The P6 Mod Discussion Thread (feat. Polycarp)

[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.

[sparkletwist]

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.

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.

[Polycarp]

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.

[sparkletwist]

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.

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.

[Polycarp]

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.

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.

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.

[sparkletwist]

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.

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.

[Hibou]

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.

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?

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).