Well after seeing the wonderful work over at the Non-Generic Cleric thread, I was wondering what the people around here could do about the fighter. I've got some ideas of my own.
First we could use a system similar to the Non-Generic Class to have different kinds of fighter, like the Swashbuckler. Also at 3rd level and every other level thereafter, the fighter could get a Special Ability, like the Rogue's. This would include some Swashbuckler abilities and the Fighter Alternate Class Features from the PHB2, but I'm not sure what else.
I always thought of the fighter as being really extremely customizable in its own right. In fact of all the classes its probably the most diverse. A fighter is the sum of her feat choices and starting stats. Almost every other class is really mostly just the granted abilities on top of the starting stats.
I notice this when looking at things like prestige classes etc for a fighter. Its hard to find a good prestige class that does not turn ones martial warrior into something else or grant spells or some such and I think this is in part because the fighters many feats allow her to customize her character to such a great degree that the need for prestige classes to make a specific type of fighter is significantly less. In fact I'd go so far as to say that some of the prestige classes meant to fill slots, archery for example, are actually worse then just picking good feats for a straight up fighter though this is only true if your using a lot of splat books (especially PHB2).
|
I always thought of the fighter as being really extremely customizable in its own right... ...Its hard to find a good prestige class that does not turn ones martial warrior into something else or grant spells...
Totally agree; the fighter is the ultimate customisable class.
What I don't understand is, why some abilities get treated as feats, while others are treated as class abilities?
This really stood out recently, when I was creating an NPC pirate captain, who I knew I wanted to be a light-armoured finesse warrior. Since I had used plenty of low-level fighters, rogues and (gasp!) fighter/rogues as goons already, I wanted to avoid jading the players by using something slightly off-centre.
I found both the duellist, and the swashbuckler; one is a prestige class, the other a base class, but both have abilities in common (though with a slightly different rules slant), such as extra damage, AC bonuses, and some which even had the same name, namely, Grace and Acrobatic Charge.
I went with the swashbuckler in the end, as it was a low-level scenario, which could not justify NPCs of high enough level to take a prestige class. But I remember thinking "What was the point of such similar classes?"
None of the abilities required membership of some secret order or travel to some remote monastery, such as might protect the secrets of some abilities; all the game effects could be justified as 'getting a bit better at fighting', which one can do simply by practice, whilst 'on the job'. Why restrict these abilities, but make others into feats available to all?
Eg Only a duellist can gain Canny Defence, yet Combat Expertise is a General feat. Enhanced Mobility builds on Mobility just as surely as Great Cleave builds on Cleave; why restrict it? Acrobatic Charge could conceivably be made part of the main combat rules, namely, that you can charge over difficult terrain, as long as you're not carrying a heavy load, and make the appropriate skill check. Thus it will more often be carried out by lightly-armoured characters with high Dex and lots of skill points...no need to change the rules to add new classes.
That's just some thoughts for starters...
The fighter is pretty customizable, but I had wanted to modify the class to create an Olman Savage fighter for the STAP. I didn't want to go barbarian, but I did want a fighter that would reflect a warrior from a culture with more primitive technology.
Therefore this fighter would not have proficiencies with with heavy or medium armour. He also might not be proficient with certain weapons that his culture doesn't have access to.
I was thinking that to balance out the lack of armour options he'd have a d12 HD and perhaps get the improved toughness feat as an extra bonus feat, or possibly some extra skill points to replace the lack of amour proficiences.
I guess the question is- what is fair trade for giving up Heavy and Medium armour proficiencies?
I guess the question is- what is fair trade for giving up Heavy and Medium armour proficiencies?
Unearthed Arcana answers that: Heavy and Medium armor profiency + shield proficiency + 1st level bonus feat = 2 more skill points per level and expanded list of class skills.
Taking a tip from the custom clerics, I might do something like this:
Base fighter: d8 HD, good Fort save, light armor proficiency, proficiency in simple and martial weapons, and one bonus feat of your choice.
Also, choose three (3) of the following:
* Proficiency in medium and heavy armor, shields, and tower shields;
* Increase HD to d10 (can pick again to increase to d12);
* Gain one other good save;
* Gain +2 skill points per level;
* Gain grace and dodge bonus class features (as swashbuckler).
The swashbuckler's insightful strike class feature could then be a feat, with the grace class feature as a prerequisite (ditto for the other swashbuckler class features--make 'em feats).
Careful, though... we're quickly edging into the territory of a "1-class" game, where every class feature is then selected from a menu a-la-carte. I for one would LOVE to play that game, but it wouldn't be D&D, exactly.
Believe it or not, Wizards have already done this. It's called the Warblade.
Seriously, the Warblade has everything you would want for a fighter.
As an added extra, if you buy Tome of Battle, you also get an improved Monk (the Swordsage) and Paladin (the Crusader) as well. This time, WotC actually got it right.
|
|
Believe it or not, Wizards have already done this. It's called the Warblade.
Seriously, the Warblade has everything you would want for a fighter.
As an added extra, if you buy Tome of Battle, you also get an improved Monk (the Swordsage) and Paladin (the Crusader) as well. This time, WotC actually got it right.
Just to clarify; we're talking here about The Book of Nine Swords; I think that's the title most people will be using for it.
I gather 'Tomes of Battle' are to be a series of books, of which this is the first; is that correct?
Seriously, the Warblade has everything you would want for a fighter.
You're not far off, buddy. The only flaw in that deal is that the stances and maneuvers work suspiciously like spells, which is a major turn-off for a lot of hack'n'slash gamers.
Careful, though... we're quickly edging into the territory of a "1-class" game, where every class feature is then selected from a menu a-la-carte. I for one would LOVE to play that game, but it wouldn't be D&D, exactly.
Already built that system, actually. I turned everything into feats (all class abilities) and skills (even attack rolls, AC, saving throws). The system truly worked off of a "d20-opposed roll concept" and was ultimately customizable. Downfalls are it's highly complex for character creation. I liked it, but finally ditched the effort as all my players were just not interested in that level of character control for the effort expended. I still use parts of the system sometimes (replacing the randomness of critical hits with a Called Shot sytem, or giving everyone just their racial HD and using a modified Toughness feat to gain more hp).
For this discussion, I think the answer to a better fighter is turning some class abilities into feats and allowing a trade-in system with class traits (armor/weapon profs, HD) similar to the Flaw system from UA.
Just to clarify; we're talking here about The Book of Nine Swords; I think that's the title most people will be using for it.
I gather 'Tomes of Battle' are to be a series of books, of which this is the first; is that correct?
I think the series is "Tome of..." seeing as there's been Tome of Magic and Tome of Battle so far. Kinda like the "Complete" series. Not entirely sure, though.
Taking a tip from the custom clerics, I might do something like this...
Ha, nicely done. I thought a similar thing when I saw that this thread was inspired by our other thread. Could be a starting point. Though, to me, it seems a little different with fighters, because they've got so many options already. Other than the the armour, saves, etc. that you mentioned, they already are modular, thanks to the bonus feats.
As you said, it could possibly lead into a single class game - or at least, single combat class game - where you can just pick everything (for example, turning the swashbuckler, other combat classes, and prestige classes into fighter bonus feats). I've heard that Star Wars Saga Edition is kinda like that: choosing bits and pieces to create the class you want. I'll have to have a read of it sometime to see how it works (I've never strayed far from D&D, so I don't really know much about Star Wars d20 in the first place).
I've had a skim through Tome of Battle, but haven't looked deeply at how each stance and maneuver works. I think the concept is cool, but I don't have time or need at the moment to learn that much new stuff for only three new classes (which wouldn't see play in my games for at least a few more months, anyway). However, I have given fighter's in my games the warblade's Weapon Aptitude class feature, allowing them to change the weapon used in weapon based feats each day. I like the versatility that provides.
Already built that system, actually. I turned everything into feats (all class abilities) and skills (even attack rolls, AC, saving throws). The system truly worked off of a "d20-opposed roll concept" and was ultimately customizable.
Wow! Sounds interesting, but - as you suggest - a bit complicated.
For this discussion, I think the answer to a better fighter is turning some class abilities into feats and allowing a trade-in system with class traits (armor/weapon profs, HD) similar to the Flaw system from UA.
I agree with you there. Similar to what we did with the cleric, and what Kirth posted above could be a good start.
|
Not to mention that our work with the cleric made it possible to more accurately portray the servants of a whole variety of gods, and even divide them into individual orders, with some being more martial and others being less so.
Oh, and we did it without wandering outside the SRD for anything but power checks.
That being said.
There are two (good) reasons to tweak the figter. A particular fighting style or aiming for a prestige class.
That being said, I don't think we are going to be able to hit the mark as well using the same system, but we can try. I think we would be better off with a 'pick a fighting' style format.
We don't have much to strip off a fighter.
Number and quantity of bonus feats, and weapon and or armor proficencies.
Allowing a fighter to opt to have bad fort saves might be interesting for light combat fighters, that is light armor finesse style.
A fighter lacks skill points, and is hobbled by their poor skill selection.
First pass thoughts... more to follow
But I remember thinking "What was the point of such similar classes?"
To sell you more $30+ books? Before the good people whose marketing ideas were defined by CCGs and such, we didn't have such a glut of books, nor were they so expensive. This game was once run by a bunch of people who loved it; now it's run by a corporation most interested in the bottom line. The pressure to buy all these suppliments is a false urgency. For years and years we had five sourcebooks total, and it didn't reduce our enjoyment of the game at all. Then second edition came out, along with more and more rules (the Complete books and such). Now we get, what, one to three rulebooks a month?
Careful, though... we're quickly edging into the territory of a "1-class" game, . .Already built that system, actually. I turned everything into feats (all class abilities) and skills (even attack rolls, AC, saving throws). The system truly worked off of a "d20-opposed roll concept" and was ultimately customizable. Downfalls are it's highly complex for character creation. I liked it, but finally ditched the effort as all my players were just not interested in that level of character control for the effort expended. . .
For this discussion, I think the answer to a better fighter is turning some class abilities into feats and allowing a trade-in system with class traits (armor/weapon profs, HD) similar to the Flaw system from UA.
WoC has also created a related variant in D20 Modern, namely core classes based on Stats. There's the Strong Hero, the Smart Hero, etc. After that , traditional "classes" are based on professions. D20 Modern intuitively separates nurture from nature, which is a pretty neat idea, IMHO.
Also, if you're interested in variant fighters, check out Iron Heroes. They've got over 12 fighting man classes - each completely unique, and are based on each type of warrior's approach to combat, methods, etc. Very cool!
WoC has also created a related variant in D20 Modern, namely core classes based on Stats. There's the Strong Hero, the Smart Hero, etc. After that , traditional "classes" are based on professions. D20 Modern intuitively separates nurture from nature, which is a pretty neat idea, IMHO.
Also, if you're interested in variant fighters, check out Iron Heroes. They've got over 12 fighting man classes - each completely unique, and are based on each type of warrior's approach to combat, methods, etc. Very cool!
Heh, I actually used both d20 Modern and IH as source material for my system! Both provide some very good options for customizing combat options. I also liked the "feat mastery" concept in IH. I'm actually working on turning all the IH class abilities into feats as well, so I'll have a ton of combat-focused feats available for the standard fighter to choose.
Heh, I actually used both d20 Modern and IH as source material for my system! Both provide some very good options for customizing combat options. I also liked the "feat mastery" concept in IH. I'm actually working on turning all the IH class abilities into feats as well, so I'll have a ton of combat-focused feats available for the standard fighter to choose.
I want to play in your campaign! I turned 1e/2e/007 into a hybrid, a-la-carte skill-based system at one point; it was great fun, but required too much alteration of pregen adventures (now that work cuts too deeply into original adventure writing time).
Heh, I actually used both d20 Modern and IH as source material for my system! Both provide some very good options for customizing combat options. I also liked the "feat mastery" concept in IH. I'm actually working on turning all the IH class abilities into feats as well, so I'll have a ton of combat-focused feats available for the standard fighter to choose.WoC has also created a related variant in D20 Modern, namely core classes based on Stats. There's the Strong Hero, the Smart Hero, etc. After that , traditional "classes" are based on professions. D20 Modern intuitively separates nurture from nature, which is a pretty neat idea, IMHO.
Also, if you're interested in variant fighters, check out Iron Heroes. They've got over 12 fighting man classes - each completely unique, and are based on each type of warrior's approach to combat, methods, etc. Very cool!
That's interesting; I would be interested in seeing your system. A while back I began designing a classless system based on the idea of the D20 Modern classes. Basically, characters get a special feature at every other level. Breaking down class features into trees it allows for alot of customization. I also changed attack bonus and saves into skills. Thus each character gets a bunch of skill points that he can use to either boost his combat abilities or non-combat skills as he sees fit.
I got quagmired in the magic system however.
What I don't understand is, why some abilities get treated as feats, while others are treated as class abilities?
The only reason to restrict an ability to a certain class is the assumption that that ability is only appropriate for certain classes. For example, there's really no reason that the Duelist's Enhanced Mobility shouldn't be a feat. Except that there would be a little less reason to be a duelist *gasp* oh no!
For a while now my POV has been that all character concepts should be covered by base classes. If there's no class that covers your concept, make a new one or modify a pre-existing one, as is being done on the Non-Generic Cleric thread.
That's interesting; I would be interested in seeing your system. A while back I began designing a classless system based on the idea of the D20 Modern classes. Basically, characters get a special feature at every other level. Breaking down class features into trees it allows for alot of customization. I also changed attack bonus and saves into skills. Thus each character gets a bunch of skill points that he can use to either boost his combat abilities or non-combat skills as he sees fit.
I got quagmired in the magic system however.
Sounds very much like my system. I used some OGC material (Legends of Sorcery and Mythic Earth: Elements of Magic) for ideas on the magic system as both are skill-baed.
Created another thread so we won't side-trek this one too much..
For all those folks that like to talk about rebuilding the system from the ground up...
Possibly the simplest way to balance the PHB fighter against the rest of the classes is to give them a different XP table. It sets a terrible precedent, has alarming implications, and generally screws things up, but you have to admit: gaining levels at about 125% or so of the other characters would really kind of bring them into line. A 15th level fighter is no match for a 15th level wizard (overall and on balance and depending on variables, as usual), but an 18th level fighter and a 15th level wizard is a bit closer.
I can also see an alternative other than special abilities - giving the fighter better feats. Instead of just giving the fighter feats that are the same as 3rd level class abilities, the same as eveyone else, give the fighter feats that require a certain level and are as powerful as class features/feats that other classes would get at those levels.
I can also see an alternative other than special abilities - giving the fighter better feats. Instead of just giving the fighter feats that are the same as 3rd level class abilities, the same as eveyone else, give the fighter feats that require a certain level and are as powerful as class features/feats that other classes would get at those levels.
You should check out Arcana Evolved's concept of Combat Rites. Combat manuevers (mechanically similar to very, short-termed spells) for warriors - and they come in 4 levels of magnitude no less. Gotta hand it to that Monte - his ideas are waaaay ahead of just 4th edition . . .
- FM
|
|
following the cleric format:
d8 hp
2 skill points per level
normal class skills
light armor proficiency
simple and martial weapon proficiency
all poor saves
full BAB
Bonus feats at 1,2 and every 3 levels after (as psychic warrior)
4 points to spend on:
increased hit die size (may be taken twice)
medium & heavy armor proficiency and shield & tower shield proficiency
good fortitude saves
Improved bonus feat progression: 1,2, and even levels after
good reflex saves
2 additional skill points per level, and 3 class skills (may be taken twice)
advanced training: use non-monk exotic weapons as martial weapons
specialized training: 3 bonus feats at level 1, chosen from fighter list
generalized training: 2 bonus feats at level 1
focused training: 150% numerical benefit from feats chosen as fighter bonus feats. eg. weapon specialization is +3 damage instead of +2
evasive style: includes all of (special: may not be selected with improved armor proficiency)
Add Int bonus as dodge bonus to AC
Add evasion and improved evasion as "feats" available at fighter level 4, and 8
brute style: includes all of (special may not be selected without d10 hp and good fortitude saves)
Add fighter level/4 (min 1) to bull rush, over run, and grapple checks
???
I think the points should only be for deciding the hit dice, skill points, ect. The amount of bonus feats should be static.
I think the points should only be for deciding the hit dice, skill points, etc. The number of bonus feats should be static.
I've no big problem with downgrading your d10s to d8s for an extra feat, for example (heh--you could take Improved Toughness with it and have the exact same number of hp, for example, so that's a pretty good balance). I wouldn't arbitrarily add to their number of feats, however--at the end of the day, the benchmark is if we can reconstruct the PH fighter exactly.
I'd also force 'em to take at least one good save--no class in the game gets none, so I don't see that as a viable option.
|
|
The first four items on the list regurgitates the PHB fighter. Otherwise just some other food for thought.
For example, downgrading bonus feats for extra feats at level 1. You get more initially, but you will lose out on feats with level or BAB requirements later on.
I do like requiring at least one good save, though I left it open so they could choose to be a reflexive fighter.
And the styles were a very rough concept that I should have done more with..
You know this thread was primarily intended to solve the problems with the fighter. The making it like the Non-Generic Cleric was an after thought. It's a good idea certaintly, but the real point of the thread is to attempt to adress the disparity between the fighter and spellcasters.
|
|
Sure, but part of that disparity, especially from the role-play perspective is that fighters are very limited in what they can do other than picking feats. As a result, just about every other combat class has more role-play potential.
By using a similar system to "absorb" swashbucklers and the like, we move a long way towards making the fighter a more enjoyable class to play.
A huge portion of the rest of the imbalance can be handled by the player making better feat choices (as opposed to the power attack, et al no-brainer)
Then we might be able to tack on some new feats to make them better, but our intent was to use only the SRD and fix the class as it were.
So what specifically is the concern with fighters? A big portion (in my mind) is as I have mentioned the cookie cutter power attacking brute. He wears the heaviest armor he can, and tries to max out damage.
It is certainly a valuable build, and the damage curve is nice, but why is this build so common? Because the mechanics push us this way.
It is a rarity to see a fighter who uses light weapons and armor, relying on alternative means to defend himself and do damage. And the number of times I have seen that a ranger is better than a fighter for TWF is dispicable.
But if someone who wants to play that light quick witted fighter could give up heavier armor proficiencies for more skills, or d10 hit dice for good reflex saves, I think the class would be more playable.
Otherwise, what do you think the fighter needs in order to compare to casters? I don't see the same disparity in the long run that you do apparently. Sure, in 1 encounter per day vacation adventures, the figter looses out to fire balls, and disintegrates. However; when you are in a dungeon, with 5 or 10 encounters per day, or even more, where a caster needs to conserve their spells, or Bob forbid use them for something other than laying down the grand zot, the fighter is the step-up class.
I never thought the goal was to make a more powerful fighter to beat out casters in their niche, but to make one that had more dynamic roleplay potential, and that could specialize even more than the normal feat progression allows.
Sure, but part of that disparity, especially from the role-play perspective is that fighters are very limited in what they can do other than picking feats. As a result, just about every other combat class has more role-play potential.
If anything, fighters have better rp potential than any other class. Just because swashbucklers, barbarians and the rest have default built-in rp roles doesn't mean they have more rp potential. In fact it usually means they have less because the players who rp them almost invariably fall back on their default "flavors".
I'm all for modifying fighters to make them mechanically more interesting, but I hate when I hear complaints about them not having enough "flavor" or "rp potential."
I never thought the goal was to make a more powerful fighter to beat out casters in their niche, but to make one that had more dynamic roleplay potential, and that could specialize even more than the normal feat progression allows.
Agreed. If people want to invent more powerful classes to keep up with the beguiler and dragon shaman, they're welcome to, and I shall leave the thread to them. I prefer to stay more or less compatible with the core rules (for reasons already stated). So, with that said, have at it, folks!
|
|
If anything, fighters have better rp potential than any other class. Just because swashbucklers, barbarians and the rest have default built-in rp roles doesn't mean they have more rp potential. In fact it usually means they have less because the players who rp them almost invariably fall back on their default "flavors".
I'm all for modifying fighters to make them mechanically more interesting, but I hate when I hear complaints about them not having enough "flavor" or "rp potential."
I complain more about the impossibility of building certain character archetypes with the base fighter.
For example, since bluff is a cross class skill, you can gain 1 rank in it per level. So, unless you give up everything else, you won't be feining in combat much, or at all. Yeah, it could be called a swashbuckler thing, but feinting and combinations are the heart of a good combat style.
I understand you can create a lot of good solid charaters with rp potential with the baseline fighter, but the lack of skills just hampers doing anything characterful with them. No tumbling, no bluffing, hell you can't even have a fighter who is a decent guard because spot and listen are cross-class.
For example, since bluff is a cross class skill, you can gain 1 rank in it per level. So, unless you give up everything else, you won't be feining in combat much, or at all. Yeah, it could be called a swashbuckler thing, but feinting and combinations are the heart of a good combat style.
Yeah, now if Bluff were a class skill, and you could take Sneak Attack as a fighter bonus feat (+1d6 each time the feat was selected)... now THAT would be cool.
I understand you can create a lot of good solid charaters with rp potential with the baseline fighter, but the lack of skills just hampers doing anything characterful with them. No tumbling, no bluffing, hell you can't even have a fighter who is a decent guard because spot and listen are cross-class.
Extremely well-said.
In the hype of all this 4e stuff going on, I thought I'd post the little they've mentioned about the new fighter.
Design & Development: Class
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816b
Here’s a highly probable conversation lifted from the future, one year from today, as two players who’ve just met at a convention discuss their PC choices for their upcoming D&D game.
“I’m playing a 3rd-level human fighter named Graelar.”
“Cool. Is he weapon and shield or two-hander?”
“He’s sword and board, man.”
“Longsword?”
“Yeah. I thought about going high Con and using a hammer, but I wanted to start with the chance to make a couple of attacks, so I’m using rain of blows as my good weapon attack, and I went with high Wis so that I can switch to the better oppy powers later.”
“My elf fighter uses a spear. I like the speed and the option to go past AC. But you’ve got the fighter covered. I’ll play a halfling rogue.”
The names and destinations of the powers mentioned above might have changed by the time the game is in your hands. What won’t change is that fighters care about which weapons they use much more than other characters. Other character classes have specific weapons and weapon types that they tend to rely on while still maintaining access to a larger chunk of the weapon chart. The fighter is the only current 4th Edition class with capabilities that depend on the weapon they have chosen to train the most with. Even at 1st level, a fighter who uses an axe has a different power selection than a fighter who relies on a flail or a rapier or a pick. In the long run, fighters can diversify and master powers related to a few different weapons, but most will opt to focus on the weapon that suits their personal style, helps their interactions with the rest of the PCs in the group, and carries all the magical oomph they’ve managed to acquire.
Many fighters will opt for swords. Swords have the most flexible assortment of powers. In a fighter’s hands, the longsword is the queen of the battlefield and the greatsword is the queen’s executioner. But each of the other significant melee weapons offers the fighter unique advantages and opportunities. For the first time, you’ll be able to say “I’m an axe fighter” or “I’m a flail fighter” and that will mean something cool.
What do people think of this idea? Powers based on weapon types?
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
What do people think of this idea? Powers based on weapon types?
Honestly, the thing I'm excited about is the fact that they referenced CON and WIS as components towards future abilities. That's great! No longer will ALL fighters depend on high STR (or DEX) and CON! I really hope that they explore this possibility to it's fullest, allowing for viable fighter concepts in characters who favor INT or even CHA. The weapon-based fighting options are kind of cool as well, but the stat-focus thing is what I'm really looking forward to.
Honestly, the thing I'm excited about is the fact that they referenced CON and WIS as components towards future abilities. That's great! No longer will ALL fighters depend on high STR (or DEX) and CON! I really hope that they explore this possibility to it's fullest, allowing for viable fighter concepts in characters who favor INT or even CHA. The weapon-based fighting options are kind of cool as well, but the stat-focus thing is what I'm really looking forward to.
True. That's what jumped out at me the most too. I definitely second your hopes that they'll included INT and CHA based ones. I imagine they would, looking at the classes they've already got (Swashbuckler, etc.). I think it's a great idea. Makes me think of Elan in OoTS.
I turned 1e/2e/007 into a hybrid, a-la-carte skill-based system at one point; it was great fun, but required too much alteration of pregen adventures (now that work cuts too deeply into original adventure writing time).
Why I play Hero.