DrLeper's page

Austin Morgan wrote:

Hey guys, quick question:

How balanced would a class be, if it were essentially a Fighter that got DOUBLE Base Attack Bonus, yet only got feats at, say, level 1 and 4 and each 4 levels afterwards?

How about Double BAB and no bonus feats at all?

Thanks all :D

Have to agree with the rest, it's not even remotely balanced. If given the option I would take it everyday and never think twice about it.

seems to me like it wouldn't be nearly as good... whats a really high AC? I mean the tarrasque has like, what, 40 AC? Anything higher than that in the bestiary? Getting your attack bonus to 15, 20, or even past 25 is not that hard in pathfinder as you progress. It kind of just happens by accident. It'd probably be really good at low levels and then far away from powerful at later levels. I think I'd take feats any day.

Althought, someone mentioned if it was just straight double BAB it'd rule in low level campaigns where you can get multiple attacks very fast and qualify for later feats pretty early.

See this is what I hate about shi- you try and bring a little more realism into a game, and some people just jump out and throw the fantasy book at you. -Sigh- No offense to you really Loupe.

I apologize for the manner in which I've addressed this. Just I've had such conversations far too many times.

Sorry, but I don't think you understood his argument the way he meant for it to be understood (or, at least, the way I understood it, which seems to make more sense.) I think he was trying to point out to you just how powerful these characters are. It's not about the level 1 commoner being able to imitate the same skill a druid might utilize (calling his trusty animal companion to his side). It's about the druid doing it better than any level 1 commoner could hope to dream. ANYONE can put a knife in an organ, but the rogue knows exactly where, when, and how to do it.

And in terms of power coinciding with the real world, I would definitely say a level 1 fighter is comparable to a professional soldier. He is trained in all the necessary gear, knows how to use his weapon, is ready to fight, and does enough damage to kill most commoners in one hit (barring a bad roll). It's true that there are real professional soldiers in our world that would out-perform a level 1 fighter, but they are more comparable to a higher level character (I would say that our reality could accommodate for a good number of levels of a hero.)

His examples were merely examples: it's not about whether it's "fictional fantasy" or not. It's about you trying to add realism to a power that is not supposed to be real. The fact that *noone* can fire four arrows in six seconds is exactly why it's appealing to create a hero that does this. Without the aid of feats (which are supposed to be feats to achieve), a ranger would not have 4 attacks per turn until level 16. That is someone that possesses power beyond what anyone has seen in the world we live in. Remember that level 20 is epic. And when you start adding in feats, they aren't just things humans can do that our characters train in. They are heroic displays of skill. This is not a tale of a group of adventurers. It's the legend of a group of amazing heroes that succeed where all others that tried have failed (at least it becomes that when you're shooting four arrows/round at a dragon). Robin Hood? Trash. Not even comparable to a 16th level Ranger.

It's not that I feel you SHOULDN'T make the changes you feel necessary to improve your experience. That's what DnD/PF is all about. It just seems like you are asking "why?" when DnD/PF asks "why not?".

I don't want to seem like I even disagree with you. I wholly support changing anything you don't like about the rules. I just thought I'd present my side of the argument about why I love that it's like that, maybe to persuade or at least let you see how others may feel towards it. All of this information is subjective to the campaign you are running, of course. I also feel that 12 seconds rounds is pretty damn good solution, and so is the thought of rolling a d10 x number of rounds to figure out how long the fight really was.

Using Sunder as a "trick" is, indeed, what I would consider "mean". If I played through, say, six levels with a DM and he suddenly pulled a rule on me that had previously had not even been mentioned, I would feel a bit confused as to why he did it, and I would feel as if my power was taken away in ways I didn't think possible. Keep in mind that players don't really get the ability to pull a fast one on a DM because all of our player information is open to you at any time. Using Sunder as a normal part of play I would encourage, but unfortunately Sunder is not something that many creatures would use. If I planned on using it as a DM at any point in the campaign, I would make sure that all of my players are familiar with the rules for it (in which case, they can not say it was unexpected, because I asked them to know what it is and how it works.)

Just make sure your players understand that it's not YOU breaking THEIR weapon, but it's a dragon breaking their paladin's weapon, in the spirit of roleplay. It also becomes "mean" when you use it as punishment. The player should eventually find themselves with a weapon of equal or even greater strength (or the means to repair.)

I really wish my DMs tripped/grappled/sundered/charged/bullrushed/what-have-you more often. For every DM out there that thinks you do it too much, know that there are 5 out there that don't do it enough. I can think of tons of reasons why it wouldn't be present in a campaign, but if there is a fighter or a barbarian or anything similar I think it should at least be tried.