marshmallow's super awesome amazing board influenced fighter fix


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Link

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your fix is basically steal a bunch of ideas from other classes (ranger combat styles, martial flexibility from brawler, etc), make weapon training earlier, slap a few spellbreaker feats, and call it a day? I'm not a big fan of it.


Cyrad wrote:
Your fix is basically steal a bunch of ideas from other classes (ranger combat styles, martial flexibility from brawler, etc), make weapon training earlier, slap a few spellbreaker feats, and call it a day? I'm not a big fan of it.

The original idea was to take the Brawler chassis, then turn it into the fighter.

Since the brawler essentially gets all its 'combat style feats' for free as you progress through the class I decided I wanted to mimic that. The best way to go about it turned out to be giving it the ranger styles, since they already existed in a format that made sense. Skipping prerequisites is a big deal for rangers and is one of the biggest criticisms the fighter gets for being considered mechanically inferior to the ranger.

And I did more than just slap on the spellbreaker feats, I fixed Spell Sunder, and made it part of the fighter's class ability list. This means he's actually better at it than a barbarian, which is another thing people were complaining about.

The biggest thing about this fix is that we are giving the fighter the things that it needed to spend its feats on so the player can spend their feats on things they actually want.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

This fix feels rather unfocused. While the premise might seem sound, I feel like you're not tackling the heart of the fighter's problems. Instead, you're taking good things from other classes and hoping it works.

My vision of a fighter fix is probably much different. However, if I wanted to rework the fighter using the brawler as a base, I'd basically think of it as a brawler archetype that makes the appropriate swaps and go from there. Instead of granting all the unarmed strike stuff, they'd get Weapon Focus in one weapon group at 1st level. Instead of brawler's flurry, they'd get a special attack that depends on the fighter group chosen at 1st level.


Cyrad wrote:

This fix feels rather unfocused. While the premise might seem sound, I feel like you're not tackling the heart of the fighter's problems. Instead, you're taking good things from other classes and hoping it works.

My vision of a fighter fix is probably much different. However, if I wanted to rework the fighter using the brawler as a base, I'd basically think of it as a brawler archetype that makes the appropriate swaps and go from there. Instead of granting all the unarmed strike stuff, they'd get Weapon Focus in one weapon group at 1st level. Instead of brawler's flurry, they'd get a special attack that depends on the fighter group chosen at 1st level.

I thought about doing that also, but focusing on a single weapon group cripples the point of the fighter having access to different weapon groups and actually makes him worse.

That's the reason I opted for combat styles. It is literally the same idea of gaining all the Unarmed and TWF feats which is what the class is based on, but instead allows you the choice of your style of combat. This turned into me deciding to just adapt the ranger combat styles because they were already written, I did add a couple.

It makes the fighter better at it than the ranger, which is what the fighter needs to be relevant.

The fighter doesn't need more special attacks, maybe pounce, but he really lacks in defense against spellcasters. I aimed to fix that.

The point is that the fighter needs to be the best at fighting, that means offense and defense.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

The fighter is already really good at fighting and defense. That's not his problem. One of the reasons he feels really lackluster is because he does not gain any special attacks or abilities other than bonuses to armor and damage. I also don't understand why you're against shoehorning the fighter to a weapon group, but you wanted to give them combat styles for the explicit reason of shoehorning them to a build.

I'm having trouble following your train of logic here. Something about "I want to fix the fighter by giving them more bonus feats" doesn't make much sense to me.


Weapon groups is what makes the fighter interesting. No other class (outside of maybe warpriest) has a built-in focus on a weapon type or weapon types. That's interesting and unique. Also, fighters have never hurt for damage or defense, like Cyrad said. That's actually the complaint: they're good at killing things but really nothing else. They're a static damage square on the battlefield. Not giving them special abilities is what makes a swashbuckler more of a fun or dynamic character than a fighter. More bonus feats without prereqs also doesn't fix it: that's the ranger's thing, and the ranger should get it.

The fighter needs its own thing like Rage, Favored Enemy, Smite, etc. to make it more interesting, not feats.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Critique:

I don't have much problem with the chassis. YOu removed Bravery entirely. Six skill points per level is fine for a non-casting class, and the skill list is martial centered.

A good Fort and Reflex save is fine. Is there a class option to buffer the Will save? All I saw was the reroll.

Many of the anti-magic abilities take past-10th to come online. That is waaay too late.

The whole premise for Combat Style feats is to accelerate how soon you can take them. It would be better if you just named them as bonus feats you can take without pre-reqs, qualifying at the same rate as the ranger. Getting them at 11 and 17 makes no sense. You want them by 9th. This is better for the fighter because he can get ALL the feats in a Style before the ranger possibly can...which is only right.

You make the huge mistake of introducing DR at level 18 for armor, again. It should be a scaling bonus. Suddenly getting DR so late most fighters will never attain that level means it effectively isn't a bonus.

You still have the implicit stat cost of requiring monstrous Dex to take advantage of Armor Training. I suggest just making it a scaling dodge bonus, not quite as good as the monk.

Declining weapon groups bonuses really make no sense overall. I suggest a Primary weapons group, and then the rest secondary weapons groups that share the same bonus.

he still has no class-based movement options or recovery abilities.

==Aelryinth


On the topic of armor and weapon stuff, I think it's pretty good to think of the fighter as the "weapons and armor" guy, thematically. Having focus on a weapon, weapon group, or weapon groups means that the fighter is the guy who transcends normal weapon proficiencies of other classes. It also plays into the fact that a lot of fighter derivations (swashbuckler, gunslinger, warpriest, magus) all are a diluted form of weapons specialist; the fighter is the granddaddy of all that. A fighter specialized in a greatsword should be able to do things with the greatsword that no other class can (maybe change damage type on the fly, ignore certain DRs, parry spells, etc.) simply because he's trained so hard in it. Alternatively, a fighter should also gradually get better and better with as many weapons as possible.

I think it was a mistake to have weapon focus and specialization be limited to one weapon in the fighter's weapon group. Weapon groups were a great idea, and are awesome design space that Paizo never really used. Weapon groups and playing off of that is something unique to the fighter, and playing off that gives it a bit more identity.

Likewise, it's important to find a way to make the fighter the "armor guy" too. Heavy armor is alright, though most of my players gravitate towards mithril breastplates. The fighter should be the best with armor. Maybe he gets to add scaling DR 1/- while in heavy armor or increased dodge bonuses in light armor, something that connects the fighter to his armor in a meaningful way.

The fighter's skill at arms and armor should border on supernatural.

Also, I think it's important that the fighter has something cool that he gets to do. An attack, a swift action, something that lets him be a bit more dynamic. For my fighter redux I threw in deeds, and my players have so far really enjoyed them. They get a parry deed, though the riposte here is a reposition, sunder, or disarm instead of an attack, and a shout-like ability that lets the fighter use his standard action to give an ally a 5-foot step or a single attack. This came into play a lot in the last session, when a tight corridor prevented the fighter from getting an attack off, and later when he helped the wizard get out of something's reach by giving her a 5-foot step.

That kind of stuff (which I think the Stamina system in Unchained might help a lot with) is what the fighter should be doing. Mastering the battlefield in all of its components: arms, armor, and tactics.


Aelryinth wrote:

Critique:

I don't have much problem with the chassis. YOu removed Bravery entirely. Six skill points per level is fine for a non-casting class, and the skill list is martial centered.

A good Fort and Reflex save is fine. Is there a class option to buffer the Will save? All I saw was the reroll.

Many of the anti-magic abilities take past-10th to come online. That is waaay too late.

The whole premise for Combat Style feats is to accelerate how soon you can take them. It would be better if you just named them as bonus feats you can take without pre-reqs, qualifying at the same rate as the ranger. Getting them at 11 and 17 makes no sense. You want them by 9th. This is better for the fighter because he can get ALL the feats in a Style before the ranger possibly can...which is only right.

You make the huge mistake of introducing DR at level 18 for armor, again. It should be a scaling bonus. Suddenly getting DR so late most fighters will never attain that level means it effectively isn't a bonus.

You still have the implicit stat cost of requiring monstrous Dex to take advantage of Armor Training. I suggest just making it a scaling dodge bonus, not quite as good as the monk.

Declining weapon groups bonuses really make no sense overall. I suggest a Primary weapons group, and then the rest secondary weapons groups that share the same bonus.

he still has no class-based movement options or recovery abilities.

==Aelryinth

Check the comments in the document, Militant Expertise is meant to be a synergizing ability that promotes high wisdom scores because it allows you to make party face checks based off wisdom.

He also gets every combat style feat one level sooner than the ranger, meaning something like shield master comes online at 5th level for him.

I mostly kept armor mastery the same because I didn't want to change the class too much. If the fighter simply increased the armor bonus of his armor rather than increasing the max DEX would that make people happier?

I can't really see giving all the magical defensive abilities at one time, it would make the class too front loaded. I guess I could get rid of the disruptive feat and I just give spellbreaker at 6th level. It would give the fighter better defenses earlier. Spell parry could come next.

I guess a better way for armor mastery to work would be some form of fortification or something?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

You get your combat style feats at 5,9,11 and 17. It's right there in your document. Nobody is going to wait until 17 to take the key feats for their class.

Simply make them bonus feats, and say the fighter qualifies to take X as bonus feats at Y levels, and does not have to meet the pre-reqs.

Done. Simple, elegant, works.

Militant Expertise merely allows a combat-appropriate skill to be used for other purposes. The level by bonus completely outweighs the stat investment, and so the synergy is largely irrelevant. If it dovetailed with Str or Dex, that would be different, and actually amount to something.

You can give spell resistance as easily as level 1, and you can make the entire Disruptive/spellbreaker line class abilities that activate before 10th level without much problem.

Note: I would have the election of Spell Resistance at level 1 be a life choice for the fighter. If he chooses it, he can never cast spells, activate many magical items, or use UMD.
I would also let him 'train' his spell resistance so he can choose to auto-fail or auto-succeed (one or the other, not both) against spellcasters he is associated with. That way, he can receive buffs, or he can totally ignore friendly fireballs.

Armor Mastery, just make it a dodge bonus. That's what the ability DOES. It lets you get a higher Dex bonus to AC, which is a DODGE BONUS. Just cut out the dexterity requirement and just give the AC bonus!

==Aelryinth

Liberty's Edge

I dunno, to be honest, this seems too good as compared to, say, Slayer. Or any other martial character:

I mean, comparing this Fighter to Slayer you get equivalent bonuses to Studied Combat, and double the bonus Feats, plus equal skills and a host of other abilities (all the anti-spellcaster stuff). Plus Martial Flexibility and Heavy Armor. And Maneuver Training. And...well, you get the idea.

I mean...damn, that's a hell of a lot to get in exchange for 6d6 Sneak Attack, 5 Rogue Talents (even Advanced ones), and some tracking stuff.

Or compare it to Brawler: You get Armor and Weapon Training, two extra skill points per level, and a host of weapon and armor proficiencies, early access and a choice of combat styles, plus the anti spellcaster stuff...all in exchange for unarmed strike and brawler's strike and not a lot else (I guess there's the AC bonus...but that's in light armor only).

The comparison to Ranger, Swashbuckler, or even Barbarian will go similarly. Paladin comes out looking a bit better, but even there issues arise.

That's...not good class design unless you want to completely invalidate all existing martial classes.

Now, I'm not saying Fighter couldn't use some help (I give them a Good Will Save, 4 skill points per level, and Perception and Knowledge-Local as Class Skills)...quite possibly even more help than I give them...but this version seems to be trying to be all things to all men, and that's not a good idea, as a rule.

I'd switch the Good Reflex to Good Will (there should be some Martial who gets that, and Fighter seems appropriate). I'd drop the skills down to 4+Int per level, Fighter's never been a skill class and probably shouldn't be thematically. They focus on martial pursuits over such things. Your skill list looks solid though, keep it.

I'd likewise drop Combat Styles and return to the classic Fighter's Feat progression (your choice of 11 separate Feats is what Fighter is designed to do and why people pick it). Armor Training and Weapon Training should obviously stay (though switching armor training to a dodge bonus seems viable), militant expertise and Endurance seem like reasonable inclusions, though maybe a bit front-loaded (maybe make Endurance part of Armor Training).

Maneuver Training stacks with Weapon Training and is thus a bad idea ('I have a +12 CMB, +13 with a sword, +14 to trip with a sword' is a bit too complicated, IMO), the two were never intended to be on the same character and make for weird stacking and only Trip and Disarm ever getting used by optimal characters. I'd be inclined to wrap it up in Weapon Training, to be honest, with one category you can apply Weapon Training to being 'Combat Maneuvers'. That might necessitate a name change to 'Weapon Training', but eh, why not?

Martial Flexibility...is an interesting thought. As is the anti-magic stuff. I'd go with one or the other of the two, stacking them in where Bravery used to go (and thus having the anti-spell stuff way earlier). Or go with one and make the other an Archetype.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Deadmanwalking wrote:
I dunno, to be honest, this seems too good as compared to, say, Slayer. Or any other martial character:

I mean, comparing this Fighter to Slayer you get equivalent bonuses to Studied Combat, and double the bonus Feats, plus equal skills and a host of other abilities (all the anti-spellcaster stuff). Plus Martial Flexibility and Heavy Armor. And Maneuver Training. And...well, you get the idea.

====He's comparing to core classes. Slayer is not even on the comparison list. The comparison is mostly to Ranger, but also to Paladin and Barbarian.======

I mean...damn, that's a hell of a lot to get in exchange for 6d6 Sneak Attack, 5 Rogue Talents (even Advanced ones), and some tracking stuff.

====11 feat equivalents for what he gets? I don't agree with you, but eh. Again, the Slayer isn't even on the radar. We WANT to invalidate the Slayer.====

Or compare it to Brawler: You get Armor and Weapon Training, two extra skill points per level, and a host of weapon and armor proficiencies, early access and a choice of combat styles, plus the anti spellcaster stuff...all in exchange for unarmed strike and brawler's strike and not a lot else (I guess there's the AC bonus...but that's in light armor only).

===The Brawler should be nothing more then a Fighter Archetype.=====

The comparison to Ranger, Swashbuckler, or even Barbarian will go similarly. Paladin comes out looking a bit better, but even there issues arise.

===You're not serious? Spellcasting, animal companion, terrains, FE, Evasion, and 2 good saves, Swash is a non-issue; Barb - Massive saves vs magic, tough and Str boosts, Rage powers that massively outclass any combat feat?=====

That's...not good class design unless you want to completely invalidate all existing martial classes.

===Current Fighter IS an invalidated martial class. That's why he's doing this.=====

Now, I'm not saying Fighter couldn't use some help (I give them a Good Will Save, 4 skill points per level, and Perception and Knowledge-Local as Class Skills)...quite possibly even more help than I give them...but this version seems to be trying to be all things to all men, and that's not a good idea, as a rule.

===You haven't notice that he's STILL NOT USING MAGIC. Even supernatural rage. HE isn't growing claws, or wings, or breathing fire, or whatnot.
That's the context. The other classes ALL get magical abilities. the fighter still does not.=====

I'd switch the Good Reflex to Good Will (there should be some Martial who gets that, and Fighter seems appropriate). I'd drop the skills down to 4+Int per level, Fighter's never been a skill class and probably shouldn't be thematically. They focus on martial pursuits over such things. Your skill list looks solid though, keep it.

==========I personally made the good save elective based on the fighter's style. A good Will save has traditionally been mainly to casters.
Look at the ranger. FE bonuses, Terrain bonuses, Animal COmpanion, and most Importantly, SPELLCASTING.
Now tell me why a fighter, who has no magic, no special skill vs foes or in landscapes, and no animal companion, somehow is justified in that heavy armor prof and Tower shield prof are worth 4 skill points/level?!?
There's complete justification for the fighter - that he's as or more highly trained then the Ranger, who can just RELY ON MAGIC. AT the very least, he should be educated and competent then a barbarian, no?
I mean, the paladin has 2/level, and nobody complains because he's also a spellcaster relying on supernatural boosts. Well, SO IS THE RANGER.
The only reason the ranger has 6 skill points is because hide in shadows and move silently used to be class skills, and now he has to pay for them. In reality, he should have 4 skill points tops, equal to a barb. You could even drop it down to 2, and auto give them Stealth and Survival, and it would be suitable!==========

I'd likewise drop Combat Styles and return to the classic Fighter's Feat progression (your choice of 11 separate Feats is what Fighter is designed to do and why people pick it). Armor Training and Weapon Training should obviously stay (though switching armor training to a dodge bonus seems viable), militant expertise and Endurance seem like reasonable inclusions, though maybe a bit front-loaded (maybe make Endurance part of Armor Training).

======Yes and no on this. He's making a Ranger comparison.
There's no reason a Ranger should EVER have access to combat feats before a fighter, AND not need the reqs.
None. Zip. Zero.
So, having the style feats just means the fighter gets access to a few feats at the same pace as a Ranger, or faster.
Now, delaying the style feats until 11 and 17 is dumb. He should just make the fighter eligible for taking them with his bonus combat feats at the chosen levels, and call it a day.
As for Endurance, there's no reason the Ranger gets it and the Fighter doesn't. If anything, the Fighter deserves it more...he carries a bigger load and heavier armor.=========

Maneuver Training stacks with Weapon Training and is thus a bad idea ('I have a +12 CMB, +13 with a sword, +14 to trip with a sword' is a bit too complicated, IMO), the two were never intended to be on the same character and make for weird stacking and only Trip and Disarm ever getting used by optimal characters. I'd be inclined to wrap it up in Weapon Training, to be honest, with one category you can apply Weapon Training to being 'Combat Maneuvers'. That might necessitate a name change to 'Weapon Training', but eh, why not?

=====CMD is higher then AC. TO pull it off, you need a higher CMB bonus. He's basically folding in 'improved +2 feats' into a class bonus, so Fighters take the shtick of best all around maneuver specialist.
Your complaint is akin to complaining that Strength Surge and Favored Enemy and Smite Bonuses all Stack with Maneuver feats, so Barbs, Rangers and Paladins shouldn't get them, either.========

Martial Flexibility...is an interesting thought. As is the anti-magic stuff. I'd go with one or the other of the two, stacking them in where Bravery used to go (and thus having the anti-spell stuff way earlier). Or go with one and make the other an Archetype.

===========The Anti-Magic stuff is an attempt to regain some of the ground long ceded to the Barbarian, Paladin, and ranger, all of whom have anti-magic defenses or attacks.
The flexibility is so the fighter can actually adapt tactics to a situation. It takes the place of using Rage Rounds for rage talents, and spellcasting for Paladin and Ranger. It's hardly too strong. Just compare Martial Flexibility for the paladin's ability to double his Cha bonus to saves, or the Ranger's ability to set This Guy as his BEST Favored Enemy, or the Barb to increase his Nat Ac by +6.
That's what you're comparing it to.
Doesn't look so powerful in the light of that, does it?=======

==Aelryinth

Liberty's Edge

Actually...yes, it does. Animal Companions and Ranger Spells are nice, but Ranger is already significantly behind a corebook Fighter on damage when not fighting Favored Enemies (or burning Instant Enemy...and that's only vs. specific targets, and doesn't pull him that far ahead), and is significantly behind in AC. They're miles better

That's certainly not enough to make the Fighter good. It isn't...but it does mean that, if trying to make a Fighter that's on par with other martial classes...this version is sorta profound overkill.

What I'm saying is not that this Fighter is more broken than, say, a Druid, what I'm saying is that, unless you're gonna radically redesign every non spell-using Class in the game (and probably some 4 level casters too), this Class surpasses all of them. Which is a problem.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

mmmm.

You haven't seen many comparisons of fighter and ranger damage, have you.

1) FE starts at level 1. Fighter gets a dmg bonus starting at 4th..at best. One level later FE2, comes online. FE, if done right, applies in 60-75% of your fights over the course of your career.

2) FE applies on all weapons, ranged or melee. Fighter bonus is always one or the other until he gets a second weapon group, and even then he's not going to blow more Weapon Spec feats on it, so he gets declining bonuses out of it if not fighting in his preferred style.

3) Weapon Training bonus is almost always less then equivalent FE bonus.

4) The animal companion provides an easy flanking bonus (+2 to hit) AND gets the ranger's FE bonus.
Alternatively, the ranger can use Guide to Give his FE bonus away to someone, which is a form of leadership/group buff option the fighter doesn't have.

5) Yes, the ranger has the ability to CHOOSE when to inflict the most damage on a given foe, regardless of the type. the fighter doesn't have the ability to choose that THIS BOW gets his full +6 Weapon training bonus against the big bad using ranged attacks, sorry.
Which means Instant Enemy is a Nova Option the fighter just doesn't have. Pearls of Power mean it can apply over and over in particularly tough fights, if needed.
Instant Enemy, when it comes online, simply gets more and more powerful with level, because it now invokes choice - I get my FE bonus when I WANT it.

6) The ranger is NOT behind on AC. First, he can cast Barkskin, which gives him a +1 to +3 AC bonus over a Fighter, by simple dint of cash over Amulets of Nat AC, until 15th level or so.
Second, the fighter's armor training is based on dex score. The Ranger, with an identical dex, has the SAME BONUS, at least until Dex scores exceed 20 or so. Celestial Mail can push that to 24. Mithral BP for the win! The fighter AT BEST will pick up 1 to 2 AC for using heavy armor, and even then has to wait to 7th level before he isn't handicapped by movement penalties.
In short, the fighter doesn't really get an AC bonus until 15th+, when a tertiary ability score finally exceeds 20.
Now, if it was a straight DODGE BONUS...you'd be right. It's not. he actually has to have the monster dex that exceeds the limit on his armor for it to mean anything.

7) I don't agree on the balance situation. I look at his build, and still consider a Ranger, Paladin or Barbarian more viable. They simply have more options, more defenses, more ability to Nova, and/or more out of combat utility.

6 skill points is a non-issue. Seriously. You could give him EIGHT and it wouldn't change any balance issues. It's totally a flavor thing. Do you want the intelligent, highly trained, no magic martial combatant, or the brute stupid who can't think past his armor? The latter should be the barbarian berserker, and the former should be the fighter. One trains, and the other relies on rage and raw physical ability.

A few bonus feats that target spellcasters aren't going to imbalance anyone, either. As the LONE CLASS which has no magical abilities, they are hugely appropriate.

==Aelryinth


Combat styles exist to reflect the fact that the Brawler gets his TWF feats and the like for free without meeting prerequisites. I decided to emulate that, but I wanted the fighter to have more options than just one or two styles, so I used the ranger lists. This makes the ranger a knock off of the fighter, which is a good thing.

Maneuver Training needs to stack with Weapon Training in order for maneuvers to remain relevant past the e6 era of game play. The fighter is the one who should be the best at it, so he is.

Good reflex saves are thematic because the fighter is so well trained in his armor that he can move around in it freely, meaning his reflexes are unimpeded. To better fit with that theme, I gave him Acrobatics as a class skill and I gave him good reflex saves. As for martials not having good will saves, you have the paladin for that.

He doesn't have to wait until 17 for those feats to come online, all his combat style feats are available to him by 9th level. Those extra feats from combat style later on are to keep with the progression of the table of getting one every four levels, which is the same rate pretty much all of his other abilities come on at. By the time you hit 13th level for the fourth combat style feat, you are most likely going to meet all the prerequisites anyway, so at that point they are just thematic feats in practice.

I personally have no problem with docking the skills back down to 4, which is where I had it at a year ago when I wrote the original fix document.

Subtle changes being implemented included buffing Armor training to include scaling fortification at 10th and 14th levels, and armor mastery now grants heavy fortification.

I don't like giving a free dodge bonus to fighters, I can't help but feel that's a bit much and it steps on the monk's toes. I like increasing the max DEX so a fighter can take advantage of a slightly above average DEX mod even in full plate. EG a fighter under 20 point buy (16 14 14 10 12 8) with a belt of physical perfection can fully utilize his 20 DEX, assuming he puts no points into it.

But now I have dead levels at 15 (not really because feat) and 16. Writer's block ensues.

EDIT: Endurance has been removed in favor of Fighter's Cunning, ripped from the Brawler.

EDIT 2: At different weapon training intervals after the 1st I added the brawler's DR bypassing for fighter weapons.


Maybe mine ideas from this?


christos gurd wrote:
Maybe mine ideas from this?

I don't think it was, because it was part of the homebrew forums and hosted as an online document for free.

Also, filled up those two slots. The fighter now gets his defensive abilities earlier, no longer gets the disruptive and spellbreaker feats, and gets improved versions of his defensive abilities later on.

I think the DEX thing for armor training is fine as is, because DEX builds are a thing, and the fighter can benefit from being able to have +8 max DEX in breastplate if he goes for a DEX to Damage build.

Liberty's Edge

Again, with Combat Style and Martial Flexibility and Weapon Training and Armor Training and 6 skill points a level as well as all the anti-magic stuff...how is this class not better than a Slayer or Brawler (the two closest equivalents) in every way?

Seriously, I'm curious.

If you're gonna power up all non-spellcasters, that's cool, go for it. But allowing this version of Fighter in the same game as a Brawler screws the Brawler almost as much as the Fighter's screwed in that comparison by the official rules.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Again, with Combat Style and Martial Flexibility and Weapon Training and Armor Training and 6 skill points a level as well as all the anti-magic stuff...how is this class not better than a Slayer or Brawler (the two closest equivalents) in every way?

Seriously, I'm curious.

If you're gonna power up all non-spellcasters, that's cool, go for it. But allowing this version of Fighter in the same game as a Brawler screws the Brawler almost as much as the Fighter's screwed in that comparison by the official rules.

Brawlers get the same number of combat style feats, but at different intervals. They get the same number of bonus feats at the same intervals.

Their unarmed damage, and damage with close weapons, scales to use much bigger dice. Average damage equates to about the same as weapon training.

They both get Maneuver Training.

Brawler doesn't need DEX to get his AC bonus, nor does he need to wear armor for it. Better ability.

Instead of the defensive abilities they get their knockout and awesome blow abilities. They trade defense for offense.

Brawler's get the Martial Flexibility capstone of having up to 23 free feats for a swift action. Fighter's don't.

How does the Slayer not compare to this directly? Studied Targets are +5/+5, exactly the same as Weapon Training. They get sneak attack, much more burst damage than weapon specialization offers.

They also get a lot more options and use from their skills, track, trapfinding if they choose, and many other buffs to various perception, initiative, and stealth checks. Not to mention Studied Target bonuses also apply to skill checks like bluffs to feint and stealth checks.

Oh, and they get evasion.

If you ask me the classes are balanced with each other now.

Liberty's Edge

You're ignoring the huge advantage Fighter's proficiencies grant them. Heavy Armor Proficiency (and zero class Features lost while wearing it) makes their AC so much better than Brawlers and especially Slayers for most of their careers that it's not even funny (indeed, Slayers never catch up). Brawler's AC bonus requiring light armor makes it less than stellar for large portions of the game, more of a 'break even' with heavy armor than an advantage over it.

On the Brawler, you're also ignoring that AoMF priceyness makes the unarmed combat damage of the Brawler nowhere near a match for most kinds of Fighter (and down AC from not having an AoNA), and given that the 'close weapon' version is giving up +4 each to hit and damage from Weapon Training, I don't think the 2 points of damage they can manage over the Fighter's 2d6 with close weapons make up for anything, since the Fighter is still up +4 to hit and +2 to damage over them. Nor do Awesome Blow and Knockout (while nice) make up for getting Level +15 Spell Resistance among other things. And then there's the two extra skill points per level and extra proficiencies...

As for Slayers, yes they are slightly better on skills (though only slightly...studied target bonus and a somewhat better list are pretty much all they have going for them), and keep pace with Weapon Training via Studied Target but we're talking something on the order of at least -4 AC, -7 if they don't spend a Feat on Heavy Armor Proficiency (and way more at lower level unless seriously Dex-based). And again, Talents and Sneak Attack, while shiny, are not in fact a match for the level of seriously hardcore anti-magic stuff you're providing Fighter (which is way better than Evasion), never even mind Martial Flexibility (which is explicitly pretty much the equal of Sneak Attack on its own) and 5 extra Feats (which are only slightly below the five extra Talents).


master_marshmallow wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
Maybe mine ideas from this?

I don't think it was, because it was part of the homebrew forums and hosted as an online document for free.

Also, filled up those two slots. The fighter now gets his defensive abilities earlier, no longer gets the disruptive and spellbreaker feats, and gets improved versions of his defensive abilities later on.

I think the DEX thing for armor training is fine as is, because DEX builds are a thing, and the fighter can benefit from being able to have +8 max DEX in breastplate if he goes for a DEX to Damage build.

i was suggesting you could grab ideas from that.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I pretty much agree with everything deadmanwalking says.

1) The fighter fix is overpowered compared to other good martials because they get a much higher volume of bonus feats, class features, and skill points -- most at faster rates, too.

2) The fighter fix is not cool because it steals signature class features from the ranger and brawler while deliberately avoiding the few unique mechanics about the fighter (weapon groups) that many players would love to see expanded. The fighter fix has these for, more or less, the reason of "Well, it worked for those classes. It'll work for the fighter and make them better, too!" I still don't understand why they get the same amount of skill points as a skill focused class when they don't have a lot of class skills and have only one major skill ability: a bonus to Profession (soldier). The 6+Int skill points just feels tacked on.

3) The design goals of the fighter fix feel completely misguided and ultimately don't fix the fighter's design issues. The fix was meant to make them do more damage and have more feats when these were things the fighter already excelled at.

4) The only interesting aspect of the fighter fix are the spell sundering abilities, which feel out of place as static features on the fighter.

5) Finally, you seem rather unreceptive to much of the criticism and concerns about the document here.


I'm not very receptive because a lot of the criticism is not constructive.

And when I do explain it, I get ignored.

The fighter gains feats slower than the brawler.

Not to mention the brawler chassis is what the fighter should have had in the first place. The two classes are virtually parallel now where before the brawler was blatantly superior in every way.

Combat styles already existed in text, so I ported them over rather than coming up with a new name and list of feats that ultimately do the save thing.

"it's too good" is not constructing advice, it's a complaint.

I don't have issue with going down to 4 skills per level, but that hardly will fix any problems you seem to be having.

SR 25 isn't even that great, at high levels it's mostly "don't roll a 1" for enemies.

Also how does this fix make them just do more damage? I guess they get one more thanks to weapon training. Those are the kinds of statements that I ignore because you either didn't read it or didn't appreciate the work I did put into it.


I Think this looks great. Will look more later.

Liberty's Edge

master_marshmallow wrote:
I'm not very receptive because a lot of the criticism is not constructive.

My first post included pretty detailed suggestions for how to improve things (ie: tone it down a bit), actually.

master_marshmallow wrote:
And when I do explain it, I get ignored.

Disagreement=/=Ignoring.

master_marshmallow wrote:
The fighter gains feats slower than the brawler.

No, they do not. Brawlers get IUS, TWF, and a bonus Feat over the first two levels, but Fighters get two bomus Feats, Medium and Heavy Armor Proficiency, and

master_marshmallow wrote:
Not to mention the brawler chassis is what the fighter should have had in the first place. The two classes are virtually parallel now where before the brawler was blatantly superior in every way.

This is in many ways true, and a Fighter based directly on the Brawler chassis could be a solid idea...but you didn't make that, you made All The God Things About The Brawler + All The Good Things About The Slayer + All The Good things about the Fighter.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Combat styles already existed in text, so I ported them over rather than coming up with a new name and list of feats that ultimately do the save thing.

Right...but why? Fighters don't need help on the Feat front, not really. They need help on Saves, Skills, and special abilities, they were doing fine on the Feat front.

master_marshmallow wrote:
"it's too good" is not constructing advice, it's a complaint.

True enough on its own. Which would be why I gave a thorough analysis of why I felt that way and some potential solutions to the issues so as to not simply be complaining, but instead be constructive. And then you summarily ignored me.

master_marshmallow wrote:
I don't have issue with going down to 4 skills per level, but that hardly will fix any problems you seem to be having.

It'd fix a fair percentage of mine, actually. Not nearly all, but, like, a quarter to a third of them.

master_marshmallow wrote:
SR 25 isn't even that great, at high levels it's mostly "don't roll a 1" for enemies.

At 15th level? Vs. Bestiary monsters? No, it isn't. And it goes to 31 at level 16.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Also how does this fix make them just do more damage? I guess they get one more thanks to weapon training. Those are the kinds of statements that I ignore because you either didn't read it or didn't appreciate the work I did put into it.

I never said it did, actually. For the record. The problem is much more defensive than it is raw damage.


Skills
6 seems high. I'd shoot for 4. Ranger has 6 because he's one of the CRB's skill monkeys, which a fighter is not.

Saves
Probably a good choice. The second good save is a tough call though, because you could just as easily rationalize a fighter being resolute instead of quick.

Militant Expertise
This is a background choice and too specific. What is my fighter wasn't a soldier? He could have been a noble with private instruction, or a thug, or a bounty killer. What about "A fighter adds 1/2 his level as a bonus to Diplomacy checks made against creatures with fighter or warrior levels." Still not a great fix but its open ended.

Feats
So we have the CRB's selection of feats from proficiencies (which is the best in the game), martial flexibility feats, combat style feats, and bonus feats. That four sources of feats. Honestly I think martial flexibility at 1st levels and bonus feats thereafter is plenty. I would drop the combat styles.

Fighter's Cunning
I know the brawler gets this, but I don't really care for it. I think the designers should have made this a trait (but more generalized) instead of a class feature.

Maneuver Training
Call it personal preference, but I like my fighters using weapons. Some combat maneuvers can be performed with weapons, and the fighter is already getting bonuses to perform combat maneuvers when he uses one of the weapons he is really good with.

Shake Spell
I like it.

Shatter Spell
Does the fighter need any special knowledge about magic to use this ability? He doesn't have Kn Arcana or Spellcraft as class skills. Does he need to be able to see the aura created by the magic? He isn't provided with a means to do so. What exactly is he targeting and how does he know its there? This feels like something that might accompany an archetype or be part of a feat chain.

Spell Armor
This for sure looks like a SU ability. This also feels like something that might accompany an archetype or be part of a feat chain. It feels out of place to me.

Spell Parry
Sounds cool, but like Shatter Spell I have to wonder what he is targeting? A spellcaster has to make a Spellcraft check to identify the spell in order to counter it. How does the fighter know what he is countering? I feel that rather than countering spells, a fighter would be better off gaining a bonus to disrupting spells when skewering spellcasters.


Ciaran Barnes wrote:

Skills

6 seems high. I'd shoot for 4. Ranger has 6 because he's one of the CRB's skill monkeys, which a fighter is not.

Saves
Probably a good choice. The second good save is a tough call though, because you could just as easily rationalize a fighter being resolute instead of quick.

Militant Expertise
This is a background choice and too specific. What is my fighter wasn't a soldier? He could have been a noble with private instruction, or a thug, or a bounty killer. What about "A fighter adds 1/2 his level as a bonus to Diplomacy checks made against creatures with fighter or warrior levels." Still not a great fix but its open ended.

Feats
So we have the CRB's selection of feats from proficiencies (which is the best in the game), martial flexibility feats, combat style feats, and bonus feats. That four sources of feats. Honestly I think martial flexibility at 1st levels and bonus feats thereafter is plenty. I would drop the combat styles.

Fighter's Cunning
I know the brawler gets this, but I don't really care for it. I think the designers should have made this a trait (but more generalized) instead of a class feature.

Maneuver Training
Call it personal preference, but I like my fighters using weapons. Some combat maneuvers can be performed with weapons, and the fighter is already getting bonuses to perform combat maneuvers when he uses one of the weapons he is really good with.

Shake Spell
I like it.

Shatter Spell
Does the fighter need any special knowledge about magic to use this ability? He doesn't have Kn Arcana or Spellcraft as class skills. Does he need to be able to see the aura created by the magic? He isn't provided with a means to do so. What exactly is he targeting and how does he know its there? This feels like something that might accompany an archetype or be part of a feat chain.

Spell Armor
This for sure looks like a SU ability. This also feels like something that might accompany an archetype or be part of a feat chain. It feels out of place to me.

Spell Parry...

Profession: Soldier is the skill used for Mass Combat, and I wanted the fighter to be the undisputed best at commanding an army, which is why he gets that bonus. I decided to throw in the RP stuff because not everyone plays with mass combat, and it would be thematic for someone who is trained as a soldier to flaunt that.

As for Spell Shatter, I originally had the Disruptive feats as part of the regular progression, I'm thinking about putting them back in, but mechanically it is the same as a barbarian's Spell Sunder.

Spell Resistance is almost always an Ex ability in the books. Following precedent there.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
I'm not very receptive because a lot of the criticism is not constructive.

My first post included pretty detailed suggestions for how to improve things (ie: tone it down a bit), actually.

master_marshmallow wrote:
And when I do explain it, I get ignored.

Disagreement=/=Ignoring.

master_marshmallow wrote:
The fighter gains feats slower than the brawler.

No, they do not. Brawlers get IUS, TWF, and a bonus Feat over the first two levels, but Fighters get two bomus Feats, Medium and Heavy Armor Proficiency, and

master_marshmallow wrote:
Not to mention the brawler chassis is what the fighter should have had in the first place. The two classes are virtually parallel now where before the brawler was blatantly superior in every way.

This is in many ways true, and a Fighter based directly on the Brawler chassis could be a solid idea...but you didn't make that, you made All The God Things About The Brawler + All The Good Things About The Slayer + All The Good things about the Fighter.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Combat styles already existed in text, so I ported them over rather than coming up with a new name and list of feats that ultimately do the save thing.

Right...but why? Fighters don't need help on the Feat front, not really. They need help on Saves, Skills, and special abilities, they were doing fine on the Feat front.

master_marshmallow wrote:
"it's too good" is not constructing advice, it's a complaint.

True enough on its own. Which would be why I gave a thorough analysis of why I felt that way and some potential solutions to the issues so as to not simply be complaining, but instead be constructive. And then you summarily ignored me.

master_marshmallow wrote:
I don't have issue with going down to 4 skills per level, but that hardly will fix any problems you seem to be having.

It'd fix a fair percentage of mine, actually. Not nearly all, but, like, a quarter to a third of

...

Was responding to Cyrad not you, but the point still stands.

Medium and Heavy armor hardly break the class or count as extra feats that the fighter gets. That's a joke on its own.

Combat styles are the one thing that makes the Ranger empirically better at combat than the fighter, in the 1,000+ thread on why fighters suck a large number of pages are dedicated to directly comparing the fighter to the ranger and combat styles along with skills were the main offenders. Again, the Brawler gets a free combat style, albeit one that is chosen for him. I wanted to emulate that because the Brawler doesn't need high DEX for those feats to work for him. To be blunt, there are more reasons why the fighter needs access to combat styles than there are reasons you have provided that he doesn't.

I'm fine with going back down to 4+ INT skills.

And I very much did not give the fighter all the good things about the slayer. No sneak attack, no studied combat, no favored terrains, no woodland stride.

6+ skills is no where near game breaking, especially on a non magical class.


Changes added:
4+ skills

Maneuver Training no longer stacks with Weapon Training.

Spell Armor is now 5 + level, Greater Spell Armor is 10 + level.

Liberty's Edge

master_marshmallow wrote:
Was responding to Cyrad not you, but the point still stands.

Okay?

master_marshmallow wrote:
Medium and Heavy armor hardly break the class or count as extra feats that the fighter gets. That's a joke on its own.

As compared to Improved Unarmed Strike? They totally count.

And even generally, every category above Light armor you get is effectively +1 AC even assuming unlimited Dex. If not assuming unlimited Dex, it's better than that. That's a non-negligible advantage and easily worth a couple of Feats (even if it does decrease movement...oh, wait, we're talking about Fighters here).

master_marshmallow wrote:
Combat styles are the one thing that makes the Ranger empirically better at combat than the fighter, in the 1,000+ thread on why fighters suck a large number of pages are dedicated to directly comparing the fighter to the ranger and combat styles along with skills were the main offenders. Again, the Brawler gets a free combat style, albeit one that is chosen for him. I wanted to emulate that because the Brawler doesn't need high DEX for those feats to work for him. To be blunt, there are more reasons why the fighter needs access to combat styles than there are reasons you have provided that he doesn't.

Even going by this logic, the Bralwer gets them at 2nd, 8th, and 15th level, not the 1st, 5th, and 9th of your Fighter.

And Brawlers also don't get all five of Martial Flexibility, Combat Style, Weapon Training (or an equivalent), Maneuver Training, and an AC bonus (Armor Training).

In fact...nobody does.

Slayers get Studied Target + Combat Style + Sneak Attack (which is about the equal of Martial Flexibility) + Talents (4 things), Rangers get Favored Enemy + Combat Style + Spells + Animal Companion (4 things), Brawlers get Combat Style (delayed) + Martial Flexibility + AC Bonuses + Maneuver Training. Nobody gets all five. Much less all five plus the anti-spellcaster stuff. All do also get some supplementary stuff (including a few Feats), but nothing as good as the anti-spellcaster stuff you're doing (and only Brawler gets as many Feats).

And getting all five of those (plus the anti-spellcaster stuff) is really the heart of my complaint with your version. It just gives more different bonuses (that all stack) than any existing Martial Class. You need to drop one of the things I list, maybe one and a half (given the bonus Feats and quality of the anti spellcaster stuff). My advice would be to make those two Combat Style and Maneuver Training, but give back Fighter's normal number of bonus Feats. That'd solve the issue.

Other solutions are absolutely possible, but would involve dropping Weapon Training, Armor Training, Martial; Flexibility, or the anti-magic stuff. And those four things seem the heart of the design, so I'd keep 'em.

master_marshmallow wrote:
I'm fine with going back down to 4+ INT skills.

Cool, a point of agreement. :)

master_marshmallow wrote:
And I very much did not give the fighter all the good things about the slayer. No sneak attack, no studied combat, no favored terrains, no woodland stride.

I was admittedly indulging in a little hyperbole on the Slayer. Still, the current version does seem to be Everything Good About the Brawler + Everything Good About The Fighter + Extra Skill Points.

master_marshmallow wrote:
6+ skills is no where near game breaking, especially on a non magical class.

Game breaking? Lord no, but it is a balance factor and should be taken into account. 1 skill point a level is, per the game design, worth about a Feat. By that metric, your Fighter's about Feats ahead in this arena as well. And unnecessarily so, IMO.

EDIT:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Changes added:

4+ skills

Cool.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Maneuver Training no longer stacks with Weapon Training.

It still does offensively.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Spell Armor is now 5 + level, Greater Spell Armor is 10 + level.

That honestly makes Spell Armor pretty useless. I'd keep that as-is but drop Maneuver Master.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

I will point out again that there is no justification whatsoever for the Ranger to have 6 skill points a level. In 3E, he had 4...they 'bumped' it to 6 because 'all Rangers need survival and Stealth so that's a skill point tax so they need more skill points.'

Rangers are spellcasters. Spellcasters do NOT deserve 6 skill points a level. Period. A ranger with 6 skill points should not have magic.

Skill points are for beings who do NOT rely on magic.

By that judgment alone (the fighter is the ONLY class that cannot get magical class abilities), the fighter should have 6 skill points to make up for the fact he doesn't have magic.

you're seeing it as '2 feats'. It's not. It's 'no magic, what's the counterbalances?'

Likewise, you're completely ignoring the alternatives the ranger has to get armor, specifically being able to cast Barkskin to even things out (and not have to pay for a Nat Armor amulet for several levels).

The 1-2 points from armor type are completely dependent on having a very high dex score...which the fighter cannot afford unless it's his main stat. He also has to Pay More for his mithral full plate then the ranger does for his mithral BP, so he gets his AC bonus later then the Ranger does.

Here's the counterpoint: The spell-less ranger gets 4 feats at the levels he would have gotten spellcasting.

If the Fighter could get 4 levels of minor spellcasting for 4 feats, would you consider that an even trade?

Most people would consider the 4 feats that did that among the most powerful in the game.

Spellcasting is worth a LOT. And the ranger has a spell list which obviates whole slews of his need for skill points.

The ranger should not have 6. Since he does, there is NO reason the fighter shouldn't have the same.

===Aelryinth


Deadmanwalking wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Was responding to Cyrad not you, but the point still stands.

Okay?

master_marshmallow wrote:
Medium and Heavy armor hardly break the class or count as extra feats that the fighter gets. That's a joke on its own.

As compared to Improved Unarmed Strike? They totally count.

And even generally, every category above Light armor you get is effectively +1 AC even assuming unlimited Dex. If not assuming unlimited Dex, it's better than that. That's a non-negligible advantage and easily worth a couple of Feats (even if it does decrease movement...oh, wait, we're talking about Fighters here).

master_marshmallow wrote:
Combat styles are the one thing that makes the Ranger empirically better at combat than the fighter, in the 1,000+ thread on why fighters suck a large number of pages are dedicated to directly comparing the fighter to the ranger and combat styles along with skills were the main offenders. Again, the Brawler gets a free combat style, albeit one that is chosen for him. I wanted to emulate that because the Brawler doesn't need high DEX for those feats to work for him. To be blunt, there are more reasons why the fighter needs access to combat styles than there are reasons you have provided that he doesn't.

Even going by this logic, the Bralwer gets them at 2nd, 8th, and 15th level, not the 1st, 5th, and 9th of your Fighter.

And Brawlers also don't get all five of Martial Flexibility, Combat Style, Weapon Training (or an equivalent), Maneuver Training, and an AC bonus (Armor Training).

In fact...nobody does.

Slayers get Studied Target + Combat Style + Sneak Attack (which is about the equal of Martial Flexibility) + Talents (4 things), Rangers get Favored Enemy + Combat Style + Spells + Animal Companion (4 things), Brawlers get Combat Style (delayed) + Martial Flexibility + AC Bonuses + Maneuver Training. Nobody gets all five. Much less all five plus the anti-spellcaster stuff. All do also get some supplementary stuff...

You really dog on the combat style, why? Why is that such a problem for the fighter?

Liberty's Edge

Aelryinth wrote:

I will point out again that there is no justification whatsoever for the Ranger to have 6 skill points a level. In 3E, he had 4...they 'bumped' it to 6 because 'all Rangers need survival and Stealth so that's a skill point tax so they need more skill points.'

Rangers are spellcasters. Spellcasters do NOT deserve 6 skill points a level. Period. A ranger with 6 skill points should not have magic.

Uh...Bards and Inquisitors exist, and are widely considered the 'sweet spot' for power level and class effectiveness. Ranger is roughly on par with them...why shouldn't it get the same skills?

Aelryinth wrote:
Skill points are for beings who do NOT rely on magic.

That's pretty clearly not the design standards being used by every other Class that exists. It's a potentially valid design standard, but you're really gonna need to redesign every single class to abide by it. Applying it to one non-spellcaster and none of the others is poor design.

Aelryinth wrote:
By that judgment alone (the fighter is the ONLY class that cannot get magical class abilities), the fighter should have 6 skill points to make up for the fact he doesn't have magic.

Slayer and Brawler are also magic-less. As are 90% or more of Rogues and no few Barbarians.

Aelryinth wrote:
you're seeing it as '2 feats'. It's not. It's 'no magic, what's the counterbalances?'

It's two Feats better than the Brawler in that area. which is explicitly the comparison I was making. I never even mentioned Ranger in that section.

Aelryinth wrote:
Likewise, you're completely ignoring the alternatives the ranger has to get armor, specifically being able to cast Barkskin to even things out (and not have to pay for a Nat Armor amulet for several levels).

I was actually not primarily using Ranger as a basis for comparison. I was comparing this Fighter to Brawler and Slayer. Y'know, the non spell-using classes widely considered to be pretty decent.

I'm not all that worried about it making Ranger pointless (though I think this version is dangerously close), I'm worried about it doing so for those two.

Aelryinth wrote:
The 1-2 points from armor type are completely dependent on having a very high dex score...which the fighter cannot afford unless it's his main stat. He also has to Pay More for his mithral full plate then the ranger does for his mithral BP, so he gets his AC bonus later then the Ranger does.

Uh...what? With Dex 12, Heavy Armor actually grants +5 AC over Light Armor, not +1. The less Dex you have the more useful and important heavy armor is. Now, Armor Training is another matter...but that isn't what I was talking about there.

Aelryinth wrote:

Here's the counterpoint: The spell-less ranger gets 4 feats at the levels he would have gotten spellcasting.

If the Fighter could get 4 levels of minor spellcasting for 4 feats, would you consider that an even trade?

Most people would consider the 4 feats that did that among the most powerful in the game.

Of course they would. That's a terrible Archetype that people never take because what it gives up is worse than what it gains.

Aelryinth wrote:

Spellcasting is worth a LOT. And the ranger has a spell list which obviates whole slews of his need for skill points.

The ranger should not have 6. Since he does, there is NO reason the fighter shouldn't have the same.

===Aelryinth

Yes, there is. As mentioned, the Brawler and the Slayer. These are pretty good, solid, Classes and people enjoy playing them. If you want to power up the Fighter, it should be done by making it on par with these, not flat-out superior.

Now, if you think Brawler and Slayer are underpowered as compared to spell casters, you should by all means make adjustments to them...but that's beyond the scope of the stated design goal of this thread, which is a new Fighter, and should likely be done with some rules element applying to all non-casters, not simply throwing more class features on.

Liberty's Edge

master_marshmallow wrote:
You really dog on the combat style, why? Why is that such a problem for the fighter?

I really don't care that much about combat style in and of itself. I care that the Fighter you've designed stacks on too many Class Features to be balanced with other existent martial options. Removing combat style is simply a means to that end.

Combat Style, as a thing to remove, has the advantage of being easy to get rid of, making the class simpler by being removed, and IMO is the most counter-thematic ability presented. Part of the point of Fighter, IMO, is that you can go with whatever Feats and combat style you desire. Forcing them to spend some Feats on specific stuff, even from a wide set of lists, goes against that.

That said, if you wanted to leave it and remove, say, Weapon Training or Martial Flexibility, I'd probably stop complaining about power level concerns.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
You really dog on the combat style, why? Why is that such a problem for the fighter?

I really don't care that much about combat style in and of itself. I care that the Fighter you've designed stacks on too many Class Features to be balanced with other existent martial options. Removing combat style is simply a means to that end.

Combat Style, as a thing to remove, has the advantage of being easy to get rid of, making the class simpler by being removed, and IMO is the most counter-thematic ability presented. Part of the point of Fighter, IMO, is that you can go with whatever Feats and combat style you desire. Forcing them to spend some Feats on specific stuff, even from a wide set of lists, goes against that.

That said, if you wanted to leave it and remove, say, Weapon Training or Martial Flexibility, I'd probably stop complaining about power level concerns.

I think the number of class features does not equate to power.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Volume of class features DOES equate to power...

master_marshmallow wrote:

I'm not very receptive because a lot of the criticism is not constructive.

And when I do explain it, I get ignored. .. "it's too good" is not constructing advice, it's a complaint.

Ignored? We gave many rebutals to your explanations. What kind of feedback are you looking for? Criticism involves pointing out flaws. so you can make a decision to improve it. I'm not throwing out insults. I explained the reasoning behind my criticism and what could be done to improve the class.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Also how does this fix make them just do more damage? I guess they get one more thanks to weapon training. Those are the kinds of statements that I ignore because you either didn't read it or didn't appreciate the work I did put into it.

You explicitly said earlier in this thread that you intended this fix to make the fighter "the best at fighting" with increases in offense and defense. You decided to accomplish this by giving them more bonus feat access through martial flexibility and combat styles.

Also, you're talking to a guy who draws pictures for his homebrew material and spent months working on his class design. I do appreciate the work that goes behind designing classes. If I didn't care about your work or the topic at hand, I never would have responded to this thread in the first place.

Liberty's Edge

master_marshmallow wrote:
I think the number of class features does not equate to power.

Not directly, but every good Class Feature added is a raise in power. And, per archetypes that people take, Martial Flexibility = Weapon Training/Studied Target = Sneak Attack (at Slayer levels) at the very least.

Slayer has two of those. Fighter, as you stat it, also has two, plus 7 bonus Feats (and 3 in a combat style) to Slayer's 7 Talents (and three in a combat style...we'll call that a wash), plus much better defenses (including the ability to wear heavy armor and armor training), plus maneuver training plus the anti-magic stuff...

See where I'm going with this? 2 Skill Points a level and some bonuses to skills are not something almost anyone would take over the anti-magic stuff you've included alone, never mind maneuver training and better armor as well. Something has to go if balance is to be maintained.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Slayer has access to magic. Rogue Talents allow you to gain spell like abilities.

Brawler gets to learn how to inherently punch DR, and gets an elevated damage attack, both of which are basically ki effects. Magical, just as much as the barb who gets magical stuff.

But be aware that I really Don't Care about the Brawler and the SLayer. They are subsets of the Fighter and the Rogue. BOth of the primary classes should be designed so that Brawler, slayer and swashbuckler are simply Not Necessary.

Neither the Bard nor the Inquisitor really deserve six points a level, since they are full caster level, 6 level casters. This is particularly biased because they have spells and class features that also stack upon the spells that they DO know.
The bard effectively ends up with more skills then the Rogue. The Inquisitor is better with skills then a Rogue will EVER be, and then gets skill boosting spells on top.

So, no, both of them should have maxed at 4 skill points, too. If you have magic, you don't need tons of skills.
By that paradigm, Wizards should have tons of skills, since they are the 'smarts' class. Heap skills upon them!

But you really, really can't justify Inquisitors, Bards, and Rangers getting 6 skill points, and it not being 'right' for fighters to get the same. Fighters are better trained then Rangers are!

ON my Fighter class build, he starts with 2 skill points, AND gets to choose any two class skills to add to his list.
Every time he gets a Bravery point, he gets another class skill and a class skill point.
He gets the option to swap Tower Shield and Heavy Armor prof for another 2 skill points.
He'll end up with 7 skill points at 18, or 9 if he elects the lightly armored route.

I also believe Fighters should have access to COmbat Styles. THere's no reason to retread ground covered this way. In all honesty, they should have been the ones to have the styles, and the Rangers to borrow it from THEM.

That's how it should have been in a reasonable world. But Fighters got the shaft.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Deadmanwalking wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
I think the number of class features does not equate to power.

Not directly, but every good Class Feature added is a raise in power. And, per archetypes that people take, Martial Flexibility = Weapon Training/Studied Target = Sneak Attack (at Slayer levels) at the very least.

Slayer has two of those. Fighter, as you stat it, also has two, plus 7 bonus Feats (and 3 in a combat style) to Slayer's 7 Talents (and three in a combat style...we'll call that a wash), plus much better defenses (including the ability to wear heavy armor and armor training), plus maneuver training plus the anti-magic stuff...

See where I'm going with this? 2 Skill Points a level and some bonuses to skills are not something almost anyone would take over the anti-magic stuff you've included alone, never mind maneuver training and better armor as well. Something has to go if balance is to be maintained.

Manuver Training should be an elective you devote a feat or technique to. Just have it scale with your Weapon Training or expertise bonus.

Number of WEAK class features doesn't equate to power. Combat feats are 1/2 a class feature. They are strictly inferior to Rage Powers and most class-only feats.
Even if you use the stamina patch on them, they are still underpowered compared to most class feats, because they don't scale.

The Slayer should simply be a subset of the fighter. There's really no reason for it to exist. The fighter should have been made doughty enough and skilled enough that the Slayer would be unneeded.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Aelryinth wrote:

Neither the Bard nor the Inquisitor really deserve six points a level, since they are full caster level, 6 level casters. This is particularly biased because they have spells and class features that also stack upon the spells that they DO know.

The bard effectively ends up with more skills then the Rogue. The Inquisitor is better with skills then a Rogue will EVER be, and then gets skill boosting spells on top.

I'd debate you on that. I spent a lot of time analyzing classes and their frameworks for my design work. The bard and inquisitor were designed specifically with skills as a strength. They have several skill-based class features. They do make trade offs for this power. Classes with 6+Int skills generally have fewer and less powerful class features compared to ones with fewer skill points. You also overvalue their spellcasting: both the inquisitor and the bard are 6-level spontaneous casters with limited spell lists. They pay for this by having a 3/4 BAB. Finally, it's completely and utterly unfair to make any comparison with the rogue. The rogue is the most poorly designed class in the entire game.

I do agree the fighter should have 4+Int skills. That's standard for most martials. Redesigning the fighter as a skill focused martial could work, but the entire class's design should reflect that. It shouldn't be something tacked on.

I honestly think the ranger is the most balanced martial in the game. They're good, fun, and about on par with most other classes in the game. I'd prefer if classes weaker than the ranger be brought up rather than insisting that something below them as the gold standard.

Liberty's Edge

Aelryinth wrote:
Slayer has access to magic. Rogue Talents allow you to gain spell like abilities.

Actually, no. Some Rogue Talents do allow such abilities, but they aren't on the list slayers get access to.

Aelryinth wrote:
Brawler gets to learn how to inherently punch DR, and gets an elevated damage attack, both of which are basically ki effects. Magical, just as much as the barb who gets magical stuff.

Those are both listed as Extraordinary Abilities, and thus no more magical than the Fighter feat that pierces DR or Weapon specialization adding to damage. They're debatably better mechanically than those examples, but they aren't more magical.

Aelryinth wrote:
But be aware that I really Don't Care about the Brawler and the SLayer. They are subsets of the Fighter and the Rogue. BOth of the primary classes should be designed so that Brawler, slayer and swashbuckler are simply Not Necessary.

Perhaps...but they (with the exception of Swashbuckler) actually work mechanically and are enjoyed by people. Brawler and Slayer are thus a good benchmark of whether something purely non-magical is 'too good' since things that invalidate them will upset people and is just generally poor design unless you intend to get rid of them entirely. Which would be a valid goal...but doesn't seem to be the goal of this particular Fighter variant.

Aelryinth wrote:
Neither the Bard nor the Inquisitor really deserve six points a level, since they are full caster level, 6 level casters. This is particularly biased because they have spells and class features that also stack upon the spells that they DO know.

As Cyrad notes, both Classes are built to be skill-based, and pay heavily for that privilege as compared to, say, a Wizard and a Cleric. The solution here is not to weaken classes that are fun and effective, but to empower those that are not.

Aelryinth wrote:
The bard effectively ends up with more skills then the Rogue. The Inquisitor is better with skills then a Rogue will EVER be, and then gets skill boosting spells on top.

Yep. Comparing them like that is silly, though, because the Rogue is terrible. Saying something is better than it is not a great condemnation of that better thing, it's a statement that the Class in question doesn't suck.

Aelryinth wrote:
So, no, both of them should have maxed at 4 skill points, too. If you have magic, you don't need tons of skills.

Depends on the kind of magic. Again, as Cyrad implies, 6-level spontaneous casters are not actually very good at 'solving all problems with spells' since their spells are limited in number and of relatively lower level, and can usually benefit from skills every bit as much as martials.

Aelryinth wrote:
By that paradigm, Wizards should have tons of skills, since they are the 'smarts' class. Heap skills upon them!

This does not, in fact, follow at all logically from some of the weaker spell casters getting good skills.

Aelryinth wrote:
But you really, really can't justify Inquisitors, Bards, and Rangers getting 6 skill points, and it not being 'right' for fighters to get the same. Fighters are better trained then Rangers are!

Uh...and now we're getting into a weird thematic argument as opposed to a mechanics one. In terms of theme, I'd argue that Fighters spend more time than Rangers learning combative tricks (Feats) and thus might well have less time for less martial pursuits (Skills).

Also...since both Classes fall under 'self taught' age category, they're clearly trained for exactly the same length of time in a mechanical sense.

Aelryinth wrote:

ON my Fighter class build, he starts with 2 skill points, AND gets to choose any two class skills to add to his list.

Every time he gets a Bravery point, he gets another class skill and a class skill point.
He gets the option to swap Tower Shield and Heavy Armor prof for another 2 skill points.
He'll end up with 7 skill points at 18, or 9 if he elects the lightly armored route.

And that seems excessive to me. Fighter isn't built as a skill class (again, as Cyrad notes), gets no benefits to using said skills, and isn't thematically suited to having so many. It's poor class design to just throw them on for the sake of it. Everything you add to a Class should be useful, both mechanically and thematically.

Aelryinth wrote:
I also believe Fighters should have access to COmbat Styles. THere's no reason to retread ground covered this way. In all honesty, they should have been the ones to have the styles, and the Rangers to borrow it from THEM.

Why? In many ways it traps Fighters, locking them into particular builds. Part of the use of Fighters has always been those builds that needed five weird Feats as quickly as possible to function. Why diminish that? Clearly they need a power-up, but why make them incapable of one of the few uses people really like and already use them for?

Aelryinth wrote:
That's how it should have been in a reasonable world. But Fighters got the shaft.

Fighter did get the shaft. I agree entirely. However...that doesn't mean there's no upper limit to how powerful they should be, just that said upper limit is higher than their actual power level.

Aelryinth wrote:
Manuver Training should be an elective you devote a feat or technique to. Just have it scale with your Weapon Training or expertise bonus.

I suggested making it a 'weapon group' under Weapon Training already...

Aelryinth wrote:
Number of WEAK class features doesn't equate to power. Combat feats are 1/2 a class feature. They are strictly inferior to Rage Powers and most class-only feats.

On a one for one basis? Absolutely true. But you'll note I'm not suggesting a vastly lower number of Feats (indeed, I'm suggesting the number stay almost exactly the same).

Aelryinth wrote:
Even if you use the stamina patch on them, they are still underpowered compared to most class feats, because they don't scale.

Again, totally true. Also not really the point...

Aelryinth wrote:
The Slayer should simply be a subset of the fighter. There's really no reason for it to exist. The fighter should have been made doughty enough and skilled enough that the Slayer would be unneeded.

No it shouldn't. The Slayer is a non-magical Ranger, a combat Rogue, and the base class for assassins. Even were Fighter really good, people would still like and want to play that thematic archetype.


I'm going to rework the combat style, I think I can find a decent compromise on it.

I can rope Maneuver Training into Weapon Training, but that would make it an awesome single ability, which isn't a bad thing.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Good to hear. Give them something fun and unique!

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
But be aware that I really Don't Care about the Brawler and the SLayer. They are subsets of the Fighter and the Rogue. BOth of the primary classes should be designed so that Brawler, slayer and swashbuckler are simply Not Necessary.
Perhaps...but they (with the exception of Swashbuckler) actually work mechanically and are enjoyed by people. Brawler and Slayer are thus a good benchmark of whether something purely non-magical is 'too good' since things that invalidate them will upset people and is just generally poor design unless you intend to get rid of them entirely. Which would be a valid goal...but doesn't seem to be the goal of this particular Fighter variant.

It's worth mentioning that the Slayer and Brawler were designed by Sean K. Reynolds during a period where he became particularly disenchanted with the fighter/wizard disparity. I feel this makes the brawler and slayer very decent benchmarks for a non-spellcasting martials. As Deadmanwalking says, don't write off these classes so easily.

SKR noted that prepared spellcasters essentially have the ability to rebuild their character on a daily basis. He illustrated this in a rather hilarious quote during an interview.

Sean K. Reynolds wrote:

If you're a fire wizard, you're like, "I got tons of fire spells. I love fire. I got my fire shield, my fireball and fire bolt and fire eyes and fire butt and fire feet! Oh crap, we're going to fight some fire giants? Okay, um, magic missile and blink and haste." Your character is now entirely different.

But if you're the fighter, then "Okay, I got Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword). I got Power Attack, I got Cleave, and this and that. Oh, I'm fighting swarms. This is gonna be a dungeon full of swarms or a dungeon full of things resistant to slashing damage. I'm screwed and going to be ineffective for the rest of the time we're in this dungeon."

This observation led to the design of Martial Flexibility. My first point is that the brawler and slayer very decent benchmarks for a non-spellcasting martials. They were both designed as fun, effective, and balanced non-spellcasting classes in a game dominated by magic. My second point is that it takes more than giving bonus feats and defensive buffs to make a fun martial in this game.

If you think about it, even the Ranger's combat styles fit SKR's description of making an effective martial class. Combat styles allow you to dip in multiple branches in the feat tree, essentially allowing you to have a secondary build. Even Treatmonk's Guide to the Ranger recommends using the archery style to grab ranged feats while using your normal feats on melee-related stuff. This is why I scratched my head at the idea of giving fighters both martial flexibility and combat styles. They accomplish similar things: give the class more combat versatility.


Cyrad wrote:
Good to hear. Give them something fun and unique!
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
But be aware that I really Don't Care about the Brawler and the SLayer. They are subsets of the Fighter and the Rogue. BOth of the primary classes should be designed so that Brawler, slayer and swashbuckler are simply Not Necessary.
Perhaps...but they (with the exception of Swashbuckler) actually work mechanically and are enjoyed by people. Brawler and Slayer are thus a good benchmark of whether something purely non-magical is 'too good' since things that invalidate them will upset people and is just generally poor design unless you intend to get rid of them entirely. Which would be a valid goal...but doesn't seem to be the goal of this particular Fighter variant.

It's worth mentioning that the Slayer and Brawler were designed by Sean K. Reynolds during a period where he became particularly disenchanted with the fighter/wizard disparity. I feel this makes the brawler and slayer very decent benchmarks for a non-spellcasting martials. As Deadmanwalking says, don't write off these classes so easily.

SKR noted that prepared spellcasters essentially have the ability to rebuild their character on a daily basis. He illustrated this in a rather hilarious quote during an interview.

Sean K. Reynolds wrote:

If you're a fire wizard, you're like, "I got tons of fire spells. I love fire. I got my fire shield, my fireball and fire bolt and fire eyes and fire butt and fire feet! Oh crap, we're going to fight some fire giants? Okay, um, magic missile and blink and haste." Your character is now entirely different.

But if you're the fighter, then "Okay, I got Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword). I got Power Attack, I got Cleave, and this and that. Oh, I'm fighting swarms. This is gonna be a dungeon full of swarms or a dungeon full of things resistant to slashing damage. I'm screwed and going to be ineffective for the rest of the time we're in this dungeon."

This observation led to...

Not exactly how I see the combat style. For me, the combat style gives you the feats that you need for your character, so you can spend your real feats on something you want.

Martial Flexibility allows in the moment decisions like, oh crap I need improved trip, or, oh man it would be really useful to not get hit by AAOOs right now, if only I had dodge and mobility.

I guess using it to pick up weapon feats on the fly works also, but it means your DPR is restricted to one minute increments.

The other big thing about combat style is it allows you to bypass prerequisites.

This base class needs to be just as good if not better than the lore warden. Lore warden gets combat expertise for free and many other bonuses.


I am going to take a different view from the the chorus. I do not think the OP's idea is overpowered. If anything, I am not sure it goes far enough - since Military Expertise is their only out-of-combat ability they should absolutely get the 6 skill points.

I think that comparing it with other martial classes is a red herring. All the martial classes need fixing - you can't fix any of them if you tie them to the existing power level.

_
glass.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

as far as skill points go:

When I made my Fighter, I reasonably expected him to pick up skills over the course of his career.

I expected at level 1, the fighter would take Perception and Athletics. They're like a feat tax for fighters. If he got other skills, he could put them towards other things. maybe he Rides instead of runs, but that was the standard.

At levels 2,6,10,14, and 18 he got another point and another class skill.

I expect over that time period he could readily pick up:

Ride - Duh. If he doesn't Ride, then Handle Animal so he can train animals.
A Craft skill - So he can make his own armor and weapons.
Profession (soldier) - So he's a good commander of men
Knowledge (local) - So he knows the people and their enemies
Knowledge (engineering) - So he can make and take down fortifications
Stealth (since his ACP is less) - Infiltration
Linguistics - So he knows the languages of his enemies.
Intimidate - So he's VERY commanding.
Survival - so he can live off the land.
Heal - he doesn't have magic, so knowing how to fix things without magic is extremely useful.
And we're not even getting into the Feinting side of things needing Sense Motive and Bluff, and Diplomacy for non-fearsome grand leadership ability.
----To do what a no-magic martial combatant and erstwhile commander of fighting men should do, this is what Fighters are looking at.
It's a reality that is completely overlooked by the rules. The Fighter is unable to perform his thematic role because, well, he's got heavy armor and tower shield proficiency?!?
And, he has NO class abilities that increase skills. So he's automatically at a disadvantage against skill monkey classes, since he'll never be as good against them with opposed checks.

In contrast, the Ranger takes Stealth and Survival automatically, adds in Perception, probably Knowledge (nature and dungeoneering), possibly Athletics or Ride.
He doesn't need Heal much, he gets spells.
he doesn't need to empathize with wild creatures, he gets spells. Convenient, tho.
He doesn't need a trade, craft or profession...he's a ranger, that IS his trade.
However, he can pick Up Craft Wondrous Item and make all sorts of magic item toys, because he's a caster. And he automatically gets the skill to do so!
He can pick up social skills, but they aren't a priority. Just nice to synergize against his FE's.
He probably wants Handle Animal so he can train his pet easily.
But all the thematic stuff is covered. And what isn't, his spell list can probably take care of, for him.
The Ranger does not have a NEED for lots of skills to do his thematic job.

--Because he's got more skill points, the Ranger is able to perform the roles of the fighter better then the fighter. His FE providing highly useful skill bonuses against appropriate parties helps wonderfully in this regard.
Oh, and he gets magic and can make magic items. Just FYI.

======================

Feats: In the first ten levels, you have to be aware that the Combat Style feats a Ranger gets SKIP pre-reqs, AND they get them early.

Thus, the COmbat Style is effectively about taking 3 feats, and effectively getting 5-6 or so.
Levels ahead of the fighter.
Combat styles don't 'lock you into' a certain style. They ACCELERATE that style. WHen you build a fighter, you know what you want him to be. Combat Style feats help you get to that point, faster.

It is WEAPON TRAINING and WEAPON SPECIALIZATION that lock you into a Combat Style, NOT the combat style feats. Combat Style feats help you become the character you want to become, levels sooner then a fighter would get, and not needing expensive ability scores to do it.

When looked at properly, a ranger gets as or more bonus feats then a fighter through his first ten levels. He doesn't need high stats, and some of them he gets 6 levels before a fighter possibly can.

So giving the Fighter Combat Style feats is something that should have happened FIRST, because the fighter is all about feats. Letting him access the paradigm is effectively letting the fighter ignore pre-reqs on a handful of feats, get a few feats earlier, and help round out his character.
It amounts to maybe +2 bonus feats, but a proficient Fighter coming online sooner.

At higher levels, of course, the fighter keeps getting bonus feats, and the ranger keeps getting more and more spells. To remain martially relevant, the fighter is locking himself more and more into one weapon, and the Ranger is probably equally skilled in two weapon STYLES, and has more and more FE's he can bring his bonuses against, and his highest bonus at any particular foe he wants to.

If you want a Fighter to be the literary Fighter, he needs more skill points, and 6 is far from out of line. Because he trains and trains, he should acquire new skills as easily as he does feats. He doesn't have the magic or class features to get around the need for them.

He also doesn't get Instant Weapon Master to apply his highest bonus to the secondary weapon he's using when he wants to.

==Aelryinth

Liberty's Edge

master_marshmallow wrote:

I'm going to rework the combat style, I think I can find a decent compromise on it.

I can rope Maneuver Training into Weapon Training, but that would make it an awesome single ability, which isn't a bad thing.

Sounds good! :)

master_marshmallow wrote:

Not exactly how I see the combat style. For me, the combat style gives you the feats that you need for your character, so you can spend your real feats on something you want.

Martial Flexibility allows in the moment decisions like, oh crap I need improved trip, or, oh man it would be really useful to not get hit by AAOOs right now, if only I had dodge and mobility.

I guess using it to pick up weapon feats on the fly works also, but it means your DPR is restricted to one minute increments.

The other big thing about combat style is it allows you to bypass prerequisites.

This base class needs to be just as good if not better than the lore warden. Lore warden gets combat expertise for free and many other bonuses.

Martial Flexibility is great because it works for both situations. Combat Style a bit less so, though Studied Target is a better example of martial adaptability IMO (working as it does on any weapon, and in many non-combat situations as well).

glass wrote:
I am going to take a different view from the the chorus. I do not think the OP's idea is overpowered. If anything, I am not sure it goes far enough - since Military Expertise is their only out-of-combat ability they should absolutely get the 6 skill points.

Only if the Barbarian and Brawler get 'em too. Which seems sorta unthematic, actually. If everyone gets 6 skill points per level then it stops being as meaningful.

glass wrote:
I think that comparing it with other martial classes is a red herring. All the martial classes need fixing - you can't fix any of them if you tie them to the existing power level.

If you want to fix all the martial classes (ie: make them more on par with spell casters), that's a fine goal, but it isn't (at least seemingly) the goal of this thread or Fighter fix. I've said repeatedly that, if you're willing to rework every martial class there is (probably including the 4-level casters), the original version of this Class works. It's just that such a rework doesn't seem to be the goal here. And even if it was, a more profound rules hack than simply tossing on more Class Features would seem to be in order. A general rules change rather than a change to specific classes.

For example: Give all non-spellcasters access to the Skill Unlock (specifically, give them the progression in it Rogues get, then give Rogues twice that) and Stamina systems (with amount of stamina based on levels in non-spellcasting classes) in Pathfinder Unchained, plus some other skill-based utility abilities. That's the uber-lazy version, and off the top of my head, mind you, but it's the kind of thing you should do to upgrade martial characters generally. Ie: give flat benefits to all of them by changing core rules assumptions, not just throwing class features and skill points willy nilly at the martial classes.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Simply making stamina and skill unlock available to other classes continues the process of making Fighters and Rogues useless.

The Slayer and Brawler are non-entities if you are talking a Fighter revision. You should be able to build a fighter that simply removes the need for these alternate classes entirely. There's no need to balance them...they are already optional and should cease to exist.

A lot of people simply consider SLayer the 'Fighter fix' and call it done. The Brawler is simply an odd version of a UA fighter that introduced a mechanic all fighters should have...the martial flexibility to call up feats at need.

So, if you want to fix the fighter, you should rip out the useful mechanics from both and make a workable fighter class.

Oh, and yes, rip out the Combat Style from Rangers and use that, too. Rangers should have stolen it from Fighters, we shouldn't even HAVE to reclaim being best at combat feats!

==Aelryinth


Changes:
Gave one free exotic weapon proficiency.

Skills are 4+ INT.

Combat style feat progression removed, instead the fighter can choose feats freely from his combat style without meeting prerequisites, so long as he does so with his bonus feats. New style added: finesse.

Bonus feat progression restored to normal.

Armor training now improves the actual bonus of the armor, rather than the max DEX. Grants DR that slowly scales up to 10, along with scaling fortification.

Weapon training tweaked slightly, no more bypassing various DRs, but weapon specific feats apply to all weapons of a weapon group, so long as it is one of the fighter's chosen weapon groups.

Couldn't part with maneuver training. It remains unchanged.

The spell defensive abilities now come online at regular increments, at odd levels. One more was added.

Liberty's Edge

master_marshmallow wrote:

Changes:

Gave one free exotic weapon proficiency.

Sure, that works.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Skills are 4+ INT.

Cool. :)

master_marshmallow wrote:

Combat style feat progression removed, instead the fighter can choose feats freely from his combat style without meeting prerequisites, so long as he does so with his bonus feats. New style added: finesse.

Bonus feat progression restored to normal.

The combat styles are quite a bit more elegant now, but more powerful as well...perhaps not too much more powerful, but it depends. I still don't see the need or insistence on them, though.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Armor training now improves the actual bonus of the armor, rather than the max DEX. Grants DR that slowly scales up to 10, along with scaling fortification.

The DR is a bit much. As is the fortification, IMO.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Weapon training tweaked slightly, no more bypassing various DRs, but weapon specific feats apply to all weapons of a weapon group, so long as it is one of the fighter's chosen weapon groups.

Again, sure, that works.

master_marshmallow wrote:
Couldn't part with maneuver training. It remains unchanged.

The basic problem of too many Class Features all combining to make this version too powerful as compared to other martial Classes. It's got too much and needs to lose something unless to revamp every non-spell-casting class in the game in a similar fashion (okay, slightly less extravagantly, but still).

master_marshmallow wrote:
The spell defensive abilities now come online at regular increments, at odd levels. One more was added.

Seems reasonable enough in and of itself.

1 to 50 of 143 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / marshmallow's super awesome amazing board influenced fighter fix All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.