I have to admit that the weapons adept idea is too far out in left field for me. I prefer to work with the existing mechanics of 3.5 or what Paizo puts forth, and go from there in regards to the fighter class, because I think they are pretty sound as a basis as well as simple to understand.
What about Weapons Adept doesn't work with the existing mechanics of 3.5? What about it is hard to understand? You pick a weapon in the morning, you practice with it (in a manner not unlike how spellcasters prepare spells) and then you gain bonuses to hit and damage (not unlike the existing weapon focus tree).
In general I like it. The weapon and the defense enhancements look good, and I like the focus mechanic.
Considering the class is based around Focus, that's good! :) My goal was to keep nearly the same attack and defensive bonuses that the Pathfinder Fighter got, but to add more depth without adding any unwanted flavor or style to the Fighter. He's still a highly skilled Fighter - and that's still it.
Joshua James Gervais wrote:
I don't like giving all Fighters Uncanny Dodge. It might fit some Fighters but not all Fighters.
Yes, I see what you mean. Any suggestions on an ability that might fit here? Perhaps Immunity to Fear?
Joshua James Gervais wrote:
I'm not sure what Competency Training is suppose to represent. The other two defense options are concrete, armor and blocking, but the competency option is a little vague.
I suppose I should clarify. Competency Training is just someone who has familiarized themselves with fighting in the most general sense possible. These fighters know so much about so many different styles that they can dodge, block, etc more effectively and can give sound advice to their allies to do the same.
Joshua James Gervais wrote:
I don't like putting a cool down on combat focus (like Tide of Battle and Sight Beyond Sight do). I'm not fan of duration tracking and I try to avoid it if possible. For Tide of Battle, I'd just drop it the cool down; the character had to give up a move action to gain focus, so the ability is only changing when the character takes that move action. I'm not sure about Sight Beyond Sight though.
I suppose you're right, Tide of Battle doesn't need the cool down. Sight Beyond Sight probably doesn't either now that you mention it. The cool down was intended to be a balancing factor, but it may not be necessary.
EDIT: And I again realize that I can't edit my original post... and I don't know why.
Personally I don't really like Weapon Training at all. I don't like the focus on weapon groups - it's too static for me. It reminds me of the Ranger's Favored Enemy, which I also did not like and hope to see completely revamped.
I tweak the Pathfinder Fighter quite a bit actually, and one of the first things I do is remove Weapon Training and replace it with an ability called Weapons Adept at 1st level (which improves throughout the levels two times) where the Fighter chooses a weapon in the morning and gains what amounts to the benefits of the 3.5 feats: Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Specialization, Weapon Mastery, and then the Pathfinder Weapon Mastery feature (of course not all at once). The improvements on Weapons Adept allow the Fighter to change the bonuses to another weapon during the day first with an hour's practice with another weapon (At 11th level), and second with three rounds practice (at 19th level).
Here's a link to the thread for an actual description of rules text on what I'm talking about.
This would definitely make a fighter more interesting.
That is about 50% of the idea. The other 50% is to actually make it capable of fighting, even through some really tough times.
Deussu wrote:
I initially thought of merely increasing the number of combat feats all kinds of nifty abilities.
Not sure what you mean here.
Deussu wrote:
I find the Combat Focus extremely good. Get a bonus when it's on, but a chance to expend it for some great bonus. The defensive trainings need some fixing though. I don't see a reason why wouldn't everyone pick competence training.
By you find the focus to be extremely good do you mean overpowered or do you mean it's just a really nice ability?
While I would like to increase the power of Armor Training, I do think Competence and Deflection are roughly equal. Remember that Deflection gets added both to your touch and flat-footed AC.
Deussu" wrote:
A similar thread about combat feats and what they should offer a fighter is here.
Fighters. I think deep down we all love the class for its promise of customization in the utmost. However, in some ways it delivers, but in others it doesn't. Combat isn't all about dealing physical damage to foes. There is plenty more to it than that. Seriously, go challenge a person to a fight. You'll find that there is a lot of pushing, positioning, posturing. There's a lot of searching for the chance to strike, a lot of faking attacks, a lot of watching for tell tale movements in order to dodge, a lot of playing mind games, and there is even more than that - and that's just in real life with your two mitts!
Fighters in Dungeons and Dragons have to deal with a lot more than face to face, fist to fist combat. They have to contend with hostile dungeons, and flying, magically protected, magically attacking Dragons! They need to be much more capable at fighting than any "real world" fighter might have been. All these notions that the Fighter is just a regular guy need to be dispelled. The Fighter is a combat mastermind, a true champion at arms, and an awe-inspiring master of a thousand perfectly executed martial techniques.
In Pathfinder, the new Combat Feats available to Fighters are excellent. A GREAT step in the right direction for our master of the battlefield. However, they are only that - a step. There are more to take. The Weapon and Armor Training abilities introduced, while welcome bonuses to be sure, don't address the difficulties that all Fighters must at some point come to face - terrible truths: Sometimes no amount of armor can save you. Sometimes no matter how hard you swing you just won't connect. A Fighter needs to be able overcome his shortcomings in these two most basic tenets of fantasy combat or he's too easily going to become worthless in a battle between Wizards and Warlocks.
Well, I do have my own ideas for the Fighter, and they are ideas that follow the tenets of Backwards Compatibility and Add, Never Subtract while simultaneously bumping the Fighter to a place of better Game Balance. Here I present to you the Fighter with Focus. Tell me what you think. I add more options to the Fighter player, while taking none away, and allow the class to overcome obstacles that cause all Fighter players to cringe.
THE FIGHTER
Hit Dice: d10
Attack Bonus: As normal, of course.
Saves: When you create a Fighter character choose either Fort or Ref. This save has the "Good" progression, while Will has the "Poor" progression (A normal Fighter's Fort save has the "Good" progression, while a normal Fighter's Will save has the "Poor" progression).
Class Skills (4 Ranks per level): Acrobatics, Bluff, Climb, Craft, Escape Artist, Intimidate, Perception, Ride, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Stealth (The class skills have been expanded, and the skill points per level have been increased to reflect the addition to skills. If Fighters are to be masters of combat then they'd better be able to use any skill that could feasibly be used in combat, eh? This new list combined with the choice between Fort or Ref in good save allows for much greater player choice in what type of Fighter the player would like to play.)
Proficiencies: Remain the same, of course.
Combat Focus: Fighters are expected to be alert, ready to take advantage of the flow of the field in an instant. By spending a move action, a Fighter can enter a focused state of mind. This state lasts for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 Fighter level +2, and during the focus the Fighter gains a +2 bonus to the saving throw of his choice (chosen upon gaining the focus). As a swift or immediate action the Fighter can voluntarily end his focus to reroll a single d20 roll. Fighters cannot gain Combat Focus outside of battle for the state of mind and body needed to achieve this simply doesn't exist except in those conditions.
Weapons Adept: Every morning a Fighter picks a weapon he is proficient with, and practices the hell out of it gaining bonuses to hit and damage with that weapon for the rest of the day. At 1st level the bonus gained is +1 to attack rolls with the chosen weapon. Starting at 4th level he adds +2 to damage rolls with the chosen weapon. At 6th level he gains a further +1 bonus to attack rolls for a total of +2. At 10th level he adds a further +2 to damage rolls for a total of +4. At 14th level he gains +2 to attack and damage with all weapons of the same damage type as the chosen weapon (this bonus stacking with the bonuses earlier for a total of +4 to attacks and +6 to damage). At 18th level he gains the benefits of the Weapon Mastery feature of the standard Pathfinder Fighter with the chosen weapon. (This feature completely replaces the Weapon Training feature of the Pathfinder Fighter.)
Bonus Feats: At every even level, Fighters gain a bonus feat in addition to those gained from normal advancement (meaning that a Fighter gains a feat at every level). These bonus feats must be selected from either fighter bonus feats or combat feats.
Defensive Training: At 3rd level the Fighter chooses a specific defensive style with which he will assume throughout his career between Armor Training, Competency Training, or Deflective Training. (This feature completely replaces the Armor Training feature of the Pathfinder Fighter.)
Armor Training - A Fighter that chooses Armor Training gains a bonus to AC while wearing any type of armor equal to +1/four Fighter Levels (rounded to the nearest +1). Additionally, when a Fighter wears armor he gains Damage Reduction depending on the Armor Type. Heavy Armor grants DR 2/--, Medium DR 1/--, and Light none. Finally, while wearing armor a Fighter reduces the armor check penalty by 1 for each +1 to AC he would normally gain from this ability.
Competency Training - A Fighter that chooses Competency Training doesn't rely on armor quite so much as his fellows. These Fighters gain a +1 competency bonus to AC per four Fighter levels (rounded to the nearest +1). All allies who can hear the Fighter gain 1/2 this bonus (rounded down) as the Fighter offers defensive advice. Double these bonuses for any character while he or she fights defensively (this includes the bonuses granted to allies).
Deflection Training - A Fighter that choose Deflection Training hardly relies on armor at all, but defends himself with his weapon. These Fighters gain a +1 deflection bonus to AC per four Fighter levels (rounded to the nearest +1). Any adjacent allies gain 1/2 this bonus (rounded down) as the Fighter attempts to parry attacks that might target them as well. While fighting defensively a Fighter may parry any ranged attack targeting himself or an adjacent ally as the Deflect Arrows feat (though the Fighter needs not have an open hand).
Ever Vigilant: While benefiting from Combat Focus, a Fighter of 5th level or higher gains a competence bonus to Perception checks made to oppose the Stealth checks of his enemies equal to 1/2 his Fighter Levels (rounded up). Further, he does not suffer the penalties of being Blinded against any foe he has detected through his Perception skill.
Uncanny Dodge: As the Barbarian class feature. A Fighter never gains Improved Uncanny Dodge.
Tide of Battle: A Fighter of 9th level or higher may spend an immediate action to voluntarily end his Combat Focus and move up to his base speed. If he does, he cannot regain his Combat Focus for 1d4 rounds.
Weapons Expert: By spending an hour in practice with a single weapon, a Fighter of 11th level can switch to that weapon the bonuses granted to a weapon by his Weapons Adept feature.
Action Without Thought: While benefiting from Combat Focus, if a Fighter of 13th level or higher fails a save against a Mind-Afflicting effect, he ignores its effects until his Combat Focus expires or is ended.
Deadly Precision: Whenever a Fighter of 15th level or higher confirms a critical hit on a creature that creature must succeed on a Fort save (DC 10+1/2 Fighter Levels+Fighter's Con modifier) or be slain outright.
Sight Beyond Sight: A Fighter of 17th level or higher may spend a swift action to voluntarily end his Combat Focus at gain the benefits of True Seeing for 1 round. If he does, he cannot regain his Combat Focus for 1d4 rounds.
Weapons Genius: By making at least one attack roll with a single weapon for three rounds, a Fighter of 19th level or higher can switch to that weapon the bonuses granted to a weapon by his Weapons Adept feature.
Defensive Mastery: At 20th level a Fighter has reached the pinnacle of his protective proficiency (say that three times fast!). He gains stupendous benefits from his choice in Defensive Training.
Armor Training - The Damage Reduction granted by your armor increases to DR 9/-- for Heavy Armor, DR 6/-- for Medium and DR 3/-- for light. Additionally you ignore all speed restrictions of the armor you wear.
Competency Training - You are ready for anything. You add the bonus to your AC from your training to your Initiative as well, and all allies that can hear you gain 1/2 this bonus (rounded down). Any character who fights defensively adds this bonus to the saving throw of that character's choice (chosen upon choosing to fight defensively).
Deflection Training - You push away attacks with ease. Increase the deflection bonus granted by your Defensive Training by +2. Further, whenever a foe attacks you or an adjacent ally, if you're fighting defensively, you may substitute the target's AC for an attack roll made at your highest bonus. Each time you do this you forfeit an attack of opportunity for the round. You can only do this as many times as you would be entitled to make attacks of opportunity.
If you *must* change him, just make up new feats with lots of prerequisites that only a fighter has any real chance of getting. You've now made a fighter-focused power that caters to his existing abilities rather than adding specificity to an intentionally vanilla class.
That's exactly how NOT to fix the problem. Then, yes, only the Fighter can take them, but now to take them he has to spend all his feats in completing "chains." This is how 3.5 did the Fighter and it SUCKED. Feats can definitely be done better, and Pathfinder is doing them better. Perhaps a way to help is to make feats with Fighter levels as prerequisites. Now he really does have "Class Features" that the player can choose to take - or not.
If you really think the class should be as vanilla as it "thinks" it is, and as customizable as possible than there is really no need for the Barbarian, or any sort of Swashbuckler class, or for the Rogue to be as combat oriented as it is. Any martial related power should then be Fighter feats and kill all these other classes. I certainly know Pathfinder doesn't want to do this, so since the Rogue is going to be combat oriented and the Barbarian is going to exist Fighters might as well have a unique combat shtick as well, not just a unique method of getting a combat shtick(By having more combat feats than anyone).
No one has said anything about Combat Focus. I think it's about as vanilla an ability as you can get, and wow there are so many things you can do with it! I don't deny the +X to attacks, AC, damage, and the -X to check penalty helps. It does. It doesn't help enough. It doesn't help the Fighter deal with concealment, miss chance, illusion, darkness, any number of conditions that can literally make the Fighter utterly worthless. But Combat Focus CAN! You can couple it with class features, or, if you MUST, you can make feats that work with it. The features/feats could have effects that key off of either whether you are in focus, or off of expending your focus. There's nice tension there and you can do TONS of cool stuff with it.
I fail to see how scattering "debris" makes any sort of effective choke point. Not only is the Fighter now wasting his actions to throw down caltrops these, "barriers" are all too easily jumped over, or even outright ignored by some creatures/enemies. How does tossing Alchemist's Fires help at all?
Yes, the Fighter character knows all the rules of combat, and a player playing should know them and take full advantage of them. But then... Why can't the Barbarian's player and character? The Fighter should be better at it, but he just isn't. I don't mean just give the Fighter arbitrary bonuses to Combat Maneuvers, but I do think he should have class features that allow him to be master of tactical combat that he is flavored to be.
When I say that I think that part of the Fighter's job should be protecting his party I don't just mean the Wizard sitting in the back. I mean HIS PARTY. That means the Rogue flanking with him. That means the stubborn Barbarian who's in over his head in the middle of four Blackscale Lizardfolk. That means being able to defend one ally in one round, tumble over to another and intercept a near-fatal attack meant for another ally the next (yes, I said tumble, why isn't it a Fighter class skill?).
Honestly, what is so wrong with giving meaningful class features to the Fighter in addition to his Bonus Feats?
Um, in every game I've ever played it was the DM that got to choose where the players fight, not the other way around. How does a Fighter take advantage of the terrain any better than any other class? I don't see any class features to help him out with that. Honestly how does he create "choke points" at all? He occupies a 5ft square. He has NO way to keep enemies from running around him to attack anyone else, and no way to protect those people if the enemies do choose to. If he has reach that helps, but then that forces all Fighters to use reach to be effective - not fun.
Let me try and reiterate this so it makes sense. I seem to be doing a pitiful job presenting my points clearly.
1) Getting a boost to your AC does nothing to defend your party. If part of the Fighter's job is defend the party, perhaps he should be able to grant other members of his party bonus to AC. No this doesn't have to be arbitrary, or supernatural. I'll give examples later.
2) Getting a boost to your Attack rolls does nothing to help you bypass concealment or miss chance. Nor does it matter at all if you can't see your enemy, or if your enemy is hiding a being a wall of force or something similar. +2 to hit after 10th level isn't cutting anymore. Enemies are shrouded in Deeper Darkness, covered in Blur or Displacement effects, putting up Walls of Stone/Iron/Force, or hiding within a menagerie of illusionary effects. What is the Fighter going to do? Well when it comes to the walls he can just obliterate them, but he should be able to deal with the hardness and really hack through pretty easily. With the other instances, which are amazingly common, the Fighter needs ways he can still perform.
3) Getting a +4 boost to your Damage rolls isn't really as effective when most enemies after 10th level have DR 5/cold iron or adamantine or good and magic. At least. This isn't to mention enemies with regeneration or fast healing 10 or more, or enemies with DR fantastically higher than 5. Now the ability to bypass DR entirely, or at least some DR would be very welcome for the Fighter.
What to do?
Defensive Training: Instead of Armor Training, give the Fighter a competence bonus to AC. Period. It shouldn't matter that he's wearing armor, because it isn't the armor that's getting better at defending the Fighter, it's the Fighter that's getting better at defending himself. Extend this bonus to adjacent allies against all attacks. You could even extend this bonus to all allies within 10ft. You could explain this as the Fighter actively defending his allies, or even him just giving advice on dodging and blocking. He knows what he's talking about after all. He's been training with this his entire life. Double the bonus when he fights defensively.
Combat Focus: What fighting style doesn't require you to remain focused and alert? Drunken Boxing? Damn. Missed one. Regardless, this would be how the Fighter maintains his ability to fight even among the magical defenses of his opponents. I already mentioned how to gain combat focus, and I already mentioned a couple things that can be used with Combat Focus. No. I don't think Combat Focus should be a feat. Why? Because if every Fighter is expected to be focused then every Fighter should have the ability to gain the focus. Benefits of Combat Focus could include bonuses to attacks, damage, skills, saves, the ability to fight blind/deaf, the ability to discern illusions from reality, the ability to pierce DR/Hardness, the ability to counteract/nullify regeneration/fast healing at least for a few rounds, even to force save or dies on enemies struck by the Fighter. What save-or-dies? Yeah, 10th level spellcasters can do it, what's wrong with a Fighter being able to kill someone with a perfectly placed swing of his sword? If anything, I'd hope the Fighter is at least as lethal as the Wizard or Cleric, if not much more.
No you just make class features that are so generic that they are usable by any type of warrior, utilizing any type of fighting style. Trust me, there are effects other than a boost to AC, Attacks, and Damage which can be utilized by every style of fighting.
I don't want to get into this here. It's completely derailing the thread at this point. Suffice it to say, you think I'm wrong. I think you're wrong.
BUT, I will make one last point. Of all the PHB 3.5 Classes the Barbarian and the Rogue are both HIGHLY designed based on Class Role. They are both essentially "strikers." All Rogue characters that you will ever play are designed first and foremost to be "strikers." You can do whatever you want to play against that type, taking feats, substitution levels, buying eccentric equipment, BUT the class features of the Rogue say, "Hey, just so you know, if you want to at least, you'll be good at jumping in and killing a single target really fast by playing me!"
To me, that's GOOD class design. A class that's not good at doing something before it is played is BAD class design, again in my humble opinion.
Now, I've already made my suggestions on ideas to improve the Ranger. Soon I will come back with fully imagined write ups for the abilities. Until then, let's not discuss classes, roles, and characters any longer and keep the discussion on what a Ranger needs for Pathfinder 3.5.
A good idea, but I agree with others that the idea needs to be taken farther. It's like domains for Sorcerers! I like it, it makes individual Sorcerers very flavorful, and I don't really see how it's not backwards compatible.
Stick with the idea of having bloodline specific spell lists, but continue granting bloodline specific class features every few levels (at the break points you mentioned) and possibly include bonus bloodline feats every few levels as well (at different break points like 3, 5, 9, 13).
A good start and somemthing Paizo should take note of.
LordZack, that's actually quite an intriguing idea, though it sort of breaks the backwards compatibility rule. Definitely something to consider for a future "Fighter-type" class though.
The problem is that the wounds from 4e are still too new and deep to useanything in reference to 4e...defining classes specifically by role...that's what MMORPGs do...let's just leave the pre-defined roles out of the Pathfinder discussions perhaps?
No, giving classes roles is what CLASS BASED SYSTEMS do. Dungeons and Dragons has always shared this with computer games, in fact MMOs took the idea FROM Dungeons and Dragons.
Classes SHOULD be defined by their role in the party. Characters NEVER SHOULD. Characters and Classes ARE NOT the same thing. When a player is creating a character they should be able to do whatever they want with it, and shouldn't feel limited to being a "Striker" just because the Rogue class is designed for that (Which it IS). However when a game designer designs a class within a class based system he should design it so that it brings a unique slate of abilities to the table which are useful in any given situation, and any given campaign.
Saying things like, "Rangers are great if you play like this," or "Rangers are awesome in a pure wilderness low-magic campaign" makes me think, well that's great - it should be a campaign specific class for a campaign meant to be played like that, if that's how it's going to be designed.
Essentially it seems that Frank and I agree. I'm sorry if I got a little peeved earlier. I just can't believe the reaction of people on these boards when I talk about anything that's being used in 4E. Class role, per encounter mechanics, etc - people act like these things didn't and shouldn't exist in 3.5 when they did and/or should.
Each class should have a role, it may not need to be unique, but each class should have a role. While Frank and I disagree on what roles may be appropriate for 3.5, it is clear that the Fighter has a different role than the Wizard.
As I've said earlier, the Ranger's thematic role is wilderness leader. This however can either be entirely unimportant to campaigns, or can be wholly duplicated by other classes - classes which also cover other tasks. This wouldn't be a bad thing if the Ranger brought other skills to the party, but this is very suspect.
Some suggestions for ways a Ranger can bring more coolness to the table.
The Archivist class from Heroes of Horror has an ability called Dark Knowledge, many of you may be aware of this. Essentially it allows the Archivist to point out weaknesses of foes to his party. I see a Ranger as being a very experienced guy with monsters. He may not have fought them all, but he knows enough about them. Give the Ranger some ability to give his whole party bonuses against monsters and not just 3 or 4 types over his 20 levels. Let him be very knowledgeable about all sorts of monsters.
This one has probably been suggested in many forms: Terrain mastery. The Ranger should also be very familiar with terrain. The survival skill lets him find natural food and shelter, but he should be able to do more than just that. What about something like the Terrain Masteries of the Horizon Walker PrC found in the 3.5 DMG. Beyond that even he should maybe be able to ignore difficult terrain and help his party to ignore it as well.
I'm throwing out this as another suggestion for sorcerors. Instead of changing their spell progression (which Jason has stated he's very reluctant to do), how about giving them +1 caster level at 1st level, and then again at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th?
This is intriguing. Something I'll have to look into houseruling. I like the suggestion a lot.
Honestly, can we even know what was and was not 4E test material? Beyond what WotC tells us of course. I mean... there seems to be lots of things even in the Complete series that are test material for 4E. Swift and Immediate actions? Skill Tricks? Reserve feats? Are these too 4E to make it into Pathfinder? If so... wtf, why? They ARE 3.5. Just because 4E uses something similar doesn't mean it can't be used in Pathfinder RPG... especially if it has already been used in 3.5.
I don't get where all this "Per encounter=4E" rubbish comes from. Even before Tome of Battle there were per encounter mechanisms. Neraph Charge from Manual of the Planes was a per encounter thing. And lest anyone forget Tome of Battle IS 3.5. Then there's the Factotum, and to some extent even the Binder from Tome of Magic.
I do like the idea of floating bonuses that a Fighter can choose to apply each round though. That's not a bad idea and is different enough from Rage points that I could get behind it.
As far as class features go, I think many people are overlooking that those feats that a fighter gain quite a few of are class features for them. They just are not listed under the class itself. I suspect if the combat feats had been listed under fighter it would have changed many people's perception that fighters dont get enough class features.
My biggest gripe is that there is absolutely no reason why a Fighter shouldn't be able to have combat relevant class features AND feats. +4 to AC, Attacks, and Damage aren't class features. They're lame bonuses that don't help very much.
I'm all for versatility, especially with the Fighter class, but what's wrong with giving the Fighter class features that represent training and abilities that all Fighters have to supplement the versatility they gain from Combat Feats?
From as much as you've talked, I expected to be wowed with some kind of really nifty ideas that took fighters in a new direction. What I found was your attempt at a fighter using non-OGL WOTC IP and 4e-flavored per encounter abilities (and a lukewarm attempt, by your own admission).
Pfft, not trying to wow anyone, not with the above class concept that's for sure. Yes, I want to keep some of my best material to myself for now. What's so bad about this? Anything I put up on the internet can be blatantly taken. I love how any mention of anything per-encounter is 4E-flavored... *rolls eyes*
What new directions does the Pathfinder Fighter take? Except by making actually relevant feats for him? If I put up really nifty ideas that take Fighters in a new direction they would not be anywhere near the Pathfinder design tenet of backwards compatibility, and they would be ideas ripe for the taking by anyone with the ability to actually publish them (not me, that's for sure).
The above Combat Advantage and Tactical Strike mechanics are a part of a more complex Fighter concept of mine which is more creative than the Fighting-Man, but it almost entirely disregards feats. I feel no need to put up anymore of its mechanics since they are irrelevant to Pathfinder's Fighter.
All I can do with the Pathfinder Fighter to make suggestions to improve it, in your eyes I suppose that is, is to create Combat Feats. Class Features are apparently out of the question (As I actually think per encounter abilities are really good for warrior types). However, I do have one kind of cool set of abilities for a generic Fighter-type that I don't think should be relegated to feats. It gives the Fighter class a sort of "metagame" that some people (including myself) would like to see him have.
Spoiler:
Combat Focus: By spending a move action, a Fighter of 4th level or higher can enter a focused state of mind. This state lasts for a number of rounds equal to 1/2 Fighter level +2, and during the focus the Fighter gains a +2 bonus to the saving throw of his choice. As a swift or immediate action the Fighter can voluntarily end his focus to reroll a single d20 roll.
Then you could have feats or class features (maybe both) that gain benefits either while you maintain Combat Focus, or if you choose to expend it. There was a feat sort of like the above presented in PHB2 and a chain linked to it. It was pretty good, but I think the concept should be more ingrained into the Fighter class itself.
Here's a couple things I came up with for it:
Shellshock: As a swift action, a Fighter of 8th level or higher can voluntarily end his Combat Focus to cause his next attack to damage his foe's natural armor or damage reduction. When he makes an attack this way he reduces his foe's natural armor by his Str bonus, or he reduces his foe's damage reduction by 1/2 (rounded up) for 1 hour. Foes can negate this effect by succeeding on a Fort save DC 10+1/2 Fighter Levels+Fighter's Int or Wis modifier (whichever is higher). He must choose either to damage natural armor or DR when making the attack.
The above could be a feat with BAB +8 and Combat Focus as a requirement.
Whispering Wind: Starting at 14th level, while benefiting from Combat Focus, a Fighter gains Tremorsense out to 30ft.
This one seems more suited to be an actual Fighter class feature to me.
I have some other abilities to those same ends, but they are only relevant with my own personal house rules. The concept has tons of room for growth, at least I personally think. What do you think?
As for what would be the difference between the Fighter and the Barbarian (and their powers/abilities) -- I think it's pretty clear that Fighters are more "sophisticated" and versatile in melee, while Barbarians (who might lack finesse) are more "savage" and "aggressive". There is a difference -- the Barbarian couldn't boost his AC or DEX like the fighter could, for example, and neither could he get extra attacks. Yet the Barbarian would definitely have higher STR and CON (usually) and probably deal more damage than a "sword-and-board"-type of fighter.
What you seem to want then is a system of Adrenaline to give the Fighter some versatility and to give the Barbarian a more static, "I get really strong and pound on you" type of Rage that merely increases their Str and Con. Most of the features you are looking for in an Adrenaline sort of thing for the Fighter the Barbarian is currently doing with Rage points. If you want something close to what I've said, simply swap the Weapon Training ability of the Fighter with a number of Adrenaline points and powers from the Barbarian's Rage powers. Then remove all the ones you think are not suited to the Barbarian from his choice of Rage Powers, and give him a more static boost to damage while Raging, say 1d6 per two class levels to damage, and eliminate the bonus to Str and Con.
I think that would kind of be the point -- make all "martial" classes function mechanically in a similar fashion. Why would only the Barbarian's class abilities function with points? Now it seems like a mechanical "anomaly" to me -- wizards, clerics, bards et al. all have spell slots, fighter has "static" abilities, paladins have some variety through their auras but not much, and only the rogue has some real choice over what they can tactically do (and even those abilities are still "static").
Ah, so you are opting for some sort of mechanical unity to non-spellcasting classes? How far do you take the concept then? Do all non-spellcasters have points per day systems?
Why don't I just appeal to thematics here? What is the thematic difference between getting a +2 boost to Str, Dex, and Con through your combat fired adrenaline and getting a +4 boost to Str and Con through rage? Is there really any difference? By extension then, what makes the Fighter and the Barbarian different enough to be a separate class?
It's on the right track that's for sure. Making sure the Fighter is always a relevant combatant, no matter what style of fighter the player has decided to play (before feats) is the goal and class features are the key.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't make as many suggestions to this end as you might like. I'm trying to save some of my better concepts as my own intellectual property. Here's a really, really, watered down Fighter concept I came up with though a while ago (one that I'm not too proud of to let everyone see - it's incredibly basic):
Spoiler:
The Fighting-Man
"Stay close, bookworm, I'll getcha through this," - Red "Redblade" Wilson, human Fighting-Man.
Hit Dice: d12
Saves: Choose one Good save. The others are Poor.
Base Attack: Full
LV Class Features
1. Decisive Strike 1/enc, Weapon Aptitude, Quick Draw
2. Weapon Focus, Uncanny Dodge
3. Line of Fire 1/enc
4. Weapon Specialization, Improved Uncanny Dodge
5. Decisive Strike 2/enc
6. Greater Weapon Focus
7. Line of Fire 2/enc
8. Greater Weapon Specialization
9. Decisive Strike 3/enc
10. Improved Critical, Lightning Draw
11. Line of Fire 3/enc
12. Melee Weapon Mastery
13. Decisive Strike 4/enc
14. Combat Tactician, Advanced Placement
15. Line of Fire 4/enc
16. Overwhelming Assault, Weapon Genius
17. Decisive Strike 5/enc
18. Weapon Supremacy
19. Line of Fire 5/enc
20. Critical Insight, Consummate Warrior[/code]
Class Skills (4+Int per level): Appraise, Balance, Climb, Craft, Heal, Intimidate, Jump, Listen, Profession (Bodyguard), Ride, Sense Motive, Spot, Tumble
Proficiencies: All simple and martial weapons, all armors and shields.
Weapon Aptitude: As Warblade.
Bonus Feats: The Fighting Man gets several feats as bonus feats throughout his levels. He does not need to meet the prerequisites of these bonus feats. At first level he gains Quick Draw as a bonus feat. At 2nd level he gains Weapon Focus as a bonus feat. At 4th level he gains Weapon Specialization as a bonus feat. At 6th level he gains Greater Weapon Focus as a bonus feat. At 8th level he gains Greater Weapon Specialization as a bonus feat. At 10th level he gains Improved Critical as a bonus feat. At 12th level he gains Melee Weapon Mastery* as a bonus feat. At 14th level he gains Combat Tactician* as a bonus feat. At 16th level he gains Overwhelming Assault* as a bonus feat. At 18th level he gains Weapon Supremacy* as a bonus feat.
*This feat is found in Player's Handbook II.
Decisive Strike: At first level, once per encounter, a Fighting-Man can declare any attack he makes as a Decisive Strike. A Decisive Strike gains a bonus to hit equal to the higher of his Intelligence of Wisdom modifiers (if positive), deals double damage, and automatically overcomes the DR of the struck target. Every 4 levels after 1st, a Fighting-Man gains additional uses of this ability each encounter.
Uncanny Dodge: As Barbarian. This becomes Improved Uncanny Dodge at 4th level.
Line of Fire: At 3rd level, once per encounter, a Fighting-Man can elect to leap in front of an attack meant to strike an ally, so long as that ally is within 10ft of the Fighting-Man. This ability requires no action on the Fighting-Man's part, however he must declare use of this ability before the attack is rolled. Using this ability causes the attack to target the Fighting-Man rather than his ally. If it would miss the Fighting-Man it has no chance to hit anyone else. Every 4 levels after 3rd, a Fighting-Man gains additional uses of this ability each encounter.
Lightning Draw: At 10th level, a Fighting-Man can draw a weapon at any time, even on other's turns, using no action.
Advanced Placement: Starting at 14th level, once per round, at any time during the round even on other's turns, a Fighting-Man can take a move action.
Weapon Genius: If you make an attack roll with a weapon each round for at least 3 rounds of combat you can change the designated weapon for any feat you have that applies only to a single weapon (As Weapon Aptitude) to the weapon you are wielding.
Critical Insight: You are immune to precision damage. Whenever you threaten a critical it is automatically confirmed.
Consummate Warrior: Flavor ability. People know you. You're kind of a big deal. You get a +10 circumstance bonus to charisma checks and charisma based skill checks when dealing with any humanoid creature that has full BAB.
What would have to be done with this is to replace the fixed feats granted to the class with static bonuses like Weapon and Armor Training, and then grant it bonus feats of the player's choosing on top of that, say at 1st level and additional ones every 3rd level after. Weapon Aptitude and Weapon Genius would then either have to be adapted to the new Pathfinder feats system, or replaced entirely. The only way something as simple as this would work though would be if the class had options through feats to gain the ability to see through illusions to attack his foes and to pierce magical defenses easier as those are still huge problems in a lot of campaigns.
I think roles are important or you end up with a class like the 3e fighter. He's good at dishing up damage in the early and middle levels but as things go on just about the only thing he can do is TAKE damage.
lol, and only if the enemies decide to attack him. Or worse: if the party Wizard decides to have the enemies decide to attack him!
Wow. This is such a loaded gun, I'm not sure I should even be playing with it. But, I'll shoot (all puns intended).
You're talking about two different things here:
1) How should players approach character design?
2) How should designers approach class design?
The first can be debated, but will never be more than opinion. The second however, while still being mostly opinion based, can at least have some logic to the argument.
It is my firm belief that in a class based system every class needs to be unique. 3.5 has proven to be excellent at supporting the class based system, and 4E isn't bad really, but it might be a bit more limited. You can always design more and more, newer and newer mechanics and fit them into the 3.5 rules set. This is pretty fun from a designer's standpoint.
If a class doesn't have any abilities that no other class can emulate, then it doesn't really have a reason to exist. The Fighter has been criticized about this before, but it does get more feats than any other class in the game, even if it only has a very small few that no other class could theoretically take.
4E comes in with this triumphant system of Class Roles. Dun, dun, dunnnn! This seems somewhat limiting, but time will tell. Do I believe that all classes should be designed with a role as the starting point? Nope. When I design a class, I start with a concept. The Bard, okay, we have a wandering minstrel, jack of all trades type... what can we do with this? The concept is the beginning. After the concept you can start to think of role. Well, what role does a jack of all trades type fit into, what does it do for a party? Well, everything, or nothing, or both? But this is okay. A class can do everything, but it better not be able to do anything better than any other class. The Ranger, okay, a woodsy warrior type, the defender of nature, the life-hardened wanderer. What role does this fit into the party? Well, he's a strong warrior so he can protect his allies from harm, and he's certainly experienced the more rough side of life so he has lots of expertise in the wild. Excellent, now the class has a job. After coming up with how the class benefits a party the designer can start to create abilities for the class that are relevant to gameplay, and are balanced against other abilities that might perform similar tasks.
I realize that isn't what you're trying to do, but that's effectively what happens. What I'm saying is instead of letting the player choose between doing these 3 things, let him choose from among 30 things. That's what feats do. More feats with more options leads to more diverse builds.
I'm certainly not suggesting that all the Fighter should get is something like Combat Advantage and be done with it. If the feats system actually works (and Pathfinder 3.5's seems to be much better at least), then by all means keep the feats in.
Skeld wrote:
bkdubs123 wrote:
...make all Fighters actually competent Fighters before feats are taken into account.
So, my questions is, without taking feats into account, how do you make the fighter a competent fighter first and foremost?
How? Well, here's what doesn't make a competent fighter: Full BAB. This is the first step. The Warrior NPC class is not a competent fighter. Full Weapons and Armors proficiencies. This is the second step. Adding Plate Mail to the list of the Warrior's proficiencies does not make him a competent fighter. A Fighter that can't effectively kill the enemies or defend his party is an incompetent fighter. When in the dark, and without darkvision if the Fighter can't at least continue to fight with reasonable success he's incompetent. When an enemy has protected himself with magical wardings if the Fighter is completely rendered useless against the enemy he's incompetent. If a monster's scales are too tough for the poor Fighter to muscle his way through he's incompetent.
Fighters need to be able to solve these problems all the time. There are too many situations to name in which the Fighter (at least the 3.5 Fighter) becomes useless. Being a competent fighter means more than knowing how to swing a sword - it means knowing what to do when just swinging your sword doesn't cut it.
What are some suggestions? All Fighters should be able to overcome DR in some way. All Fighters should be able to fight even while blinded (no I don't consider contending with being flat-footed, having to first pinpoint an enemy's location, and then rolling against 50% miss chance being able to fight - that's being able to flail around blindly). All Fighters should be able to, at a certain level, pierce magical defenses. All Fighters should be able to discern real foes from illusory ones (this one might not be to your liking, but it's a mechanical liability of the Fighter. Illusion magic like Mirror Image makes the Fighter nearly inconsequential).
A final suggestion. If a Fighter finds his offensive abilities incapable of winning the fight he should still be able to rely on superior defensive talents to at least keep himself and his party from being killed. Say, if a Vrock has cast Mirror Image, and the Fighter has no idea what to attack, he should be able to fall back near his friends, and protect himself and them from harm.
Backwards compatibility means you're stuck with the feat system, but at an accelerated rate. If one of your major assumptions is that this feat system is gone or unrecognizable, your design would be at least partially invalidated.
It's pretty close to unrecognizable already, or at least it's (hopefully) vastly improved. Combat Feats offer real options to Fighters, not just Power Attack and Weapon Focus. This is a step in the right direction, and a step away from the existing 3.5 feats system. It isn't actually very backwards compatible, because to convert your 3.5 Fighter to a 3.P Fighter you'll need to take entirely new feats.
Skeld wrote:
Something you might consider: It's unwise ignoring feats and the fact that the fighter has a great number of them. Choosing feats for your fighter from a large pool grants you a high number of possible combinations with a low amount of repeatability. There will always be feats that stand-out higher than others (like power attack), but with a large pool of feats to sample from, no 2 fighters need be the same.
Again, I said, the above abilities are basically ignoring the 3.5 feat system, not the Pathfinder 3.5 feat system. Since I've never designed for Paizo, or Pathfinder, I find it irrelevant that you find my above suggestions incompatible with the Pathfinder system. The fact is, they actually are still very relevant. Hell, many of the Tactical Strike options can, and probably something similar will, be used as Combat Feats in the existing Pathfinder 3.5 feat system (this isn't me being conceited, it's me recognizing that the tactical strike stuff isn't amazingly original).
Skeld wrote:
Granting a class ability like the combat advantage you proposed will mean all fighters have that capability. The result is a net loss of options for fighters of that level and an increase in the "cookie cutter" effect where all fighters of equal level look the same. For example, your combat advantage and tacktical strike abilites would be near meaningless to a fighter who specializes in ranged weapons.
Actually, as far as I can tell, the only trouble ranged Fighters would have using Combat Advantage would be the flanking part, which is easily remedied with a tasty feat. I don't make the above abilities with the mindset to make all Fighters the same. The mindset I DO have is to make all Fighters actually competent Fighters before feats are taken into account. All Barbarians are strong, raging warriors without having to take feats. All Rogues are cunning, skilled, and sneaky without having to take feats. Why should Fighters not actually be good Fighters before having to take feats. The feats should help give the Fighter an identity, perhaps a specific specialization, but he should be able to fight before taking the "Swing Stick" feat.
If 4E addresses your concerns with 3.5's "glaring flaws", then maybe that is the better system for you. Not everyone has bought into the "3.5 is broken" propoganda.
3.5 and 4E are different games, and 3.5 will retain many of the things changed in 4E. I think we just need to accept that and move on, otherwise it will no longer be 3.5.
Solid points, to be sure. I believe 4E is the better game for me. But, that doesn't mean I can't take an interest in Pathfinder 3.5 as well. Also, Pathfinder seeks to maintain the same rules set, keeping in mind backwards compatibility. I think this is a great goal, and I honestly believe that they can market this against 4E, BUT I do think it needs to be a bit more different from 3.5. The bulk of the rules set doesn't need changed, but things like Diplomacy rules, Grappling rules (my favorite change to the system yet), UMD broken-ness, certain actions such as Feint being statistically idiotic to attempt, etc - these should be addressed in some fashion.
They've already completely changed some rules, altered skills, and made radical changes to other parts of classes. These are some of the glaring flaws in 3.5 I was talking about. What's so bad about going on to address one of the biggest concerns - Caster vs Noncaster balance? Or what about, the thing that immediately irked me most about the Alpha 1 release, the ability of the Fighter to actually fight well. Combat Feats are a start, but I'm afraid they might not be enough. Most of the flaws in the system are related to spellcasting and poor balance/design of classes. I'll be watching the development of this closely to be sure in the months to come.
While Combat Advantage does add damage to the Fighter's attacks, it also grants other options to his attacks which can keep his party safer than just dealing that extra damage.
Most of which can be accomplished using existing mechanics like feats, skills, etc.
I don't like how the existing 3.5 feats system works, personally. The suggestions I gave above are assuming I was designing for 3.5 and assuming that I am coming pretty close to ignoring the 3.5 feat system. As I have said, the Combat Feats of Pathfinder can be used to achieve the same sort of effects I am looking for.
Skeld wrote:
They are even harder pressed to attack when dead. ;)
Well, if all you want to do as a Fighter is deal boatloads of damage, you're still going to have to overcome DR, Concealment, Miss Chance, Illusions, etc. I personally don't want to just deal boatloads of damage when I play a Fighter. If that was all I wanted out of a class I'd play a Barbarian, yet even the Barbarian gets more options now with the Pathfinder Rage system. In order to fill the role a protecting the party with damage, the Fighter would have to deal so much damage as to eclipse the Wizard as the most immediate threat so that enemies would have to kill him first lest they all die in 2 rounds, OR he'd have to be really maneuverable so that he can position himself anywhere and deal boatloads of damage.
Just a thought: Though the Pathfinder 3.5 classes look rather similar, it still isn't a matter of simple conversion. A 3.5 Fighter still has to take all new feats to convert faithfully over to Pathfinder. A Barbarian's Rage is completely new. Spellcasters have to deal with new spells and domain/school/heritage paths that they didn't have to before. How big of a jump then would it be to completely redesign a class? Would it not be little more "conversion" to the players if, say, the Monk were a completely different class?
But the 4e roles have little or nothing to do with actual 3.5 character roles. Heck, they are a poor fit for table top roleplaying in general. The "defender" is a particular offender, because that "role" doesn't even make sense.
The 4e provided roles are based on a terrible misunderstanding of D&D combat and a deliberate attempt to shoehorn in WoW and Final Fantasy XI concepts. They have no place in a discussion about 3.P D&D. A 3.5 D&D "Controller" is short for "Battlefield Controller" and is equivalent to a City of Heroes Controller. It is not short for "Crowd Controller" and is in no way equivalent to an Everquest Controller.
-Frank
First, I'm not trying to suggest to use the 4E design concepts that each class should be a "Defender," "Striker," "Leader," or "Controller." Second, I DON'T think that those concepts are deliberate attempts to showhorn WOW and Final Fantasy into D&D (but this second point doesn't particularly matter).
What I am trying to say is that, in a class based system, it's important that each class brings something unique to the table, otherwise what's the point of the class based system. I mean unique both in concept and in design.
What I am trying to say is NOT that the Ranger can't deal damage with bows. Most characters can deal damage with bows if they have the feats. The 3.5 Fighter can deal MORE damage with bows than the Ranger. This doesn't make my opinion of the Fighter any higher, nor does it make my opinion of the Ranger any higher. What does the Ranger bring to the table that no other class does? Favored Enemy sort of missed the mark in my opinion. It's cool flavorfully, but it's much too situational a benefit, and it isn't even really a huge benefit.
For example, conceptually, a party brings a Fighter along because it wants the protection that is promised by having a seasoned warrior on the team. Similarly, conceptually, a party brings a Ranger along because of the Ranger's great expertise with the Wild - problem with this is that all of that expertise can be summed up with the Survival skill, and it's just not very valuable. I'm forced to ask, what else does the Ranger bring to the table then that a party could want?
Combat advantage and tactical strike seem very roguish, being based on flat-footedness and flanking and what-not. Are you trying to make the fighter more of a rogue?
I'm not trying to make the Fighter more of anything. I'm offering suggestions to improve the Fighter class. If anything a Rogue's sneak attack makes it more Fighter-y. Taking advantage of specific tactical circumstances in combat - sounds like something a Fighter should be able to to do to me. Why a Rogue is better at doing this than a trained and seasoned warrior I'll never know.
bkdubs123 wrote:
By sacrificing 3 points of Combat Advantage damage a Fighter can cause his opponent to be flat-footed for 1 additional round, he can gain a free trip attempt against the struck foe at a +2 bonus, or he can cause his foe to be staggered for 1 round (Fort negates).
Skeld wrote:
Use this and you get a flat-footed opponent and a free trip attempt with bonus and they're shaken? Wow. What exactly do those 3 things have to do with each other? It's like they're just dogpiled into 1 ability for the sake of having an ability that dogpiles a bunch of stuff into it.
I won't get into the other 2 [more powerful] options (again, I'm tired). But this just screams "abuse me." Why would you not take at least a level of rogue with this? Or improved trip (I bet the improved trip bonus stacks with the +2)? Etc. Etc.
You CHOOSE one of the effects for each of the Tactical Strikes. ONE. And you can only use one Tactical Strike per round.
Skeld wrote:
By the way, how does this protect the party?
If you trip someone, they are hard-pressed to attack. This is protection of a sort. If you stagger someone they can only take a move or standard action. You are limiting the enemy's effectiveness. If you bull rush someone you knock them away from your allies. If they can't take full attacks or attacks of opportunity they are limited in how effective they are against not only you, but your allies as well. This is protection. If the enemy is paralyzed, it is effectively neutralized, meaning that your party is "protected" from it until you kill it, or the paralyze effect wears off.
I could, and have, come up with more identifably "protective" abilities. Things like jumping in front of a blow meant for your allies in a very bodyguard like manner seem to be very fitting for a Fighter class.
bkdubs123 wrote:
Fighters don't necessarily need to deal tons more numerical damage, they just need to be able to deal the damage they can already deal reliably.
Skeld wrote:
Isn't this what combat advantage does? Just in a more complicated fashion, right?
While Combat Advantage does add damage to the Fighter's attacks, it also grants other options to his attacks which can keep his party safer than just dealing that extra damage.
Would you like me to fish out some other more obviously defender-ish, protection-y abilities?
So you're saying that the fighter needs to have powers or abilities or talents of whatever that directly protect other party members? I'm really just not following you here. The fighter typically protects the rest of the party by moving forward and trying to engage the bad guys "over there" instead of "back here."
But that doesn't actually protect the party. I mean, sure if the Fighter can jump in between the Wizard and an enemy attacking the Wizard and kill it in one hit, or suddenly force it away from the Wizard, then sure that's protection. Dealing more damage with his longsword than normal isn't protection. If the reason the Fighter is in a party is to protect the other party members then it ought to have abilities that allow this to happen. Since Pathfinder is continuing the tradition of feats as the Fighter's power source options like these will likely have to come from Combat Feats, though that is personally not the way I would do things. I can understand however the desire to stay as close to the 3.5 Fighter as possible.
I like the direction you're going with the extra damage idea, but I don't like the execution. Fighters don't necessarily need to deal tons more numerical damage, they just need to be able to deal the damage they can already deal reliably.
As far as coming up with ideas for ways I'd improve the Fighter class, I've got loads. Some of them might be Combat Feats, some of them might be class features. I've worked on the 3.5 classes a lot, and the Fighter is one of my favorite concepts, but the feat system of 3.5 really irks me. Here are two abilities I've come up with for the Fighter, that work in tandem to give the Fighter more options:
Combat Advantage: A Fighter knows the perfect time for an attack, having survived several wars, skirmishes, and close calls. Starting at 2nd level, whenever a Fighter attacks a foe that is flat-footed (that is, denied its dexterity bonus to AC) he gains a +2 bonus to attacks and deals extra damage equal to his Fighter level. Starting at fifth level he gains these bonuses whenever he attacks a flanked foe. Starting at eleventh level he gains these bonuses whenever he attacks a foe that has a lower base attack bonus than himself. Starting at seventeenth level he gains these bonuses whenever he attacks any foe so long as no other creatures are threatening him.
Tactical Strike: Starting at 3rd level a Fighter can perform a Tactical Strike, forgoing bonus damage from Combat Advantage in order to produce a special effect. Whenever a Fighter would make an attack which would deal additional damage from Combat Advantage he may perform a Tactical Strike, but he may only apply one effect of Tactical Strike per attack, and can only make a single Tactical Strike each round. The Fort save DC of any Tactical Strike effect is 10+1/2 Fighter Level+Fighter's Int or Wis modifier (whichever is higher).
By sacrificing 3 points of Combat Advantage damage a Fighter can cause his opponent to be flat-footed for 1 additional round, he can gain a free trip attempt against the struck foe at a +2 bonus, or he can cause his foe to be staggered for 1 round (Fort negates).
By sacrificing 9 points of Combat Advantage damage a Fighter can cause his foe to be shaken for 2d4 rounds, he can gain a free bull rush attempt against the struck foe at a +4 bonus (though he cannot follow his foe), or he can cause his foe to be unable to make a full attack or attacks of opportunity for 1 round (Fort negates).
By sacrificing 15 points of Combat Advantage damage a Fighter can cause his foe to be confused for 1 round, he can grant each ally adjecent to the enemy an immediate attack against the foe, or he can cause his foe to become paralyzed for 1d4 rounds (Fort negates).
Is it true d20? Nope - but in the end, it might be something much much better!!!
While I'm sure that would be very interesting for you, it would be guaranteed to keep me as far away from Pathfinder/Paizo as possible. If I wanted wildly different, I'd buy 4e.
In the end, if I can't play the Pathfinder adventures with all my 3.5 books, I'm done.
If the mechanics stay the same, you can still play the adventures with your 3.5 books. What's wrong with having actually new, original material, rather than 3.5 races and classes with neat extras added on to them?
I would argue that opinion. The ranger in my Planescape campign was one of the highest damaging characters, occasionally outclassing the rogue. The character had Rapid Shot, Manyshot, and Improved Manyshot. Combined with a Strength bow, this allowed them to stand and deliver a barage of arrows or move and still get multiple shots. The ranger's role was that of artillery support. The Precise Shot feat allow the character to assist the front line fighters. If an opponent closed on the ranger, the rogue maneuvered for a sneak attack.
This, I think I'd argue, is a function of the feats however, and not a function of the Ranger itself. A Fighter could do the same thing. I agree however, that Archery is VERY effective in 3.5. It might actually be too effective (or rather melee can certainly stand to be MORE effective).
4th Edition seems to have focused the Ranger on being a "striker." This is to say they focused the Ranger on being exactly what you outlined above. A damage dealer that doles it out in large, precise amounts. This is fine idea, but I'm sure there are other concepts that can be used for the Ranger.
I like the Ranger as a class, I really do, it can be a lot of fun, but I also think that the class itself needs to have a clear job to bring to the party. The Rogue has a clear job - skill monkey and striker/skirmisher. Every class ought to have the clarity of purpose that the Rogue has, in my opinion.
When designing the Ranger please keep in mind a role for the class. The existing 3.5 Ranger is a poor striker, an even more poor defender, and a poor controller.
The existing 3.5 ranger can't be a striker, a defender, or a controller, since those don't exist in 3.5.
Of course. You're right. No class is actually supposed to be good at anything. Why can't people just take the concept of the terms being used by 4E and apply them to anything else? Roles ARE NOT NEW. Every class has unique abilities to bring to a party, and uses these abilities in unique ways. You might call this each class' role. If classes did not have unique abilities there would be no point in playing with a class system. To simplify this, I'm just going to use different words to say the same thing.
When designing the Ranger please keep in mind a reason for the class to exist, and a job the class is suited to perform for the party. The existing 3.5 Ranger doesn't do well at taking down single enemies with precision, doesn't do anything to protect his party from attacks, and does very little to limit/effect enemies' movement/effectiveness. When looking at the 3.5 Ranger I'm left wondering - what does my party gain from having a Ranger on board?
Are populated mostly by pre-teen magic fanboys and rabid wizards fanboys who will insult anyhting non-wizards so they get a pat on the head by wizards, I wouldn't put too much weight on what they consider garbage. (Seriously, whatever normal people might have been there must have fled long ago.)
Wow. SO not true. The reason I say the Pathfinder Fighter would be considered a garbage "Fighter Fix" (as they are so often called over on the WotC forums) is because all it does is add numbers to the class. +4 to AC, Attacks, and Damage over 20 levels does absolutely nothing to address player's concerns with the Fighter class. It's done over there all the time, people just hand out +1's here and there, throw in the Weapon Focus feat tree for free on top of the Fighter's bonus feats and call it a day. It's lazy at best, and completely missing the mark at worst.
However, this is purely within 3.5's context. With Pathfinder it is obvious that with Combat Feats many things are being looked at, altered, re-evaluated. All of this is good, and as I have said it may help the Fighter in the long run. Personally I think it's a better idea to build a Fighter class that is a capable Fighter first, rather than rely on taking more Combat Feats than anyone else to actually be a capable Fighter. That's mostly my opinion though, ignore it as you wish.
As far as discussions of roles are concerned, please don't confuse class roles as a concept that is only from 4th Edition, and as a concept that can only work in 4th Edition. Classes have always had roles in the party. If classes didn't have roles they wouldn't need to exist, and we would be playing a classless system.
Think concepts here. Conceptually, why would a party want a Fighter around? You have a party of a Wizard, a Rogue, and a Cleric. What's the advantage of picking up a Fighter? Well, none of you are really great warriors. You want PROTECTION, right? The Fighter class should be able to soak up damage and attacks. He should actually be able to protect the party, not just run around killing enemies. The Rogue or the Wizard can do that. This isn't to say that the Fighter shouldn't also be good at killing enemies. My point is, having high AC doesn't protect the rest of the party. The Fighter needs abilities to reflect that niche he is supposed to be serving in the party.
EDIT: I also agree that, should the Weapon Training stuff remain, the damage from it needs to scale faster than the attack bonus. Double or triple speed sounds okay to me.
I feel I have to disagree with bkdubs123 on this one. To my way of thinking the fighters job has always been to deal damage and take damage. Abilities that control, influence or otherwise inhibit the enemy are the domain of spellcasters, although the rogue can fill this role under 3rd edition. The human shield aspect of the fighter was just a matter of good tactics. If the goblins wanted to attack the softer mage at the back, they have to get through the steel-plated nutcase with the sword.
The Fighter's job is to deal damage and take damage. We agree on this. However, how can he do his job of taking damage if the enemies are attacking his friends? If you've ever actually had to protect buddies in a physical situation you'd know that you have to have some ability to cause enemies to attack you and not your friends in order to do your job of "taking damage."
T'Ranchule wrote:
Stuff like pidgeon holeing classes into narrow little roles is the reason I've sided with Pathfinder over 4E.
You said it yourself: The Fighter's job has always been to deal damage and take damage. This is his role. While 4E is doing this in it's own way, the principle remains the same. If the Fighter can't deal damage to the enemy and can't take damage for its allies then it's failing to do its job. Failing at its role.
When designing the Ranger please keep in mind a role for the class. The existing 3.5 Ranger is a poor striker, an even more poor defender, and a poor controller. Clarify what the class is supposed to be good at, what use it should be to a party, before designing class features for it.
The Fighter class is always my biggest gripe with any rules tweaks and this one is no different. What I'm seeing the Pathfinder Alpha PDF is the equivalent to what is regarded on the WotC boards as complete garbage. Fighters can use a boost to damage, I don't necessarily see where they needed a boost to AC though. However, neither of these are the problems with the Fighter class in 3.5. The Combat Feats introduced in Pathfinder 3.5 are interesting, and while I haven't seen them on the table yet, they might prove to make the Fighter more useful than he has been in 3.5. I'm glad to see that the "charge up" mechanic of these Combat Feats has gone the way of the dodo.
I'm sorry if I'm being vague. In 3.5 the Fighter class relied entirely on player choice to be effective and was completely unforgiving of bad player choice. This led to a failure in design (in my opinion). A class should be effective at something by itself, player choice should shape and guide the way it is effective, should make the character personalized, but should NOT be able to make the class ineffective. What does this mean? Well, as a Fighter what is your job in the party? To kill monsters and to keep the monsters from killing the rest of your party - right? So as a Fighter you need abilities to keep enemies controlled and you need abilities that allow you to consistently deal damage to the foes. Having a high attack bonus does not allow you to consistently deal damage to the foes after a few levels however, you need to be able to deal with concealment, illusions, reach, flight, etc... In 3.5 the Fighter has virtually NO abilities to control enemies either by inflicting debilitating statuses upon them, or by limiting/controlling their movement. I'm glad to see some effects to this end in the Combat Feats.
Bottom line, in my opinion, the Fighter class as presented in Pathfinder continues to fail as a class because it does not come equipped to be able to consistently deal damage to foes and control them to a small extent throughout the levels - this is again entirely dependent upon player choice (feat choice). Now, if more and more Combat Feats come out that are all equally viable, and all allow the Fighter to consistently deal damage and control foes than it becomes a moot point, but right now I'm not seeing exactly that. Just voicing my concerns.
LOL, no worries to anyone, I'm not offended by any of the comments here. Really, I'm mostly just disappointed that freelance work isn't yet being considered for Pathfinder 3.5 XD.
I'm just starting to look for freelance work myself, so no, I don't have a "professional" portfolio, though I have a large body of material that I have worked on by myself, just nothing yet published. I guess I need to go look for some better gateways.
Anyway, I'm not sure this is the place to address my opinions of what "glaring flaws" have been left in the 3.5 system. It just seems like the wrong place to address them. I find myself torn. Most of the rules of 4E seem to be fixing a great many of my concerns for 3.5, but the bulk of my amateur work has been for 3.5 (leaving me with a vested interest in Pathfinder).
And, yes, I understand that my comments aren't going to be taken very seriously as none of you here know anything about me or who I am. I am a rather avid poster on the WotC Classes and Prestige Classes forums for 3.5, and I have a lot of material sitting there, and a lot of posts I which I discuss the various problems I perceive in the system. I will be playtesting Pathfinder as much as possible, mostly in a Cleric/Fighter/Rogue/Wizard party to see how the dynamics of spellcasting compare to the dynamics of nonspellcasting. I am still quite worried that the Fighter and to a lesser extent, the Rogue have been left in the dust yet again, but I won't jump to conclusions before I've played with the new feats and spells. You'll have to forgive me however if at first I am somewhat unimpressed - I know many here are completely psyched and I'm not trying to be Mr. Party Pooper.
EDIT: Oh, and thanks to those from Paizo who have come to personally address parts of my concerns. This was neither necessary nor expected, but I humbly thank you for taking the time to do so.
Okay, so does it seem like a bad idea to anyone else that there is basically one man writing Pathfinder who is taking suggestions from playtesters?
I mean... one man can only do so much. I'm finding myself more and more disappointed by the mechanics of Pathfinder (mostly because they don't actually fix anything - except grapple! That was a monumental triumph!) and I was just hoping that there would be a larger design team working on this. Don't get me wrong there's a lot of cool new stuff with Pathfinder, but none of the real glaring mechanics problems have been fixed as far as I can tell.
And based on the answer to my second question: So Paizo is not currently looking for any further designers to help Jason? They are happy with having one Lead Designer, and only that Lead Designer working on a product they hope to compete against 4E with?
I've been wondering ever since I read the Alpha Release. Something's just making feel like there's literally 1 guy working on the Pathfinder 3.5 rules set. Is this the case or are there a couple more people, or is there a whole creative team?
Furthermore, as an amateur designer myself, how might I go about becoming involved with the design work for Pathfinder 3.5?
