PDA

View Full Version : 4 simple house rules to put noncasters back in the game



nonsi
2013-12-02, 06:04 PM
While the following don't solve everything, they go a long way in narrowing the gap between casters & noncasters.



Iteratives:
BAB +6: Full Attack as a standard action
BAB +11: Single Attack at max BAB as a move action
BAB +11: As full round action, move up to your speed while spreading your attacks among opponents within reach as you see fit.
BAB +16: Total Attack: when attacking from a stand-still as a full round action, all iteratives are made at max attack bonus.


Actions:
A standard action can be broken down into 2 move actions or forfeited for gaining a 2nd swift action.
A move action can be substituted for a 5ft-step, trading distance for avoiding AoOs.
Total Defense does not prohibit AoOs.


Feats turned into combat options available for all:
PA: as per PF (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/power-attack-combat---final)
Weapon Finesse: applicable with all light & finesse-able weapons you're proficient with.
Combat Expertise Ė as per PF (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/combat-expertise-combat)


Feint:
Feinting is BAB-derived, not Bluff-derived, and it goes like this:
- Aggressor's score = d20 + BAB + CHA-mod + Sleight of Hand synergy
- Defender's score = d20 + BAB + WIS-mod + Sense Motive synergy
Feint automatically scales with BAB progression:
BAB +3: move action
BAB +6: swift action
BAB +12: free action once per round
Improvements donít override previous version Ė meaning a BAB +12 character can feint twice, move and full attack, or feint thrice and full-attack.

ngilop
2013-12-02, 06:21 PM
I love this for 2 reasons!!

1) this is basically what fighters could do pre-3rd ed anyways and call me old.. but those are the games i grew up on and i think are better balanced

2) I did the power attack and combat expertise as option availbe to all.. but then again it was like that in 2nd ed anyways

THe breakdown of actions is nice. and the move action for 5ft step is awesome

I got my mind blown by your feint idea.. i can honestly say that never crossed my mind.. even though i never like the whole based on bluff part of it. KUDOS!

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-12-02, 06:35 PM
...they go a long way in narrowing the gap between casters & noncasters.

I'm afraid I must disagree. They make a average non-caster a bit more mobile, and a bit better at hitting and/or dealing damage, yes. But that's never really been the non-caster's problem. His damage is acceptable (although not incredible).

It's his versatility and his inability to actually harm certain foes that is the issue. It's his weakness when presented with most of the things the Wizard/Cleric/Artificer/etc can do that's the issue.

This is a buff to the non-casters, yes. But it doesn't go a long way at all.

That being said, a preliminary glance says that I like most of these changes, save for the Base Attack Bonus and scaling Feint progression, and the only reason that I don't like those is because I don't really approve of base mechanics that scale like they were abilities: it's easy to lose track of when they should progress. It works, but I just find it an inelegant solution.

Seerow
2013-12-02, 06:39 PM
Actions:
A standard action can be broken down into 2 move actions or forfeited for gaining a 2nd swift action.

What is this intended to accomplish? So a double move can go further than a charge? I don't get it. I also can't think of any cases where giving up a standard action (which is now capable of being a full attack) is worth getting an extra sift action.


A move action can be substituted for a 5ft-step, trading distance for avoiding AoOs.

Does this replace the normal 5ft step rule? Or is it intended to work in addition to it for multiple 5ft steps? (normal rule: You can 5ft step as long as your move action is not used for movement)


Feint:
Feinting is BAB-derived, not Bluff-derived, and it goes like this:
- Aggressor's score = d20 + 1/2 BAB + CHA-mod + Sleight of Hand synergy
- Defender's score = d20 + 1/2 BAB + WIS-mod + Sense Motive synergy

Why half BAB? The only thing cutting it in half does is reduce the advantage of martial characters with high BAB over characters with low BAB. I assumed maximizing those advantages was the point of these fixes.



Iteratives:
BAB +6: Full Attack as a standard action
BAB +11: Single Attack at max BAB as a move action
BAB +11: As full round action, move up to your speed while spreading your attacks among opponents within reach as you see fit.
BAB +16: Total Attack: when attacking from a stand-still as a full round action, all iteratives are made at max attack bonus.

So at BAB+16, I could take a full attack at +16/+16/+16/+16. Alternatively I could take a full attack as a standard at +16/+11/+6/+1 and then spend my move action on an extra attack at +16. Is this actually worth it?

On the other hand, at BAB+11, I can trade in my standard action for two move actions, and take 3 attacks with move actions for +11/+11/+11, as opposed to +11/+6/+1. So it looks like you already have this benefit (in a roundabout way) at BAB+11, getting it again at BAB+16 seems redundant. Why not grant a bonus move action at +16, so the character can choose to use that on extra mobility if they want?

nonsi
2013-12-02, 11:58 PM
What is this intended to accomplish? So a double move can go further than a charge? I don't get it. I also can't think of any cases where giving up a standard action (which is now capable of being a full attack) is worth getting an extra sift action.

1. You may now take a move action for things other than movenent and still move twice. You may also move 3 times when you can't run. You may also take any 3 move actions you choose to.
2. Some actions, for some reason, are available per official rules exclusively as a swift action. Now you can take 2 of them (but you have to trade your standard action for that, so casters can't exploit this one too much).
3. Charging still has its place, if you go for uber-charger build.




Does this replace the normal 5ft step rule? Or is it intended to work in addition to it for multiple 5ft steps? (normal rule: You can 5ft step as long as your move action is not used for movement)

In addition - of course.




Why half BAB? The only thing cutting it in half does is reduce the advantage of martial characters with high BAB over characters with low BAB. I assumed maximizing those advantages was the point of these fixes.

You're right.
Took care of that.




So at BAB+16, I could take a full attack at +16/+16/+16/+16. Alternatively I could take a full attack as a standard at +16/+11/+6/+1 and then spend my move action on an extra attack at +16. Is this actually worth it?

Sometimes you need to move and full-attack.
Sometimes you need to spend a standard action on something other than attacking, and you still have an attack to give.




On the other hand, at BAB+11, I can trade in my standard action for two move actions, and take 3 attacks with move actions for +11/+11/+11, as opposed to +11/+6/+1. So it looks like you already have this benefit (in a roundabout way) at BAB+11, getting it again at BAB+16 seems redundant. Why not grant a bonus move action at +16, so the character can choose to use that on extra mobility if they want?

You're not gonna get 4 attacks with 3 move actions.
When attacking from a stand-still, according to how squishy your target is, you decide if you wish to go with +11/+11/+11 or +11/+6/+1/+11.
But most of the times, opponents with some sense will force you to move to get to them. The core rules reduce you to 1 single attack when moving, so you're left with uber-charging strategy, which is both ineffective vs. opponents with decent strategy and promotes pounce solution, which I categorize among the BS rule-workarounds.

nonsi
2013-12-03, 01:20 AM
I'm afraid I must disagree. They make a average non-caster a bit more mobile, and a bit better at hitting and/or dealing damage, yes. But that's never really been the non-caster's problem. His damage is acceptable (although not incredible).

It's his versatility and his inability to actually harm certain foes that is the issue. It's his weakness when presented with most of the things the Wizard/Cleric/Artificer/etc can do that's the issue.

This is a buff to the non-casters, yes. But it doesn't go a long way at all.

Without addressing fullcasters, spells or a sizable chunk of feats - I'm not aware of another compact and isolated set of rules that does more to narrow the gap.
To fully even thing up, you need an entire game rewrite.
These house rules will at least reduce the volume of material one will need to rewrite.




That being said, a preliminary glance says that I like most of these changes, save for the Base Attack Bonus and scaling Feint progression, and the only reason that I don't like those is because I don't really approve of base mechanics that scale like they were abilities: it's easy to lose track of when they should progress. It works, but I just find it an inelegant solution.
How would you handle feinting then?

Amechra
2013-12-03, 01:37 AM
I did have that simple fix a while back where the Fighter went bye-bye, and everyone got bonus Fighter Feats based off their BAB (so someone with +10 BAB would get 6 Fighter feats, while someone with a +20 BAB would get 11.)

That might synergize well with this...

eggynack
2013-12-03, 01:55 AM
Without addressing fullcasters, spells or a sizable chunk of feats - I'm not aware of another compact and isolated set of rules that does more to narrow the gap.
To fully even thing up, you need an entire game rewrite.
These house rules will at least reduce the volume of material one will need to rewrite.
I'm not sure that you're right on these counts, particularly the idea that this represents a real reduction in the amount you'd need to rewrite. Mobility is fantastic, but you need to give these melee classes some actual things they can do with their time. More efficient damage will likely never be enough on its own. Also, your fix here only really closes the gaps between melee types and wizards. Clerics and druids, who are capable of melee'ing out in a million different ways, can do about as much to capitalize on these rules changes as your fighter, if not more so. The cleric is even going to be running around with full BAB a good chunk of the time. Finally, I'd change it back to normal power attack, cause it's generally better, and actually offers a bit of decision making. It's highly possible that that change actually makes fighters worse, if power attack is now off the table as a feat.

nonsi
2013-12-03, 06:16 AM
I'm not sure that you're right on these counts, particularly the idea that this represents a real reduction in the amount you'd need to rewrite. Mobility is fantastic, but you need to give these melee classes some actual things they can do with their time.

Grapple, Disarm, Sunder, Trip, Bull Rush . . . They do have stuff to do with their time.
I'm planning on adding rules regarding maneuvers and stuff, but I wanted to start with a compact baseline and work from there, because experience has taught me that when you start with too much, you end up dealing with contradictions, straying from your main goals and going in circles.




More efficient damage will likely never be enough on its own. Also, your fix here only really closes the gaps between melee types and wizards.

I'm not addressing the issue from that angle.
Actually, I'm all against hyper-chargers & Pounce.
I'm well aware that melees need the ability to do more with their time rather than bigger full-attack damage outputs.




Clerics and druids, who are capable of melee'ing out in a million different ways, can do about as much to capitalize on these rules changes as your fighter, if not more so. The cleric is even going to be running around with full BAB a good chunk of the time.

CoDZilla is a well known issue.
The solution is actually quite simple.
1. Kill Natural Spell.
2. Kill Divine Power and any other spell or power that elevates BAB.
3. Kill DMM.
4. All clerics are cloistered clerics. If you wish to role a combat-oriented man of the clergy, either multiclass into Paladin or create a hybrid class with Bard-magnitude spellcasting.
5. Druids get shapeshift rather than Wild Shape. Only when shapeshifted does a druid gain med. BAB.
6. Animal Companion is hit with a nerf bat and pushed down 4 levels.

There. No more CoDZilla.




Finally, I'd change it back to normal power attack, cause it's generally better, and actually offers a bit of decision making. It's highly possible that that change actually makes fighters worse, if power attack is now off the table as a feat.

I chose the PF version of PA for 3 reasons:
1. Melles really don't need the damage output provided by uber-pouncers.
2. Gameflow.
3. Whatever the characters get, so do monsters - and monsters usually trump the BAB competition.

nonsi
2013-12-03, 06:17 AM
I did have that simple fix a while back where the Fighter went bye-bye, and everyone got bonus Fighter Feats based off their BAB (so someone with +10 BAB would get 6 Fighter feats, while someone with a +20 BAB would get 11.)

That might synergize well with this...

"Everyone's a spellcaster" is not the solution I'm aiming for here (or ever).

Amechra
2013-12-03, 06:38 AM
How would that result in everyone being a spellcaster? This is not me being confrontational; I am legitimately confused by your stance in this situation.

Seriously, how does "you get bonus fighter feats as if you had a number of levels in Fighter equal to your BAB; temporary alterations to your BAB do not increase your BAB for this purpose. Levels in classes with full BAB count as levels in the Fighter class for all intents and purposes." lead you to think everyone will play casters?

To be perfectly honest, if my above fix leads everyone to play casters, yours does the same, because casters can and do break the action economy.

#1 and #2 are pretty darn amazing for casters; #2 means you could get off a move action and 2 full round actions (or 5 move actions) in a round, thanks to the Celerity line. Swiftblades just went careening into the "bye-bye game balance" corner.

Heck, higher level casters now have something to do with their move action.

Seriously, anything that tampers with the action economy or gives benefits to the general population of classes helps out casters more than it does noncasters.

Mr. Cleric and Mr. Druid are getting the same exact benefit that Mr. Rogue and Mr. Monk are. While ToB does go striding eagerly ahead, they are the ones that don't need too much of a boost to catch up anyway (because they are casters themselves).

Also, with your houserules in play, even if the normal action-economy breakers were also removed, I would play a Duskblade in a heartbeat.

Getting off 4-5 Shivering Touches in a round is nice.

Carl
2013-12-03, 07:48 AM
@OP: Others hit the issue on the head. he problem with martial's isn't

"I can't do enough damage".

It's:

"My targets a flying, wind-walled, wizard, with illusionary doubles".

That gives the Wizard freedom to sit up there blasting you to death one 1d3 Ray of Frost at a time if he wants whilst you can't do a thing to him. Even other wizards are going to have a hard time with all those doubles to go through trying to find him. The fact that he has spells like Dominate Monster and Finger of Death and the like are completely irrelevant when it comes to martial's vs wizard's, the wizard doesn't need them to laugh in the face of the martial. Fly + a ranged defence + any of several illusions lets him do that.

nonsi
2013-12-03, 09:24 AM
#1 and #2 are pretty darn amazing for casters; #2 means you could get off a move action and 2 full round actions (or 5 move actions) in a round, thanks to the Celerity line. Swiftblades just went careening into the "bye-bye game balance" corner.

I said "A standard action can be broken down into 2 move actions", not the other way around.
How exactly does a Swiftblade (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/prc/20070327) get 2 full round actions by exploiting my rules?




Mr. Cleric and Mr. Druid are getting the same exact benefit that Mr. Rogue and Mr. Monk are. While ToB does go striding eagerly ahead, they are the ones that don't need too much of a boost to catch up anyway (because they are casters themselves).

Look, fullcasters with med. BAB is sick no matter how you slice it.
Reasonable balance can never be approached as long as this simple fact is not irradicated.




Also, with your houserules in play, even if the normal action-economy breakers were also removed, I would play a Duskblade in a heartbeat.

Getting off 4-5 Shivering Touches in a round is nice.

Dealing with official classes only, I wouldn't blame you.
The Duskblade has enough arsenal in its toolbag to trump any noncaster in martial combat if one played his hand correctly.

nonsi
2013-12-03, 09:26 AM
@OP: Others hit the issue on the head. he problem with martial's isn't

"I can't do enough damage".

It's:

"My targets a flying, wind-walled, wizard, with illusionary doubles".

That gives the Wizard freedom to sit up there blasting you to death one 1d3 Ray of Frost at a time if he wants whilst you can't do a thing to him. Even other wizards are going to have a hard time with all those doubles to go through trying to find him. The fact that he has spells like Dominate Monster and Finger of Death and the like are completely irrelevant when it comes to martial's vs wizard's, the wizard doesn't need them to laugh in the face of the martial. Fly + a ranged defence + any of several illusions lets him do that.

I know other issues need addressing.
I never deluded myself that with a handful of rules one can fix D&D 3.5, but you gotta start somewhere.

eggynack
2013-12-03, 11:18 AM
Grapple, Disarm, Sunder, Trip, Bull Rush . . . They do have stuff to do with their time.
I'm planning on adding rules regarding maneuvers and stuff, but I wanted to start with a compact baseline and work from there, because experience has taught me that when you start with too much, you end up dealing with contradictions, straying from your main goals and going in circles..
I'm saying that the amount of stuff they can do now is insufficient. Melee fellows have things to do, but they are highly limited, and pretty mediocre.


I'm not addressing the issue from that angle.
Actually, I'm all against hyper-chargers & Pounce.
I'm well aware that melees need the ability to do more with their time rather than bigger full-attack damage outputs.
Perhaps, but it looks to me like the primary goal here is granting the fighter more ways to get a full attack off, and making a full attack more powerful. Melee fellows can zip around the battlefield, as can anyone, but as long as the combat maneuvers available at the end of that zipping aren't substantially different, we're mostly talking about bigger and more consistent full attack damage outputs.


CoDZilla is a well known issue.
The solution is actually quite simple.
1. Kill Natural Spell.
2. Kill Divine Power and any other spell or power that elevates BAB.
3. Kill DMM.
4. All clerics are cloistered clerics. If you wish to role a combat-oriented man of the clergy, either multiclass into Paladin or create a hybrid class with Bard-magnitude spellcasting.
5. Druids get shapeshift rather than Wild Shape. Only when shapeshifted does a druid gain med. BAB.
6. Animal Companion is hit with a nerf bat and pushed down 4 levels.

There. No more CoDZilla.
Not quite. Summoning is still a thing, and it's a thing that would allow the druid, and perhaps the wizard and cleric, to beat stick about to some degree.



I chose the PF version of PA for 3 reasons:
1. Melles really don't need the damage output provided by uber-pouncers.
2. Gameflow.
3. Whatever the characters get, so do monsters - and monsters usually trump the BAB competition.
I really don't see how any of these are issues. Dropping melee damage in a melee fix makes no sense, removing one of the few choices in a fighter's repertoire doesn't really improve gameflow much, and as long as melee monsters and melee guys are both improved relative to wizards, it doesn't matter if monsters are made a bit better than fighters on a relative scale. Sticking a melee nerf in a melee buff is illogical in most conceivable ways.

alex90lilb
2013-12-03, 12:19 PM
I just straight up switched to pathfinder. You should too. You'll be glad you did.

The thing is, in the the core, martial classes were essential since spellcasters were much more dependent on the party. With Wizard's proclivity to profit-publish ad nauseam the martial characters we all knew and loved were made obsolete.

Back when I was running 3.5, I simply disallowed most of expanded/broken books and stuck mainly to the core. My players really didn't mind, especially since I let them Gestalt a whole bunch.

An awesome thing about PF is that, for the most part, Combat Maneuvers (grapple, overrrun, trip etc) can act like martial spells. Some of the magic has been toned down, but the biggest improvement is that the expanded books focus on versatility and totally new classes rather than providing 'essential' feats that change the game to a great extent.

Now, I haven't looked at the latest Pazio stuff in a while, so perhaps they fell to the dark side as well. But here's hoping!

As for your fixes, I think they're pretty good. Another big thing I would do is cut the pre-recs for martial feats (aside from perhaps level). Let martial characters skip straight to the good ones.

eggynack
2013-12-03, 01:46 PM
I just straight up switched to pathfinder. You should too. You'll be glad you did.

The thing is, in the the core, martial classes were essential since spellcasters were much more dependent on the party. With Wizard's proclivity to profit-publish ad nauseam the martial characters we all knew and loved were made obsolete.

Back when I was running 3.5, I simply disallowed most of expanded/broken books and stuck mainly to the core. My players really didn't mind, especially since I let them Gestalt a whole bunch.

An awesome thing about PF is that, for the most part, Combat Maneuvers (grapple, overrrun, trip etc) can act like martial spells. Some of the magic has been toned down, but the biggest improvement is that the expanded books focus on versatility and totally new classes rather than providing 'essential' feats that change the game to a great extent.

Now, I haven't looked at the latest Pazio stuff in a while, so perhaps they fell to the dark side as well. But here's hoping!

As for your fixes, I think they're pretty good. Another big thing I would do is cut the pre-recs for martial feats (aside from perhaps level). Let martial characters skip straight to the good ones.
The things you're saying here are largely inaccurate. The imbalance of 3.5 was very much present in core, if not worse in core, that imbalance is largely still there in PF, combat maneuvers were made worse, if anything, and they have never been anywhere close to spells.

ngilop
2013-12-03, 02:24 PM
I must concur with eggyknack there.

I think pathfinder managed to make the gap between mundane and casters even wider.

want to to take the feat to be decent at something.. oh nows its 2-3 feats and STILL not as good.. oh whats that everbody but you got increased Hit Die. lollol...

the magic that has been toned down is minuscule whne you compare it to the fact that every feat that worked in mundane's favor in 3.5 is now trashed.

the stuff that was broken in D&D core is still broken in Pathfinder. They could have went a long ways in reading various forums, this one, WoTC own forum ETC to see what could be done to 'fix' the poor mundanes instead they mostly with with the ' rawr bigger numarsz!!'


Also.. does anybody else but me find it funny that the oracle get a full attack as a standard action and teh Fighter never does?

pathfinder does get soem things right ( the paladin is actually generally an improvement) but for the most part the borked things even worse that WoTC did. It WoTC hadn't had messed up as bad with 4th ed as they did.. Pathfinder would notbe enjoying the success it is now.. it be more along the lines of Dawnforge.. (cept dawnforge is fregging awesome)

nonsi
2013-12-03, 02:55 PM
I'm saying that the amount of stuff they can do now is insufficient. Melee fellows have things to do, but they are highly limited, and pretty mediocre.

I'd like to hear what stuff you'd consider sufficient.




Perhaps, but it looks to me like the primary goal here is granting the fighter more ways to get a full attack off, and making a full attack more powerful. Melee fellows can zip around the battlefield, as can anyone, but as long as the combat maneuvers available at the end of that zipping aren't substantially different, we're mostly talking about bigger and more consistent full attack damage outputs.

I'm aware of the problems caused by Wind Wall and such, but in general, I'm waiting to see your suggestions for handling the previous issue.




Not quite. Summoning is still a thing, and it's a thing that would allow the druid, and perhaps the wizard and cleric, to beat stick about to some degree.

Summoning is a thing with all full casters.
Summoning has a very simple fix: You cannot maintain more than a tingle summoning spell effect at a time. If you summon while a previous summoning is still on, the previous summoning either ends or you lose control over it.
There. No more amassing an army via summoning.




I really don't see how any of these are issues. Dropping melee damage in a melee fix makes no sense, removing one of the few choices in a fighter's repertoire doesn't really improve gameflow much, and as long as melee monsters and melee guys are both improved relative to wizards, it doesn't matter if monsters are made a bit better than fighters on a relative scale. Sticking a melee nerf in a melee buff is illogical in most conceivable ways.

Seems to me like the overall damage output increases slightly. Beyond that, I'm trying to kill the hyper-charger concept, so mitigating PA without hurting the overall damage is a step in the right direction in my view. Also, think what this means when a dragon hyper-charger comes along: sick amounts of damage.
And it's not about removing choices. "I'm taking [X] penalty" is not really an option. It's more meta-gaming over RPing, dealing with statistics and probability computations over the a simple decision of going for a big shot (yes/no).
And with full-attacking becoming a lot more viable, I'm not worried about melees losing the damage race to casters anymore.
Also, the power of 3.5 PA is such that Elusive Target becomes a "wouldn't leave home without it" resource for anyone who can possibly afford it (I hate no-brainers).

alex90lilb
2013-12-03, 03:40 PM
I don't know how much you've played but that's been largely my experience over six years of reforming min-maxers. With as much pvp combat as my players used to do, I can tell you martial classes actually have a chance in PF largely due to combat maneuvers.

CM are much better in PF as they can stack very highly and the SMD system allows them more consistency. 'Dirty Trick' especially allows for conditions that are normally spell-dependent.

I will agree wholeheartedly that in core, casters could deal a heck of a lot more agony at mid-high levels than the martial classes. However this is really balanced out by their squish factor. Only the cleric was overpowered in core since they were (with divine favor) better fighters than the fighter and (with their durability) tankier than the mages

Carl
2013-12-03, 03:41 PM
I know other issues need addressing.
I never deluded myself that with a handful of rules one can fix D&D 3.5, but you gotta start somewhere.

The issue here though is that by and large the things your addressing with these rules aren't really things that need desperately changing if your trying for a quick fix. It's spell lists and individual spells for the most part that would provide a quick fix. Skills and Skill points too.

EDIT: @ Alex90lilb: As i pointed out further up, the catch is a good wizard doesn't need to tank anything but spells, and can avoid being hit so well they can tank those better than a fighter anyway.

eggynack
2013-12-03, 05:05 PM
I'd like to hear what stuff you'd consider sufficient.

I'm aware of the problems caused by Wind Wall and such, but in general, I'm waiting to see your suggestions for handling the previous issue.
I'm not really sure. My general position is that there is no simple set of house rules that would bring the fighter and wizard to any kind of parity. ToB comes closer than just about anything I've seen, but even that falls far short of the goal. You'd pretty much have to ban wizards, leaving around an approximately tier three game. You seem to be asserting that my inability to find a perfect solution to this problem makes your solution a good one, but I just don't think there is a perfect solution that doesn't involve mass bannings or changes.


Summoning is a thing with all full casters.
Summoning has a very simple fix: You cannot maintain more than a tingle summoning spell effect at a time. If you summon while a previous summoning is still on, the previous summoning either ends or you lose control over it.
There. No more amassing an army via summoning.
That helps, but it doesn't quite solve the basic problem. A single summoned creature can often be a reasonably competitive melee force. You don't quite get the effect where the summons cumulatively add actions to your pool, thus granting some action economy super powers, but fighters couldn't do that to start with anyway, so it's rather irrelevant. Additionally, there's something to be said for the fact that you have to create an intricate web of minor house rules in order to make these "simple" house rules effective.



Seems to me like the overall damage output increases slightly. Beyond that, I'm trying to kill the hyper-charger concept, so mitigating PA without hurting the overall damage is a step in the right direction in my view. Also, think what this means when a dragon hyper-charger comes along: sick amounts of damage.
Except removing hyper-chargers is hurting a major area of melee competency. Also, damage output from PA is generally lowered from the shift, which is the problem. You get more damage per attack penalty, but the increase in damage is less.

And it's not about removing choices. "I'm taking [X] penalty" is not really an option. It's more meta-gaming over RPing, dealing with statistics and probability computations over the a simple decision of going for a big shot (yes/no).
Well, you're removing what is about as close to a choice as melee guys get. Seriously, their entire set of tactics can basically be reduced to a simple flow chart, and not a difficult one to make the correct choices in either.

And with full-attacking becoming a lot more viable, I'm not worried about melees losing the damage race to casters anymore.
Melee guys weren't losing the race before. I mean, sure, a mailman can get some great output, and they get it with a ton of consistency, but the optimization needed to outdamage a dedicated charger is crazy. You're just lowering their lead.

Also, the power of 3.5 PA is such that Elusive Target becomes a "wouldn't leave home without it" resource for anyone who can possibly afford it (I hate no-brainers).
The fact that it takes two bad feat prerequisites, and only defends against a very narrow type of attack, makes it very much not a no-brainer.



CM are much better in PF as they can stack very highly and the SMD system allows them more consistency. 'Dirty Trick' especially allows for conditions that are normally spell-dependent.
That maneuver seems really really bad, given that you're trading a standard for the possibility of a move action, or if you spend two feats, a standard action for the possibility of a standard action. The only way the condition could stick is if it's completely irrelevant, which it often will be, and your DM gets to choose which of the mediocre conditions you get access to. You need more than spell-dependent conditions for something to be good. You need good spell-dependent conditions (with the conditions sticking effectively being a condition for the conditions being good).


I will agree wholeheartedly that in core, casters could deal a heck of a lot more agony at mid-high levels than the martial classes. However this is really balanced out by their squish factor. Only the cleric was overpowered in core since they were (with divine favor) better fighters than the fighter and (with their durability) tankier than the mages.
Wizards meet up with fighters in power level at somewhere from level 2 to 5, depending on the situation. I'm not entirely sure where clerics fit in, but it's possibly even earlier. Druids are better than fighters at every single solitary level, using nothing but core material. They start out, at level one, as the best class in core, and then they continue to increase their power, relative to all the other classes except other tier one's.

Just to Browse
2013-12-03, 06:51 PM
The things you're comparing noncasters to are classes that can easily win social encounters, break the stealth minigame, bring in armies of minions, and drop super save-or-dies, along with 1-feat potential access to most of divination.

This doesn't do that. It doesn't even let noncasters fly.

nonsi
2013-12-04, 01:06 AM
The things you're comparing noncasters to are classes that can easily win social encounters, break the stealth minigame, bring in armies of minions, and drop super save-or-dies, along with 1-feat potential access to most of divination.

This doesn't do that. It doesn't even let noncasters fly.

1. Notice that nowhere did I say that the above rules solve the need to rewrite noncasters.
2. Melees don't need to fly, they just need the ability to get to them. This just requires rewriting several not-so-well-thought-of broken spells, such as Wind Wall.

Just to Browse
2013-12-04, 01:14 AM
1. So when you say "put noncasters back into the game" you don't mean "make noncasters competitive with any Tier 3 casters" but instead meannnnnnn... what? If you're not bringing these noncasters up to par with the weakest classes like dread necromancer or beguiler, then what game are you bringing them back into?

I mean, I guess this lets some noncasters do almost as good as warmages... but we could already do that.

2. This hits the exact same problem. Noncasters are not getting back into the game--they're just even better at stabbing each other.

Drachasor
2013-12-04, 01:23 AM
Non-casters need four things to even begin to be on the same playing field.

1. Mobility: Easier move actions don't cut it. Casters can fly, teleport, and move between planes of existence.

2. Utility: Non-casters need better ways of having out-of-combat utility. Casters have tons of spells for all sorts of occasions. Right now skills are too limited.

3. Dealing with Spells: Non-casters need to be able to meet spells on their own terms. Saves, when allowed, are not a remotely reliable way to counter magic. If they can't hack, bluff, cajole, or otherwise deal with magic, then they'll always play second fiddle.

4. Defense: Non-casters generally have pretty crappy defenses compared to casters. Mirror Image, blur, astral projection, summons, displacement, invisibility, and very, very long ranges are just the start of caster defenses. Non-casters can't deal with such defenses well (see #3), and can't put up comparable defenses.


1. Notice that nowhere did I say that the above rules solve the need to rewrite noncasters.
2. Melees don't need to fly, they just need the ability to get to them. This just requires rewriting several not-so-well-thought-of broken spells, such as Wind Wall.

Fly + Invisibility + Summons. What ya gonna do?

Carl
2013-12-04, 08:19 AM
Whilst i've shown that i largely agree with the last two posters i do want to step in and make a point.

The problem with flying casters isn't so much that they can fly, as that flying doesn't penalise their casting anywhere near enough to balance off the greater difficulty of hurting a flying wizard. After all how dangerous would a caster be if they had to expend their standard action every round to keep themselves stable in the air?