-It) (I had one thati posted a few weeks/months earlier than ziegander's but I got it deleted due to the massive amount of hate and insults that I got for literally saying the same exact thing Zeigander said)

Basically it falls down into that melee is beholden to the real world limitations and such. while magical classes do not have that. Which in a fantasy setting makes absolutely no sense to me.

what reall sucks is other than AC and HP, what can a melee ever effect? Melee has no way to cause any status condition, no way to target a save, no way toreally do much other than roll dat d20 and then dadamage!.

add in some versatility in what a melee can do and I'll behappy.

Make it so a melee is actually heroic and legendary ( on par with Heracles, indrajit Beowulf etc etc) and i'll make you CHicken cordon bleu!

squiggit

2015-05-22, 09:50 PM

What I want from melee is nonlinear growth at high levels in an at-will, easily accessible fashion.

that is to say. A level one wizard can put someone to sleep and fire lasers. A level 20 wizard can reshape reality.

A level one fighter can hit someone with a sword. A level 20 fighter can hit someone REALLY HARD ... but doesn't actually gain any real new capabilities.

Would be really cool if a fighter could do crazy heroic epic things that aren't just doing lots of damage and having lots of HP.

Basically it falls down into that melee is beholden to the real world limitations and such.
But only sometimes. I mean there's nothing realistic about being able to punch out an elephant or wrestle whales or skydive with no parachute and walk away no worse for wear or swim in lava or take three dozen gunshot wounds to the face. That's the worst part. That my fighter can do all of those things, but still has his combat efficacy crippled if an enemy is ten feet away or still has to waddle around in heavy armor.

AvatarVecna

2015-05-22, 10:01 PM

I want a system for dealing status effect that isn't a complete pain to work with.

I want tactical maneuvers for both solo and group combat that couldn't be accomplished by lesser warriors.

I want feats that are good enough to be worth taking that don't have a laundry list of awful prereqs.

I want a fighter who's so awesome, powerful, and fun to play that I can look at the full casters who can grant more 6 wishes every day and say "eh, I'm good with what I've got."

To be clear: I don't want a martial characters that's totally equal to a Wizard 20, because that's ridiculous. Hell, I think full casters should be turned way down. But I want a martial character that doesn't regularly get outclassed in melee combat by a squishy wizard. Because that's a sad life to live.

AmberVael

2015-05-22, 10:06 PM

Make it so a melee is actually heroic and legendary ( on par with Heracles, indrajit Beowulf etc etc) and i'll make you CHicken cordon bleu!

I don't think Indrajit is a good example here. I mean for one, he doesn't do melee at all, the bow was his weapon of choice. But more importantly, Indrajit is a crazy supernatural figure- I mean, the guy was literally a sorcerer, using his magic for illusions and invisibility. Plus, the whole Astra thing that Indian heroes having going on... there's a place for capabilities that are beyond the norm for legendary fighters, but Astras really don't fit that category- they're divine supernatural powers, pretty much just an odd form of magic (like magic of incarnum or binding in D&D).

I'd say Beowulf is the best example here. We're talking about a guy who ripped off the arm of a cannibalistic monster with the strength of his hand ('mighty handgrip' will be a phrase that sticks in my mind forever), a guy who fought monsters at the bottom of the sea for a day as part of a competition. These are clearly beyond human capabilities, but there's no attribution to supernatural powers, the idea is that Beowulf is just that much of a badass.

Personally I do like ToB / PoW, but some people have trouble with the system itself, which I can understand to an extent. Its a sound mechanical system, but in terms of fluff it can get a bit strange, and some people can't divorce their view of it from magic due to its obvious similarities to the magic system. I think these people would probably be more satisfied with an at will system, perhaps even something more in line with the Invocation system- getting abilities and options that can be used more freely and don't mysteriously run out, that don't need preparation or swapping out. Once you know it its yours to use whenever the situation is appropriate. There's probably room for some amount of limited use (representing fatigue or the like), but not to the amount that ToB uses.

Extra Anchovies

2015-05-22, 10:21 PM

I'd say Beowulf is the best example here. We're talking about a guy who ripped off the arm of a cannibalistic monster with the strength of his hand ('mighty handgrip' will be a phrase that sticks in my mind forever), a guy who fought monsters at the bottom of the sea for several weeks as part of a competition. These are clearly beyond human capabilities, but there's no attribution to supernatural powers, the idea is that Beowulf is just that much of a badass.

Agreed. Beowulf and Hercules are both good examples. They do lots of amazing stuff just through pure muscle (and some clever thinking, but that's not something that needs mechanical representation beyond having an Intelligence greater than six). The important question is, then, how do we do that? Do we just give them class features that make all of their combat numbers bigger? It would certainly solve the combat-effectiveness problem, at least in part, but it doesn't make them much more versatile and doesn't make them any more interesting to play.

Personally I do like ToB / PoW, but some people have trouble with the system itself, which I can understand to an extent. Its a sound mechanical system, but in terms of fluff it can get a bit strange, and some people can't divorce their view of it from magic due to its obvious similarities to the magic system. I think these people would probably be more satisfied with an at will system, perhaps even something more in line with the Invocation system- getting abilities and options that can be used more freely and don't mysteriously run out, that don't need preparation or swapping out. Once you know it its yours to use whenever the situation is appropriate. There's probably room for some amount of limited use (representing fatigue or the like), but not to the amount that ToB uses.

Hm. I like this idea. Invocations is a good comparison, but that's too magical of a name. Maybe we could call them deeds? Stunts? Exploits?

Wait, I've got it! We'll call them feats!

Back to being serious, this is a really good idea. Come up with about 60 or so specific actions (e.g. stun an opponent with a single attack, gain a large bonus to your next combat maneuver check), divide them into four categories like warlock invocations, name them... something. I don't know. I'll call them Heroic Abilities for now. Set use limits on some of them (e.g. you can only stun someone you haven't stunned in the last five rounds) while leave the others at-will. Provide action types to some (e.g. bonus to next combat maneuver check as a swift action). Create a class, d12 HD, full BAB, good fort/will (or all good saves), 4+Int skills, give them combat feats at 1st, 2nd, 4th, and every fourth level after, let them choose a Heroic Ability at every odd level, and fill in the remaining levels (6/10/14/18) with something akin to armor/weapon training from the PF fighter. The trickiest part would be coming up with enough Heroic Abilities.

OldTrees1

2015-05-22, 10:34 PM

What do I want from melee?

I have a preference for passive/triggered over activated/limited and a preference for qualitative over quantitative improvements. These preferences are why I dislike the activated/limited abilities of ToB but like Knockback and Improved Trip. (However I recognize that some have the opposite preferences and they should also have character options. Go ToB.)

Mobility:
A melee warrior should have more than 1 means of moving around the battlefield in a meaningful way. A way is meaningful if it allows the warrior to reach their target. Due to the increasingly difficult battlefields as characters level, a melee warrior should also gain more forms of mobility and improve old forms while they level. Furthermore, a warrior class should have even more options so individual warriors can choose the options that fit their character thematically.

If a Wizard is floating in a vacuum above an abyss while shooting a transdimentional ray though a slotted door, a warrior should be able to close that distance through all 4 obstacles.

Offense and Defense also need to scale qualitatively in addition to quantitative scaling. Higher AC and HP mean nothing vs save or loses. Eventually the warrior should have defenses against illusions, mental effects, death effects, and similar SoLs. Likewise the warrior's variety of offense should likewise diversify so that they are not left taking 5 turns to down a 1 turn minion.

Finally, since action economy is a thing, warriors need ways to keep up in this area as well.

Pluto!

2015-05-22, 10:56 PM

I would want combat to alter in two ways:
1. Swift/Immediate actions for all melee characters. I think every melee class should have decisions to make that don't interfere with moving and actually combatting enemies.
2. All characters should be able to target multiple defenses and inflict non-damage status effects.

And, as probably everyone agrees, constant and capable mobility for all (unless their shtick is not moving, and if that's the case, they should get a lot to compensate).

I have ideas about how this should be generalized and implemented, but honestly, as long as these are all there in some form (as they already are in ToB and PsyWars/gishes), I'm happy.

Ellowryn

2015-05-22, 10:58 PM

Hm. I like this idea. Invocations is a good comparison, but that's too magical of a name. Maybe we could call them deeds? Stunts? Exploits?

Wait, I've got it! We'll call them feats!

Back to being serious, this is a really good idea. Come up with about 60 or so specific actions (e.g. stun an opponent with a single attack, gain a large bonus to your next combat maneuver check), divide them into four categories like warlock invocations, name them... something. I don't know. I'll call them Heroic Abilities for now. Set use limits on some of them (e.g. you can only stun someone you haven't stunned in the last five rounds) while leave the others at-will. Provide action types to some (e.g. bonus to next combat maneuver check as a swift action). Create a class, d12 HD, full BAB, good fort/will (or all good saves), 4+Int skills, give them combat feats at 1st, 2nd, 4th, and every fourth level after, let them choose a Heroic Ability at every odd level, and fill in the remaining levels (6/10/14/18) with something akin to armor/weapon training from the PF fighter. The trickiest part would be coming up with enough Heroic Abilities.

So a warlock that uses a blade, so we can call it a war-blade!

All jokes aside, this does seem like a simple way to make a decent melee character. And by simple i mean months of intense numbercrunching and playtesting while having to listen to a bunch of people too lazy to offer to help complain about every little thing you do. I think making the Heroic abilities that would take extra effort, and therefore time between uses, scale with level a good thing to fill extra level gaps, start off with something like your example of 5 rounds between uses but reduce that by 2 or 3 by the time they get to high level.

And for actual heroic abilities there are a lot of good stuff from ToB, so nothing wrong with appropriating from that source when necessary. Good fort and will, but maybe evasion at higher levels.

AmberVael

2015-05-22, 11:06 PM

Back to being serious, this is a really good idea. Come up with about 60 or so specific actions (e.g. stun an opponent with a single attack, gain a large bonus to your next combat maneuver check), divide them into four categories like warlock invocations, name them... something. I don't know. I'll call them Heroic Abilities for now. Set use limits on some of them (e.g. you can only stun someone you haven't stunned in the last five rounds) while leave the others at-will. Provide action types to some (e.g. bonus to next combat maneuver check as a swift action). Create a class, d12 HD, full BAB, good fort/will (or all good saves), 4+Int skills, give them combat feats at 1st, 2nd, 4th, and every fourth level after, let them choose a Heroic Ability at every odd level, and fill in the remaining levels (6/10/14/18) with something akin to armor/weapon training from the PF fighter. The trickiest part would be coming up with enough Heroic Abilities.

Xefas's existing mythos (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?364949-Mythos-Homebrew-Discussion-II-Where-Simplicity-Goes-to-Die) system has strong similarities, so it might be worth looking at.

Andion Isurand

2015-05-22, 11:07 PM

A while back, I dabbled with Fighter Feat Scaling (http://magerune.blogspot.com/2014/04/fighter-feat-scaling.html) in that they would give a benefit based on the total number of fighter bonus feats the beneficiary has. You could incorporate this idea along with other ideas you might implement.

I would also change all the feats that apply to a specifically chosen weapon (or weapon group) like Weapon Specialization and Power Critical, etc... so that their benefits apply to all the weapons for which a character has taken Weapon Focus. That way a character can plug additional kinds of weapons (or weapon groups) into that kind of feat tree, by just taking Weapon Focus for each one.

Grod_The_Giant

2015-05-22, 11:08 PM

Hm. I like this idea. Invocations is a good comparison, but that's too magical of a name. Maybe we could call them deeds? Stunts? Exploits?
I (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?276481-The-Legend-Returns-A-Mythic-Fighter-for-Manly-Men-%28and-Women-And-Others-%29) like (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?307285-The-Myth-Tier-1-quot-Mundane-quot-Challenge-Accepted!) Deeds (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?328113-Barbarian-now-with-150-more-beef-%283-5-PEACH%29)*.

It's not hard to write level-appropriate martial powers, as long as you can get over the "guy at the gym" fallacy. Accept that characters pass "peak human" by 6th level, are firmly in superhero territory by 12th, and verge on gods by 18th, and pick your inspiration accordingly. Beowulf can rip a dude's arm off and never get tired; let a fighter do that at 6th. Spiderman can dodge approximately a thousand arrows fired at him simultaneously; let a rogue do the same at 12th. Hulk can leap halfway across the continent; let a barbarian do that at 18th. "Balance" is all relative, and our "balance point" is casters who can literally create their own universe by the end of their progression.

*Deeds not necessarily compatible; classes were written at different times and balanced at different scales.

Red Fel

2015-05-22, 11:15 PM

It boils down to this. There are three ways to go about making the melee-focused character feel as awesome as he should.

1. Bring him up to the caster's level. This is what ToB/PoW try to do, to mixed levels of success. The melee still can't warp reality, but he can do some cool, sometimes supernatural stuff. The distaste, for some, comes from the fact that it basically means turning the non-caster into a semi-caster just to be relevant.

2. Bring everyone else down to his level. This, for example, is one of the effects of E6 games. When magic is still on the weaker side, the man who can smash faces all day long remains functional. The minus side is that this could basically be seen as a nerf to the rest of the campaign world, and keeps you from employing some of the really awesome, powerful stuff.

3. Jack up the numbers. BAB explodes. AC becomes obscene. Saves skyrocket. When your hero can shrug off fireballs like a summer breeze, you know he's herculean. The downside, of course, is that you're abandoning any semblance of balance. Casters can rewrite reality, melees can ignore it, and everyone is a superhero.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/60072490.jpg

That's pretty much it. Within the constraints of D&D/PF, magic is the be-all and end-all. Literally. You can either give magic to the melee, thus blurring the difference between the two; strip the rest of the world of magic, thus negating most of the system; or let melee more or less ignore the advantage, thus obviating both the need for magic and the challenge it poses. It's not pretty, and it's unfortunate.

There are other systems that better enable melee to remain functional, effective, and useful. They start from a place where magic is a valuable asset, but not a vital one, and possibly a dangerous one. D&D/PF, by contrast, starts from the position that if you don't have a certain amount of magic on your side at the outset, you're going to lose, and more is definitely better. It's not a balance that can be easily fixed.

It's not "What do I want from melee?" It's "What do I want from a system?" I can't see anything you could add to D&D/PF that would make melees what I want from them; it would require tearing it all down and building it back up. (I hear they may have done something like that in 4e/5e, but that's neither here nor there.)

So for now, I content myself with the cool stuff ToB/PoW gives me.

Tvtyrant

2015-05-22, 11:45 PM

I think my biggest frustration is that D&D has decided that only casters get active defenses. There is no ability like: "When you would be effected by a spell, you aren't." You don't even get "use an AoO to dodge an attack roll." A level one wizard has more active defenses than a mundane ever gets, and the best we get is ToB's "make a static defense slightly better" effects.

SinsI

2015-05-23, 12:07 AM

Afgncaap5

2015-05-23, 01:00 AM

Hmm...

You know... whenever Batman gets a legitimate superpower, it tends to be devastating. He holds his own without superpowers, but once they enter the equation he's a terror. So... maybe the best use for magic would be treating it as a force multiplier rather than as an actual result in and of itself?

I can't think of a way to do that without, like, rehauling both magic and melee abilities, sadly.

MesiDoomstalker

2015-05-23, 02:51 AM

I want him to be a specialist at using lots of magic and non-magic things, with lots and lots of them being designed to be useful only in the hands of a trained professional like him.
I want Buffs to be actually dangerous to those you use them on - got enhanced Strength? Don't break your arm along with the enemy's head!
I want him to posses Commander Voice. A wizard summoned some beatsticks? They should not really be under his control - but Melee should be able to Intimidate them into following his orders.
I want him to be wearing a Magic Power Armor wearing Batman with many gadgets that do all the BFC, Saves-Or-Die or Status Effects wizards have to do themselves. I want DC of those to scale with the Melee's level.

The second two I can get behind but the first one I think is going in the wrong direction. Just because a buff can be used on a wizard doesn't mean we nerf the buff, because the Fighter uses it too. It also sounds a lot like a soft, sneaky ban DM's use when they don't want players using something but don't wanna say no. "OH, ya, you can buff up your strength score. You'll be randomly incurring longterm injuries and penalties associated with them though."

Firechanter

2015-05-23, 04:10 AM

For my tastes, ToB goes a long way in making Melee interesting and competitive, but of course it suffers from shoddy editing.

Basically, what I want from Melee involves these:
- the ability to make short work of weaker enemies, and to successfully engage strong enemies;
- effective defenses against magic; if I can't cast any myself, I don't want to be knocked about like a playball by everyone who does.
- options in game beyond "I hit it with a stick". This involves, for instance, mobility and the ability to dish out status effects.

Gnorman

2015-05-23, 04:36 AM

SinsI

2015-05-23, 05:18 AM

The second two I can get behind but the first one I think is going in the wrong direction. Just because a buff can be used on a wizard doesn't mean we nerf the buff, because the Fighter uses it too. It also sounds a lot like a soft, sneaky ban DM's use when they don't want players using something but don't wanna say no. "OH, ya, you can buff up your strength score. You'll be randomly incurring longterm injuries and penalties associated with them though."

This is based on some superhero books, i.e. "Wearing the Cape". After breaking through and getting superstrength, the supers have to undergo extensive training to control that strength. Without it, they can break a cup while trying to pour tear into it - or can kill someone while giving him a hug. A fighter already has his own Strength bonus, so he is pretty good at controlling it, and getting an additional +6 should not be too hard for him to adapt to (since it is only something like double his Strength bonus), especially with all the training he gets. But a wizard will usually have a penalty instead, so the same +6 will easily increase his strength six or seven times. If he tries to open door, it is a Break check, if he pets his familiar - it is unarmed attack...
It is not necessary automatic penalty for wizards, but at the very least it should be a greater bonus for the fighter.

AmberVael

2015-05-23, 05:49 AM

Versatility and the ability to change loadout on the fly, like a wizard. Floating feats are a must. Ideally better feats. Weapon Focus is a joke.

Problem with fighter isn't numbers, it's scope. Passive abilities are fixing the wrong problem. Doesn't matter if you have a +$TEXAS to hit when your opponent is flying out of range and has a 50% miss chance. Challenge is giving them a bunch of cool tactical abilities without people going "isn't this just a wizard by a different name?" and falling into the same trap 4E did. Resource schedules help to differentiate.

I can't think of a way to 'change loadout' that makes any kind of sense for a fighter, beyond something like having a bag of different weapons. Further, I don't think I agree that a changing loadout is even necessary or a good idea- Beguilers and Dread Necromancers are better designed than wizard if you ask me, and their design is exceptionally fixed. Psions and Sorcerers are also plenty capable and versatile.

I also think that passive abilities could fix a lot of the problem... it'd also just make them really boring if you did it entirely that way. But yeah, you definitely don't need passive numeric bonuses, the numbers aren't the issue. But other passive effects like increased movement/flight speed, immunities/resistances, or dealing minor status effects alongside damage, could potentially work. Its just better if you also have some active options so that you have some choices when your turn comes up, and to allow some more room in the design space.

unbeliever536

2015-05-23, 06:10 AM

Combos. I don't want to attack the opponent, I want to break his guard, knock his weapon away, stun him, knock him out, and move on to the next opponent (who may require a different tactic).Trip and Knockdown get close to this, but they aren't nearly enough. I should be able to build eight different fighters who do different things with different tools, just like I can build eight different wizards who do different things with different tools.

BWR

2015-05-23, 06:18 AM

Beowulf is a perfect example of how the basic 3.x combat system can model amazing literary heroes without having to introduce something like ToB/sword-magic. The only thing that might be hard is swimming for days on end, because Endurance won't help you there.

Andion Isurand

2015-05-23, 06:27 AM

well, I never said my ideas were stand alone... just a little something to possibly add to everything else that needs to happen

Eldariel

2015-05-23, 06:28 AM

I don't care about melee in particular, but noncasters in general. I think one huge part the system should account for where a sensible improvement could be made is actions. It makes sense for someone who trains their physique and alacrity all their life and ascends to demigodhood to be really, really fast. What this should practically mean IMHO is that with the way 3.X models the game, warriors should just get way more actions than non-warriors of equal level. More immediates, more swifts, eventually more full-rounds too. This would give them a game-mechanical edge that's really desirable for both sides, and mean that while a magical action is probably always going to be stronger than a non-magical one (which is the case as long as casters are to still feel like reality shapers), warriors can make up through sheer perseverence and speed.

Of course, warriors should also get more immunities and defenses as par de course and they should become faster by default and they should ignore any penalties to wearing armor and they should be able to disrupt actions of things they threaten and they should be able to passively threaten further away (due to their mobility) than their actual weapon reach and they should be able to move more freely without provoking AoOs, and they need to be able to physically just block people trying to move around them instead of just taking a swing; there's Beowulf standing in front of you, you are Not. Getting. Through without killing him. It's just not happening. Add a ToB-like system on top of that with room for making up new maneuvers on the fly (call it improvisation or whatever, I want my warriors to have the chance of coming up with new useful options for situations they find themselves in without practicing; of course, with a much higher chance of failure) and I'm game.

A Tome of Battle-style system is nearly necessary to truly model melee combat in particular; picking the right strikes and having the right counters in play and enabling the smart/experienced warriors to outthink opponents who might even be stronger than they are. Having different attacks and defenses with different strengths allows for dynamic combat, different warriors (some stuff can be tied to weapons; it should feel different fighting a mace vs. a sword, or a spear vs. either) and different combat experience each time. It makes melee combat interesting (bows can use them too but "bow vs. bow" is less of a thing since it lacks the parrying/defense/feint/counterattack aspect of sword v.s. sword for instance).

Also, one way to move the balance would be to move spells to a longer cast time as a basis (use 1-2 rounds instead of the current standard action as baseline) and have that improve with level. That way warriors have a window of opportunity to engage a caster should they find one unprepared and unarmed, and equally the warriors in the party would feel more useful protecting and defending the casters from enemy warriors.

TL;DR:

Noncasters get more actions of all types.
Noncasters get more mobility options and inherent speed (also, tie movement speed to Strength to balance the scores out - it makes sense anyways)
Warriors become harder to bypass and more disruptive and threaten further away with level.
Warriors get all sorts of immunities and resistances as they level.
Casters cast spells slower to start with but improve on the speed of their lower level spells with character levels.
There exists a Tome of Battle-style maneuver system with built-in improvisation options to essentially give warriors limitless options on the battlefield (but higher risk of failure while improvising of course).

Chester

2015-05-23, 07:28 AM

Yup, higher level casters are better than higher level melee.

Still, it's fun to break things and crack skulls. :smallbiggrin:

Morty

2015-05-23, 08:40 AM

I honestly don't care all that much about scaling them up to magic-users. Trying to match the absurd levels of power D&D's magic system allows for is a lost cause and turns the game into an even more ridiculous rocket tag.

What I do care about is agency, freedom, variety and capacity to inflict their archetypal abilities on the game's world. Which is close, but not the same. Non-magical characters, be they warriors, experts or anything in-between, should have many different specializations they can pursue, as opposed to being brow-beaten into a few narrow paths that work, or getting a grab-bag of whatever feels appropriate. Furthermore, they should have a lot of immediate, round-by-round options with which to do it.

All of it requires an actually functional combat model and skill system, in addition to any class design. ToB and PoW are good, but they only have so much to work with.

Milo v3

2015-05-23, 08:45 AM

Dienekes

2015-05-23, 09:09 AM

Well let's see. I would like a method of combat that actually allows you to, easily and effectively, model things that a real combatant would do.

Parry, Riposte, Hamstringing, Weapon Locks, Murder Strikes, Aiming for the Head/Arm/Leg, Warding, Feint (why the Hell is a Fighter bad at feinting?), Beats, and much more. Plus stuff to model stances and guards: Vom Tag, Ox, Fool, etc. Maybe some mechanics to better model distances engages and disengages. I once came up with a list of various maneuvers I wanted to see trained swordsman being capable of doing and I think it grew into the 30s or 40s. And here's the kicker, a lot (not nearly all) could actually be modeled in D&D, some would require using spells, some feats, some maneuvers. But to get enough to say: ok this is what a competent warrior would look like, required a ridiculously disjointed level 40 build.

If I'm going to play a swordsman, I want him to be at least as good a swordsman as I am. And I suck, but I can do all this stuff.

More kudos comes from having these abilities not be completely spamable. Someone doing the same move again and again (trip builds) are 1) boring, and 2) would lose every real life fight. Now ToB, especially the Warblade and Crusader did a decent job of forcing the player to act like a swordsman and vary up their attacks, even though actually thinking about the way they implemented it makes no sense.

Then, give them out of combat abilities that are actually worth a damn. Look at the heroes of legend, fiction, and history: Beowulf, Ajax, Alexander the Great, Aragorn. These guys were all melee fighters, but they could still do things. They were great leaders, or tacticians, or explorers. Now, of course, not every warrior needs to be able to do all of this at the same time, but each should be able to do one or two.

Do this, and you can get fighters that are interesting to play. Then as they get higher in level maybe break physics a bit, or get some trump cards to use. Honestly, they don't need to be as game breaking as wizards (I would much rather drag those classes down than rise others up), but a base of Tier 3 would be nice.

OldTrees1

2015-05-23, 10:48 AM

I think the problem with trying to fix martial characters is that... the issue has nothing to do with combat, but combat is what defines them, meaning the only answers you can get will either not work or will move it away from "martial".

Really? The only non combat deficiency I see is the skill list/#skill points. Other things like interdimensional travel and mental protection are problems in and out of combat and thus improvements there remain combat focused despite having out of combat uses.

Also most martial classes have themes that extend beyond combat. The exceptions to this have generic themes.

Curmudgeon

2015-05-23, 11:07 AM

So in 3.5 (or 3.0 or PF), what would make melee satisfactory?
Fantastic stuff for a fantasy game. Flying (1 round only) a la Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Pounding the ground hard enough to knock everyone within 30' prone. Clinging to walls and ceilings. Foe bowling: throwing enemies at other enemies. Boomerang attacks, hitting multiple enemies with one throw. Hitting someone so hard the concussion stuns everyone nearby. A high-level Fighter should be able to do all of these things (not just 1 or 2, but all), none of which should be considered magical.

OldTrees1

2015-05-23, 11:14 AM

Fantastic stuff for a fantasy game. Flying (1 round only) a la Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Pounding the ground hard enough to knock everyone within 30' prone. Clinging to walls and ceilings. Foe bowling: throwing enemies at other enemies. Boomerang attacks, hitting multiple enemies with one throw. Hitting someone so hard the concussion stuns everyone nearby. A high-level Fighter should be able to do all of these things (not just 1 or 2, but all), none of which should be considered magical.

and the Fighter class should have access to more than thrice these options for individual Fighters to choose from.

Psyren

2015-05-23, 12:05 PM

Dienekes

2015-05-23, 02:52 PM

I think PoW is perfectly fine. It fixed the few lingering issues I had with ToB (like Ex teleportation and Ex non-self-healing.)

If you find maneuvers and "martial casting" to be distasteful, just use Pathfinder's Stamina system to give melee a little more oomph, using the variant that martial classes get in for free. (I would define "martial class" as any class with full BAB, plus the rogue and old monk.

Out of curiosity, how is the Unchained stamina system? That's about the only part of Unchained that interested me when I heard about it months ago, and the part I can't find a lot of information about.

Pluto!

2015-05-23, 03:31 PM

squiggit

2015-05-23, 03:45 PM

Every time a thread like this come up, I think of what I want combat to be like, half-conceive an elaborate homebrew system to make that happen, get started writing, then realize that what I'm writing is just 4e.

I actually think 4e psionics would be a good system to borrow from for some of the things I want. You can get the flexibility and high end options without the verisimilitudinal problems some people have with tob/pow/4e martial encounter powers.

Gnorman

2015-05-23, 03:55 PM

I can't think of a way to 'change loadout' that makes any kind of sense for a fighter, beyond something like having a bag of different weapons. Further, I don't think I agree that a changing loadout is even necessary or a good idea- Beguilers and Dread Necromancers are better designed than wizard if you ask me, and their design is exceptionally fixed. Psions and Sorcerers are also plenty capable and versatile.

I can absolutely think of a way to do it that makes sense. I even mentioned what it was in my post. Floating feats! Every day, while the wizard fills up her spellbook, the fighter selects new feats. This should not stretch suspension of disbelief too much, if at all.

Beguilers and Dread Necromancers may have a fixed loadout (which I do agree is a much better design than the wizard, but that's tangential to my point), but they have a lot of different options that they didn't have to set non-renewable resources on fire to get. Psions and Sorcerers come out even better - at least they get to pick how they're fixed. A Fighter? Sure, they get feats. So do the other classes, albeit admittedly fewer. But when a Fighter is locked into things like "+1 attack bonus with longswords" and the Sorcerer is locked into things like "Time Stop," they're not really comparable.

So, really, letting the fighter pick her mediocre feats on a daily basis doesn't even begin to address the disparity. But it at least gives them the ability to alter their abilities to focus on new foes. Suddenly, the warrior who's been spending her feats on archery doesn't become irrelevant on a claustrophobic dungeon crawl. The mounted knight isn't screwed by the Underdark. The dungeon-crashing juggernaut isn't forced to sit on the sidelines when the party finally tracks down the dragon, and it takes to the skies.

Psyren

2015-05-23, 03:56 PM

Out of curiosity, how is the Unchained stamina system? That's about the only part of Unchained that interested me when I heard about it months ago, and the part I can't find a lot of information about.

It's great - they actually went beyond what I expected. In addition to the standard "add effects to your combat feats if you spend points that refresh every encounter" that I was looking for, they also used it to patch the combat feats like Combat Expertise that have Int requirements, by letting you ignore those requirements. So now you can build a dumb bruiser that knows how to trip, or frighten people with his swings etc. So if you're mostly fine with the standard combat system and just want a tiny bIt of added functionality, it works well. (Of course, if youre not fine with martials at all, you're better off with PoW, though you can easily combine both.) Also, for those GMs who don't want the system to be totally free, you can buy into it with a feat, or make it only free for martial classes, only available to martial classes etc.

AmberVael

2015-05-23, 04:59 PM

I can absolutely think of a way to do it that makes sense. I even mentioned what it was in my post. Floating feats! Every day, while the wizard fills up her spellbook, the fighter selects new feats. This should not stretch suspension of disbelief too much, if at all.
Mechanically? Sure, it makes sense. But please explain to me how knowing a tactic one day and then forgetting it the next makes sense from a non-mechanical perspective.

Beguilers and Dread Necromancers may have a fixed loadout (which I do agree is a much better design than the wizard, but that's tangential to my point), but they have a lot of different options that they didn't have to set non-renewable resources on fire to get. Psions and Sorcerers come out even better - at least they get to pick how they're fixed. A Fighter? Sure, they get feats. So do the other classes, albeit admittedly fewer. But when a Fighter is locked into things like "+1 attack bonus with longswords" and the Sorcerer is locked into things like "Time Stop," they're not really comparable.

So, really, letting the fighter pick her mediocre feats on a daily basis doesn't even begin to address the disparity. But it at least gives them the ability to alter their abilities to focus on new foes. Suddenly, the warrior who's been spending her feats on archery doesn't become irrelevant on a claustrophobic dungeon crawl. The mounted knight isn't screwed by the Underdark. The dungeon-crashing juggernaut isn't forced to sit on the sidelines when the party finally tracks down the dragon, and it takes to the skies.

You're attributing to me an idea I never expressed. I said that a fixed loadout can work fine, not a fixed loadout consisting crappy feats. Obviously if I thought that was fine I'd be saying "melee is great, everything is peachy, why is everyone else so upset?"

My point is that you're demanding a design change that, as you say, 'doesn't even begin to address the disparity.' Who cares if you can swap between bad feats, or even being able to swap between good features- the pressing issue is that non-casters need abilities that are worthwhile to begin with, not whether or not they can swap them out.

Taelas

2015-05-23, 07:34 PM

They "know" it all the time, they just need to practice for X minutes a day to be able to pull it off.

As an example.

Not sure floating feats is the answer, though. Really, that just removes the customization -- might as well just give it to them all the time. Not going to make much of a difference.

Milo v3

2015-05-23, 07:56 PM

Really? The only non combat deficiency I see is the skill list/#skill points. Other things like interdimensional travel and mental protection are problems in and out of combat and thus improvements there remain combat focused despite having out of combat uses.

Also most martial classes have themes that extend beyond combat. The exceptions to this have generic themes.

Martials have a non-combat deficiency. They can deal damage, but not really anything else. Which is why I think that the fighter class is a really stupid idea, and that none of them should have generic themes since there is no out of combat stuff you can give them. At least ranger has some wilderness stuff... but stuff like barbarians and fighters... They can deal damage, and that's it.

Jormengand

2015-05-23, 08:00 PM

Jormengand

WHY DO YOU CALL ME?

:smalltongue:

Anyway. Let's start with what I want my mundanes to do:

Ex healing people, Ex moving really fast, those make sense because, y'know what, they're beyond the capacities of normal humans, but that doesn't mean no-one, anywhere, ever, can do them. Hey, even Ex Plane Shift works: I mean, in real life, there aren't any locations that you can't at least hypothetically go to just by moving there normally - anyway, in Norse Mythology I'm pretty sure you can get between the planes just by climbing up and down Yggdrasil; there's nothing about it being another plane of existence or whatnot that means you can't walk between them without magic - "You can't just walk into Baator because you couldn't do that in real life" makes about as much sense as "You can't just be an elf because you couldn't do that in real life".

That's another thing. Just because no-one can do it in real life doesn't mean it's magic. I mean, elves don't suddenly stop existing in an anti-magic field. Why? Because there's nothing inherently magical about being a pointy-eared, graceful, frail, mildly insomniac humanoid. It doesn't happen in real life, sure. But then, as previously pointed out, falling at terminal velocity, swimming in lava, and then being perfectly fine afterwards doesn't happen in real life, and having hit points isn't even an Ex ability. Compared to the suspension of disbelief you have to pull for people to do so much as have that many hit points, Ex'ing all of the things doesn't seem that terrible.

This is pretty much an extended version of the whole Guy at the Gym malarkey, only it goes from "The guy at the gym can't do it, so no-one can" to "No-one can do it, therefore it must break the fundamental laws of reality." And even if it does, it's not as though the subordinate clause of literally the first sentence in the Ex ability description doesn't exist. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#extraordinaryAbilities) (That said, I don't like the idea of abilities which break the laws of physics but still have an Ex tag. If something breaks the laws of physics, it is literally, definitively supernatural).

Because breaking the fundamental laws of reality is what we're really talking about whenever we say "Magic" or even "Supernatural". Computers aren't magic. Guns aren't magic. Moving really fast isn't magic. Using your intelligence score in combat, dumbass, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html) isn't magic. Hell, the druid's animal companion isn't even magic. Healing people certainly isn't magic; I'd have died at birth if it was. Seeing really well in the dark? Not magic. Being good with words, to the point of turning people fanatical in six seconds flat? Sorry, not magic: I'm not seeing the broken laws of physics here - hey, maybe you just have a really sexy voice or something. Knowing a lot of stuff? Nope, not magical. Being fearless, and utterly immune to every poison and disease known to man? Pushing it, but I'm pretty sure that that's more the laws of biology being broken than the laws of physics, and you're allowed to break those. More seriously, just being hard enough that you're functionally immune even if not technically immune (id est, to the point of no mechanical effect) makes sense. Being so scary you daze people? Yeah, that's not magical either.

There are tons of ways that you can justify the mundane equivalents of... honestly, most spell effects, as has already been mentioned in a post about bombs. We just don't, because we have this preconception that magic has to be able to defeat mundane at everything - the idea (can't remember whether it was Tippy or Psyren who said it) that the magical way of doing something wouldn't have been researched if it wasn't strictly better than the mundane way of doing it is clearly absurd: first, perhaps someone would like to explain to me how the Paladin's first-level spell which grants you a single temporary hit point came to be, as the barbarian sees your temporary hit point and raises you a D12 hit die.

The second reason that makes no sense... well, why would you create a new gun if it weren't strictly better than another type of gun? Well, maybe it's better at some things, but worse at others? A missile launcher may be a bigger and flashier weapon than a compact submachinegun, sure, but if you're fighting on a staircase, inside a building, at close range, you're going to want the SMG. There are two ways of doing it, and one is better in some situations, and the other is better in others! It's almost like that was the entire point of D&D 3.5 having different classes in the first place!

The third reason it's utterly messed-up is that even if there is a strictly-better version of something you can produce, chances are, it's harder to get your hands on. Yeah, you could have a railgun, but that would be really expensive and take ages to construct. Why not just invest in a few cruise missiles instead? Similarly, yes, you could become a paragon of physical strength by tirelessly training... but when you can get half as much anyway out of cheating with magic? Suddenly, magic seems a lot easier. That said, railguns do exist, and in D&D, people who actually train physically to do things the old-fashioned way should exist, and they should come out better than the people who temporarily screw about with reality to get the same effect.

That's what I was saying when I was talking about WHFB, and you don't have to know anything about WHFB to understand the main point of what I'm saying. Yes, you can cheat out some decent stats, but even a fourth-level (the highest in WHFB) wizard just isn't going to be anywhere near as good in close combat as a chaos lord (crazy-strong melee guy) unless he's decided to turn into a dragon (and if he does that, he loses his wizard levels, assuming he even succeeds at casting the spell), in which case he may as well just have been a dragon in the first place.

So in Warhammer, yes, spellcasters do some things mundanes can't. But mundanes also do some things spellcasters can't. I mean, go back to D&D and look at the justification for Wiz/Sor having different weapon proficiencies, even. If you're busy learning to tell reality to go away (or control your innate inborn ability to tell reality to go away, same thing), you're not learning how to hit people with sticks, or dodge everything ever, or even heal people. You're learning to cheat at The UniverseTM so that you can fake being able to do those.

So yeah, even if you're not a magic user, that's an option.

If you are someone who actually fights people by hitting them with a sword, magically, but it's actually more sword than magic, then consider something like my Momentum project - the amount of benefit you get is directly proportional to how good you actually are at fighting things, unlike with ToB.

OldTrees1

2015-05-23, 08:00 PM

Martials have a non-combat deficiency. They can deal damage, but not really anything else. Which is why I think that the fighter class is a really stupid idea, and that none of them should have generic themes since there is no out of combat stuff you can give them. At least ranger has some wilderness stuff... but stuff like barbarians and fighters... They can deal damage, and that's it.

You did not answer my question. What non combat deficiency other than skills do martials suffer that is not also seen in combat? Giving classes better skill lists and more skill points is an old news upgrade that is relatively uncontroversial.

Grod_The_Giant

2015-05-23, 08:17 PM

Mechanically? Sure, it makes sense. But please explain to me how knowing a tactic one day and then forgetting it the next makes sense from a non-mechanical perspective.
I'm a fan of switchable sets of feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?276280-GitP-Fighter-Fix-18343-3-Ziegander-Grod-Tag-Team-Action!). That is, instead of getting X fighter bonus feats, you get Y combat styles, each granting you X bonus feats when you adapt it. So I have a bow, with a matching style (point-blank shot, precise shot, rapid shot, manyshot), but as a swift action I can change to a sword and a new style (power attack, leap attack, improved bull rush, shock trooper) or a glaive (combat reflexes, combat expertise, improved trip, stand still). Gives you a nice set of options without

Of course, in the process it hints at another issue. Spellcasters get everything they need to be effective pretty much up front. Sure, they probably want to take things like metamagic and reserve feats, but a wizard is good at his job even if he has no PrCs, no non-vital gear, and no feats but Toughness. Mundane abilities, on the other hand, are all gated. You have to waste significant amounts of build-space getting around penalties before you can even start to be good at your job, never mind getting options. Archer? Tripper? Finesse fighter? Hope you're ready to spend 2-3 feats to get your schtick working. And never mind going for two at once, because they all require different feats, and ability scores, and probably items, too.

The very least you can do for mundanes is to make it easier to, well, mundane. Remove feat taxes, get rid of attacks of opportunity on combat maneuvers, set "realistic" penalties (like those for size or shooting into melee) on fire. Make sure all the basic options are simple and-- if not effective, at least relevant-- right out of the box.

You did not answer my question. What non combat deficiency other than skills do martials suffer that is not also seen in combat? Giving classes better skill lists and more skill points is an old news upgrade that is relatively uncontroversial.
World changing power. Skills are nice, but you still can't really do anything more with them at level 20 than you could at level 1, the odd epic use aside. Casters get abilities that change the game, alter the setting. The necromancer with his army of skeletons? The conjurer with his teleports and rope tricks? The diviner with his scryings and auguries? That's the kind of non-combat utility that truly leaves mundanes behind. If a fighter wants to do anything besides fight, he'd better hope the DM is ready to make stuff up. If a wizard wants to do... anything, really, there are spells, rules ready and waiting. You can give all the cool combat abilities you want, use ToB/PoW to your heart's content, but in the end... a martial becomes an unstoppable killer. A caster becomes a god.

Curmudgeon

2015-05-23, 09:33 PM

World changing power. Skills are nice, but you still can't really do anything more with them at level 20 than you could at level 1, the odd epic use aside.
Epic skills can provide world-changing power, but the DCs are ridiculously high. Maybe if the DCs for walking on clouds (Balance) and slipping through a Wall of Force (Escape Artist) were 50 instead of 120, and non-spellcasters could gain a scaling (+1 per character level) competence bonus, we'd have something.

OldTrees1

2015-05-23, 09:46 PM

World changing power. Skills are nice, but you still can't really do anything more with them at level 20 than you could at level 1, the odd epic use aside. Casters get abilities that change the game, alter the setting. The necromancer with his army of skeletons? The conjurer with his teleports and rope tricks? The diviner with his scryings and auguries? That's the kind of non-combat utility that truly leaves mundanes behind. If a fighter wants to do anything besides fight, he'd better hope the DM is ready to make stuff up. If a wizard wants to do... anything, really, there are spells, rules ready and waiting. You can give all the cool combat abilities you want, use ToB/PoW to your heart's content, but in the end... a martial becomes an unstoppable killer. A caster becomes a god.

I think you are short selling the social skills (Seriously, Diplomacy and/or Bluff have changed worlds) but the point is well made.

Your examples were: an army, Mobility (out of combat usage related to an in combat deficiency), and information. There are probably several other examples.

An army is merely a force multiplier(Offense) and a force distributor(Mobility). So I don't think this is out of reach through combat buffing. A "One man army" could exert a similar world changing power as an actual army provided they had enough mobility.

Information and foreknowledge is a tougher act to match through mundane means. Usually a spy network is mentioned just like an army could have been mentioned above. However martials don't have another option as of yet even if they had better use of the skill system.

So your point is well made.

Morty

2015-05-24, 06:12 AM

You did not answer my question. What non combat deficiency other than skills do martials suffer that is not also seen in combat? Giving classes better skill lists and more skill points is an old news upgrade that is relatively uncontroversial.

The problem is that the skill system doesn't work, either.

ace rooster

2015-05-24, 06:50 AM

I want my fighter to be better at fighting than the wizard, even with magic. The problem is that magic can boost everything to the point that your actual starting values are irrelevant. Consider a level 1 wizard vs a level 1 fighter, the wizard can cast true strike or magic weapon, which makes that +1 BAB look a little silly. At any level the modifiers from your classes will not be the largest modifiers you are using, making class features far more important than the numbers.

One way to avoid this is by putting caps on roll modifiers (after bonuses and penalties), equal to twice the relevant base modifier. For example, you can never get a to hit modifier greater than twice your BAB, and modifiers after this are either wasted or put into penalties like power attack or combat experties. Likewise with skill checks, based off ranks, and maybe saves, based of base save (Might need DCs rebalanced, though all monsters would need rebalanced anyway). The idea is to make your core class more important.

OldTrees1

2015-05-24, 08:29 AM

The problem is that the skill system doesn't work, either.

Even with the conventional fixes of better skill lists and more skill points?

Milo v3

2015-05-24, 08:32 AM

Even with the conventional fixes of better skill lists and more skill points?

Not... really?

Skills are really really really really pathetic compared to spells.

OldTrees1

2015-05-24, 08:53 AM

Not... really?

Skills are really really really really pathetic compared to spells.

This sounds like you are talking about a flaw on the Tier 1 side not on the Martial side. I am perfectly happy with skills when Tier 3 is the target. I don't need them to compete with Tier 1-2. And yes the mobility skills still pale in comparison to Fly, but flying is something class features should compete with.

Milo v3

2015-05-24, 09:00 AM

This sounds like you are talking about a flaw on the Tier 1 side not on the Martial side. I am perfectly happy with skills when Tier 3 is the target. I don't need them to compete with Tier 1-2.

Even tier 3's get more than just skills. For example inquisitors can sense alignments, identify monsters, get secrets from people, remove darkness, see magic in the air, remove water as a resource, read thoughts, pass invisibly, communicate over long distances, hide from magical detection, neutralize poisons, force creatures to act under a specific rule or suffer, find out anything given enough time even if the only starting knowledge was rumours, speak all languages, unlock doors that are locked by magic, etc.

Skills are not good enough.

OldTrees1

2015-05-24, 09:27 AM

Even tier 3's get more than just skills. For example inquisitors can sense alignments, identify monsters, get secrets from people, remove darkness, see magic in the air, remove water as a resource, read thoughts, pass invisibly, communicate over long distances, hide from magical detection, neutralize poisons, force creatures to act under a specific rule or suffer, find out anything given enough time even if the only starting knowledge was rumours, speak all languages, unlock doors that are locked by magic, etc.

Skills are not good enough.

1) I see Warblade and Crusader (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5070.0) on the Tier 3 list. They don't mention out of combat beyond skills.

2) not useful, skill, skill, skill as an alternative method, point, quite specific, skill, skill, Mobility, skill, skill, skill as an alternative method, skill, skill, skill. Since the goal is Tier 3 and not "functional clone of another class", I think this speaks highly of the skill system.

Milo v3

2015-05-24, 09:30 AM

1) I see Warblade and Crusader (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5070.0) on the Tier 3 list. They don't mention out of combat beyond skills.

2) not useful, skill, skill, skill as an alternative method, point, quite specific, skill, skill, Mobility, skill, skill, skill as an alternative method, skill, skill, skill. Since the goal is Tier 3 and not "functional clone of another class", I think this speaks highly of the skill system.

1) I've always disagreed with them being tier 3... All they can do is combat.

2) Except with all your mentions of skill, the inquisitor is doing it better than the skill option. Also... the last one is definitely not skill. Arcane Lock cannot be opened without magic. Detecting alignment can be rather useful.

OldTrees1

2015-05-24, 09:38 AM

1) I've always disagreed with them being tier 3... All they can do is combat.

2) Except with all your mentions of skill, the inquisitor is doing it better than the skill option. Also... the last one is definitely not skill. Arcane Lock cannot be opened without magic. Detecting alignment can be rather useful.

2) Arcane Lock does not prevent Disable Device from getting around the door. Using someone's alignment as your only metric leads to murder of friendlies and being betrayed by hostiles. All other metric (the social skills) give relevant information.

1) Then your lenses are why you don't value skills. We will never reach agreement if our lenses differ that much. Now if your downplaying of the out of combat skills was partially hyperbole, then we might have a discussion but it does not sound like that.

Milo v3

2015-05-24, 09:49 AM

2) Arcane Lock does not prevent Disable Device from getting around the door. Using someone's alignment as your only metric leads to murder of friendlies and being betrayed by hostiles. All other metric (the social skills) give relevant information.

1) Then your lenses are why you don't value skills. We will never reach agreement if our lenses differ that much. Now if your downplaying of the out of combat skills was partially hyperbole, then we might have a discussion but it does not sound like that.

2) I didn't say it was godly useful or anything, but it can be useful. If your looking for an imposter in a temple for a good god, and someone pings as evil it helps.... still anyone using it as there only metric would have to have a brain the size of a peanut. Still, inquisitors can cast spells like detect thoughts, divination, confess, zone of truth, and legend lore, which are much better than the social skills when it comes to getting information... and this is on top of the class getting bonuses to those very social skills.

Though, looking at arcane lock it looks like Paizo has nerfed it to be reasonable, thats good for me to have found out.

1) Not really. Part of the tiers system is versatility, and part of being tier 3 is the ability to have options in many situations. Those classes do not have those options, unlike the other tier 3 classes, thus my view that they are very high tier 4 classes (really good at what they do, but not much else).

OldTrees1

2015-05-24, 10:02 AM

1) Not really. Part of the tiers system is versatility, and part of being tier 3 is the ability to have options in many situations. Those classes do not have those options, unlike the other tier 3 classes, thus my view that they are very high tier 4 classes (really good at what they do, but not much else).

Sorry, but yes the differences in our respective lenses will prevent agreement in this case. I see skills as being highly useful and quite versatile while you don't. Since the disagreement is at the lens level, no further progress can be obtained.

Milo v3

2015-05-24, 10:15 AM

Sorry, but yes the differences in our respective lenses will prevent agreement in this case. I see skills as being highly useful and quite versatile while you don't. Since the disagreement is at the lens level, no further progress can be obtained.

Thing is. Skills are highly useful and can be versatile. Just.... not compared to spells that do the same thing but better...

Morty

2015-05-24, 10:17 AM

Even without bringing spells into the equation, the skill system is badly calibrated and scales poorly. Giving more classes access to a less than pitiful skill list is a step forward, but it's not enough.

Psyren

2015-05-24, 10:19 AM

I agree with OldTrees1, skills are extremely useful. (However I do think Warblade and Crusader are T4.)

Consider Stealth and Disguise - unlike illusions or transmutations, True Seeing cannot pierce either of these. Someone who uses magic as their sole crutch is setting themself up for failure. Detect spells also have range limits while perception and sense motive do not.

2) Arcane Lock does not prevent Disable Device from getting around the door. Using someone's alignment as your only metric leads to murder of friendlies and being betrayed by hostiles. All other metric (the social skills) give relevant information.

It sounds like he's going off of the 3.5 version of Arcane Lock, which did indeed shut out all non-casting thieves regardless of skill. Pathfinder fixed this.

OldTrees1

2015-05-24, 10:19 AM

Thing is. Skills are highly useful and can be versatile. Just.... not compared to spells that do the same thing but better...

Thing is. I can do more with Diplomacy than with Charm Monster. Just like you can do more with Charm Monster than with Diplomacy. Stop pretending you are not bound by your lenses.

I agree with OldTrees1, skills are extremely useful. (However I do think Warblade and Crusader are T4.)

Consider Stealth and Disguise - unlike illusions or transmutations, True Seeing cannot pierce either of these. Someone who uses magic as their sole crutch is setting themself up for failure. Detect spells also have range limits while perception and sense motive do not.

It sounds like he's going off of the 3.5 version of Arcane Lock, which did indeed shut out all non-casting thieves regardless of skill. Pathfinder fixed this.

Thanks.

I was also using the 3.5 version of Arcane Lock which allows breaking(Disable Device + Strength) but forbids unlocking(Open Lock).

danzibr

2015-05-24, 03:50 PM

Great responses! Thanks all. I especially like the (Ex) discussion.

I ask because I'm going to revamp an old homebrew if mine which is... melee-ish. Basically. Like a Totemist or something.

Dysart

2015-05-24, 05:09 PM

For me the biggest flaw with straight melee/archer characters are the feats. They're weak and flawed to such a degree that while the spell casters are gaining the ability to drop a group of angry boars (level 1) a fighter is getting a measly +1 to hit, with a single weapon.

My suggestion starts with the Fighter, supposedly the most versatily none-spell caster class.

Level 1: Choose a Style.

The styles are, Agile, Brute, Commander, Archer, Defender and Two Weapon
Then on each level they don't get a bonus feat they gain a bonus ability which is to do with their 'Style'.

So level 3:

Agile:
You gaint +10ft to your movement speeds. You are no longer restricted to a movement before or after you attack.
(This would function like spring attack but not suck and would later allow maneuvers and multiple attacks.)
{Side note, we all know spring attack is annoyingly painful to get and never feels rewarding when you end up with it. At this level Wizards have invisibilty which everyone would say is broken if a Fighter could gain this at level 2 even at just once per day.}

Brute:
When you hit an opponent with a two handed weapon they must make an opposed Strength check or take -2 on attacks on their next round as you shake them with your powerful blows.
(level 5 would be applying Shaken and push them back 5ft. There's probably plenty of other things it could progress into.)
{A level 1 wizard gets this on creatures of 4HD or less if they FAIL their save.}

Commander:
As a move action you can bolster your allies and their minions. You call out instructions, guiding your allies with your tactical prowess. Each ally who follows your instructions may get a +2 to any one die (of their choice) that they roll before your next turn.
This can affect a maximum of 1 + 1 per 2 levels of fighter you posses (So only 2 at level 3 and 3 at level 4), each affected must be willing and if they perform actions seperate to your instructions they gain no benefit.
(This would eventually be a swift action and progress to giving a reroll or possibly allowing them to roll two die and choose the best of the two.)
{This is similar to the level 0 spell Guidance but better, obviously.}

Defender:
While stood next to an ally you may, as an immediate action, take a -4 to your AC to provide them with a bonus equal to your shield.
Also, as part of the same immediate action, you may provide them with total cover from ranged attacks. But the ranged attacks must have to travel through your square.
(Possibly my weakest idea, but it would start as a bodyguard type and move into being able to prevent a variety of different affects.)

Two Weapon:
You may forgoe your attack with your off-hand to use it to parry the next attack against you, to successfully parry you only need to beat their attack roll.
(Level 5 would give a free pounce but only when wielding two weapons. Level 7 would be Parry is an immediate action but you lose one attack on the next round. I personally think their abilities should leap frog between giving attacking options and defending options. Possibly level 9 would be a form of whirlwind?)
{It is ridiculous that a level adjustment 0 race (Shifter) can get an effective pounce with it's claws at level 1 but a fighter can't get it for possibly 6+ levels.}

Archer:
You can provide covering fire, this is a full round action. Covering fire is 1 attack roll and deals damage as a normal attack, how ever if successful the target must make a Will save or be restricted to a single ranged attack or move action.
(This would progress to Trick shots which would trade the ability to make multiple attacks with the ability to craft a battlefield better.)
{I'm pretty sure archery has more affects in the real world than it does in DnD, it should be less about pumping out arrows and more about interacting with your opponent.}

What do people think about those sorts of options? Obviously they're not perfect but it would allow for a more varied and fun play for the fighter class allowing them to fill more roles than damage sponge and guy who gets in the way. Obviously there's a mounted option missing but I have 0 experience in that so can't really comment very much. Maybe give some varient on animal companion but for horses/riding dogs only?

As for having an out of combat option, well that's more the fault of the player than anything else. If you're playing a fighter, sure you don't have infinite amounts of skill points but you can specialise in a form of leadership, a craft or possibly even animal husbandry.

Edit: I think I may even make a seperate threat to ask for some feedback on these.