Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Creating game materials? Monsters, spells, classes, adventures? This is the place!
User avatar
Hywaywolf
Posts: 5160
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:30 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:23 pm

I agree that these classes should have trade-offs for their greater abilities. On the other hand, I don't care if they cause no one to play a fighter. Once you add all these other classes that serve as fighters you don't really need the fighter class. The core rules have 4 classes. The fighter is a perfect class for that level of play. But once you start expanding the classes to include different versions of fighters, the core rule fighter simply becomes obsolete.
User avatar
Dimirag
Posts: 2149
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:24 pm
Location: Buenos Aires (C.A.B.A.), Argentina
Contact:

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:06 pm

Not exactly, fighters are excellent with EVERY and ALL weapons, I don't mind having classes that are a little better than the fighter with a couple of weapon as long as they are limited to using a lesser amount compared to the fighter, and as long as those classes don't have a faster XP progression...
Sorry for any misspelling or writing error, I am not a native English speaker
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3533
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:11 pm

The thing is that with stock fighters only, one just cannot play certain fighting archetypes, such as a good "light and fast warrior". Sure, one can choose to forgo better armor and use light weaponry instead, but one is just choosing to be a crappy sub-par warrior by these choices when compared to a warrior that chooses to be a standard sword-n-board plate wearing fellow (assuming all other factors being equal). The game rules just do not give that archetype a fair shake right out of the box.

Having other archetypes is good and helps make for a well rounded group. I would rather make some adjustments, offer a couple different 'types' of related classes, and otherwise accommodate player interests than just say "you want a knife fighter tumbling about (but not a thief), then go ahead... but you will suck compared to other warriors. You really should just be the standard dude in plate, shield and longsword".

It does not harm the game to have some extra stuff around to expand the options a bit, especially when the players are seasoned enough to want a little more variety (and sometimes other new types of challenges that come along with new options). That said, some sense of balancing the features should be incorporated. I said this over in the Adept of the Great Way thread (monks by Artkid):
Here is what I am looking at personally. While they are supposed to be excellent warriors, I hesitate to make them better fighters than actual Fighters, at least through the bulk of their careers (meaning until the highest levels achievable).
(and more)... Lastly, I would like to see some analysis of the median/average damage/round type stuff for the unarmed attacks stuff. Like I noted earlier, I don't want them to be better fighters than Fighters, except at perhaps the highest achievable levels.... they need to be really good; just not better than the standard fighters through most of their levels.
And, I think that mindset should be applied here as well. Any fighter sub-classes should not be better fighters than actual fighters, except within a very narrow set of parameters such as Rangers against their "chosen enemy", Paladins against creatures of the netherworld, or whatever.

Again, one should realize that the game will not break if one adds some new options, even if one or more options are not well balanced (but one should take steps to fix things that actually do demonstrate an unfair advantage)... despite what some folks will exclaim while extolling the virtues of a 'core only' or minimalist sort of game environment.
User avatar
LibraryLass
Posts: 1008
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:02 pm

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:58 pm

Hywaywolf wrote:I agree that these classes should have trade-offs for their greater abilities. On the other hand, I don't care if they cause no one to play a fighter. Once you add all these other classes that serve as fighters you don't really need the fighter class. The core rules have 4 classes. The fighter is a perfect class for that level of play. But once you start expanding the classes to include different versions of fighters, the core rule fighter simply becomes obsolete.
Where I come from, them's fightin' words, stranger.
http://rachelghoulgamestuff.blogspot.com/
Rachel Bonuses: Now with pretty

http://www.gofundme.com/8gawy0
Currently panhandling for my transition/medical bills.
User avatar
Hywaywolf
Posts: 5160
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:30 pm
Location: Wilmington, NC

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:13 pm

LibraryLass wrote:
Hywaywolf wrote:I agree that these classes should have trade-offs for their greater abilities. On the other hand, I don't care if they cause no one to play a fighter. Once you add all these other classes that serve as fighters you don't really need the fighter class. The core rules have 4 classes. The fighter is a perfect class for that level of play. But once you start expanding the classes to include different versions of fighters, the core rule fighter simply becomes obsolete.
Where I come from, them's fightin' words, stranger.
LOL, I actually prefer just playing straight core rules with the 4 classes. But if I join a game that is using all these supplemental classes and I am not playing a thief, then I want to be a super fighter.
User avatar
Joe the Rat
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:53 am

SmootRK wrote:The thing is that with stock fighters only, one just cannot play certain fighting archetypes, such as a good "light and fast warrior". Sure, one can choose to forgo better armor and use light weaponry instead, but one is just choosing to be a crappy sub-par warrior by these choices when compared to a warrior that chooses to be a standard sword-n-board plate wearing fellow (assuming all other factors being equal). The game rules just do not give that archetype a fair shake right out of the box.

Having other archetypes is good and helps make for a well rounded group. I would rather make some adjustments, offer a couple different 'types' of related classes, and otherwise accommodate player interests than just say "you want a knife fighter tumbling about (but not a thief), then go ahead... but you will suck compared to other warriors. You really should just be the standard dude in plate, shield and longsword".
Well... technically the harrier-type has better movement, but it is difficult to leverage that into hit-and-run tactics with the Basic rules. You can make it work (Crazy high Dex, good initiative roll, contingent action on opponent taking an action: run in and hit, good initiative next round for fighting withdrawal before they act, possibly with an attack first), but it is a lot of work to be effective, requires a little GM allowance on the rules, and you would still be better off as the dude in plate that can stay in place and keep swinging with a bigger sword. Me, I'd toss in some options to make it more workable - at which point adding classes is a comparable solution.
User avatar
chiisu81
Posts: 2155
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:05 pm

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:36 am

SmootRK wrote:While my version does not necessarily address these points you bring up, but perhaps the overall presentation is more palatable for you. It is in the showcase, "Additional Fighting Sub-classes" where one can also find my version of Knights (proto-cavalier), a lightly armed fighter Gladiator (or some like calling it duelist), Ranger, and Thug (a slightly tougher thief sub-class). I am planning a rework of Artkid's Great Way Adept (to which I will just call Monk) to add to this document sometime soon.

Regardless, take what you like from the different incarnations of what you can find, and kitbash it all into something that works better for you. That is the way of things around here. Just share it, as we like the feedback loop to see where we can improve our designs as well. :D
Hmm it does seem like your version is more in line with my own view. Of course I'd like to help work on both versions. :)
I like to point out spelling mistakes and post GIFs.
Adventure Template | Style Guide
My works on Showcase
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 6934
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:36 pm

One of the supplementary rules I've been musing over for Combat Options is this one:

Unarmored Combat

Characters who, for whatever reason, engage in combat while wearing no armor whatsoever have a base Armor Class of 11, plus Dexterity bonus, plus the character's normal Attack Bonus. Use of a shield is allowed (to those characters who may use shields normally), as are magical protection items which are not otherwise properly armor (such as rings or cloaks of protection). This improved base Armor Class only applies to opponents the character is aware of and whose location is at least approximately known, as it is not possible to defend effectively against attackers you do not know about. This is sometimes called the "Swashbuckler Option."
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
SmootRK
Posts: 3533
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:14 am

Solomoriah wrote:One of the supplementary rules I've been musing over for Combat Options is this one:

Unarmored Combat

Characters who, for whatever reason, engage in combat while wearing no armor whatsoever have a base Armor Class of 11, plus Dexterity bonus, plus the character's normal Attack Bonus. Use of a shield is allowed (to those characters who may use shields normally), as are magical protection items which are not otherwise properly armor (such as rings or cloaks of protection). This improved base Armor Class only applies to opponents the character is aware of and whose location is at least approximately known, as it is not possible to defend effectively against attackers you do not know about. This is sometimes called the "Swashbuckler Option."
Has this (or something similar) been tested before? I would be interested to hear how this pans out in actual use.
User avatar
Joe the Rat
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Rangers and Paladins Supplement

Post Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:57 am

3rd ed had a rule in their "Eldritch Crap We Dug Up - but at least the cover doesn't fall off this time" for level-based AC. The specifics are different (it replaces the AC if your armor is worse), but the overall effect is similar. Theirs is a slower progression, but starts higher for fighters (+6, cap at +12!). Don't go there.

This is another one of those tricks that will take a few levels to come online for fighters - at 2nd level, you can eschew leather. It also makes rogues and wizards a bit more in-the-mix capable. This is one we really want to keep an eye on for our wizarding buddies.
Post Reply