New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 66
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jormengand View Post
    But has it been done by you? Has it been done by everyone else saying it's terrible and unplayable?

    My personal experience was that playing a truenamer was really, really fun, on multiple occasions, and if I really wanted to use a homebrew fix, I just used my one which just gave them more, bigger toys to play with.
    Most people are just saying that it doesn't function properly, not that it's terrible and unplayable. Chillax
    If you see me talking about Shaper Psions, assume that anything not poison immune within 100 feet will be dead.
    Quote Originally Posted by kardar233 View Post
    I was going to PM you about it because I wanted to know, but then you posted it later. Elegant solution. Watch out for Necropolitans.
    My Homebrew Signature such as it is.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    malonkey1's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    In the Playground. Duh.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by kellbyb View Post
    *snickers*

    I usually like to forget Complete Psionic ever existed.
    Now, not everything in CoPsi is contemptible. RAW Ardent has an interesting Powers Known (it doesn't have a Max Power Level limitation written in), as well as having unique fluff and being a better "Psychic Cleric" than the actual intended one (Divine Mind, which was just silly). Plus, Illithid Heritage is amusing.

    "Wait, you have an Illithid ancestor? Don't they reproduce asexually?"
    "Yeah. I know."
    "But how does-"
    "I really, really, really do not want to get into that."
    White is my color for internal monologue. (without the black highlight, of course)

    Judge's choice in the Pathfinder Grab Bag XIX
    Spoiler
    Show


    Avatar by the ever-brilliant Ceika


    Paizocarnum - A 3.p update of Incarnum, now in PDF!
    The Beastmaster: Master of Beasts! (Pathfinder homebrew class)

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by malonkey1 View Post
    Plus, Illithid Heritage is amusing.
    Clearly, the mother was Cerebromorphed while pregnant, creating a half-illithid hybrid with the hunger for brains but not the requirement to eat them, and all the powers but few of the weaknesses of Illithid-kind (including only having tentacles in his mouth, rather than outside where they're visible). He bred, producing the lines of Illithid-Heritage creatures.



    (Why, yes, I do think half-vampires are silly. Why do you ask?)

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Seattle
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by malonkey1 View Post
    Now, not everything in CoPsi is contemptible. RAW Ardent has an interesting Powers Known (it doesn't have a Max Power Level limitation written in), as well as having unique fluff and being a better "Psychic Cleric" than the actual intended one (Divine Mind, which was just silly). Plus, Illithid Heritage is amusing.
    I was actually a fairly big fan of the Lurk. There were a lot of mechanics there that were rock solid and which I would have enjoyed seeing brought forward.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Land of Cleves
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Psionics: Basically just spells, with a slightly different casting mechanic. The mechanic is probably a bit better-designed, and they had a bit less power creep than spells (mostly due to there not being new powers introduced in every book ever published) and different fluff, but yeah, spells.

    Invocations: Do what they're designed to do. Very easy to understand. Weaker than spells, but that's not a bad thing. I would have liked official guidelines for how to turn other spells into invocations, and perhaps a larger class list of invocations to choose from in the first place (not necessarily more known: there are enough of those, if you're not trying to be as powerful as a full caster).

    Incarnum: Very powerful, but only homeopathically: Any build that uses incarnum can probably do better by using less of it. Doesn't scale well with level, and the fluff is an absolute mess. Also a very poorly written book, with rules hidden away all over the place.

    Pact magic: Great fluff merged together with great mechanics, written up very well with very few dysfunctions, need for houserules, or questionable interpretations. The book also includes feats and prestige classes which build on the base system strongly. The only problem is that it didn't get enough love from other books (though it did get some, at least).

    Shadow magic: I really don't understand where they were coming from, with this. From the fluff, it feels like shadow magic ought to be the most freeform and flexible style of magic, but instead, you've got this rigid and overly-complicated framework of paths. There's some power there, but it falls afoul of Grod's Law. This is all aside from the not-enough-per-day issue.

    Truename magic: Does not function as designed. You're forced to optimize highly just to be able to do anything at all, which may not even be possible, since most of the tricks you need are from other books, and many of them are banned in any other context. You're further burdened by a silly Law that you can't have multiple copies of an effect at once, most of the effects are lackluster, and you learn too few of them. There's almost no support for truenaming even within its own book: No prestige classes which progress utterances, no way of combining utterance-use with any other form of magic, very few feats which work well with it, and so on.

    Tome of Battle: I wouldn't mind it as an alternative to conventional melee, but if the problem is "a lot of things outclass fighters", then the solution isn't to make even more things that outclass fighters. Fix fighters first (which really can be done, and quite easily too), and then we can talk.
    Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
    As You Like It, III:ii:328

    Chronos's Unalliterative Skillmonkey Guide
    Current Homebrew: 5th edition psionics

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Svata's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Gainesville, GA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by malonkey1 View Post
    Now, not everything in CoPsi is contemptible. RAW Ardent has an interesting Powers Known (it doesn't have a Max Power Level limitation written in), as well as having unique fluff and being a better "Psychic Cleric" than the actual intended one (Divine Mind, which was just silly). Plus, Illithid Heritage is amusing.
    Anarchic Initiate was a nice, if slightly broken PrC, and Ebon Saint is pretty cool for a PsyRogue.
    Copy this to your signature if you love Jade_Tarem, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Extra Anchovies View Post
    A 20th-level fighter should be able to break rainbows in half with their bare hands and then dual-wield the parts of the rainbow.

    Dual-wield the rainbow. Taste the rainbow.

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
    Fix fighters first (which really can be done, and quite easily too)
    I'd love to see a thread wherein you discuss how to do this.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Red Fel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    I'd love to see a thread wherein you discuss how to do this.
    I think there was a book in which they did this, actually. Streamlined the class, made it more flexible, and renamed it "Warblade." It turned out pretty well.

    I get the logic behind people saying, "It's cool that you have a melee concept that does better than the Fighter, but why couldn't you just fix the Fighter?" Thing is, I think they kind of did. It's not like they could say, in this single book for which there was no subsequent supplementary material, "We hereby declare the Fighter permanently deleted from D&D canon; Warblade is the new Fighter, full stop." Warblade was an option; it was a good option, and a perfectly acceptable replacement/fix for Fighter, if you were willing to use ToB.

    I don't understand how, exactly, they could have gone back and completely revamped the Fighter. Issue an errata changing one of the definitive core classes? I just don't get it.
    Last edited by Red Fel; 2014-08-27 at 01:32 PM.
    My headache medicine has a little "Ex" inscribed on the pill. It's not a brand name; it's an indicator that it works inside an Anti-Magic Field.

    Blue text means sarcasm. Purple text means evil. White text is invisible.

    My signature got too big for its britches. So now it's over here!

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Psionics: Lots of fun in the right hands. There's some missteps here and there (the Wilder is basically impossible to play politely, since they basically get A BIG HAMMER in their toolbox and nothing else; the Lurk doesn't get enough skill points or class skills, enough augments per day, or enough love in general; the Divine Mind doesn't need to exist), but overall, they're nearly as strong as Vancian casters at most levels of optimization, and they've got some fun tricks. It's nice that you can get by with only taking one or two strong combat powers, using the rest of your powers for utility stuff (seriously, do you REALLY need more than Astral Construct and Crystal Shard?). The PsyWar is a really nice implementation of the self-buffing warrior, though they really tend to run low on PP.

    Incarnum: Awesome. I love Incarnum. The Incarnate is one of the best skillmonkeys in the game; their combat prowess is kind of hobbled, but they get fantastic defenses (they have some of the earliest access to a lot of immunities and a lot of defensive abilities) and amazing out-of-combat versatility. Totemists are champion face-eaters, and while they aren't as good at skillmonkeying as Incarnates are, they're not bad at it either. (They're mostly not as good at it because it's harder for them to spare the melds and the binds for non-combat stuff, rather than just because their melds aren't quite as skill-oriented.) Essentia is a really cool mechanic. The Soulborn is shameful, but the Incarnate and the Totemist are both awesome.

    Truenaming: My love, my hate; my joy, my sorrow. The Truenamer is really, more than anything, frustrating. It's frustrating to have to scrape around for every last bonus just to function. It's frustrating to be so fiercely constrained in your options. It's frustrating to only be able to affect one person at a time. It's frustrating to know that the bulk of your abilities are done better—and almost always earlier—by other classes. I'm playing yet another one in my current 3.5 game (this one under a much less permissive GM than my last Truenamer was under, and at a lower level), and I'm strongly considering retiring him for something less annoying, even though I've built him about as well as can be done. You have to put so much effort into a Truenamer, and you don't get that much satisfaction out of it. When all is said and done, you just don't have that many tricks, and the tricks you have just aren't that amazing.

    Shadow Magic: The Shadowcaster suffers greatly at low levels. They're like a 1e or 2e Magic User: very, very few spells per day, so you have to be REALLY careful about what you fire off and what you hold in reserve. When you get to be high enough level that you aren't hitting Crossbow Mode after a single encounter, they're not bad, though they don't have a whole lot that really makes them special. This is the greatest crime of the Shadowcaster: they don't feel that different from a weirdly limited Wizard or Sorcerer. As annoying as the Truenamer is, when I'm playing a Truenamer, I feel like a friggin' Truenamer; a Shadowcaster just doesn't get many unique tricks to brag about. If they had some at-will trick to play with, I feel like they'd be an interesting class, but they run out of juice so quickly it's not even funny.

    Pact Magic: It's obvious that the Binder was the chapter of ToM that got the most attention and polish from the developers. The Binder folds its flavor into its mechanics better than any other class I can think of, and the suite of abilities you get is a lot of fun. The only thing I don't really like about the Binder is that they have way too many levels where they only get a single vestige per day, and it's only when you get two vestiges at once that you really feel like you have a lot of options, because then you can split your focus between combat and non-combat. Still, they're a lot of fun. I had a multiclass Binder/Incarnate once; that was a lot of work, but it was hilarious to totally reinvent the character's abilities every day. (He eventually went into Chameleon, though the game ended before he could play with that too much.)

    Invocations: There's a lot to like here. I like DFAs better than Warlocks, personally, but both of them are fun. I feel like the Warlock takes longer to really shine; EB is nice enough at the earliest levels, but there's kind of a dead zone where you aren't great at damage (HFW and Eldritch Glaive both take time to come into their own) and you aren't great at debuffing (it's not really until Greater invocations that you get really strong debuff/BfC effects). DFAs are never great at damage (unless you can pull off a Fivefold Breath at something that somehow has no resistances by 15th level—not terribly likely), but they get great control effects right away—Entangling Exhalation is available at level 1, and Slow Breath is available at level 5. More than anything, both classes are easy; you never have to worry about running out of tricks (that is, after all, their entire schtick), and the tricks you get out of the box are pretty decent, so you don't have to spend too many resources just getting up to par. The Warlock famously doesn't need any stats to be high to be playable, but they do need to get Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot almost immediately; the DFA only really needs CON, and once they have Entangling Exhalation, they don't have any other must-have feats.

    Maneuvers: These are where it's at for melee. They make full attacks not nearly as necessary (so melee folks no longer NEED Pounce, and simply moving away can no longer completely spoil your day), which is great. They do a good job of feeling different from each other; a Crusader does not feel like a Swordsage, who does not feel like a Warblade. They all have uses for swift actions, which is something that can't be said for a lot of non-casters. They're a little annoying to actually build; since you have to be aware of prereqs at all times, you basically have to build them level-by-level. (Compare this to a Sorcerer, for example; just pick so many spells of each level and be done, rather than picking what spells you learn at 1st level, what spells you learn at 2nd level, what spells you learn at 3rd . . .) Once you've built them, though, they're really easy to play, and they're about as multiclass-friendly as it's possible to get. It's technically possible to make a bad one (I've seen it done; it wasn't pretty), but it's hard.
    In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Roc View Post
    Gentlefolk, learn from Zaq's example, and his suffering. Remember, seven out of eleven players who use truenamer lose their ability to taste ice cream.
    My compiled Iron Chef stuff!

    ~ Gay all day, queer all year ~

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Land of Cleves
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quoth Segev:

    I'd love to see a thread wherein you discuss how to do this.
    Quoth Red Fel:

    I don't understand how, exactly, they could have gone back and completely revamped the Fighter. Issue an errata changing one of the definitive core classes? I just don't get it.
    It's so easy, it doesn't need a whole thread, just one post, at least to describe how to do it. The fighter's schtick is feats, right? So the way you fix the fighter is by creating a whole bunch of really good new feats.

    To cover the usual objections:
    But feats aren't good enough! So make them better.
    But everyone gets feats, how does that make the fighter special? Make feats good enough that a melee character will want to take twenty of them, and make feats that benefit from having a bunch of other feats.
    But feats aren't flexible enough, and 11 or 19 different abilities doesn't give enough options So make feats that give you multiple different abilities, like the tactical feats.
    But feats just give static bonuses, and don't scale with level So make new feats that do scale with level.
    But feats aren't as good as real class features So make them better until they are.
    But all a fighter can do is HP damage So create feats that let them do other things.

    Now, all I've actually done here is describe the fix. Actually writing up all the needed new feats could fill a book (and should-- That's the book they should have published before Tome of Battle). But compare to, say, wizards: If the wizard class itself were exactly like it was now, but the only spells ever written were evocation direct-damage spells, then people would say that the wizard is pretty weak, too. But that doesn't say anything about the wizard itself, and such a crippled version of the wizard could be fixed just by creating a bunch of new spells.

    As an example of what I'm talking about, some time back I homebrewed some feats I called "veteran feats". They're usable by anyone, but work better for a fighter, scale with levels, and let fighters do things like inflict status conditions. I don't think that's a complete solution (the concept could almost certainly be improved further, and besides that's just a dozen or so feats, not a whole book of them), but it's a start. Get a whole bunch of developers working on it, not just one or two inexperienced homebrewers, and we could get it done. And it doesn't change one bit about the fighter himself.
    Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
    As You Like It, III:ii:328

    Chronos's Unalliterative Skillmonkey Guide
    Current Homebrew: 5th edition psionics

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fairfield, CA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
    It's so easy, it doesn't need a whole thread, just one post, at least to describe how to do it. The fighter's schtick is feats, right? So the way you fix the fighter is by creating a whole bunch of really good new feats.

    To cover the usual objections:
    But feats aren't good enough! So make them better.
    But everyone gets feats, how does that make the fighter special? Make feats good enough that a melee character will want to take twenty of them, and make feats that benefit from having a bunch of other feats.
    But feats aren't flexible enough, and 11 or 19 different abilities doesn't give enough options So make feats that give you multiple different abilities, like the tactical feats.
    But feats just give static bonuses, and don't scale with level So make new feats that do scale with level.
    But feats aren't as good as real class features So make them better until they are.
    But all a fighter can do is HP damage So create feats that let them do other things.

    Now, all I've actually done here is describe the fix. Actually writing up all the needed new feats could fill a book (and should-- That's the book they should have published before Tome of Battle). But compare to, say, wizards: If the wizard class itself were exactly like it was now, but the only spells ever written were evocation direct-damage spells, then people would say that the wizard is pretty weak, too. But that doesn't say anything about the wizard itself, and such a crippled version of the wizard could be fixed just by creating a bunch of new spells.

    As an example of what I'm talking about, some time back I homebrewed some feats I called "veteran feats". They're usable by anyone, but work better for a fighter, scale with levels, and let fighters do things like inflict status conditions. I don't think that's a complete solution (the concept could almost certainly be improved further, and besides that's just a dozen or so feats, not a whole book of them), but it's a start. Get a whole bunch of developers working on it, not just one or two inexperienced homebrewers, and we could get it done. And it doesn't change one bit about the fighter himself.
    I did a similar thing with Perfecting Feats, a system I later altered into Investing Feats.

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    @Chronos - If a fighter fix is so easy. Why don't you just do it yourself and post it? Veteran feats don't count because they are miss the problem with the fighter entirely. Big numbers aren't enough, you have to let the fighter do new things and not just when he crits. Also you need at least 3 or 4 times that many feats for it to be a viable fix.

    The reality is that you'd have to put a ton of work into completely reworking the fighter bonus feats, that's not as easy as you make it out to be, you greatly underestimate how hard good game design is. The concept sounds simple but the reality is a lot of hard work, trust me, I've tried.
    Last edited by 3WhiteFox3; 2014-08-27 at 03:13 PM.

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Red Fel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
    It's so easy, it doesn't need a whole thread, just one post, at least to describe how to do it. The fighter's schtick is feats, right? So the way you fix the fighter is by creating a whole bunch of really good new feats.
    The thing is, what you're describing is a variant, or possibly even a new class altogether. Changing the feats available doesn't improve the Fighter as a class; changing anything but the feats substantially changes the class (whose sole class feature is feats).

    If you're making it an ACF or variant, you're not fixing the Fighter, you're simply giving an option for a better way to play it - in which case, you could just as easily give the option to play a Warblade. If you're making it the Fighter 2.0, a New And Improved Class, you're creating a new class altogether - which is basically what the Warblade is.

    What I'm saying is, there's this class. It's called the Fighter, and it's been more or less intact in core books since time immemorial. WotC couldn't change the Fighter class, as it was in 3.5, without issuing an entirely new PHB and completely revamping the Fighter. And what would they call that? D&D 4.0? D&D Next? Ludicrous, I say.

    I'm not disagreeing with you or trying to invalidate your suggestions. They're good points. What I'm saying is that, in essence, you can't change the fundamental Fighter without removing the Fighter as it exists and replacing it with something else. Everything else - ACFs, variant rules, or similar classes - is an option, a thing you can take because Fighter needs more fight.

    Warblade is an option. It's not the only option, but it's a pretty darn good one. The writers stepped back, and said, "How can we make someone who's good with weapons, and has numerous tactics other than 'I hit it with my sword', and has other, actual class features?" And they did. And it was great. Yes, they could have gone back and fixed the Fighter, I suppose, somehow. But perhaps - just perhaps - they looked at the Fighter chassis, the sad yet stoic Dodge Dart of the D&D world, with its sides rusted out, its windows absent, and a radio that does not play, but an engine that will never stop running, even after the stars burn out, and said, "Yeah, we could fix it... Or we could buy a Corvette."

    We don't need to fix the Dodge Dart, is what I'm saying. There are Corvettes out there.
    My headache medicine has a little "Ex" inscribed on the pill. It's not a brand name; it's an indicator that it works inside an Anti-Magic Field.

    Blue text means sarcasm. Purple text means evil. White text is invisible.

    My signature got too big for its britches. So now it's over here!

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Actually, I don't think the prior two posts have addressed Chronos's point accurately. Both say "you've not written enough feats" or "you have to rewrite the Fighter." Chronos's point is that you can write FEATS that are effectively new abilities taht are "more than just numbers," and that you do NOT need to write new class features that aren't basically new kinds of feats.

    He also acknowledges the amount of work that would have to go in to writing the Big Book of Feats that would make the Fighter's one class feature of "11 extra feats" something worthwhile on its own.

    None of the counterpoints have actually addressed the claim that feats can be made which do "more than just bigger numbers" and which "give more options," nor that his proposal is ONLY to create new feats with new feat mechanics, not to touch the fighter's basic chassis at all.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Getting them to T4 is all the fix you need and it's not hard. I would give them Lore Warden and Martial Master for free and call it a day. Then they could pick other archetypes (like Unarmed Fighter) on top of that chassis.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Actually, I don't think the prior two posts have addressed Chronos's point accurately. Both say "you've not written enough feats" or "you have to rewrite the Fighter." Chronos's point is that you can write FEATS that are effectively new abilities taht are "more than just numbers," and that you do NOT need to write new class features that aren't basically new kinds of feats.

    He also acknowledges the amount of work that would have to go in to writing the Big Book of Feats that would make the Fighter's one class feature of "11 extra feats" something worthwhile on its own.

    None of the counterpoints have actually addressed the claim that feats can be made which do "more than just bigger numbers" and which "give more options," nor that his proposal is ONLY to create new feats with new feat mechanics, not to touch the fighter's basic chassis at all.
    I'm not saying you can't fix it that way. Just that it's not as easy as Chronos claimed, it's a lot of work to make anything worthwhile.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu View Post
    We live in the land of the internets, where arguing is never pointless.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WhiteFox3 View Post
    I'm not saying you can't fix it that way. Just that it's not as easy as Chronos claimed, it's a lot of work to make anything worthwhile.
    It certainly is a lot of work to do so. It would take a "Big Book of (high quality) Feats" to actually achieve, at a minimum. Conceptually, though, it isn't bad and is somewhat simple to get across, which is what I think his point was.

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fairfield, CA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    It certainly is a lot of work to do so. It would take a "Big Book of (high quality) Feats" to actually achieve, at a minimum. Conceptually, though, it isn't bad and is somewhat simple to get across, which is what I think his point was.
    http://paizo.com/products/btpy860b?M...ight-Hardcover

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Land of Cleves
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Perhaps I should have said that it's straightforward, not that it's easy. It would, in fact, be a lot of work. But it doesn't involve changing the fighter itself any more than publishing new spells changes the sorcerer (sorcerer is probably a better comparison than wizard, now that I think about it).
    Time travels in divers paces with divers persons.
    As You Like It, III:ii:328

    Chronos's Unalliterative Skillmonkey Guide
    Current Homebrew: 5th edition psionics

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    malonkey1's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    In the Playground. Duh.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    If I were to fix the fighter, I'd do it by giving them choices of bonuses based on fighting style in place of some of the bonus feats.

    For example, a Two-Weapon fighter that reduces TWF penalties, offers extra bonus attacks, or induces a penalty to AC on targets (all those attacks are throwing them off guard), or a chain fighter, specializing in trips, distance grappling, and disarming, or an archer that can make bank shots, disarm at range, or pin down enemies. basically, giving them more options than "hit this guy!". Alternately, make them jacks of all trades in combat, giving them abilities akin to the Aptitude Weapon enhancement, or the ability to use one weapon as if it were another (treating long swords as tripping weapons, giving a dagger reach, etc.).
    White is my color for internal monologue. (without the black highlight, of course)

    Judge's choice in the Pathfinder Grab Bag XIX
    Spoiler
    Show


    Avatar by the ever-brilliant Ceika


    Paizocarnum - A 3.p update of Incarnum, now in PDF!
    The Beastmaster: Master of Beasts! (Pathfinder homebrew class)

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Vhaidara's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    GMT -5
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    On fixing the fighter without making him warblade...

    1. Fighter levels advance Initiator level fully instead of half
    2. Fighters may choose Martial Study and Martial Stance as bonus feats
    3. Fighters get a bonus feat every level
    4. Fighters ignore the max 3 limit on Martial Study.

    Done, a full BAB, d10 HD, full proficiency character with a fully customizable fighting style.

    On topic...

    Psionics: I haven't really gotten to play with it, but I want to. It has a better mechanical feel imo than vancian casting, PsyWar is a good gish in a can, Soulknife is awesome but sucks.

    Incarnum: I am in a relationship with Incarnum. Some might describe it as abusive because every time I leave it nags me until I come back, but I still love it. Totemist is probably my favorite class in 3.5 for the blend of mechanics and fluff. Personally, I view Incarnate as a support/dip class. I do know that whenever I play gestalt, one side will involve Incarnate, Totemist, and/or Factotum, because they add so much utility for a few levels. Also, Totemist at level 20 can fire off 264d4 in a standard action. Double Bind Manticore Belt and Heart of Fire to Totem and their other Chakra, get the right Incarnum foci, x2 Expanded Soulmeld Capacity = 8 Essentia per meld, Totem Embodiment = 16 essentia, 16 spikes with 16d4 damage each. Suck it Hellfire Warlock!

    Truenaming: This is the system I want to love so much, but it is just so bad. Difficult to use without crazy optimization, still weak with crazy optimization, no support, but such amazing character potential. Find a good homebrew fix. Make a Racial Sub class for Illumians, because Why doesn't that exist?

    Pact Magic: The best thing to come out of Tome of Magic (My favorite book flavorwise, btw). Strong mechanics, good options, consistent fluff, great worldbuilding, and some of the weirdest monsters I've ever seen. 9/10, would play again

    Shadow Magic: It needed its own book to be done right. It had so much potential, but I feel they just cribbed it down to be a third of a book. That said, I still love them, and am currently building a beguiler/shadowcaster/noctumancer,

    Invocations: I agree with everyone saying "More!". Warlock was my favorite class until I was introduced to Incarnum and ToB. Now it's at 3rd after Totemist and Warblade. Personally, I want to see an Invocation Gish class. A warrior who uses long-lasting magic to enhance his combat. After all, the biggest problem with buff gishes seems to be getting your short-duration buffs up.

    Maneuvers: So much more fun than other mundane options, with great variety. I'm saddened by the restrictions though, with 3 whole disciplines being Swordsage Only. I want Setting Sun on my Warblade for throws, damnit! Also, high level setting sun = fighting game characters.
    I follow a general rule: better to ask and be told no than not to ask at all.

    Shadeblight by KennyPyro

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Troll in the Playground
     
    WhamBamSam's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Eh, I'm pretty strongly in the "Warblade is exactly what the Fighter always should have been" camp, but whatever.

    I love all the subsystems, especially ToB. Even the ones I tend not to work with like Truenaming and Shadow Magic are pretty cool to see put together well by people who know them well. I still mostly dip incarnum, but should look into full meldshaping at some point.

    Iron Chef Medals
    Spoiler
    Show
    Sir Driscoll Conia - Silver - IC L

    Nick Snarespan - Gold - IC LIII

    Lucy "Legs" Silvertail - Bronze - IC LXVIII

    Bolfarg of Knoss - Gold - IC LXXVII

    Ivarr Deathborn - Bronze - IC LXXVII

    Ahmtel - Silver - IC LXXVIII

    Tocke of Nessus - Gold - IC LXXIX

    The Blessed Third - Silver - IC LXXXI

    Galahad Galapagos - Gold - IC LXXXIV

    Sai-don, Knight of the Tide - Bronze - IC LXXXIV

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    QuickLyRaiNbow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    I think the way to improve the Fighter is to make something worthwhile out of the various combat style and mastery feats. As it stands, most of them are pretty bad and at the end of extremely long feat chains. The chains aren't as big a problem, as such, but the investment totally outweighs the reward. As a side note, it has always infuriated me that Fighter is a PC class and Warrior is an NPC class.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Orc in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Jul 2014

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by kellbyb View Post
    *snickers*

    I usually like to forget Complete Psionic ever existed.
    What's complete Psionic? Is it another "complete" book!? Great! All the others were amazing, this one will be the best!
    Honestly, I really like pact magic because of the roleplaying opportunities it gives you. Also, the fluff text of an ability is actually useful for once.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

    Threads made due to my misreading of a rule: 2

    One of my favorite hobbies is criticizing popular members and moderators for anything they do wrong. So nothing personal.

    I know I promised to stat a lot of things, but my life got busy and, well, my life got busy. I'm not very active on the forum for now, but I will be fulfilling my promises later.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Red Fel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    Actually, I don't think the prior two posts have addressed Chronos's point accurately. Both say "you've not written enough feats" or "you have to rewrite the Fighter." Chronos's point is that you can write FEATS that are effectively new abilities taht are "more than just numbers," and that you do NOT need to write new class features that aren't basically new kinds of feats.

    He also acknowledges the amount of work that would have to go in to writing the Big Book of Feats that would make the Fighter's one class feature of "11 extra feats" something worthwhile on its own.

    None of the counterpoints have actually addressed the claim that feats can be made which do "more than just bigger numbers" and which "give more options," nor that his proposal is ONLY to create new feats with new feat mechanics, not to touch the fighter's basic chassis at all.
    Actually, I kind of did, albeit not directly, come to think of it.

    My observation was that adding new options to the Fighter - I gave as examples ACFs and variants, but in retrospect feats are options as well - is simply that; adding new options. A DM could disallow the Book of Fighter Feats (hereinafter BFF, because awesome acronym is awesome) just as easily as one disallows ToB; it's an option, and if not taken it does not, in any way, change the Fighter.

    Now, if an errata issued that said "The Fighter's Bonus Feat class ability only allows the Fighter to take feats from the BFF," you would have changed the BFF from an option into the new de facto Fighter. That, I acknowledge, would constitute an actual fix; a material and fundamental change to how the Fighter, as a class, is built. And it would probably be for the better.

    But barring that, I fail to see how building the BFF and using feats therefrom, even assuming that they are all of superior quality and utility, is substantially different from using the Warblade. You're taking another (better) option.

    Again, I'm not saying that it's a bad idea, or that it's not a fix. I'm simply not seeing the point, when a perfectly functional fix exists. In my mind, that's what Warblade is - Fighter 2.0, bigger and better. Perhaps a different question is this: Why are we not treating the Warblade as the Fighter fix? Because it has a different name? Because it has class features other than feats? Because it comes from ToB? This isn't a rhetorical question, it's sincere. If the complaint is that the resources spent on Warblade would have been better spent fixing Fighter, that complaint assumes that Warblade isn't a Fighter fix, but a Fighter replacement. What's the difference? (Note that I'm saying Warblade, but I could just as easily make the case for Crusader.)

    If people feel this is a distraction from the OP (and I'm not sure it is, because it involves thoughts on the ToB subsystem) we can split it off into its own thread.
    My headache medicine has a little "Ex" inscribed on the pill. It's not a brand name; it's an indicator that it works inside an Anti-Magic Field.

    Blue text means sarcasm. Purple text means evil. White text is invisible.

    My signature got too big for its britches. So now it's over here!

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2014

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Fel View Post
    Why are we not treating the Warblade as the Fighter fix?
    Because it's a spellcaster presumably.

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    malonkey1's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    In the Playground. Duh.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anlashok View Post
    Because it's a spellcaster presumably.
    I think you're mixing up Warblade and Warmage.
    White is my color for internal monologue. (without the black highlight, of course)

    Judge's choice in the Pathfinder Grab Bag XIX
    Spoiler
    Show


    Avatar by the ever-brilliant Ceika


    Paizocarnum - A 3.p update of Incarnum, now in PDF!
    The Beastmaster: Master of Beasts! (Pathfinder homebrew class)

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by malonkey1 View Post
    I think you're mixing up Warblade and Warmage.
    A not-uncommon argument against ToB is that it's feels too much like spellcasting. That may be what's being referenced.
    Quote Originally Posted by Phelix-Mu View Post
    We live in the land of the internets, where arguing is never pointless.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WhiteFox3 View Post
    A not-uncommon argument against ToB is that it's feels too much like spellcasting. That may be what's being referenced.
    Well the problem is that it introduces a system that it is extremely based on planning and a series of diverse options, which is in a sense quite a bit like spellcasting. The same sort of thinking goes into picking maneuvers that goes into picking spells (at least for me). And building an initiator involves planning out your build not to lose too many initiator levels and to be focused on hitting them at the right points. It's very similarly in build and playstyle to a caster. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is an argument against "Fighters are broken play a Warblade instead". When one could say, "Play a Dungeoncrasher Zhentairm Fighter with two Levels of Barbarian instead" and you'd be better off or at least closer conceptually to what a fighter was to begin with.

    As a note, I love ToB, Casters, and Fighters, I just recognize that playing a ToB class is very, very different in feel and thought process than playing a fighter.
    My Avatar is Glimtwizzle, a Gnomish Fighter/Illusionist by Cuthalion.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Necroticplague's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: Thoughts on obscure subsystems?

    Giving better feats to the fighter doesn't help that the only class feature of it can be duplicated by a Persistent Heroics spell. And itsn't much of a fighter-specific fix, as it also effects Generic Warrior/Generic Expert, buffs humans and strongheart halflings, makes said Heroics spell more potent, increases the power of DCF, makes a good amount of prestige classes that offer feats better, and does nothing to change the fact that a lot of feats still aren't worth it, so you just make a new class of feats that are a waste of space because they're a worse option than these theoretical new feats.
    Avatar by TinyMushroom.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •