The Campaign Builder's Guild

Hey everyone,

So last week I put together a discussion thread on my interests in tweaking the Pathfinder class list, which turned into a fairly long and complicated discussion that branched off in multiple directions. Then Polycarp and I got talking in the IRC channel, and he mentioned some totally freakin' awesome house rules he used for his Pathfinder games, intended for use with another freakin' awesome ruleset for alternative magic called Spheres of Power (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/). We've decided to do some collaboration, so this will be our discussion thread. Below is a copy & paste of his document, spiffed up a bit to help make it easier to read:

Polycarp's House Rules

Advancement

• The level cap is 6.  Experience gained after that level earns bonus (“epic”) feats rather than further levels.
• We will be using a single base ability array for all characters: 15, 13, 13, 11, 11, 9.
• Characters gain a +1 bonus to an ability of their choice on every even-numbered level (that is, at 2nd, 4th, and 6th) rather than every four levels.  (This compels a choice between raising one ability modifier by +2 or three ability modifiers by +1)
• Characters have maximum hit points for their first level, and average hit points rounded down for every level thereafter.
• All classes are considered favored classes for all characters at all times.

Core Mechanics

• Characters no longer receive iterative attacks from BAB.  Instead, a character with a BAB of +6 may make an additional attack at his highest base attack bonus as part of a full attack action in exchange for a -2 penalty to all attacks that round.  Both the additional attack and the penalty stack with bonus attacks and penalties from two-weapon fighting.
• When wielding a light weapon, characters can choose to apply their Dexterity modifier to both attack and damage rolls instead of their Strength modifier.
• Characters add either Dexterity or Strength to their CMB, whichever is higher.

Bonus Feats

• All characters with a BAB of +1 or greater receive Power Attack and Deadly Aim as bonus feats, regardless of whether they meet any prerequisites for these feats.
• Characters receive Master Craftsman as a bonus feat at 5th level, provided that they meet the prerequisites at that time.
• All characters with a BAB of +6 receive Vital Strike as a bonus feat.

Feat Revisions

• Feats which have a requirement of BAB +8 or Fighter level 8 instead require BAB +6 or Fighter level 6, respectively.
• “Improved” combat maneuver feats no longer have any prerequisites.  Any prerequisites removed in this way are also no longer required for any feats which have an “Improved” combat maneuver feat as a prerequisite.  For purposes of this revision, “combat maneuver” includes using the Bluff skill to feint.
• Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization benefit all weapons within the same weapon group instead of individual weapons (see Fighter’s Weapon Training ability for a list of weapon groups).
  Feats that have Power Attack as a prerequisite no longer do, nor do they require Str 13 if they did previously.
• Dodge and Mobility have been merged.  The new Dodge feat requires Dex 13 and grants a +1 dodge bonus to AC and a further +4 dodge bonus to AC against attacks of opportunity provoked by moving into or out of a threatened area.  Feats which formerly required Dodge and Mobility now only require Dodge.
• Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot have been merged.  The new Precise Shot feat grants a +1 bonus to attack and damage with ranged weapons within 30 feet, and also removes the -4 attack penalty for shooting into melee.  Feats which formerly required Point-Blank shot and/or Precise Shot now only require Precise Shot.
• Combat Expertise has been removed.  Feats which required Combat Expertise no longer do, nor do they require Int 13 if they did formerly.
• Weapon Finesse has been removed.  Feats that have Weapon Finesse as a prerequisite no longer do.
• Piranha Strike has been removed.
• Agile Maneuvers has been removed.
• Fury’s Fall has been removed.
• Dervish Dance has been removed.
• Exotic Weapon Proficiency has been removed (see Equipment).
• Classes/archetypes that give a bonus feat which has been removed (e.g. the Lore Warden and Combat Expertise) instead give a bonus combat feat of the player’s choice.

Skills

• At character creation, PCs receive 1 bonus skill point.  This skill point can only be spent on a Craft or Profession skill, presumably reflecting the character’s prior occupation.
• Perception is no longer a skill.  Instead, characters and creatures make Perception rolls by rolling 1d20 and adding their Wisdom modifier and their character level.  (For reference, this is identical to a situation in which all characters max out Perception but do not have it as a class skill).  Feats, spells, and class abilities which would modify Perception skill checks instead modify this new Perception roll.

Traits

• Traits will not be used, and the Additional Traits feat has been removed.
• I have toyed with the idea of custom traits as special rewards as characters advance and become more fleshed out.  No final word on this, but I’m thinking about it.

Equipment

• All exotic weapons are removed, because they are by and large gimmicky, pointless, nonsensical, thematically inappropriate, or some combination of these.  The whip, bola, lasso, and net are now martial weapons instead.
• The whip is considered to be a light weapon.
• The spear may be used as a one-handed weapon by a character with Martial Weapon Proficiency with no penalty.  Other characters may also use the spear one-handed but are treated as non-proficient while doing so.
• Blunt arrows do not exist.  It hurts me that this is a thing I have to write.

Epic Characters

• As noted, characters who reach level 6 receive bonus feats instead of gaining further levels.  These can be normal feats, but special “epic” feats unavailable to non-epic characters will also be posted if the game makes it this far.
• Some class abilities received at 7th or 8th level (e.g. a barbarian’s DR 1/-) will be available to single-class characters as epic feats.  Lower-level abilities may similarly be available to multiclass characters.

CRAZY ADDENDUM: ATTACK MANEUVERS


Combat maneuvers are sad.  Not only do they require large feat investments to get working, but they’re often less effective than simply dealing damage.


Combat classes can also be sad – a common complaint is that some martial classes simply have nothing to do every round except say “I attack.”  Even those that build their characters for maneuvers typically can’t attempt more than one or two; the feat investment is otherwise simply too high.


Fortunately, each of these issues recommends a solution to the other, which in this game takes the form of the attack maneuver.


Attack Maneuvers


Whenever a character uses the attack or charge action to make a single melee attack, the player may declare a single combat maneuver that they are also attempting.  If that attack hits, the attacker may, as a swift action, attempt the named combat maneuver against that opponent.


Any combat maneuver can be attempted as part of an attack action.  The only attack maneuvers that can be attempted as part of a charge action are Overrun and Bull Rush.


As a specific exception to the “attack or charge action” condition above, an attack maneuver may also be attempted as part of the single attack made during the Spring Attack full-round action.  The only attack maneuvers that can be attempted with Spring Attack are Dirty Trick, Disarm, Steal, Sunder, and Trip.


You must meet all normal requirements and conditions for the maneuver you choose in order to attempt that maneuver.  Some maneuvers also have special conditions or restrictions when used as attack maneuvers.


Bull Rush: If you want to push an opponent back more than 5 feet, you must have the excess movement to do so.  You can’t attempt this maneuver against a creature more than one size category larger than you.
Dirty Trick: This maneuver cannot impose the blinded condition when attempted as an attack maneuver unless the target is currently dazzled (whether by a spell, light sensitivity, or a previous Dirty Trick).
Disarm: If you want to take the target’s weapon in hand (as opposed to dropping it), the attack maneuver must be made without a weapon (i.e. with an unarmed strike or natural attack).
Drag: If you want to drag an opponent more than 5 feet, you must have the excess movement to do so.  You can’t attempt this maneuver against a creature more than one size category larger than you.
Grapple: If you are humanoid, this maneuver can only be attempted if you have at least one hand free.  Remember that having only a single hand free imposes a -4 penalty to CMB when attempting to grapple a foe.
Overrun: If the target chooses to avoid you, your attack automatically misses.  You can’t attempt this maneuver against a creature more than one size category larger than you.
Reposition: You can’t attempt this maneuver against a creature more than one size category larger than you.
Steal: You must have at least one hand free to attempt this maneuver.
Sunder: No special conditions.
Trip: This maneuver can only be attempted as an attack maneuver if the attack is made unarmed, with a natural weapon, or with a weapon with the trip special quality.  You can’t attempt this maneuver against a creature more than one size category larger than you.


Note that using the Bluff skill to feint is not a combat maneuver, and can’t be used as part of an attack maneuver.


Feats


Attack maneuvers never provoke an attack of opportunity like normal combat maneuvers, even if the attacker doesn’t possess the appropriate “Improved” combat maneuver feat.


To compensate, the “Improved” combat maneuver feats now allow you to make the named maneuver as an attack maneuver as a free action instead of a swift action.  Regardless, only one combat maneuver can be attempted as an attack maneuver per turn.


Explanation


This experimental rule is intended to create more interesting fighting options by making it so martial characters don’t always have to choose between dealing damage and making maneuvers.  It is also intended to allow non-specialized characters to experiment with maneuvers without completely wasting their time.


Maneuvers can still be attempted the traditional way, without being part of an attack, and there are times when this may be desirable or necessary.  Succeeding with an attack maneuver requires success with both the attack and the maneuver, so “normal” maneuvers attempted on their own – without being part of an attack – are more likely to succeed.  If you really need to push someone off a cliff or disarm an opponent right now and dealing damage is a secondary concern, you may prefer to attempt a normal maneuver.  Normal maneuvers may also still be used in situations where attack maneuvers are unavailable (e.g. when making an attack of opportunity).


One anticipated effect of the attack maneuver rules is to make full attacks slightly less dominant, as you can’t use an attack maneuver with the full attack action.  While a melee combatant may still prefer to make a full attack to deliver as much damage as possible, full attacks are no longer strictly better than standard attacks – the potential for more damage must be weighed against the potential for a successful maneuver.  For a full attack focused character, attack maneuvers may just be an added bonus for times when they can’t full attack.  For a maneuver-focused character, attack maneuvers allow them to “do their thing” while still dealing damage.


Attack maneuvers also make previously underwhelming combat feats like Spring Attack and Vital Strike significantly more powerful.


Since attack maneuvers use swift actions, they are more useful for classes who generally don’t need swift actions for much else (e.g. Fighters).  If a character isn’t using his swift action for anything else in a round in which he makes an attack, charge, or Spring Attack, there’s no reason not to attempt a maneuver.  Players whose characters are more dependent on swift actions for their class abilities should consider taking at least one of the “Improved” maneuver feats if they want to use combat maneuvers without overloading their action economy too much.


                                                                                                 

That's the core of the changes, again with the note that the assumption is that magic happens through the Spheres of Power method, rather than the classic Vancian style. The next couple of posts will be reserved for other things, including my own additions specifically for a Haveneast game, and more detailed explorations and/or Polycarp's game-specific musings (if something comes up).

Thoughts on Armor Tweaks

It's easy to look at the Pathfinder armor list and say to yourself that you'd probably never use any of the heavy stuff because of the limits it imposes, unless you weren't overly concerned with move speed and had a poor Dex score. The optimal choices seem to be either Chain Shirt or Breastplate for most builds, while everything heavier tends to get ignored for the aforementioned reasons (never mind that from a cost-per-AC-point perspective, a lot of them are garbage anyway). I think a nice improvement would be to buff the heavier armors (or at least full plate armor) in such a way that it's actually worth wearing it and taking a reduced Dex bonus to AC as a result, under the assumptions that it'd be both

a) expensive/rare (definite yes for my setting)
b) more of a "shit's about to get real serious" or "we meet on the battlefield at dawn" armor than something you're going to wear fairly often while adventuring

My proposal is to make it so that it's flat-out superior (+10 or even +11 AC, but +0 Dex to AC) to any other option that allows the armor to AC + Dex to AC (e.g. breastplate at +9 total), so that theoretically certain characters might be cool with giving up their Dex bonus as I mentioned. Doing it this way still leaves some heavy options with decent AC bonuses (field plate, or half-plate for those who have a +0 from Dex anyway). I'm certainly open to suggestions about this, including further tweaking the other armors in the heavy category.

Reserved 1

Reserved 2

Reserved 3

Feinting has some serious issues that probably need to be addressed or it won't ever be possible to use it in a sane fashion.

First, it doesn't give a range. At all. The rules explicitly state that feinting is not a combat maneuver so nothing pertaining to combat maneuvers applies. So by RAW, you can feint from 100 feet away.

Second, there is a -4 penalty to feinting against non-humanoids which doesn't always make a lot of sense. This probably makes sense for aberrations or (non-native) outsiders or whatever, but I'm not sure why feinting a tiefling is harder. For that matter, tieflings would get a -4 to feint other tieflings.

Third, there is a -8 penalty to feinting against creatures of animal intelligence, and it's not particularly clear whether this stacks with the penalty for feinting a non-humanoid. By RAW, it would, but that's a -12 penalty and then you might as well not even bother.

Fourth, why can't you feint mindless undead if the mindless undead know how to fight? You'd think that it would be easier, not impossible, to make some shambling zombie or skeleton warrior fall for a feint.

My recommended fix, and what I think most DMs do subconsciously because they don't even pay attention to this stuff, is to just ignore all of it.  :D

Quote from: sparkletwist
Feinting has some serious issues that probably need to be addressed or it won't ever be possible to use it in a sane fashion.

First, it doesn't give a range. At all. The rules explicitly state that feinting is not a combat maneuver so nothing pertaining to combat maneuvers applies. So by RAW, you can feint from 100 feet away.

Second, there is a -4 penalty to feinting against non-humanoids which doesn't always make a lot of sense. This probably makes sense for aberrations or (non-native) outsiders or whatever, but I'm not sure why feinting a tiefling is harder. For that matter, tieflings would get a -4 to feint other tieflings.

Third, there is a -8 penalty to feinting against creatures of animal intelligence, and it's not particularly clear whether this stacks with the penalty for feinting a non-humanoid. By RAW, it would, but that's a -12 penalty and then you might as well not even bother.

Fourth, why can't you feint mindless undead if the mindless undead know how to fight? You'd think that it would be easier, not impossible, to make some shambling zombie or skeleton warrior fall for a feint.

My recommended fix, and what I think most DMs do subconsciously because they don't even pay attention to this stuff, is to just ignore all of it.  :D

We should probably do something about feint. It'd be nice to see it be a legitimate option that isn't also confusing. We shall discuss.

On Weapon Focus: We mentioned in chat that this could be very easily merged with Weapon Specialization.  I'm sort of neutral on the issue - I dislike both feats, and while I admit they improve the fighter (in the sense that they save fighters a feat) I also recognize that "he doesn't have enough feats" is not really the fighter's main problem.  It might be better to just lose WS entirely; if the Fighter needs more damage for some reason, make that a class feature instead of a class-only feat.

On BAB: While it's a really minor tweak, one thing that I didn't post in this version of the rules was a change to BAB based on the fact that divisible-by-four BAB doesn't make much sense in a game with six levels.  Instead of half-BAB and 3/4-BAB, I used 1/3-BAB and 2/3-BAB, like so:

Poor BAB (1/3): +0/+0/+1/+1/+1/+2
Med. BAB (2/3): +0/+1/+2/+2/+3/+4
Good BAB (Full): +1/+2/+3/+4/+5/+6

This hurts the poor-BAB characters a bit (they lose +1 max BAB) and is mostly neutral for medium-BAB characters (their BAB "dead levels" become 1st and 4th instead of 1st and 5th).  One thing to remember, though, is that in SoP "caster level" is graduated like BAB (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/using-spheres-of-power), so this is also a slight loss for "low casters" (which in SoP terms are guys like Paladins and Rangers).

Slightly related to this is the idea of "merging" BAB for multiclass characters who have classes with the same BAB; for example, a 4th level cleric/2nd level rogue (using the thirds-BAB system above) should have a BAB of +4, not +3.  This is a common-sense change to avoid penalizing characters for multiclassing "at the wrong level."

On Feint: Feint is honestly crap even if you ignore all those miscellaneous penalties and use restrictions.  It exists solely as a crutch to help the rogue use SA without flanking, but even with Improved Feint it basically requires the rogue to do a very un-rogueish thing and stand there being a stabby man, receiving all the negatives of full attacking (you can't move) without actually being able to full attack.  And it's not as if flanking is actually that hard to get in the first place.  It's only really a good option if you can make use of a way to feint as a swift action, but AFAIK the only ways to do that at low levels are either Moonlight Stalker Feint (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/moonlight-stalker-feint-combat), which requires you to have racial darkvision/low-light vision, a reliable source of concealment, and a heap of prereq feats; or this comedy option (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/wave-strike-combat), which you only get to use once at the start of combat.

The only thing that prevents me from saying "Feint is dead weight, kill it" is that it's actually a bit better under these houserules.  You don't need to burn a feat (Combat Expertise) and 13 Int to get IF, and since IF uses attack actions you can use Attack Maneuvers with it too.  It may be worth taking a look at a feint reform, but I still sort of hate it.  It seems like what the rogue really needs is a way to be the mobile, sneaky skirmisher it feels like it's supposed to be, and making feint more viable is taking the class in the opposite direction.

By the way, a feat/class change that didn't make it into that doc was to grant Shadow Strike (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shadow-strike-combat) to rogues/ninjas for free at level 2, which addresses the problem of "my rogue literally can't backstab people when it's foggy out."  That synergizes pretty well with Moonlight Stalker Feint if that's your jam.

Quote from: Polycarp
On Weapon Focus: We mentioned in chat that this could be very easily merged with Weapon Specialization.  I'm sort of neutral on the issue - I dislike both feats, and while I admit they improve the fighter (in the sense that they save fighters a feat) I also recognize that "he doesn't have enough feats" is not really the fighter's main problem.  It might be better to just lose WS entirely; if the Fighter needs more damage for some reason, make that a class feature instead of a class-only feat.

On BAB: While it's a really minor tweak, one thing that I didn't post in this version of the rules was a change to BAB based on the fact that divisible-by-four BAB doesn't make much sense in a game with six levels.  Instead of half-BAB and 3/4-BAB, I used 1/3-BAB and 2/3-BAB, like so:

Poor BAB (1/3): +0/+0/+1/+1/+1/+2
Med. BAB (2/3): +0/+1/+2/+2/+3/+4
Good BAB (Full): +1/+2/+3/+4/+5/+6

This hurts the poor-BAB characters a bit (they lose +1 max BAB) and is mostly neutral for medium-BAB characters (their BAB "dead levels" become 1st and 4th instead of 1st and 5th).  One thing to remember, though, is that in SoP "caster level" is graduated like BAB (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/using-spheres-of-power), so this is also a slight loss for "low casters" (which in SoP terms are guys like Paladins and Rangers).

Slightly related to this is the idea of "merging" BAB for multiclass characters who have classes with the same BAB; for example, a 4th level cleric/2nd level rogue (using the thirds-BAB system above) should have a BAB of +4, not +3.  This is a common-sense change to avoid penalizing characters for multiclassing "at the wrong level."

On Feint: Feint is honestly crap even if you ignore all those miscellaneous penalties and use restrictions.  It exists solely as a crutch to help the rogue use SA without flanking, but even with Improved Feint it basically requires the rogue to do a very un-rogueish thing and stand there being a stabby man, receiving all the negatives of full attacking (you can't move) without actually being able to full attack.  And it's not as if flanking is actually that hard to get in the first place.  It's only really a good option if you can make use of a way to feint as a swift action, but AFAIK the only ways to do that at low levels are either Moonlight Stalker Feint (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/moonlight-stalker-feint-combat), which requires you to have racial darkvision/low-light vision, a reliable source of concealment, and a heap of prereq feats; or this comedy option (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/wave-strike-combat), which you only get to use once at the start of combat.

The only thing that prevents me from saying "Feint is dead weight, kill it" is that it's actually a bit better under these houserules.  You don't need to burn a feat (Combat Expertise) and 13 Int to get IF, and since IF uses attack actions you can use Attack Maneuvers with it too.  It may be worth taking a look at a feint reform, but I still sort of hate it.  It seems like what the rogue really needs is a way to be the mobile, sneaky skirmisher it feels like it's supposed to be, and making feint more viable is taking the class in the opposite direction.

By the way, a feat/class change that didn't make it into that doc was to grant Shadow Strike (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shadow-strike-combat) to rogues/ninjas for free at level 2, which addresses the problem of "my rogue literally can't backstab people when it's foggy out."  That synergizes pretty well with Moonlight Stalker Feint if that's your jam.

I'm definitely concerned about Feint with my plan (for my own additional houserules) to merge the fighter and rogue classes. I've been pondering ways to change the action entirely, but haven't come up with a good idea yet. It seems like we could change it to a combat maneuver and have it be an opposed roll that has a similar but different effect; maybe it could result in a slight penalty to AC, and/or penalties to the CMB/CMD stats? This'd have an additional advantage of it not being completely useless against opponents with mediocre Dex.

Quote from: PolycarpWhile it's a really minor tweak, one thing that I didn't post in this version of the rules was a change to BAB based on the fact that divisible-by-four BAB doesn't make much sense in a game with six levels.

Perhaps it's a rather strange way to evaluate a BAB progression, but I prefer one that, when you pare it down to six levels, it "looks nice." For example, for a 6-level game, I like your medium BAB progression more than Pathfinder's default because of the symmetry there, while the default one looks "lopsided." In that mindset, I actually don't mind the default poor BAB progression because it has outliers on the ends but is otherwise symmetric: +0/+1/+1/+2/+2/+3. I don't like yours as much because it's "lopsided." It also ends up lower.

Quote from: PolycarpFeint is honestly crap even if you ignore all those miscellaneous penalties and use restrictions.

Oh, I don't disagree. The stuff I was citing was just basic sanity stuff, none of it actually makes feint good. It's really strange, anyway, because it isn't a combat maneuver, and it uses a Charisma-based skill. This has even stranger consequences when combined with other abilities that interact with the Bluff skill. For example, in Fimbulvinter, Dagny is (somewhat inexplicably) quite good at feinting due to her high Bluff skill. That said, it doesn't matter; she has feinted exactly once in the entire time we've played Fimbulvinter, though, and that was only because there was basically nothing else she could do and I was under the mistaken impression it could give someone else a bonus... which it can't. So yeah, it's crap.

One option would be to remove it entirely and merge feint's abilities in with dirty trick. It'd make dirty trick a bit better and remove this weird combat-maneuver-but-not-a-combat-maneuver from the game.

There already is a "fighter-rogue," sort of - it's the slayer (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/slayer), and it's pretty decent for a martial.  Its emphasis on track/study makes it a little ranger-y, but unlike the ranger it's wholly nonmagical.  If you really want a merged fighter-rogue without the ranger flavor, it might be a good idea to start with the Slayer and either make an archetype or base the new class on that one.

My "solution" for the Rogue is quite honestly to ban it.  Bards (and especially Archaeologist Bards), Vivisectionist Alchemists, Slayers, and maybe even Investigators are all better Rogues than Rogues (depending on what you want out of your Rogue), and if you absolutely can't stand any of those classes there's still no reason to be a Rogue because the Unchained Rogue and the Ninja class are things that exist (not that those two classes solve the basic problems with the rogue, but they are straight upgrades).

Quote from: sparkletwistPerhaps it's a rather strange way to evaluate a BAB progression, but I prefer one that, when you pare it down to six levels, it "looks nice." For example, for a 6-level game, I like your medium BAB progression more than Pathfinder's default because of the symmetry there, while the default one looks "lopsided." In that mindset, I actually don't mind the default poor BAB progression because it has outliers on the ends but is otherwise symmetric: +0/+1/+1/+2/+2/+3. I don't like yours as much because it's "lopsided." It also ends up lower.

My problem with the standard low BAB is simply that it differs from medium by only +1.  I know, +2 BAB still isn't an amazing difference, but I'd like the cleric, bard, etc. to not feel like the only thing separating their combat ability from a wizard's at high level is the equivalent of Weapon Focus.  To me, low-BAB topping out at +2 is a feature, not a bug.  I understand the appeal of symmetry, and the one-third low progression does bother me slightly in a visual sense, but it makes the difference between low-BAB and medium-BAB characters widen to 2 by 5th level, which is IMO more desirable than having that difference only open up at the final level (which it would if you had a better looking 0/0/1/1/2/2 progression).

Quote from: PolycarpOh, I don't disagree. The stuff I was citing was just basic sanity stuff, none of it actually makes feint good. It's really strange, anyway, because it isn't a combat maneuver, and it uses a Charisma-based skill. This has even stranger consequences when combined with other abilities that interact with the Bluff skill. For example, in Fimbulvinter, Dagny is (somewhat inexplicably) quite good at feinting due to her high Bluff skill. That said, it doesn't matter; she has feinted exactly once in the entire time we've played Fimbulvinter, though, and that was only because there was basically nothing else she could do and I was under the mistaken impression it could give someone else a bonus... which it can't. So yeah, it's crap.

One option would be to remove it entirely and merge feint's abilities in with dirty trick. It'd make dirty trick a bit better and remove this weird combat-maneuver-but-not-a-combat-maneuver from the game.

Feint is just one of those holdovers from 3rd ed that didn't "fit" with PF's new combat maneuver system because it's an opposed skill check.  IMO, basing feinting ability on Bluff is silly; combat ability is BAB, and a master swordsman should be able to feint you all over the goddamn place whether he's a good liar or not.  But that's just a realism argument, not a gameplay one, and you hardly need realism arguments against Feint.

IMO the question to ask is "what do you want from feint?"

If the answer is "to be able to sneak attack when I'm not surprising or flanking them," then you next have to ask yourself whether that's really necessary.  Rogues arguably need these sorts of crutches because rogues are trash and have no other way to contribute meaningfully to a combat encounter, but if your sneak-attacker is also a competent fighter (i.e. Slayer) or has other useful tricks (i.e. Vivisectionist) then this argument becomes a bit pointless.  Most characters have better things to do with their feats and actions than feinting.

If the answer is "to be able to make an enemy vulnerable before a hit," there are already better ways of doing this.  Dirty Trick, which you mentioned, can entangle an enemy (-4 Dex) and even blind them (-2 AC, lose Dex bonus), and although the blinding is slightly nerfed with these houserules (they have to be dazzled first) Dirty Trick is otherwise substantially buffed by the Attack Maneuver system.  Trip also does this already, givin you and your friends a +4 to hit, which is effectively the same as -4 AC.  Yes, Feint differs from these in that it allows you to lower the enemy's AC and then attack on the same turn (if you have Improved Feint), but the downside is that only you benefit from Feint while everybody benefits from conditions imposed by DT and Trip.

The bottom line for me is that Feint is a 3rd ed legacy pseudo-combat-maneuver whose main purpose is to let Rogues slug it out with dudes in melee, a situation that is generally undesirable and which Feint does a rubbish job at enabling anyway.  There was barely a reason to have it before, and if Rogues are gone and attack maneuvers are in the mix then there's really none at all.

Quote from: PolycarpMy problem with the standard low BAB is simply that it differs from medium by only +1.  I know, +2 BAB still isn't an amazing difference, but I'd like the cleric, bard, etc. to not feel like the only thing separating their combat ability from a wizard's at high level is the equivalent of Weapon Focus.

BAB is kind of a poor indicator of combat ability, anyway, especially at low levels. If you want to give a fighter, cleric, or whoever more combat ability, you should give them class features that actually give them more combat ability. I'd say this applies more to the former than the latter, as I don't really think clerics need buffs, but you know what I mean. I'd also argue that BAB is far from "the only thing," because clerics and bards and etc. can also wear armor and use (a subset of) martial weapons, while wizards are stuck with simple weapons and no armor, so they're not going to be worthy combatants without some work being done anyway. An extra 5% or 10% to hit isn't a bad thing, but it's not as though a fighter's full BAB in any way balances out the fact that the class basically otherwise sucks.

Quote from: PolycarpIf the answer is "to be able to sneak attack when I'm not surprising or flanking them," then you next have to ask yourself whether that's really necessary.  Rogues arguably need these sorts of crutches because rogues are trash and have no other way to contribute meaningfully to a combat encounter, but if your sneak-attacker is also a competent fighter (i.e. Slayer) or has other useful tricks (i.e. Vivisectionist) then this argument becomes a bit pointless.

That was my answer. I don't have quite the same low opinion of Rogues as you, but that's probably because I tend to favor an Unchained Hidden Blade Rogue (the standard Rogue was much more sad, I agree) and I tend to favor low-ish level games that aren't quite as combat-intensive as the expected norm for Pathfinder.

It's hard to make really forceful arguments about what amounts to a +1 bonus, and I absolutely agree that full BAB doesn't go far at all towards redeeming the fighter - BAB is underwhelming in general, particularly at low levels, and other classes get full BAB and are otherwise much more impressive than the fighter.  Maybe it's just that having the difference between high and medium BAB and the difference between medium and low BAB not be the same bothers my sense of symmetry.  In normal PF, there's a 2-BAB difference between each of the tiers at level 8, which makes sense as it's a quartered system; my aim was to accomplish the same here in a 6-level system.

The difference between Rogues and Fighters is that the Fighter class is legitimately useful and does things that other classes can't.  A fighter's bonus feats mean it can use various feat trees and combos that would either be impossible or unfeasible to attain for characters of other classes.  That doesn't make them good, exactly, since even the best combat feat gimmicks pale in comparison to wizardry, but it means they show up in a lot of martial multiclass builds that are feat-intensive.  Even a "pure" fighter, though outclassed by casters, can be mediocre reliably and do something useful in most combat encounters.  Rogues, in contrast, have very little to offer - sneak attack is the only way they remain relevant in combat, and that's a highly conditional ability that outright doesn't work on some opponents, requires positioning (or feint, I guess) to work even against valid targets, and can't be used at all beyond what is basically point-blank range.  A fighter, at the end of the day, still has Big Numbers going for him (hp, AC, BAB), and even if this is laughable compared to a spellcaster it's still something compared to the Rogue.  As mentioned, PF has introduced classes that do a better job of the Rogue's same shtick: Slayers are better sneaky-fighters, Vivisectionists are backstabbers with spells, and Archaeologist Bards can do the skill-monkey and trap-finding rogue duties while still having magic.

Hidden Blade Rogue is a PoW archetype, isn't it?  I mean, yeah, I can see why you would favor that, and so would I if I had to play a Rogue - any PF martial would be stronger with PoW maneuvers/stances.  Hoers seemed to indicate in his last thread, however, that PoW-style martials isn't the way he wanted to go.

Quote from: PolycarpBAB is underwhelming in general, particularly at low levels

I wonder how it would work to cram 8 levels worth of BAB into 6 levels. This wouldn't be that crazy, since one of your rules does this anyway for the purpose of feats. The progressions could go something like:

Full: +2/+3/+4/+6/+7/+8
Med: +1/+2/+3/+4/+5/+6
Low: +0/+1/+2/+2/+3/+4

Every progression has +1 over the previous progression, until level 4, when it increases to every progression getting +2 over the previous one.
Also this way a fighter can take Whip Mastery (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/whip-mastery-combat) at level 1, because that's totally a thing you wanted to do.  :P

Quote from: PolycarpRogues, in contrast, have very little to offer - sneak attack is the only way they remain relevant in combat, and that's a highly conditional ability that outright doesn't work on some opponents, requires positioning (or feint, I guess) to work even against valid targets, and can't be used at all beyond what is basically point-blank range.

I think you're exaggerating the difficulty of remaining relevant in combat by doing sneak attack damage, but I do agree the non-Unchained Rogue is a pretty sad class. The Unchained Rogue is quite a bit better, in my opinion... at least by the somewhat low standards of martial classes. A debate over the finer points of what Rogues are and aren't good for might not get us anywhere, though, and I will say that the real problem with an Unchained Rogue in an E6 game is probably that they don't really start actually being all that effective until level 4, which is much too late. Regardless of what else they have for or against them, for that reason alone, the class should probably be revised or axed.

Quote from: PolycarpHoers seemed to indicate in his last thread, however, that PoW-style martials isn't the way he wanted to go.

Hoers's statement was "'I'd be okay with using any [PoW abilities] that weren't too bonkers and/or supernatural." This probably rules out any crazy teleportation or invisibility or whatever but I figured I could still count stuff that just tacks on a couple of d6's of extra damage or lets your Rogue get sneak attack when you otherwise couldn't. You could argue all this does is patch some of the limitations of the Rogue class, and I'd probably even agree with you, but I'd also say that's not really a point against because most PoW archetypes for martial classes are trying to do that.

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: PolycarpBAB is underwhelming in general, particularly at low levels

I wonder how it would work to cram 8 levels worth of BAB into 6 levels. This wouldn't be that crazy, since one of your rules does this anyway for the purpose of feats. The progressions could go something like:

Full: +2/+3/+4/+6/+7/+8
Med: +1/+2/+3/+4/+5/+6
Low: +0/+1/+2/+2/+3/+4

Every progression has +1 over the previous progression, until level 4, when it increases to every progression getting +2 over the previous one.
Also this way a fighter can take Whip Mastery (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/whip-mastery-combat) at level 1, because that's totally a thing you wanted to do.  :P

Quote from: PolycarpRogues, in contrast, have very little to offer - sneak attack is the only way they remain relevant in combat, and that's a highly conditional ability that outright doesn't work on some opponents, requires positioning (or feint, I guess) to work even against valid targets, and can't be used at all beyond what is basically point-blank range.

I think you're exaggerating the difficulty of remaining relevant in combat by doing sneak attack damage, but I do agree the non-Unchained Rogue is a pretty sad class. The Unchained Rogue is quite a bit better, in my opinion... at least by the somewhat low standards of martial classes. A debate over the finer points of what Rogues are and aren't good for might not get us anywhere, though, and I will say that the real problem with an Unchained Rogue in an E6 game is probably that they don't really start actually being all that effective until level 4, which is much too late. Regardless of what else they have for or against them, for that reason alone, the class should probably be revised or axed.

Quote from: PolycarpHoers seemed to indicate in his last thread, however, that PoW-style martials isn't the way he wanted to go.

Hoers's statement was "'I'd be okay with using any [PoW abilities] that weren't too bonkers and/or supernatural." This probably rules out any crazy teleportation or invisibility or whatever but I figured I could still count stuff that just tacks on a couple of d6's of extra damage or lets your Rogue get sneak attack when you otherwise couldn't. You could argue all this does is patch some of the limitations of the Rogue class, and I'd probably even agree with you, but I'd also say that's not really a point against because most PoW archetypes for martial classes are trying to do that.

I did say that, and I am sticking with that stance; however, I would prefer if they weren't used at all. It's unlikely that I will ever use them as part of the NPC challenges I throw at the players. I think the house rules listed already go a long way towards making them unnecessary, but part of my interest in this discussion is closing the divide as much as can be done without a total system overhaul or using them.

As for specific fixes that favour the rogue, I'd like to reiterate that - at least for my game - I intend on merging the fighter and rogue classes, which should in theory make the arguments for the poor strength of the base rogue (or, looking at it another way, the lack of versatility of the fighter) at least a tiny bit less solid. I realize that this doesn't fix some of the fundamental issues with staying power for either class, but I think it's a start. You can either look at it as the rogue getting a little better at being relevant when it can't just dial up sneak attacks all day, or as the fighter getting a few handy abilities and skills to use outside of combat (plus sneak attack).

I think the idea of cramming 8 levels of BAB into 6 levels of progression could be good. I wonder how it affects AC, since you still technically can't ever really get better than a +2 magical armor without some serious special circumstances showing up. Polycarp and I were talking briefly about how I'd change the armor list to fit Haveneast last night though, so maybe a corresponding change (if any) can be done at the same time.

Merging rogue and fighter into one class would decrease the number of available non-magical classes. Are you alright with that? Maybe instead you could martial-up the rogue and versatile-up the fighter, thus making two hybrid skills & combat type classes -- one of which favours a dexterity/lightarmor/utility/hit&run style, the other a strong/heavyarmor/social/stand&hack style?

The reason it's undesirable to cram 8 levels of BAB in 6 levels is that having the full-BAB classes being the only ones who get iterative attacks is - at least to me - one of the main draws of E6.  The trouble with E8 is that it lets your clerics, rogues, etc. get two attacks just like your fighters.

You could "fix" that by delaying iterative attacks until +8 BAB - which is more easily done under this houserule system, in which attacks aren't so much "iterative" as functioning like a monk's flurry or Rapid Shot - but that just makes full martials wait longer for what is (unfortunately) one of the key attractions in being a full martial in E6.

Seriously Hoers, look at the Slayer and tell me what you think about that.  I'd be interested to know whether it fits the bill for the merged fighter and rogue you're thinking about, or whether there's something else you consider elemental that it doesn't have.

Quote from: PolycarpThe reason it's undesirable to cram 8 levels of BAB in 6 levels is that having the full-BAB classes being the only ones who get iterative attacks is - at least to me - one of the main draws of E6.  The trouble with E8 is that it lets your clerics, rogues, etc. get two attacks just like your fighters.

You could "fix" that by delaying iterative attacks until +8 BAB - which is more easily done under this houserule system, in which attacks aren't so much "iterative" as functioning like a monk's flurry or Rapid Shot - but that just makes full martials wait longer for what is (unfortunately) one of the key attractions in being a full martial in E6.

Well, waiting until BAB +8 when you get +8 at level 6 isn't waiting any longer than waiting for BAB +6 when you get +6 at level 6, so there's no net gain or loss if you want to do it that way, even with increased BAB.

However, I think one issue is that what you saw as a bug is something I saw as a feature. I thought it was good that full-BAB martial characters got iterative attacks (however they work under these houserules) at level 4 instead of level 6, and I also thought it was good that medium-BAB characters got a chance to get them as well by the time they maxed out. I guess whether or not that is good depends on what kind of feel you want for the game.

It depends a bit on which levels the game actually emphasizes.  Having only full-BAB characters get two attacks in a E6 system means that they don't get that particular special sauce until their last level, but once they turn "epic" that's an advantage they keep - their non-full-BAB counterparts might have other advantages, but they don't get iterative attacks no matter how many epic feats they stack up.  In a E8 game with normal BAB, full-BAB classes get their iterative attack a few levels before epic territory, but once at epic territory all the medium-BAB classes have the same thing they do.  In that game, iteratives are something that pretty much everyone gets unless they're a wizard/sorc (and thus have much better things to do than waste time hitting things with swords).

You also have to consider that there are a whole lot of combat feats, like the "greater" maneuver feats, that have BAB +6 as a prereq.  Unless you change all those prereqs, an E8 game, or a E6 game that uses E8 BAB progression, allows all medium-BAB classes to grab those feats too, albeit only once they turn epic.

The result is that going with E8 or its equivalent BAB progression makes full martials feel nifty for two levels when they have some nice things nobody else does, but thereafter they lose that advantage and their superior BAB is only worth +2 to hit instead of unlocking martial-only feats and iteratives.  It's a relative nerf for martials any way you slice it.

Quote from: PolycarpThe result is that going with E8 or its equivalent BAB progression makes full martials feel nifty for two levels when they have some nice things nobody else does, but thereafter they lose that advantage and their superior BAB is only worth +2 to hit instead of unlocking martial-only feats and iteratives.  It's a relative nerf for martials any way you slice it.

Well, I'm not sure if it's really much of a relative nerf, because there are still feats that only full BAB users will have access to. It's just that now they're the feats that have a requirement of BAB +8 instead of the ones that have a requirement of BAB +6. There are less of these, but, in general, most of these combat feats have a ton of prerequisites and pretty specialized and are not exactly impressive anyway. A lot of the feats just plain suck, anyway, so I'm really not sure how much of a big deal "combat feats" even is. Combat feats just aren't really the path to being awesome. There's already someone in the game whose big thing is getting access to lots of combat feats. It's the Fighter... and it sucks.

If the problem is that martials don't have enough power, I don't think taking some ultimately not that impressive thing away from someone else (or ensuring that they never get it, whatever) is really the answer to close the gap. It's to buff martials to a level where they don't suck.

Interestingly, most feats with a requirement of BAB +8 are actually unarmed strike feats, intended for monks/brawlers.  I'm not sure why that is, but the number of BAB +8 feats actually intended for full BAB martials is very few, the only really notable example being Improved Critical.  BAB +6 is a much, much more important milestone for combat feat unlocks.

QuoteIf the problem is that martials don't have enough power, I don't think taking some ultimately not that impressive thing away from someone else (or ensuring that they never get it, whatever) is really the answer to close the gap. It's to buff martials to a level where they don't suck.

But this isn't a very useful comment for something based on E6, since the whole point of level-limiting schemes like E6 is to restrict character power to a level at which the classes are more equal.  That doesn't mean that level-limiting solves every problem or creates total equality - that's why we're discussing further house rules - but it's not productive to argue that taking things away from other classes in the name of greater parity isn't a solution when that is in fact one of the key purposes of E6.

Advancing from E6 to E8  (or just E8-style BAB progression) makes pure martials, fighters included, worse off in a relative sense because fairly important things that were unique to them no longer are.  If you're proposing that martials should have other unique things instead, then I'm all ears, bearing in mind that casters are already being somewhat nerfed by SoP and that within the context of this thread we're not really interested in PoW-style "magic martials."  Admittedly we haven't discussed class changes much, which is presumably where those proposals would come up.  Until that alternative exists, however, I'd rather not make things any worse for martials than they already are.

Quote from: PolycarpBut this isn't a very useful comment for something based on E6, since the whole point of level-limiting schemes like E6 is to restrict character power to a level at which the classes are more equal.

I disagree that it is the "whole point." It's one advantage, sure, but the appeal of E6 to me is more to restrict character power to a level where there aren't any (or at least aren't as many) potentially setting-wrecking abilities. Since Fighters suck and never get any of those, it has a side effect of some equalizing effect character power, but it's not the same thing, nor should it really be relied upon to do that.

Casters and non-casters are more equal at low levels largely because spells haven't gotten as crazy yet. The reason E8 Clerics are going to be more powerful than E6 Clerics and at greater risk of unbalancing the game is not because they've got 2 more BAB or an iterative attack or access to some combat feats that they won't have the prereqs for anyway-- it's because in gaining those two levels they have gained access to 4th level spells, and now the Cleric can pull off stuff like lesser planar ally, restoration, summon monster IV and whatever crazy spells you managed to yoink from the Wizard list by having a good domain. Keeping these spells out of the game means that there's a whole list of things that Fighters can't do that now Clerics can't do either, which, yes, keeps the Fighter from being outclassed (as much) but more importantly, keeping these spells out of the game keeps them from wrecking the setting and the feel of the game.

You're right that if Clerics can get to +6 BAB they'll get iterative attacks while if they can't get to +6 they never will and this does make some difference in their abilities that they can write on their character sheet, but the real meaningful limits on them don't have much to do with that. Realistically, if you play a Cleric and want to stand there and bash away in a full attack then you're probably doing the least to make the local Fighter feel sad about life than just about anything you could possibly do, and that's true whether it's level 6 or level 8 or level 20.

So, if you want to set things up so that classes like Clerics or Bards can't ever get iterative attacks, go for it, it won't make anything spontaneously combust, but I feel the amount of relative gain for full BAB classes is not particularly meaningful, so nothing's going to spontaneously combust the other way, either.

Quote from: Polycarp
The reason it's undesirable to cram 8 levels of BAB in 6 levels is that having the full-BAB classes being the only ones who get iterative attacks is - at least to me - one of the main draws of E6.  The trouble with E8 is that it lets your clerics, rogues, etc. get two attacks just like your fighters.

You could "fix" that by delaying iterative attacks until +8 BAB - which is more easily done under this houserule system, in which attacks aren't so much "iterative" as functioning like a monk's flurry or Rapid Shot - but that just makes full martials wait longer for what is (unfortunately) one of the key attractions in being a full martial in E6.

Seriously Hoers, look at the Slayer and tell me what you think about that.  I'd be interested to know whether it fits the bill for the merged fighter and rogue you're thinking about, or whether there's something else you consider elemental that it doesn't have.

It doesn't, really - I had imagined the Fighter/Rogue merge existing alongside the Ranger, which would serve as that core class that gets the tracking ability that the Slayer gains. To me, the "survivalist/tracker" kind of role is as fundamental as the general warrior type (Fighter/Rogue merge), the mounted knight (Cavalier), the holy warrior (Paladin), and the wild brute (Barbarian).

Something I've been discussing with sparkletwist just this afternoon is the possibility of eliminating the Fighter/Rogue merge, and instead dropping the Fighter, buffing the Unchained Rogue to get full BAB and martial weapon proficiency + medium armor and shield proficiency and calling it the "Warrior". That way, it fits in that general versatile finesse fighter role, while the Barbarian and maybe Cavalier fit the more specific "strong warrior" archetype, and the Cavalier and Paladin stand out a little more in that they're the only two out of the five martials (Barbarian, Cavalier, Paladin, Ranger, Warrior) to get heavy armor proficiency by default.

Quote from: GhostmanMerging rogue and fighter into one class would decrease the number of available non-magical classes. Are you alright with that? Maybe instead you could martial-up the rogue and versatile-up the fighter, thus making two hybrid skills & combat type classes -- one of which favours a dexterity/lightarmor/utility/hit&run style, the other a strong/heavyarmor/social/stand&hack style?

I am thinking of doing something like that now actually, yeah, but as for reducing the number of non-magicals I'm not too concerned, as I'm dropping some magical classes from the list, too. My proposed class list goes something like Barbarian, Cavalier, Oracle, Paladin, Ranger, Skald, Shaman, Warrior (Fighter and/or Rogue stand-in), Wizard, Warlock. That's four (five if you include Paladin) full-martials (Barbarian, Cavalier, Ranger, Warrior), four full-casters (Oracle, Shaman, Wizard, Warlock), and two hybrids (Paladin and Skald).

EDIT: I guess the Hunter would also fill the Ranger's role, so that's also an option there, although I'd want it to lose its spells like the Skirmisher variant of the Ranger. Doing that has the advantage of providing at least one class with woodland stride (something I lamented when I determined the Druid wasn't really a fit for my setting).