Author Topic: Balancing 3.5  (Read 145009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Meg

  • Message Board Extraordinaire
  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *
  • Posts: 2069
  • Are you rapier than me?
    • Brilliant Gameologists
    • Email
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #200 on: August 18, 2008, 01:23:29 AM »
I'm in an airport (that actually has free internet... ah, how I've missed thee!) and trying to process everything that's happened.  Cursury glance looks like since Kai and aftercrescent's posts, things have been fairly well behaved.  Argue and debate the topic all you want.  If someone doesn't agree, who cares?  Just move on.  I'm still catching up and will have lots more to say elsewhere too though I think.
All of my updates are on twitter! 

This is my angry voice.  Text written in red, by me, is  an official moderator "suggestion"

Want to meet me or the other Gameologists?  Check out where we'll be on the Conventions, Meetups and Events board!

Bier

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #201 on: August 18, 2008, 02:03:01 AM »
Wow.  Well, I'm back from vacation and had about three pages of progress to read through.  I haven't been able to get to everything, but I'll touch on a few points that stood out:

Something I've been thinking is after reading OWA's Paladin, its extemely lazy of us to say "Play warblade insted of fighter" I have a fighter fix somewhere that SquirrelLord made that isn't a re-write but more an add on, barring that we should use the zhentarim soilder and the Generic warrior for a base of what fighter needs to be.
The generic everyman/ fully customizeable.
It is lazy to say play a Warblade instead of a Fighter, but I do think that a Warblade is a good thematic fit for the role, and even more customizable.  The easy route is for me to keep the Fighter as-is, pirmarily as a dipping class.  Another is to try and fix it.  Ideally, I'd like something relatively simple, without a full rewrite, but that's lower on my priority list right now.  I had a fix I posted at gleemax about a year ago, but I think the post is archived.  I'd want to do some retooling before I posted it again.


Shock Trooper wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the methods in which damage stacks and is multiplied.  Take away charge multipliers with weapons, double Power attack with TH weapons, and the effects of Valorous, and Shock Trooper is just a nice way of hitting someone and getting slammed back in return.  You dish it out, and you take it.  With things as they are now, the 'sacrifice' aspect is lost entirely.  Heck, with Wall of Blades, the sacrifice to AC becomes entirely moot for at least the first reprisal attack...
One reason I'd never want to get rid of the 2:1 ratio for a two-hander is that it unfairly favors TWF then.  All you need is the Oversized TWF feat, and you can effectively get a 2:1 ratio by Power Attacking with a full attack.  It's partially offset by the -2 you take while TWF, but once you get pounce, you'd be just as deadly a charger.


Right then Moving on... away from the elephant, I have a proposed diplomacy fix.


Diplomacy.
Funtions off the same opposed roll as Intimidate you cannot advance someones role more than two steps with a single check but multiple checks can be allowed in the course of conversation.
Even a friendly, person will not do something that vastly differs from thier original intent or alignment.
I like a lot of what I've seen from Rich Burlew at GiantITP.  Here's a link to his diplomacy fix.

Warblade is more customizable because it's got 43 feat equivalents, and a minimum of 81 exclusive new manuvers/feats to look through for Kewl Stuff.  Give a Fighter 43 feat equivalents, and 81 feats to pick through that actually scale with level or are appropriate for level, and he'll shine, too.  They just didn't want to have to rewrite all the core feats, so they made a new system instead.

It's a lazy fix, not a lazy choice.  They didn't want to fix the system. And it was so bad they didn't even try to do so in 4E.

Power Attack is not unfairly biased towards ANYTHING if you just restrict the Power Attack bonus to the primary weapon.  This instantly puts everyone's damage on an even footing.  It's when you apply Power attack to every weapon, and try to balance that out between single hand, two weapons, and THW, that the imbalance occurs.

Just restrict the Power Attack bonus dmg to the primary weapon, keep the -TH for all weapons, and you're golden.  Damage lines right up equally and falls into place.

That's also basically how you 'fix' the Str/dmg imbalance for TWF vs THW.  Only apply Str on the primary hand attack.  For off hand attacks, you just get base weapon...I'd option enhancements, but never 'extra effects', like wounding or flaming, or whatnot.

THW does more dmg becuase it has a bigger weapon.  There ya go.  No extra feats needed.
SAB does less dmg because it has a smaller weapon, but it gets a better AC out of it.  There ya go.  Dmg dif? 2-3 pts.

TWF would do what primary weapon dmg is, + weapon + enhancement of off-hand, if it hits.  I wouldn't let anything beyond weapon+ enhancements apply....even spec and such feats apply only to the main attack, or you unfairly bias towards one or another style.

If you allow the weapon to keep enhancement damage, consider it a 'reward' for the extra feats that a TWF has to spend to get his shtick.  He'll end up doing slightly more DOT then the other styles, if he keeps raising the enhancement bonus on his weapon, but he spent the feats, so that's fair.  He's also got two weapons, and he can switch primary hand from one to the other to 'trade off' special effects.  Maybe against living things he wants the Wounding effect of one weapons, and then against Undead and Constructs his off hand weapon is built especially for them.

THW guy comes out of this with a little dmg edge over SAB, and he gets his Uber Weapon the fastest, becuase he is not spending on a shield or second weapon.
SAB comes out of this with the best AC of the three, but doing slightly less dmg and having to spend gold on a shield.
TWF comes out of this with the best DOT, but pays for it in feats and having to spend gold on a second weapon.  Where a THW guy would blow 200K on a greatsword to get +10, the same amount of money gets a TWF guy 2 +7 weapons, so he's going to have to be choosy about special effects of weapons.

balance for Str and Power attack was thrown off by favoring THW, not solved by it!  :)  the current system of Spend no Feats, get an animated shield, get the uber weapon, and get the highest dmg/blow so blatantly flavors THW it's not funny.  At least if the styles all get the same str/PA dmg, the AC discrepency is paid out in gold, and the dmg dif is not so extreme.

Das Bier!

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #202 on: August 18, 2008, 03:48:35 AM »
Is saying 'use a Warblade' really that lazy? After all, most of the 'Fighter fixes' end up making it at least close to a Warblade anyways. If you already have a home phone, are you going to spend time making a can and string arrangement a viable means of long distance communication or are you going to just pick up the damn receiver and dial some numbers? It's not laziness if it's just avoiding unnecessary effort to do the same damn thing.
I agree that I don't think it's a bad fix.  I'd even go so far as to either switch races with Favored Class: Fighter to Warblade, or give them a choice between the two at character creation.  I can see why people think it's lazy, but I guess it depends on if you view it as a fix, or an entirely new class.


Power Attack is not unfairly biased towards ANYTHING if you just restrict the Power Attack bonus to the primary weapon.  This instantly puts everyone's damage on an even footing.  It's when you apply Power attack to every weapon, and try to balance that out between single hand, two weapons, and THW, that the imbalance occurs.

Just restrict the Power Attack bonus dmg to the primary weapon, keep the -TH for all weapons, and you're golden.  Damage lines right up equally and falls into place.
So what are you suggesting here?  PA only works for your primary hand weapon, but still on all itterative attacks?  Just a 1:1 ratio?  I can see it, but it certainly changes things for dealing damage.

I think the worst part of Power Attack is getting the ratio much beyond that 2:1.  I don't see +40 damage at level 20 as that problematic.  I can see wanting to level the playing field for all those one-handed fighters, but there might be another way.

That's also basically how you 'fix' the Str/dmg imbalance for TWF vs THW.  Only apply Str on the primary hand attack.  For off hand attacks, you just get base weapon...I'd option enhancements, but never 'extra effects', like wounding or flaming, or whatnot.
Now, the extra 1.5 Str damage I've never had a problem with.  Hell, I'm even cool with Exotic Weapon Master's Uncanny Blow.  So long as the PC's Str doesn't go through the roof, then I don't see this as a huge deal.  Even with 5 points every four levels, +5 inherent bonus, and +6 enhancment bonus, you're looking at +16 Str (+8 mod, +12 damage).  If you really invest in it, I don't see it as that broken. 

THW does more dmg becuase it has a bigger weapon.  There ya go.  No extra feats needed.
SAB does less dmg because it has a smaller weapon, but it gets a better AC out of it.  There ya go.  Dmg dif? 2-3 pts.
My problem with this is, if the only thing setting THW and S&B apart is 2-3 damage and +/- 2 AC, then S&B clearly wins.  I'd take +2 AC over 2-3 points of damage any day.  In almost any circumstance, that's the clear winner.  There needs to be a bit more.

balance for Str and Power attack was thrown off by favoring THW, not solved by it!  :)  the current system of Spend no Feats, get an animated shield, get the uber weapon, and get the highest dmg/blow so blatantly flavors THW it's not funny.  At least if the styles all get the same str/PA dmg, the AC discrepency is paid out in gold, and the dmg dif is not so extreme.
Well, I do agree that an Animated Shield or IBD cheapen S&B.  I might want to find a way to keep them from stepping on it's toes.  Still, what I'd like to work on at some point is ways to make the shield even more useful than for a simple AC bonus.  Perhaps it's in creating new feats and/or maneuvers.  I've looked into this a bit over at gleemax, but I never put any serious time into it.
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #203 on: August 18, 2008, 04:02:23 AM »
I just had a thought on animated shields: what if they worked differently, and weren't simply floating, magical shields?

Perhaps it's a specific armor instead of something you can apply to any shield.  Perhaps all of them are considered +1 shields (and are priced accordingly), but they can never be further enchanted.

Another option could be to have it work entirely differently.  Maybe you designate an empty square for it to float in, and it blocks line of effect.  That might be a bit much, but that way, anyone could use it, even if they had another shield (used in the normal fashion).

I'm just throwing ideas out right now, and haven't put much thought into it other than some initial brainstorming.
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

Bier

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #204 on: August 18, 2008, 04:25:55 AM »
It's easier to adjust PA and Str to primary hand only then it is to try and balance out damage dealing any other way.

The Shield Issue almost, isn't.  You could actually leave in Improved Buckler Defense adn Animated Shields, and you've got parity between the styles.

I say you've got to do Str bonus with PA bonus because they are ALL extra bonuses.  Spec bonuses you have to stick with primary hand only, too.  Otherwise, you start rapidly skewing the damage curve towards two weapons.  SA dmg, etc...all of it, one weapon only!  When TWF allows you to apply twice as much fixed/bonus dmg as the other styles, things spin out of control fast.  You can try the strength thing, but you have to really keep a tight lid on maximum possible strength, and especially buffs, or SAB gets the shaft yet again.  It's better to restrict it to just Enhancement bonus as a control factor and 'reward' for the feats of TWF.

In 4e they specifically restrict what benefits shields give (+2 AC/reflex) and don't allow you to modify them upwards.  So, the tradeoff would be +2 AC vs +2-3 dmg.  And if SAB suddenly becomes viable...well, what's wrong with that? People are not going to pick it all the time just because of flavor.


The fix works best if you consider that we are going to balance out damage dealing with increased defenses for melees.  Over the top Power Attack? Hallf Str to off hand?  Make it a feat, like Supreme Power Attack, and available for the taking.  But it stops the one hit infinitely repeatable kill.  It also gives us plenty of room for adding in fixed and bonus dmg, becuase now we DON'T have to worry about the abuse factor and differences between styles.

Balance is about control as much as nerfing/raising stuff.  So, you've got to have limits and stick to 'em.

Das Bier!

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #205 on: August 18, 2008, 04:45:14 AM »
It's easier to adjust PA and Str to primary hand only then it is to try and balance out damage dealing any other way.

The Shield Issue almost, isn't.  You could actually leave in Improved Buckler Defense adn Animated Shields, and you've got parity between the styles.
I understand the way you posted is easier, I just don't entirely like it. ;) I'm trying to get a happy medium, so there's a difference between the three types.  I'd just like there to be a good reason to pick one or the other.  There seems to be very little reason to pick TWF with what you posted.


In 4e they specifically restrict what benefits shields give (+2 AC/reflex) and don't allow you to modify them upwards.  So, the tradeoff would be +2 AC vs +2-3 dmg.  And if SAB suddenly becomes viable...well, what's wrong with that? People are not going to pick it all the time just because of flavor.
It's not a matter of S&B becoming viable.  If the tradeoff is 2-3 damage or +2 AC, the latter wins hands down in almost all situations.  That +2-3 damage won't be enough to win a fight much quicker on average, and the +2 AC noticably helps your own longevity in combat.  Unless your AC was either really high, or really crappy to begin with, you'd always want the sheild.  There's next to no choice here.


The fix works best if you consider that we are going to balance out damage dealing with increased defenses for melees.  Over the top Power Attack? Hallf Str to off hand?  Make it a feat, like Supreme Power Attack, and available for the taking.  But it stops the one hit infinitely repeatable kill.  It also gives us plenty of room for adding in fixed and bonus dmg, becuase now we DON'T have to worry about the abuse factor and differences between styles.
Are you saying to allow the 2:1 ratio or x1.5 Str damage with feats?  I can see doing something like that.
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

Bier

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #206 on: August 18, 2008, 07:05:18 AM »
Greater Power Attack and Supreme Power Attack already exist as class abilities for the Frenzied Berserker, and should exist as Feats...they don't.

Paizo also did something similar with allowing increased Str dmg via feats.

So, yeah, additional feats spent on this should be a viable fix, but at least we'd never get the 40 pt Power Attack, quadrupled for the charge, that is part of the standard charger build. Heh!

Well,maybe with a lancer...

Just got done reading the Paizo beta on the classes.  Very nice handling on several of the classes...went to using Pool points for rage, ki and lay on hands to fuel class powers.  The paladin is a Cha based spellcaster now, which reduces MAD significantly.  I was a bit daunted by rangers getting TH/DMG for Favoreds at +2 per increase...that gets sick fast.  I'd either go +2 TH, +1/+1 or +2 Dmg, instead.  Stacking +2/+2 is, um, wow.  The Fighter dmg increase doesn't match it, like, ever, really, especially if you use the commonly accepted Extra Favored Enemy to make sure your FE's are numerous and viable.

BTW, the Paizo Beta is a free download PDF off the Paizo sight.  While the magic items changed little, neither did many of the spells...although Problem spells did change some.  The big changes were in the classes.  I think they overdid the rogue (basically, Fighter feat progression equiv +Class abilities+SA that works on almost everything, AND a d8 HD!!), but we'll see.

===Aelryinth

Ubernoob

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
  • Happy Panda
    • Email
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #207 on: August 18, 2008, 07:16:30 AM »
Ubernoob is a happy panda.

Chemus

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #208 on: August 18, 2008, 07:25:09 AM »
Can core be fixed without including the non-core material? It would be nice to be able to point to three (or four if XPH is on the table) sources and say 'all that you need to play is here.' Compatibility with other material would be important, but then that other material would have to be balanced too. One way to enhance the balance of clerics, druids and wizards is to say that the core spells are their list from which to choose; all others require research, finding them as treasure, or some other measurable cost.

About power attack specifically, I can see your point Ael about applying it to only a primary attack (I assume that you meant for monsters as well...). Feats that allow it and other bonuses to apply to other weapons is a good thing, but that makes simple character sheets more expensive, feat-wise, than complicated ones. I would like to see PA and any other attack altering feat be as simple as possible, as I'm a KISS fan (Keep It Simple/Stupid, I really am not familiar with the band ;) ).

This will garner me little respect, I'll assume, but I've never cared too much about the ToB. It just hasn't captured my interest. I'm sure that I'm not alone in this. I think that we should actually fix the fighter, even if the warblade fixes it pretty well. This goes to my first point; I think that using core-only should be the jumping-off point of balancing 3.5.
*waves hand* This is not the sig you're looking for...
The freely downloadable and searchable 3.5 SRD I prefer (Web)
Camlen, Enniwey

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #209 on: August 18, 2008, 10:26:45 AM »
Is saying 'use a Warblade' really that lazy? After all, most of the 'Fighter fixes' end up making it at least close to a Warblade anyways. If you already have a home phone, are you going to spend time making a can and string arrangement a viable means of long distance communication or are you going to just pick up the damn receiver and dial some numbers? It's not laziness if it's just avoiding unnecessary effort to do the same damn thing.
I agree that I don't think it's a bad fix.  I'd even go so far as to either switch races with Favored Class: Fighter to Warblade, or give them a choice between the two at character creation.  I can see why people think it's lazy, but I guess it depends on if you view it as a fix, or an entirely new class.


Power Attack is not unfairly biased towards ANYTHING if you just restrict the Power Attack bonus to the primary weapon.  This instantly puts everyone's damage on an even footing.  It's when you apply Power attack to every weapon, and try to balance that out between single hand, two weapons, and THW, that the imbalance occurs.

Just restrict the Power Attack bonus dmg to the primary weapon, keep the -TH for all weapons, and you're golden.  Damage lines right up equally and falls into place.
So what are you suggesting here?  PA only works for your primary hand weapon, but still on all itterative attacks?  Just a 1:1 ratio?  I can see it, but it certainly changes things for dealing damage.

I think the worst part of Power Attack is getting the ratio much beyond that 2:1.  I don't see +40 damage at level 20 as that problematic.  I can see wanting to level the playing field for all those one-handed fighters, but there might be another way.

That's also basically how you 'fix' the Str/dmg imbalance for TWF vs THW.  Only apply Str on the primary hand attack.  For off hand attacks, you just get base weapon...I'd option enhancements, but never 'extra effects', like wounding or flaming, or whatnot.
Now, the extra 1.5 Str damage I've never had a problem with.  Hell, I'm even cool with Exotic Weapon Master's Uncanny Blow.  So long as the PC's Str doesn't go through the roof, then I don't see this as a huge deal.  Even with 5 points every four levels, +5 inherent bonus, and +6 enhancment bonus, you're looking at +16 Str (+8 mod, +12 damage).  If you really invest in it, I don't see it as that broken. 

THW does more dmg becuase it has a bigger weapon.  There ya go.  No extra feats needed.
SAB does less dmg because it has a smaller weapon, but it gets a better AC out of it.  There ya go.  Dmg dif? 2-3 pts.
My problem with this is, if the only thing setting THW and S&B apart is 2-3 damage and +/- 2 AC, then S&B clearly wins.  I'd take +2 AC over 2-3 points of damage any day.  In almost any circumstance, that's the clear winner.  There needs to be a bit more.

balance for Str and Power attack was thrown off by favoring THW, not solved by it!  :)  the current system of Spend no Feats, get an animated shield, get the uber weapon, and get the highest dmg/blow so blatantly flavors THW it's not funny.  At least if the styles all get the same str/PA dmg, the AC discrepency is paid out in gold, and the dmg dif is not so extreme.
Well, I do agree that an Animated Shield or IBD cheapen S&B.  I might want to find a way to keep them from stepping on it's toes.  Still, what I'd like to work on at some point is ways to make the shield even more useful than for a simple AC bonus.  Perhaps it's in creating new feats and/or maneuvers.  I've looked into this a bit over at gleemax, but I never put any serious time into it.
If you insist on making Sab a viable choice, it has to be done by "empowering" sword and board, not attacking other combat styles and weaking them.

Though honestly, I think the idea as an archtype, has issues...
TWF needs extra damage...
What does Sword and Board need to make it stroger on it's own? If the only thing you can think of is "Weaken or remove the other optoins" something is wrong wit S&B as a concept sir.

Sorry about the lazy comment, I meant more to say that its not uncomplicated to fix he fighter...
 Many many ways to do it, without signifigantly doing a complete re-write.
Add manuevers on the off levels is another easy fix + full initiator level.

Lets explore that as a quick fix.
Chose 2 schools. Gain 2 manuevers (one from each school) every odd level starting at 3rd.
You do not gain stances but you can take the martial study feat. No recovery method.
 Alternatively, you learn, from 1 school and at every level you learn all manuevers available at that school your initiator level is your fighter level -3 I think that works.
That and expanding the skills. So you still get the dipability and you're doing everything you should be doing

So... the fighter would be
Quote
The Fighter
1 Feat
2 Feat
3 1st level manuevers
4 Feat
5 2nd Level Manuevers
6 Feat
7 3rd Level Manuevers
8 Feat
9 4th level Manuevers
10 Feat.
11. Level 5 Manuevers
12 Feat
13 Level 6 Manuevers
14 Feat
15 Level 7 Manuevers
16 Feat
17 Level 8 Manuevers
18 Feat.
19 Level 9 Manuevers
20. Feat
Which is the most simple and obvious fix suggested by many when the Tob cam out.

Quote
I've always been a fan of the opposed roll for diplomacy, but it can't be the same roll as intimidate, since size factors into intimidate. Take that out and you're on the right track.

I also like that someone will not vastly differ from their original intent. Much like how bluff works. Sure you seem to be telling the truth but if they watched you, it doesn't actually change their mind. They just think you're crazy
On diplomacy, someone started a thread on rich burlews fix.
I think that it has some merit.

Basically, however it's fixed one of the main things is to set up an opposed roll.
We don't want to kill diplomancers, just make them not as absolute.
Initimidate shoud be the model. Size might not factor in but something has to factor in. Creauture type for example.
You know, can't diplomacy undead and abberations are unreasonable.
Maybe by, alignment difference. They just need to get modifiers for it also, something else instead of size.

So diplomancy still works just not as well as before.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2008, 10:51:48 AM by Midnight_v »
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #210 on: August 18, 2008, 02:48:54 PM »
If you insist on making Sab a viable choice, it has to be done by "empowering" sword and board, not attacking other combat styles and weaking them.

Though honestly, I think the idea as an archtype, has issues...
TWF needs extra damage...
What does Sword and Board need to make it stroger on it's own? If the only thing you can think of is "Weaken or remove the other optoins" something is wrong wit S&B as a concept sir.
I don't really want to weaken the other two fighting styles.  TWF can do fine, but you often need to multiclass.  Getting Sneak Attack damage helps a lot.  If I wanted to boost TWF, I'd lump the Improved and Greater versions into a single feat.  Just put in a clause that you get your second off-hand attack at BAB +6 and Dex 17+, and your third at BAB+11 and Dex 19+.

As for S&B, I'd like to look for ways to make it not suck so much.  I'm also not looking for ways to simply boost AC (at least not insanely).  I'd like there to be other options available, possibly through feats (that may progress with level) and/or manuevers.  I'd like to see things like the ability to block projectiles (perhaps like Deflect Arrows, or maybe a concealment %), the ability to block attacks for adjacent allies with an opposed attack roll (immediate action).  I still have to give this some thought.


Sorry about the lazy comment, I meant more to say that its not uncomplicated to fix he fighter...
 Many many ways to do it, without signifigantly doing a complete re-write.
Add manuevers on the off levels is another easy fix + full initiator level.

Lets explore that as a quick fix.
Chose 2 schools. Gain 2 manuevers (one from each school) every odd level starting at 3rd.
You do not gain stances but you can take the martial study feat. No recovery method.
 Alternatively, you learn, from 1 school and at every level you learn all manuevers available at that school your initiator level is your fighter level -3 I think that works.
That and expanding the skills. So you still get the dipability and you're doing everything you should be doing.
I really like this.  It's quite simple and it does exactly what's needed.  I'm not going to put it on the first page as my official fix yet, but it's certainly the front runner.  Which of the nine disciplines would you use for the fighter?
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

Sunic_Flames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4782
  • The Crusader of Logic.
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #211 on: August 18, 2008, 03:13:52 PM »
Can core be fixed without including the non-core material? It would be nice to be able to point to three (or four if XPH is on the table) sources and say 'all that you need to play is here.' Compatibility with other material would be important, but then that other material would have to be balanced too. One way to enhance the balance of clerics, druids and wizards is to say that the core spells are their list from which to choose; all others require research, finding them as treasure, or some other measurable cost

Most of the best spells in the game are core. Most of the worst melee characters in the game are core. All saying 'core only' means is that you now have the top tier classes at their best, and the bottom tier classes at their worst and are saying 'work together equally' and are expecting it to work. Um no. Superman outclasses Joe Dirt in every way. They cannot equally contribute to any meaningful situation. Try something more like Batman + Spiderman.

Just to even start such a thing one would have to heavily revamp the entire core rules starting with the casters (which would most likely make them like Beguilers, Dread Necromancers, and Warmages) and the melees (which would most likely make them like the Crusader, the Swordsage, and the Warblade). By the end, the best case scenario is that it worked... but you've just replaced core with a bunch of select non core things which clearly violates the design goal of 'fix core without leaving it' since it completely reversed it by making it 'non core only' instead. See earlier comments about trying to improve can and string with telephones exist and are available. Not to mention you'd have to delete over half the core book by default.

Further, you say ToB is not for you. Well that's fine and all, but the only other alternative is the BSF (that's Big Stupid Fighter). BSFs are low level archetypes, and could be argued to be mid level archetypes (Conan for example doesn't fight anything over CR 9) but it is simply impossible to get them to work as high level archetypes due to the fact there are so many things they are simply incapable of dealing with at this point. Even the weaker high CR enemies tend to be packing at least respectable melee talent, worthwhile SLAs and/or spells, and various defensive measures all at once. BSF cannot keep up, period. The measures required to allow him to keep up make him no longer a BSF and therefore protested against for the same reasons ToB is protested against. In other words, it requires magic or something that feels like magic. I can't believe it's not magic? *shrugs* Point being that it is hopeless due to a Catch 22, and the Gamer's Den covers the BSF a lot better than I can so if you want to see more just look at the thread.

Well, I suppose you could pull a 4.0 and dumb down the game so that everyone is effectively a BSF... I do not consider this a valid solution for the same reason I do not regard smothering a baby because it cried too loud as a viable solution - it technically works in practice, but words cannot describe how much it fails in execution.
Smiting Imbeciles since 1985.

If you hear this music, run.

And don't forget:


There is no greater contribution than Hi Welcome.

Huge amounts of people are fuckwits. That doesn't mean that fuckwit is a valid lifestyle.

IP proofing and avoiding being CAPed OR - how to make characters relevant in the long term.

Friends don't let friends be Short Bus Hobos.

[spoiler]
Sunic may be more abrasive than sandpaper coated in chainsaws (not that its a bad thing, he really does know what he's talking about), but just posting in this thread without warning and telling him he's an asshole which, if you knew his past experiences on WotC and Paizo is flat-out uncalled for. Never mind the insults (which are clearly 4Chan-level childish). You say people like Sunic are the bane of the internet? Try looking at your own post and telling me you are better than him.

Here's a fun fact: You aren't. By a few leagues.
[/spoiler]

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #212 on: August 18, 2008, 03:44:19 PM »
I have to agree with Sunic in that I think fixing a core-only game would be even worse.  Suddenly, you have to do full re-writes of several classes, or at least give them additional abilities to allow them to keep up, in addition to nerfing a lot of spells.

The non-core material allows for more flexibility and power with the non-casters.  Problematic spells can also be nerfed or disallowed.

Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, according to JaronK's tier system, I'm aiming to get the game closer to 3-4.  If you look at a lot of what's been published in the last two years or so, most of it falls in that range.  I like the idea of knowing that a lot of new(ish) options don't need any work.
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

Chemus

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 751
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #213 on: August 18, 2008, 07:05:12 PM »
Ok, I guess I missed the point earlier. I was looking at it in a way that didn't altogether make sense.

So, what I'm hearing is something like: Replace Monk/Paladin/Fighter with Swordsage/Crusader/Warblade, modified for flavor. Replace Wizard with specialists that are more focused, such as beguiler/dread necromancer, et. al. Is that right? I think that we'd need to expand on some of the flavor bits of the more focused casters, and I always liked the generalists best for feel.

As for magic for melee-ers, a feat system allowing a few spells, along with a spellpoint/mana system looks fun and balanced to me.

I think that it's important to fix the broken spells, even if they're not on most classes' lists.

And now I'm rambling. Again.
*waves hand* This is not the sig you're looking for...
The freely downloadable and searchable 3.5 SRD I prefer (Web)
Camlen, Enniwey

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #214 on: August 18, 2008, 07:12:39 PM »
Ok, I guess I missed the point earlier. I was looking at it in a way that didn't altogether make sense.

So, what I'm hearing is something like: Replace Monk/Paladin/Fighter with Swordsage/Crusader/Warblade, modified for flavor. Replace Wizard with specialists that are more focused, such as beguiler/dread necromancer, et. al. Is that right? I think that we'd need to expand on some of the flavor bits of the more focused casters, and I always liked the generalists best for feel.
Well, that's half what I said.  I did say the first part about the monk/paladin/fighter, but I didn't say anything about the casters.  Some other posters have said that the beguiler/dread necro/warmage are all sorcerer fixes.  While I see them as more balanced, I don't want to drop sorcerers in favor of those three classes.

Even still, I'm open to some fixes to the crappy melee classes, but I do see the martial adepts as capable of taking over the role if needed.  Midnight_V posted what I feel is a pretty good fighter fix at first glance.  It's simple and helps get the job done.


I think that it's important to fix the broken spells, even if they're not on most classes' lists.
I fully agree here.  I've been working on a few spells (most posted on the first page now), but I still have others to do.
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

Sunic_Flames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4782
  • The Crusader of Logic.
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #215 on: August 18, 2008, 07:24:46 PM »
Ok, I guess I missed the point earlier. I was looking at it in a way that didn't altogether make sense.

So, what I'm hearing is something like: Replace Monk/Paladin/Fighter with Swordsage/Crusader/Warblade, modified for flavor. Replace Wizard with specialists that are more focused, such as beguiler/dread necromancer, et. al. Is that right? I think that we'd need to expand on some of the flavor bits of the more focused casters, and I always liked the generalists best for feel.

As for magic for melee-ers, a feat system allowing a few spells, along with a spellpoint/mana system looks fun and balanced to me.

I think that it's important to fix the broken spells, even if they're not on most classes' lists.

And now I'm rambling. Again.

I'd say replace Monk and Rogue with Swordsage, Paladin with Crusader, Fighter with Warblade. Maybe also Barbarian > Warblade and Ranger > Swordsage. Or maybe not. Those are at least semi distinctive.

The reason why the big 5 are well... the big 5 is because they are incredibly versatile. Bigger spell lists = more versatility, and the reverse is also true. Limiting casters to being good at... say three schools of magic along the same lines as those specialist casters and having very limited or nonexistent abilities with the others would put them around Tier 3 if done right. Though it'd be easier to just use the three already made ones since anything created from scratch would be almost identical anyways. Flavor is mutable.

Generalists... well they're nice and all, but they simply are better than Tier 3. Unless they do it Bard style, where they're only half decent... then they're about Tier 3-4.
Smiting Imbeciles since 1985.

If you hear this music, run.

And don't forget:


There is no greater contribution than Hi Welcome.

Huge amounts of people are fuckwits. That doesn't mean that fuckwit is a valid lifestyle.

IP proofing and avoiding being CAPed OR - how to make characters relevant in the long term.

Friends don't let friends be Short Bus Hobos.

[spoiler]
Sunic may be more abrasive than sandpaper coated in chainsaws (not that its a bad thing, he really does know what he's talking about), but just posting in this thread without warning and telling him he's an asshole which, if you knew his past experiences on WotC and Paizo is flat-out uncalled for. Never mind the insults (which are clearly 4Chan-level childish). You say people like Sunic are the bane of the internet? Try looking at your own post and telling me you are better than him.

Here's a fun fact: You aren't. By a few leagues.
[/spoiler]

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #216 on: August 18, 2008, 07:25:32 PM »
Ok, I guess I missed the point earlier. I was looking at it in a way that didn't altogether make sense.

So, what I'm hearing is something like: Replace Monk/Paladin/Fighter with Swordsage/Crusader/Warblade, modified for flavor. Replace Wizard with specialists that are more focused, such as beguiler/dread necromancer, et. al. Is that right? I think that we'd need to expand on some of the flavor bits of the more focused casters, and I always liked the generalists best for feel.
Well, that's half what I said.  I did say the first part about the monk/paladin/fighter, but I didn't say anything about the casters.  Some other posters have said that the beguiler/dread necro/warmage are all sorcerer fixes.  While I see them as more balanced, I don't want to drop sorcerers in favor of those three classes.

Even still, I'm open to some fixes to the crappy melee classes, but I do see the martial adepts as capable of taking over the role if needed.  Midnight_V posted what I feel is a pretty good fighter fix at first glance.  It's simple and helps get the job done.


I think that it's important to fix the broken spells, even if they're not on most classes' lists.
I fully agree here.  I've been working on a few spells (most posted on the first page now), but I still have others to do.

I'd like to say leave "grease" and "color spray" be. . . I have a real problem with people attacking them. There have to be spells that work at every level, otherwise what incentive does one have to be a wizard?

  If you have a d4 hit points at low levels everything is a death effect. They need great spells at this level so that they "survive" to god like power.
  I dont' play wizards but basically editing wizards low level spells, you've killed anyone who starts the game at level one, even more than normal. If were gimping the wizard, do it at the top where he's all powerful oz not at the bottom when he's still harry potter.


Also... replace Rogue? I think at that point we've taken the ToB love too far. . . everyone doesn't want to be a martial adept.
Further, rogue is pretty much a class that "works" out of the box. If it ain't broke dont' fix it.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2008, 07:33:16 PM by Midnight_v »
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

RobbyPants

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 7139
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #217 on: August 18, 2008, 07:47:42 PM »
Generalists... well they're nice and all, but they simply are better than Tier 3. Unless they do it Bard style, where they're only half decent... then they're about Tier 3-4.
What do you mean by "bard style"?  Only 6th level spells?


Also... replace Rogue? I think at that point we've taken the ToB love too far. . . everyone doesn't want to be a martial adept.
Further, rogue is pretty much a class that "works" out of the box. If it ain't broke dont' fix it.
Did I accidentilly say "rogue" earlier, or are you talking to someone else?  I like the rogue, and don't think it needs any ToB fixes.  What I did post on the 1st page was a suggestion by someone else: let the rogue deal 1/2 Sneak Attack damage to creatures immune to crits.  This makes the rogue a little less "all or nothing."
My balancing 3.5 compendium
Elemental mage test game

Quotes
[spoiler]
Quote from: Cafiend
It is a shame stupidity isn't painful.
Quote from: StormKnight
Totally true.  Historians believe that most past civilizations would have endured for centuries longer if they had successfully determined Batman's alignment.
Quote from: Grand Theft Otto
Why are so many posts on the board the equivalent of " Dear Dr. Crotch, I keep punching myself in the crotch, and my groin hurts... what should I do? How can I make my groin stop hurting?"
Quote from: CryoSilver
I suggest carving "Don't be a dick" into him with a knife.  A dull, rusty knife.  A dull, rusty, bent, flaming knife.
Quote from: Seerow
Fluffy: It's over Steve! I've got the high ground!
Steve: You underestimate my power!
Fluffy: Don't try it, Steve!
Steve: *charges*
Fluffy: *three critical strikes*
Steve: ****
Quote from: claypigeons
I don't even stat out commoners. Commoner = corpse that just isn't a zombie. Yet.
Quote from: CryoSilver
When I think "Old Testament Boots of Peace" I think of a paladin curb-stomping an orc and screaming "Your death brings peace to this land!"
Quote from: Orville_Oaksong
Buy a small country. Or Pelor. Both are good investments.
[/spoiler]

Sunic_Flames

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4782
  • The Crusader of Logic.
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #218 on: August 18, 2008, 08:00:32 PM »
He was talking to me. Bard style is they can do a bit of everything like a generalist wizard, but not as effectively as a generalist wizard. So for example they cast spells, but not as well as a focused caster. That could be 6th level spells as a cap but a broader selection, it could be fewer spells per day and/or slower progression of spell levels and such...

So for example they might get to cast anything that is a wizard spell, but they gain a new spell level every 3 levels instead of two. Which means at level 17, generalist has 6th level spells of any type, specialist has 9th level spells. Course by 25, the generalist would be super wizard level but by then the game has committed acts of terrorism against balance. That, and how many actually play epic? At 20, generalist is still lacking 8th and 9th level spells.

As for Rogues, in their current form they are very binary so as to be a weak Tier 4 at best. SA is very binary, stealth is very binary, and their other skills are either done better by others (Bards do Diplomacy and such better because of a higher Charisma for example combined with abilities to build on those), are quickly replaced (movement skills > flight), or some other such reason that makes them only a step above the BSF when it comes to out of combat effectiveness while being roughly as dubious in combat.
Smiting Imbeciles since 1985.

If you hear this music, run.

And don't forget:


There is no greater contribution than Hi Welcome.

Huge amounts of people are fuckwits. That doesn't mean that fuckwit is a valid lifestyle.

IP proofing and avoiding being CAPed OR - how to make characters relevant in the long term.

Friends don't let friends be Short Bus Hobos.

[spoiler]
Sunic may be more abrasive than sandpaper coated in chainsaws (not that its a bad thing, he really does know what he's talking about), but just posting in this thread without warning and telling him he's an asshole which, if you knew his past experiences on WotC and Paizo is flat-out uncalled for. Never mind the insults (which are clearly 4Chan-level childish). You say people like Sunic are the bane of the internet? Try looking at your own post and telling me you are better than him.

Here's a fun fact: You aren't. By a few leagues.
[/spoiler]

Bier

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Balancing 3.5
« Reply #219 on: August 18, 2008, 08:07:24 PM »
Fr Midnight:
If you insist on making Sab a viable choice, it has to be done by "empowering" sword and board, not attacking other combat styles and weaking them.

Well, I agree...to an extent.  The problem is that the current game 'gave away' the benefit of SAB...the SHield AC, via Animated Shields and Improved Buckler defense.  Take both of those out, and SAB's superior AC begins to tell.

Power Attack and Strength damage isn't about weakening the other styles so much as balancing them out.  how much damage exactly is 'better dmg'? How much more should you be entitled to for not using a shield? Twice as much damage?  Because that's right about where it is now.

If you look at it as a Feat, using a Two Handed Weapon should net you the exact same kind of damage as using Two Weapons.  2 Shortswords = 2d6.  Greatsword = 2d6.  Let TWF have the enhancement bonus on the off hand to offset the -2 penalty to hit.  So at higher levels it's  2 shortswords+5 = 2d6+10 vs Greatsword +5 at 2d6+5.  I'd also allow the second hand to attack once for every primary hand attack allowed, so you could use that off hand on a charge even at level 1.   Spend exactly ONE feat to enable your off hand to attack as many times as your primary (Improved two weapon fighting), and cost wise, we are good to go.


Though honestly, I think the idea as an archtype, has issues...
TWF needs extra damage...

No more then Greatsword does.  The proper question is, how much? right now, the 'how much' is completely overblown.

What does Sword and Board need to make it stroger on it's own? If the only thing you can think of is "Weaken or remove the other optoins" something is wrong wit S&B as a concept sir.

On it's own?  Well, the exclusivity of Shield AC would almost solve the problem.  COunting Shields for Touch AC would be another huge step, and maybe counting it for Reflex saves.  Do that and the defensive benefits of the Shield start becoming VERY serious considerations.
It won't, however, stop the problem of the one shot Uber Charge, which is the main reason for correcting Power Attack.


Sorry about the lazy comment, I meant more to say that its not uncomplicated to fix he fighter...
 Many many ways to do it, without signifigantly doing a complete re-write.
Add manuevers on the off levels is another easy fix + full initiator level.

Lets explore that as a quick fix.
Chose 2 schools. Gain 2 manuevers (one from each school) every odd level starting at 3rd.
You do not gain stances but you can take the martial study feat. No recovery method.
 Alternatively, you learn, from 1 school and at every level you learn all manuevers available at that school your initiator level is your fighter level -3 I think that works.
That and expanding the skills. So you still get the dipability and you're doing everything you should be doing

So... the fighter would be
Quote
The Fighter
1 Feat
2 Feat
3 1st level manuevers
4 Feat
5 2nd Level Manuevers
6 Feat
7 3rd Level Manuevers
8 Feat
9 4th level Manuevers
10 Feat.
11. Level 5 Manuevers
12 Feat
13 Level 6 Manuevers
14 Feat
15 Level 7 Manuevers
16 Feat
17 Level 8 Manuevers
18 Feat.
19 Level 9 Manuevers
20. Feat
Which is the most simple and obvious fix suggested by many when the Tob cam out.

This is VERY interesting.  The Level-3 you can strike, as it won't fit your manuver progression.  No recovery method means you have to blow a feat on it.  No stances, but you can take Martial Stance.  By picking your schools you pick your focus right out of the gate...the schools have very different styles to them.

The Schools average about 2 manuvers/level.  Effectively, you are giving a Fighter ~+36 feats!!!  that would, of course, do wonders for their viability, but, wow,the record keeping.

I would probably do it this way:

At the indicated levels, you can choose one manuver from each of the schools you have chosen.  These manuvers are considered both Readied and Known.  Your IL is your Fighter Level.  You do not have a class recovery mechanic.

At level 4 and every even level afterwards, you may swap out a lower level manuver in your school for a higher level one that you qualify for.  (This means you can swap out low level stuff for high level stuff.  It's the KEY feature of the Martial Adepts for manuvers known.)

You may use the feat Martial Stance as if you had Martial Study in your schools Known.


In terms of record keeping, you'll end up with +18 feats...9 manuvers from each school. However, by allowing the swap, all of these manuvers are going to be effective ones.  This lack of ability to swap up is one of the key weaknesses of Fighters getting feats vs. Manuvers.

As an analog, this is like getting weapon focus at level 1, then at level 12 swapping it for Greater weapon specialization...and all the feats in the chain below it.  This is what martial adepts do with manuvers.  It's extremely strong and often overlooked.  If Fighters could do the same with feats, they'd actually be able to complete numerous feat trees.


Quote
I've always been a fan of the opposed roll for diplomacy, but it can't be the same roll as intimidate, since size factors into intimidate. Take that out and you're on the right track.

I also like that someone will not vastly differ from their original intent. Much like how bluff works. Sure you seem to be telling the truth but if they watched you, it doesn't actually change their mind. They just think you're crazy

On diplomacy, someone started a thread on rich burlews fix.
I think that it has some merit.

Basically, however it's fixed one of the main things is to set up an opposed roll.
We don't want to kill diplomancers, just make them not as absolute.
Initimidate shoud be the model. Size might not factor in but something has to factor in. Creauture type for example.
You know, can't diplomacy undead and abberations are unreasonable.
Maybe by, alignment difference. They just need to get modifiers for it also, something else instead of size.

So diplomancy still works just not as well as before.


I honestly don't know how to truly 'fix' skills without having ranks permit/allow you to do certain stuff.  Ranks are controllable...you get them by level, and that's it.  Hitting DC's is abusable.  It's all about stacking bonuses, and people are VERY inventive about that.  Burlew's fix of higher DC's is a band-aid.  It just means you go looking for more bonuses...and bonuses are cheap.

Das Bier!