|
Sorry to interrupt this mini-grogchat, but is there a feat that will let a cleric prepare domain spells in his regular slots? Our party doesn't have a wizard, but they do have an alchemist and a witch, so I was going to emulate one tiny aspect of a wizard's glory by taking the fire domain just as a precaution in case we fight, like, a swarm of ice elementals.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
Strontosaurus posted:Sorry to interrupt this mini-grogchat, but is there a feat that will let a cleric prepare domain spells in his regular slots? Our party doesn't have a wizard, but they do have an alchemist and a witch, so I was going to emulate one tiny aspect of a wizard's glory by taking the fire domain just as a precaution in case we fight, like, a swarm of ice elementals. This isn't exactly what you asked, but the Theologian archetype allows it: quote:A theologian chooses only one domain from her deity’s portfolio rather than the normal two domains. All level-dependent effects of the granted powers from the theologian’s domain function as if she were two cleric levels higher than her actual cleric level. This does not allow her to gain domain-granted powers earlier than normal. A theologian can prepare domain spells using her non-domain slots. She cannot use her spontaneous casting ability on domain spells, even if they are prepared in non-domain slots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:You are working under some a priori assumptions about whate level 20 is like. Sure, if you want to play a game of demigods, everyone should level up as demigods together. I don't think we actually disagree about that at all. I feel like, in making your case for parity between the classes, you are refusing any room for disagreement on specific aesthetic or mechanical preferences as to how to go about that. In my view, if level 20 fighter is Hercules, something has gone wrong if at level 10, the characters were Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, and Conan. We're working under the assumptions of what level 20 is like because we have the level 20 wizard to compare to. At level 20, wizards are literally demigods. They can reshape reality entirely three times a day. They can create their own planes of existence. They can stop time itself. I'm going to agree with what others said - you both a) don't want to play D&D, you want to play Mage or Ars Magica, and b) don't really understand what high level means. See we aren't comparing fighters to some nebulous ideal that doesn't exist. We're comparing them to the current level 20 as it exists in Pathfinder. And that level 20 involves demigod wizards. So what do fighters get in return?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:This isn't exactly what you asked, but the Theologian archetype allows it: That's pretty legit. Thanks, paws.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 00:08
|
|
|
It's not just a question of comparison to the existing level 20: all the things pawsplay described for "what should a level 20 fighter be able to do" are things that the system currently pegs as appropriate to a level 8-10 character. If the things a level 20 fighter can do are the same as the things a level 10 fighter can do, what exactly does it mean to increase things by ten levels?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
This is specifically 3.5, but in PHB2 the cleric options included a rule for swapping out your ability to spontaneously cast cure spells for instead spontaneously casting domain spells from one of your domains. Slightly different option, but sounds like it might be even closer to what you want, if you can use 3.5 material.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
To point out the whole "older editions being better balanced," look at Wish. In 3e Wish costs experience points which are almost never an actual cost because of how experience works. And it does just about anything, but you have to word your wish carefully. In 2e Wish costs you five years off your life. Right off the bad. Because it's a level 9 spell it can only be cast by humans, who don't have a lot of years to spend, and MANY other spells also age you, as do many monsters, so casting Wish literally brings you closer to dying. Secondly, unless you're using Wish to raise the dead, heal damage, or teleport away, after casting the spell you both immidiately lose strength and you're rendered useless for days as you immidiately require bed rest. Lastly, the standard "DM should totally dick you over" part still applies. The end result is that pre-3e Wish was really loving dangerous because, as a wizard, dying of old age was actually a worry. By the time you even got to level 9 spells, with various other monsters and spells that age you, you likely weren't exactly a spring chicken. Even beyond that, casting Wish made you very vulnerable for days after casting it, so it's not something you could do halfway through the adventure without worry unless you were really, really sure you'd be fine afterwards. This is something that happened a lot in 3e. 3e was all about opening up the game. After all, it was moving to what was meant to be the universal D20. It was going into the free for all OGL. They wanted everything to be vague and open ended and easy to use, especially spells. So racial limitations on classes were gone, racial level limits were gone, etc. On the other hand, it meant that most of the drawbacks to spellcasting were removed, while most of the class abilities meant for non-casters were made universal. Leadership stopped being a fighters-only thing and opened up to everyone. Multiple attacks stopped being a warrior-class-only thing. Not only did the ranger's animal companion get given to the druid, it was explicitly made into a weaker version of it. So non-casters lost a lot. Casters, on the other hand, gained defensive casting, concentration, and metamagic. So suddenly spellcasters have incredible durability in comparison. Magic items also lose their warriors-only tags, so now spellcasters have a lot more magic items to supplement their spells. And items are now purchasable with a set number, so that ensures they get the items they want. But worst of all were the changes to spells. Rope Trick went from lasting ten minutes a level to lasting an hour a level. Wish and Gate and ever other aging spell lost their aging costs. Pre-3e, Forcecage had to essentially be pre-cast; part of memorizing it involved tracing out the area of the cage with the powdered diamond dust. You couldn't just throw it at people you didn't like at whim. So what you have is a game system where the emphasis is on open ended class development...except for spell casting, which stays as a powerful class ability. And that class ability was made much, much more powerful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
Further evidence Paizo seriously doesn't get their own game: SKR thinks rogues are actually overpowered if they constantly get sneak attack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Further evidence Paizo seriously doesn't get their own game: SKR thinks rogues are actually overpowered if they constantly get sneak attack. How does this man still have a job?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 02:18
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:How does this man still have a job? He designs for people who either (a) are really bad at mechanics, or (b) care more about whether a fighter jumps too high for versimilationism than about whether the fighter is any good at anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
He's complaining that sneak attacking outdoes a feat that gives +2 to damage. While he's right, the problem seems more that Weapon Specialization is a seriously eh feat, especially at higher levels. But instead of raising the fighter up, he's got to take everything down, which makes me wonder exactly how they expect to have fights at higher levels when a dragon has hundreds and hundreds of HP. This isn't 2e, where a big dragon had maybe 200 HP, so a fighter getting +2 to damage with a proficiency point was a thing. HP exploded with 3e, direct damage stuff did not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:Sure, but those swaths aren't D&D, which has explicitly had Fighting Men as heroic protagonists since day one. If a version of D&D is implemented so as to make Fighting Men not be heroic protagonists, that's a failure of implementation, not a true implementation of the genre. Hey, not, the beauty of Mage is that I can totally play a jock who casts spells via headbutting the primal energies of the world into the way I want them to behave if I want to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:There are entire swaths of the fantasy genre where "guy who uses a sword and has no magic powers" is not a viable heroic type. If I were writing a Harry Potter game, and someone said, "I want to be a muggle," I'd be like, "That could be tricky to pull off." Honestly a muggle could do a pretty good job against a Harry Potter style wizard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
Fighters are muggles. A deliberate trap option that nobody with any degree of system mastery picks 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 12:13
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:Fighters are muggles. No really, "guy with a sword" is an extremely dangerous threat in Harry Potter land. Magic is short ranged and can be dodged, and most wizards stance in place and try to blast. Also Harry Potter wizards don't really have a ton of protective spells, fight with easily breakable wands, and need their brooms to fly, so they could be taken down quite easily by a sword (not even getting into how much damage someone with a gun could do!)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 13:50
|
|
|
A Harry Potter wizard can just hover out of reach on a broom and kill any number of swordsmen without risk. Avada Kedavra is an at-will in the Harry Potter universe. Add an invisibility cloak and erratic movement between casts for extra fun. (I cannot believe I am having this conversation.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 16:00
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:A Harry Potter wizard can just hover out of reach on a broom and kill any number of swordsmen without risk. Avada Kedavra is an at-will in the Harry Potter universe. A broom is great and all, but the swordsman could just go inside and then the broom guy has no advantage. Avada Kedavra is an inaccurate short slow rate of fire gun that doesn't instantly kill you. A wizard in an ambush situation might get one or two in a surprise attack, but he would be quickly cut down by a small number of regular soldiers. On the other hand, a swordsman who ambushes wizards would similarly be able to take down several of them, and they might even take some of themselves out with friendly fire if he gets among them. If we are talking about modern weaponry, an invisibility cloak doesn't stop a grenade, and may even not work against infrared. Spells require speaking at a reasonable tone (unless one is quite skilled), so they could be heard as well. You would also have to have your wand arm outside the invisibility cloak to shoot, and Avadra Kedavra is easy to spot, so a burst of full auto from the squad machine gun would take someone in an invisibility cloak down easily. Also invisibility cloaks are incredible rare and wizards are also rare and take years to train, whereas anyone can be a soldier in a matter of months. Also this isn't even getting into the advantage modern weaponry has in terms of long range and area affect weaponry, and C3 technology. Edit: I suppose wizards might have the advantage of mobility in terms of the Floo network, but it relies on having gates at both ends and can only transport smaller objects - though possibly the fireplace could be made bigger. And wizards have an advantage in terms of disguises, since they can turn into other people or animals, so security would need to be at very high levels. Piell fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Oct 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 16:17
|
|
|
With all the fighter discussion going on here, I'd like to ask the opinions of people that have better skill with mechanics than I do: What about FrankTrollman's fighter revamp? I know he can be extremely grognardy, but his mechanical stuff seems solid to me, though I've never been a great judge of that. I've been using what's basically just a merger of the PF fighter and his custom fighter since if nothing else, it at least feels like a vast improvement. But I'd love a second opinion. For reference, it's the fighter class found here. And when I say merger I mean just giving the fighter this set of mechanics with the PF class abilities on top of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 17:59
|
|
|
Idran posted:I know [Frank Trollman] can be extremely grognardy, but his mechanical stuff seems solid to me, though I've never been a great judge of that. Paging Evil Mastermind to the Pathfinder thread. (I haven't read this particular thing, but Frank does not understand game design, so I would not in the least be surprised if it's awful.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
It's still not as good as a caster but it's not awful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
Idran posted:With all the fighter discussion going on here, I'd like to ask the opinions of people that have better skill with mechanics than I do: What about FrankTrollman's fighter revamp? I know he can be extremely grognardy, but his mechanical stuff seems solid to me, though I've never been a great judge of that. I've been using what's basically just a merger of the PF fighter and his custom fighter since if nothing else, it at least feels like a vast improvement. But I'd love a second opinion. Foil action lets a fighter perma-lockdown a single enemy with basically no chance of failure, and greater combat focus means he can kick out of one effect per round. Everything else is "he attacks better", which is alright but making attacks is one of the less useful thing you can do in combat. It's more useful than a regular fighter for sure, but it doesn't really get to do anything interesting. Piell fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Oct 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
Idran posted:With all the fighter discussion going on here, I'd like to ask the opinions of people that have better skill with mechanics than I do: What about FrankTrollman's fighter revamp? I know he can be extremely grognardy, but his mechanical stuff seems solid to me, though I've never been a great judge of that. I've been using what's basically just a merger of the PF fighter and his custom fighter since if nothing else, it at least feels like a vast improvement. But I'd love a second opinion. Or you could just use Tome of Battle, which is better-rounded, better-balanced, and more fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 18:39
|
|
|
Idran posted:With all the fighter discussion going on here, I'd like to ask the opinions of people that have better skill with mechanics than I do: What about FrankTrollman's fighter revamp? I know he can be extremely grognardy, but his mechanical stuff seems solid to me, though I've never been a great judge of that. I've been using what's basically just a merger of the PF fighter and his custom fighter since if nothing else, it at least feels like a vast improvement. But I'd love a second opinion. Foil Action looks like a nightmare to adjudicate. If you're throwing sand, does your hand have to be empty? Can you foil things through a Wall of Fire? It definitely addresses the issue of fighters having something awesome to do, but I don't think it actually answer the question, and is totally abusable against low touch AC opponents (like dragons). Combat Focus and Greater Combat Focus have about the right idea. The rest is just pre-selected feats, when it comes down to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
Idran posted:With all the fighter discussion going on here, I'd like to ask the opinions of people that have better skill with mechanics than I do: What about FrankTrollman's fighter revamp? I know he can be extremely grognardy, but his mechanical stuff seems solid to me, though I've never been a great judge of that. I've been using what's basically just a merger of the PF fighter and his custom fighter since if nothing else, it at least feels like a vast improvement. But I'd love a second opinion. You could build a not-terrible fighter class out of the movement powers, Lunging Attack, and Combat Focus. However, note that this is really intended to be played with other Tome material (look at Great Shields, Combat feats, command rating...), and most of the Tome material I've seen is somewhere between lackluster and bad. Even beyond the Pathfinder conversion, this does need tweaking to fix its Tome heritage. I'd still prefer a Warblade, personally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2011 22:09
|
|
|
I have to admit, I'm actually completely ignorant of Tome of Battle. I mean, I know the name, but that's all, I literally have no idea what's in it besides what people have talked about so far in this thread. What is a Warblade?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 02:09
|
|
|
Two different things, both with "Tome" in the name here. "Tome of Battle: Book of the 9 Swords" is an awesome 3.5 supplement that has very interesting fighter classes that use maneuvers that they ready and execute in combat to have more flexibility in effects. Some people don't like it, because they disagree with some of the fluff, which is fair enough. One of the classes in this book is Warblade, which I like as a Fighter substitute. Then there's another Tome-something that Frank Trollman wrote; it's a 3.5 hack that really isn't very good, aside from the Fighter hack you posted a little bit ago. I do like that one. It's supposed to be in "Races of War"; I'm not completely sure why Tome gets used in association with that, but on the D&D Wiki, all his classes for this are marked "Fighter (tome)", "Samurai (tome)", or the like. Basically Tome gets used too much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
Idran posted:I have to admit, I'm actually completely ignorant of Tome of Battle. I mean, I know the name, but that's all, I literally have no idea what's in it besides what people have talked about so far in this thread. What is a Warblade? Working from memory: Swordsage - A medium-BAB monk-ish class (but can use weapons well) that has the best and earliest access to multiple schools and the best maneuver refresh mechanic Crusader - Medium-BAB fighter/paladin/templar type with a terrible refresh mechanic. Warblade - Sort of a fighter/barbarian full BAB mashup with a more limited use of maneuvers, and some really nice save and defense abilities. The Warblade is about on-par with a fighter or barbarian in melee, and while it doesn't have much going on for it in ranged combat, ends to come out looking a little better than a fighter because it gets four skill points and isn't reliant on poor saves. The whole book basically posits a "maneuever" system where you have a certain number of powers on hand, almost like a deck of cards. If you're familiar with 4e it's very close in concept to encounter powers, but if you've played Star Wars Saga Edition, you know exactly what I'm talking about because it works like Force powers work in SWSE. Flavorwise, it's all over the place, but it ranges from about Gladiator on the less-magical side to some crazy Naruto stuff on the over-the-top side. It averages out to basically adding Salt (the Angelina Jolie character) and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon to your game. Some of it is sort of re-mixy, like turning Wee Jas cultists into kung fu mages, which is pretty rad. The title ("Book of Nine Swords") refers to an appendix of marginally related magical items in the back with a wuxia-ish flavor, using the Weapons of Legacy (worst book ever put out for 3e) rules. pawsplay fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Oct 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 14:51
|
|
|
So I'm reading the FantasyCraft thread (since it's one of those games I'd love to try), and someone points out that there's more FC discussion in this thread. So I decide to check this thread out, never having looked at it before. I go to the last page, scroll up, and what do I see?OpenlyEvilJello posted:Paging Evil Mastermind to the Pathfinder thread. (I haven't read this particular thing, but Frank does not understand game design, so I would not in the least be surprised if it's awful.)  e: Oh god, I'm the resident expert on Frank now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 15:50
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:Working from memory: The Crusader actually has the best maneuver refresh mechanic because all of your maneuvers are great and you never need to use an action to refresh, you just keep getting them back. quote:Warblade - Sort of a fighter/barbarian full BAB mashup with a more limited use of maneuvers, and some really nice save and defense abilities. Desert Wind and Shadow Hand are the magic-y ones. Desert Wind is all about fire, Shadow Hand is all about shadows (plus some miscellaneous sneaky stuff). Killing people with shadows, teleporting through shadows, etc. These are Swordsage-exclusive--the Swordsage is somewhere between a monk and a fighter-mage in default flavor. Devoted Spirit is the divine-y one. It's Crusader-exclusive. Crusader = paladin. It heals you as you fight, has some smite type stuff, and so on. Also some protect-your-friends stuff. Diamond Mind is about precision and awareness. Precise strikes, additional movement, a stance that gives blindsense, etc. Available to Warblades and Swordsages. Iron Heart is about being a BIG TOUGH GUY WHO IS SUPER HARDCORE UNF. Shake off effects, parry stuff, hit people hard. It's Warblade-exclusive. Setting Sun is super-judo. Throw people around all day err day, plus some follow-their-movement stuff. It's Swordsage-exclusive. Stone Dragon is about being 'ARD AS ROCK and hitting things with single hard hits that ignore DR. Everyone gets it. Tiger Claw is about being ANGRY and POUNCING and getting EXTRA ATTACKS and JUMPING ON PEOPLE, and possibly having two weapons. Warblades and Swordsages get it. White Raven is the 4E Warlord. quote:The Warblade is about on-par with a fighter or barbarian in melee, and while it doesn't have much going on for it in ranged combat, ends to come out looking a little better than a fighter because it gets four skill points and isn't reliant on poor saves. quote:using the Weapons of Legacy (worst book ever put out for 3e) rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 15:54
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:The Swordsage has the worst maneuver refresh mechanic because they have to waste a full-round action on it--and that's *with* a feat. They get to prepare more maneuvers, though. Hm, well I didn't mean least optimal, I meant most painful to actually use in play. quote:Don't be ridiculous, you're forgetting the Epic Level Handbook and maybe Savage Species. Savage Species gets a pass from me, because I've actually used material from it. While SS may be pretty poor, overall, it actually has some utility. Since any utility at all puts it above WoL, SS wins. You may have a point about the ELH, though. Still, the ELH only has the potential to ruin a small subset of campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 16:38
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:Hm, well I didn't mean least optimal, I meant most painful to actually use in play. quote:You may have a point about the ELH, though. Still, the ELH only has the potential to ruin a small subset of campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 17:22
|
|
|
I don't know, Deities & Demigods was pretty bad. It was basically a monster manual for 40th level characters, and the only time I've ever seen it used is in ridiculous builds like Pun-Pun. Faiths & Pantheons at least offered prestige classes for normal people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
LightWarden posted:I don't know, Deities & Demigods was pretty bad. It was basically a monster manual for 40th level characters, and the only time I've ever seen it used is in ridiculous builds like Pun-Pun. Faiths & Pantheons at least offered prestige classes for normal people. Deities & Demigods actually offered some decent advice on writing up pantheons, and useful takes on classical mythology. If you just ignore the "monster manual" part, it's actually a pretty good read.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 17:48
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:More broadly, Idran, there are nine "schools": Desert Wind, Devoted Spirit, Diamond Mind, Iron Heart, Setting Sun, Shadow Hand, Stone Dragon, Tiger Claw, and White Raven. Aha, that does sound pretty neat, I'll have to hop on eBay or something and pick that up. Actually I do sort of know Swordsage now that you mention it, I remember playing in a game with one once. Also if nothing else I do have to give ELH credit for Union. If only because I'm a big Planescape fan, and it gives me a reason why the Mercane hate even stepping foot in Sigil: the competition! (In seriousness though, scale down the stupid epic-level stuff they included in it and Union is a cool idea for a city. The rest of the book is certainly dumb, though.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 21:29
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:I'm not sure why the crusader's mechanic is painful--you get a steady stream of maneuvers coming in. You're guaranteed to always have something really good. I can sympathize with disliking the crusader's mechanic on the basis that it's really metagamey, though - even with the "divine inspiration" thing (but it's not actually divine, for some reason) it's still really blatantly a deck of cards as opposed to the "prepare, discharge, recharge" method that the others use. When I think about it lately I feel like ToB might have been a tighter book both thematically and mechanically by ditching the crusader and moving the tank-critical stuff (Iron Guard's Glare, Thicket of Blades, probably some I'm forgetting) to Iron Heart. The swordsage and warblade each fill in for a variety of martial archetypes based on what styles and maneuvers you pick - the warblade can be a T3 fighter, barbarian or marshal, the swordsage can be a T3 monk, assassin, or ranger, and so on. (A ranger could punch at T3, but only very specific builds, and they weren't very "ranger-feeling" - a mystic wildshape sword of the arcane order isn't exactly a martial character at that point.) The crusader is filling in for a class whose concept is inherently a mix of magical and martial, the paladin, and honestly the paladin already had quite good non-flavor-binding support by that point in 3.5's lifecycle. It also fills in for the knight, but that's mainly because the tank stances were arbitrarily given to Devoted Spirit (they even have Iron Heart-flavored names, for crying out loud). On top of all that, the crusader uses a wacky deck-of-cards refresh mechanic that doesn't play sensibly with the PrCs, it has a messed-up maneuver/stance progression so that you have to multiclass to ever qualify for some stances, and the class and its unique school both have a bizarre "oh, it's divine magic but not really (but really it is (but not really))" thing going on, with blatantly supernatural effects that they didn't bother to give the supernatural tag that Desert Wind and Shadow Hand got stuck with. Basically, once the idea that crusader doesn't quite fit cropped up in my brain the whole thing just starts looking more and more like an afterthought because they felt like they had to have a third class. (what this thread's title isn't Tome Of Battle: On The 9th Sword It Rose Again? what are you talking about)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 21:43
|
|
|
Benly posted:I can sympathize with disliking the crusader's mechanic on the basis that it's really metagamey, though - even with the "divine inspiration" thing (but it's not actually divine, for some reason) it's still really blatantly a deck of cards as opposed to the "prepare, discharge, recharge" method that the others use. The Crusader is a solid class of its own, with class features and maneuvers that work well together. It's the Paladin to the Swordsage's Monk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
LogicNinja posted:I'm not. Even if you don't buy the "divine inspiration" bit, "you can randomly use and not use some of these" is frankly as good an approximation of "opportunities to do things arise and disappear in combat" as anything else. Indeed, as I note it is the paladin to the Swordsage's monk, ranger, and assassin. I'm not saying it's a mechanically weak class, I'm saying it feels out of place and that the "deck of cards" mechanic feels awkward (which is, granted, a matter of personal taste) and doesn't always play well with the mechanics of the rest of the book (see also using PrCs to get more maneuvers granted than known). But that's cool, I don't expect a response to more than the first sentence of my posts at this point anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
Chalk me up as another who found crusader's mechanic kinda awkward. On the other hand, I mostly play/played online, so that contributed to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
I really liked the Crusader's refresh mechanic. It was cool finding out which powers you had available this turn and prevented constantly spamming the same power. Plus getting the perfect power at the perfect time and turning a fight around was exciting. Swordsage's was the worst, because if you wanted your maneuvers back you had to spend a whole turn sitting around doing nothing, and that's boring as poo poo. Also martial maneuvers aren't much like SWSE Force powers, beyond being tracked on a per-encounter basis. For one thing, martial maneuvers were much easier to recharge, and could be recharged indefinitely. Recharging a Force power required spending a resource that you received on a per-level basis. Also you could buy multiple uses of the same Force power in an encounter (with a 16 Wisdom, you could get three uses of Force Choke for one feat). Lastly, the Force is really OP, and ToB maneuvers are (mostly) pretty well-balanced.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
Force powers were weird, because at level 1 they were laughably overpowered, and at level 20 they were garbage. It lead to this really, really bizarre situation where jedi started off as supremely powerful force wizards and ended as lightsaber monkeys.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2011 03:30
|
|