Paradigm Concepts
http://forums.paradigmconcepts.com/

Fixing the Martial Archtype
http://forums.paradigmconcepts.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2117		 Page 2 of 5
Author:  wilcoxon [ Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Martial Archtype
I agree an Expert's ability to take Adaptable during step 1 is very useful to avoid falling behind. However, I don't see it as a problem because it is a tradeoff - it uses a talent (something Expert tends to always be short on) to offset lower skills.
Author:  Eric Hughes [ Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Martial Archtype
From my perspective Arcane does not need a fix. Though perhaps as Eric pointed out the ability to use adaptable to go around the disadvantage of expert is where this is comming from.

HOWEVER, given the variation of opinions I am leaning to the idea that nothing needs to be fixed. My reasoning for the change in position is that -IF- we all like something different then statistically speaking they all must be pretty close to even.
Author:  Eric Hughes [ Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Martial Archtype
wilcoxon wrote:
I agree an Expert's ability to take Adaptable during step 1 is very useful to avoid falling behind. However, I don't see it as a problem because it is a tradeoff - it uses a talent (something Expert tends to always be short on) to offset lower skills.



EXPERTS SHORT ON TALENTS? Dude I've got so many Acturis took Linguist four times. Maybe if your experts are short on talents it is because you are trying too hard to mimic another archetype?
Author:  toodeep [ Sun Jan 10, 2016 10:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Martial Archtype
I agree that Expert is the most popular archetype, because it is so flexible. I don't think it is overpowered because it is never better than the other archetypes in their area of expertise though. I think martial is the next most popular, and is generally good because the truth is, it is the damage dealer of the archetypes. Spells are great for AoE, but nothing beats a martial for dishing out the damage on the big, bad, guy. I am truly worried when I am not traveling with at least one martial character in the party.

Divine is the next most popular, though I don't think it is that much more powerful than arcane, I think there are just so many interesting different things (priest, 12 diff types of holy champions, etc) to try with divine casters, and I think divine combines the best with melee (smite, bless weapon, etc) that most of the caster/melee combinations are divine, and some of these take the divine archetype because of it.

I think the arcane is given the short-end of the preference, though I don't know if that means they are necessarily under powered, or if it just because their design isn't as rich as the divine is. The one thing about the arcane that I find odd is that if you want to be a truly arcane super caster - i.e. psionics and another arcane, you have to go expert, because when you take your primary advancement group (casting, deceit, stealth) you specifically only get one casting skill advanced. Therefore as a expert you can advance both casting skills three times over three ranks, but as an arcane specialist, you can only advance one 3 times, and the other twice. That seems wrong considering that both are arcane. I think that should be fixed, because I don't think there should be any time that being an arcane caster should be easier/better as an expert than as a arcane archetype. I think the best fix would be to just say that one gets a rank in any arcane casting they have when they take that rank choice, but I'm open to other alternatives.

(and possibly have the two lore skills you get at archtype creation be two lore or arcanum skills to allow for ranks that early)
Author:  Southernskies [ Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Martial Archtype
The issue with Divine and Arcane skills was that their Archetype skills were split into two advancements. (This is the reason Continued Training wound up banned).

Eventually, for the next edition (long way away!) if the advancements are re-combined it solves a lot of secondary issues.
Author:  Hat [ Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Martial Archtype
As demonstrated in the other thread that I started, there is far from agreement or consensus on the balance of the archetypes or in particular the Martial which was the archetype I raised. Rather than rehash that entire thread, I'll summarize a few key points.

1. Archetypes should shine in their element.
2. If they don't shine in their element, they should be solid contributors in more than one key area.
3. Martial archetypes are effective, but balanced against the other archetypes in combat. They don't "shine" there compared to say casters.
4. Martials lack any other area in which to significantly contribute.

I disagree with one of Eric's points quite strongly.

Quote:
One: generally magic only does tactical things in A:RPG. That puts it on closer parity with swinging a sword.


There are a wide variety of buff spells that have significant non-combat use, movement spells, concealment etc. that allow casters to mitigate or bypass various obstacles.

As a broader "fix" for casting in general, I would be more inclined to decrease the number of spells given to non-appropriate archetypes by say 2 each to represent a lack of focus. That effectively bolsters "true" casters while limiting the attractiveness of dipping from other archetypes.

Ironically perhaps, of the various characters I've built and played, none of them have been Experts. I've taken concepts and written them up in multiple archetypes for comparisons, but the core ideas lent themselves far more cleanly to a different archetype.

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul
Author:  wilcoxon [ Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Martial Archtype
Eric Hughes wrote:
wilcoxon wrote:
I agree an Expert's ability to take Adaptable during step 1 is very useful to avoid falling behind. However, I don't see it as a problem because it is a tradeoff - it uses a talent (something Expert tends to always be short on) to offset lower skills.


EXPERTS SHORT ON TALENTS? Dude I've got so many Acturis took Linguist four times. Maybe if your experts are short on talents it is because you are trying too hard to mimic another archetype?


Try doing an effective Expert with casting and melee (and/or ranged). Not only do you have a ton of talents you likely want/need but you're archetype advancement (2 skill talents) doesn't apply to most of them so you are limited to the generic "any 2 talents" and "any 1 talent" advancements to get them (ASC/DSC, LMT, etc).

The Expert is more flexible and is generally easier to keep skill ranks up in both casting and combat but you definitely lose out on the talent advancements of other Archetypes.
Author:  wilcoxon [ Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Martial Archtype
Southernskies wrote:
The issue with Divine and Arcane skills was that their Archetype skills were split into two advancements. (This is the reason Continued Training wound up banned).

Eventually, for the next edition (long way away!) if the advancements are re-combined it solves a lot of secondary issues.


Tangent. I've always wondered about that. Can you explain more about why Continued Training was banned? I suspect I'm missing something because I don't see what makes it so broken it needs to be banned.
Author:  Southernskies [ Mon Jan 11, 2016 2:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Martial Archtype
It was possible to get 5 ranks/tier, making the TNs irrelevant.
Author:  val Holryn [ Mon Jan 11, 2016 7:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Fixing the Martial Archtype
Hat wrote:
I disagree with one of Eric's points quite strongly.

Quote:
One: generally magic only does tactical things in A:RPG. That puts it on closer parity with swinging a sword.


There are a wide variety of buff spells that have significant non-combat use, movement spells, concealment etc. that allow casters to mitigate or bypass various obstacles.


Just to clarify, by "tactical" I do not just mean combat. I mean that spells in Arcanis are useful "at street level" to resolve an encounter but rarely change the bigger ("strategic") picture. In D&D mid to high level spells like Commune, Teleport/mass Flight, & Raise Dead all do more than just "win the encounter you're in"...they alter the strategic picture of what encounters you have to choose from.

I believe options with your "sword" are almost always "tactical" (in this sense) regardless of game system. They are also tactical in the sense your sword is usually not all that useful out of combat beyond the odd case of intimidation.

So...I find rough parity between a warior's mighty sweeping strike and a Sorcerer's storm of knives. And the hawkeye'd archer has WAY better range than the sorcerer's elemental bolt (wizards should fear snipers in Arcanis). But I do agree with Hat that the spell caster probably has better "utility" options out of combat.
Page 2 of 5 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/