Frank, your own site says that ECL and LA don't work, so why would CR be an appropriate measure for you to use in any discussion?
LA is not the same as CR.
A Frost Giant is CR 9. A Frost Giant equipped as a Player Character is CR 10. A Frost Giant played as a Player Character is ECL 18. A Frost Giant PC is no better or different than a Frost Giant NPC, but gains no XP for defeating the NPC version in a personal combat that he will definitionally lose half the time.
CR is a good measurement. It's the only measurement of character and monster power in 3rd edition D&D. LA/ECL is a terrible measurement. It's an arbitrary number of how much monster player characters are getting "totally boned."
-Frank
|
In third edition rules you literally are assured of getting a Ring of Blink. Specifically. It's the thing you need, and you are expected to trade your other magical loot in as "character wealth" in order to purchase the items you actually need. And while I loathe it, the 3rd edition is created predicated on the idea that people will do that. Heck, Andy Collins said that the whole 3.5 weapon sizing thing was not a problem because player characters "just purchase the weapons they want and need anyway."
So yes. A 10th level Rogue can be certain of having a Ring of Blink in the default assumptions that the game was written under. And yes, I see people play the Blink Rogue + Flasks of various stuff a lot. It's an extremely common, simple, and effective character archetype. You will also want a Wand of gravestrike and a Wand of Golemstrike to activate with UMD under standard rules.
In Pathfinder you don't even need the wands because Sneak Attack works on most constructs and undead.
-Frank
That just goes to show the differences between groups. I've DMed and played a lot, and I have never even see someone acquire a ring of blinking. I guess that's why I assumed it was foolish to design a character around having one. Granted, I haven't played or DMed very many high level campaigns, but I still would never consider designing a character around having a certain magic item at a certain level. I like to rely more on my character's abilities than his gear.
Offense is better than Defense unless defense applies to your entire party in the way that magic circle against Evil does. Intercepting enemies doesn't workExcept it does, as I've demonstrated. The only part I'm not completely certain about is whether a character can change his declared movement action's path in response to a readied action. I admit that if I interpreted that incorrectly, you are right and I am wrong. But I've been interpreting it the other way for a couple of years now and nobody has ever cited anything in the RAW that has contradicted my interpretation.
Ok, here is the part where we show that you are wrong. Note the bolds.
The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun. Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action that you ready might do so).Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don’t otherwise move any distance during the round.
Ok, so we see from the bolded text that your action comes before the action that triggers it. The trick is that DnD has no "declaration" phase where we tell the DM what we are going to do and then are forced to do it. Each action takes place as you do it. Even parts of your turn can be used one at a time (for example, your move and standard or each of your attacks). So, if your standard action was a passwall spell, you could then move through the hole created if that spell was enough to pass through a castle wall or something, but itf it wasn't enough you could then use your move to pull out a scroll of passwall instead of walking.
There is no text anywhere that says that you can't take part of your move, have something happen (like a trap going off or you sighting an enemy), and then you use the rest of your movement points to walk back or change your course.
I think you are confusing what happens with a Move and what happens with a Charge. A Charge can only be in a straight line, so if you move in the way of the Charge you can actually stop a monster in its path since it technically can't complete the rest of its action.
Let's hope all monsters charge every turn in your game, or else your "speedbump" fighter is useless.
|
You put an SRD Fighter against opponents of his level and rather than winning half the time he just gets stomped into the ground. Fighter 10 vs. Fire Giant? Fighter 8 vs. Mind Flayer? Fighter 7 vs. Remorhazz? It's ugly, ugly stuff.I will apologize, in advance, for my lack of knowledge / experience; however, can a level 10 thief defeat a Fire Giant with little to no trouble, or a level 8 Cleric easily defeat a Mind Flayer?
The cleric will probably beat the mind flayer. The average level 8 cleric with a WIS of 18 (and that's not an unreasonable assumption at that level with magic items) and a save-boosting item or spell +2 (protection from evil would do it) has a better than 50% chance of beating the flayer's mind blast attack. Assuming he does, the divine power spell, summoned creature (or planar ally, for that matter, though the best trick is probably to use summon undead IV to get yourself a nice allip or ghast to keep the mind flayer occupied. Since they're undead, the ol' mind blast doesn't work.), and subsequent savage bashing with a divine might-enhanced morningstar will probably make relatively short work of the mind flayer.
Ok, here is the part where we show that you are wrong. Note the bolds.
The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun. Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action that you ready might do so).Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action.
You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don’t otherwise move any distance during the round.
Yes, I checked that quote out several times, and it doesn't contradict my point. I read "the action occurs just before the action that triggers it" as meaning just before the completion of the action that triggered it. Consider: if you ready an attack in response to the casting of a spell, how would you even know the spell was being cast if if you attacked before it began? And how would that interrupt a spell that hasn't even begun to be cast? Or if you ready a spear attack against a charge, how could you possibly attack before the charge even began to bring the target into range?
"Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action" -- except he isn't capable of continuing the action he declared because doing so would take him into a square occupied by a foe. He can continue on by taking a different action if he has one available, but the one he declared is no longer viable (absent overrun, tumble, etc.).
The resolution to this issue rests on whether you can change the route you take after declaring your move action. K, Frank and a lot of other people assume that you can. I disagree. To my thinking, a move action is one action, not a sequence of 15-30 seperate five-foot step actions, and if anything prevents you from completing the one action you declared you have to use another if you want to change it. I would rule the same if the moving foe accidentally ran into an invisible wall of force that had always been there instead of a readied-intercept tank that rushed into place at the last minute.
Now, I still haven't seen anything in the RAW that clearly and definitively answers this one way or the other. I like my interpretation and it actually models the real world better than the opposite interpretation, otherwise we wouldn't have the word "intercept" in English and it would be pretty much impossible to play football or soccer. I also find it more fun to play and makes melee more meaningful.
Yes, I checked that quote out several times, and it doesn't contradict my point. I read "the action occurs just before the action that triggers it" as meaning just before the completion of the action that triggered it. Consider: if you ready an attack in response to the casting of a spell, how would you even know the spell was being cast if if you attacked before it began? And how would that interrupt a spell that hasn't even begun to be cast? Or if you ready a spear attack against a charge, how could you possibly attack before the charge even began to bring the target into range?
Because it happens simultaneously in real-time but we abstract it for a turn-based game? Page 71 of the FAQ clearly says that Readied actions take place before the actions that trigger them. There is an example and everything. I don't think it gets clearer.
But man, if you want to play by a houserule, go ahead. I totally approve.
Just don't expect anyone to respect your opinion of the rules when you start inserting words into the rules trying to pass them off as RAW.
You are allowed to make [Perception] checks in the middle of move to notice things. What would that even be for if you couldn't change your course mid-move?
Do you seriously force dwarves to walk right into traps that they auto-detected in the middle of their movement because they already declared that movement? If not, why would you force a monster to continue its normal movement direction when some fighter with nothing better to do used a readied action to move into a square they were going to enter?
-Frank
But man, if you want to play by a houserule, go ahead. I totally approve.
Just don't expect anyone to respect your opinion of the rules when you start inserting words into the rules trying to pass them off as RAW.
Mine is an interpretation. Yours is an interpretation. Mine 'inserts' "before the end of" before "the action that triggers it" and yours 'inserts' "before the beginning of" before "the action that triggers it." And, yes, the rule as written COULD be clearer. Under your interpretation the evil sorceror gets hit with an arrow for just thinking about casting a spell, and the ogre preparing to charge gets double damage from a readied halberd with 10' reach while he is standing in place 40' away from the halberdier.
You are allowed to make [Perception] checks in the middle of move to notice things. What would that even be for if you couldn't change your course mid-move?
Do you seriously force dwarves to walk right into traps that they auto-detected in the middle of their movement because they already declared that movement? If not, why would you force a monster to continue its normal movement direction when some fighter with nothing better to do used a readied action to move into a square they were going to enter?
Actually, I allow movements to be aborted if not changed, but thats an even grayer area than changing the path. For the record, I also allow any action that is part of a move action to be performed even if not announced before the action began. Jumps and tumbles can be incorporated into the move on the fly, even if they reduce the total distance moved; but the path must remain the same if a second move action isn't expended.
My interpretation is a houserule, but I consider it a clarification of the rules as written and not an amendment or alteration of them. As far as I'm concerned a readied intercept as I described should be usable in any "strict SRD" campaign. It also has the added benefit of actually making high hp, high-AC classes like fighter and paladin more useful than many assume them to be. Thats my opinion as a DM. If I were to play in a game run by K, however, I would accept his ruling to the contrary.
|
Good discussion on the Fighter. I have three simple suggestions:
1) A fighter bonus feat every level.
2) More fighter bonus feats, like the PHB II.
3) 4 + Int bonus trained skills.
I was toying with this idea the last week. I think it would be fair if fighters retained their normal bonus feats, and at other levels they got a non-fighter bonus feat. That would give players of fighters room to take interesting feats or shore up holes with Iron Will and such...plus, the new feats cannot be fighter feats which means no min/maxing.
Another Suggestion:
Other classes get unique abilities, such as Ninja Ki, or Turn Attempts. Why not make fighters the only class that has Weapon Proficiency Slots (I'm talking AD&D style)!!!
The OP's examples are flawed. The Ecl/CR system is not designed for parity...at least no mano-e-mano parity. The baseline assumption is that a creature with a CR equal to A PARTY OF FOUR ADVENTURERS will suck up appx. 20% or so of their resources (HP, spells, potions, abilities, etc.) a 10th level fighter is more often than not going to get stomped by a Chuul (CR 10 IIRC.) no contest. Mind flayer? CR8 as a stock critter, specifically tuned to destroy those with weak will saves.
The current fighter rocks. He doesn't solo well, but then again, we can't all be druids right?
|
|
Mine is an interpretation. Yours is an interpretation.
While it is somewhat off-topic, I can find you all the links to explain this aspect of the game if you're really interested. Regarding the readied action occuring BEFORE the action, there is a special exception for spell casting (otherwise you couldn't interrupt the spell). So, even though normally the readied action happens before, in that one case only it happens just after they start but before they finish.
As for movement, there is no requirement that the character choose their path before they start. Imagine, for instance, a character walking in a fog where they could only see 5' ahead of them. If they see a wall ahead, you'd expect they'd try to go around, even if they were planning on going straight.
That is true for any movement. So, if I come upon an invisible wall or a fighter that appeared in my way, I can continue around if I have movement to do so.
In any case, even if your interpretation of the ready action is correct, you're giving up your attack for a move (since readying is a standard action, and readying a move action is still a standard action). Poor fighter. Standing in front of the monster as it gets to attack him twice - once as an attack of opportunity when he approaches from 10' to 5' (monsters tend to have reach) and another attack after ending his move right next to the fighter. Your game, your rules, but it doesn't sound like I'd enjoy being a fighter in your game even with that 'change' to the rules to allow me to get in the way.
By the way CR7 Monsters are suppose to be challanges for a party not a single adventurer of level=to CR. So a Remorahzz (i cant spell) should beat a single fighter most of the time. The problem is not the fighter class. The problem is the assumption on magic items/wealth in relation to level.
In most posts i make refrences to various different books or mythology because it just helps to show where my thoughts are coming for. And to date, i havent read a fantasy novel that i really loved where the protaganist has magic weapon + magic armor + magic shield + magic boots + magic cape + magic bracers... etc. Yet how many DND characters don't have a magic item for almost every item slot after leaving low levels. And in the case of some, you are talking about multiple items for the same slot that they switch at need.
Who exactly are these people who have enough time and xp to create all these items and also have the time to adventure to replenish the xps that they are using to make these items? Certainly not the PCs. Yes, some PCs make magic items but still most magic items are bought/found excluding maybe the expendables.
|
|
By the way CR7 Monsters are suppose to be challanges for a party not a single adventurer of level=to CR.
The boards ate my post.
In any case, you're wrong here.
A CR 7 is supposed to be equal in power to any other CR 7 creature. A wizard is not supposed to be more powerful if he is the enemy or if he is an ally.
So, if you have two CR 7 creatures fight each other (say a Fighter 7 and a Remorhazz [sp?] each should win 50% of the time. If you take a CR 7 creature and put it against a group of 4 adventurers, they should usually win easily, expending about 20-25% of their resources.
It would not be a good challenge if a group of four characters had a 50% chance of dying. Using the 4 encounters per day, that would make it so that most adventurers die within 24 hours of becoming an adventurer.
So, the rule is that a CR 7 is supposed to equal another CR 7. There are certainly some situations that favor one over the other, but by and large they should be equivalent - even if the CR 7 is a PC class. If this is not the case, a fundamental assumption about what should be a challenge and how much XP to award is fundamentally off.
If your supposition is true and a PC class is weaker than other CRs it is equivalent to, smart PCs should hunt down other PC classes. Killing the potion maker in the town is the same XP as the Remorharazz.
I do agree that the Christmas tree effect is annoying.
There are a lot of great ideas in this thread, and I'd like to concur with Frank: The Fighter needs to have more capabilities and skills.
I agree, the fighter does need some more nifty abilities. Generally, I feel like the fighter should be the baseline for 'kicking ass'. As in, if I have a new player who wants to beat things up, I should hand him the fighter, as the gold standard for combat, and he should be able to compete with any other character out there in melee. Yes, an archer prc should be a better shot, and a barbarian should be able to dazzle us with his strength, but no one should, as an all around 'ass kicker', beat the fighter.
That being said, I like the weapoin groups idea. I absolutely hated specialization as it was in 3rd edition. I felt it really screwed the fighter over. How does this sound? maybe the weapon group ability should be as it exists, but giving plus two damage every time a new group is taken instead of plus one.
Note: any Fighter based on kicking ass in a variety of ways, either adaptable to the battlefield or the current abortion where it is selected on character generation and fixed, is going to naturally run into the problem that it is not new player friendly.
Barbarians are new player friendly. You hulk out and hit things with a greatsword. There are few choices to make during character generation and little to keep track of during play. You hit things. They die.
As long as Fighters are supposed to be versatile, they are never going to be a good fit for a new player. As long as Fighters are supposed to be a first character's character, they will never have meaningful versatility. As long as the design attempts to be both (versatile and simple), it is simultaneously not simple and not versatile.
And as a direct result, it also is not good.
-Frank
Personally, I'd like to see fighters be more like tanks--heavily armored warmachines that can kill a lot of things. That is a pretty easy role for new players to get into.
Personally, I'd like to see fighters be more like tanks--heavily armored warmachines that can kill a lot of things. That is a pretty easy role for new players to get into.
I'm not going to say what I should say and just agree (I do agree, but I think you know the song and dance by now).
Regarding the readied action occuring BEFORE the action, there is a special exception for spell casting (otherwise you couldn't interrupt the spell). So, even though normally the readied action happens before, in that one case only it happens just after they start but before they finish.
Not just in that one case.
A charge is a single full-round action involving both movement and an attack. The RAW says you can ready a halberd against a charge and inflict double damage. Suppose this is enough to kill the charger? Does the body drop at the place where the charge began, thirty feet away from the ten-foot reach halberd, or does it occur within the ten-foot reach? If the latter, this another example of a readied action ocurring after the start but before the end of the action that triggered it.
The Cometary Collision feat is another example. Granted, its an exceptional case in the RAW, but it IS an example.
QUOTE="DeadDMWalking"] As for movement, there is no requirement that the character choose their path before they start. Imagine, for instance, a character walking in a fog where they could only see 5' ahead of them. If they see a wall ahead, you'd expect they'd try to go around, even if they were planning on going straight.
Yes, and they'd pay the extra movement cost for the privilege. If you have actual rules that say otherwise, lets hear them.
Poor fighter. Standing in front of the monster as it gets to attack him twice - once as an attack of opportunity when he approaches from 10' to 5' (monsters tend to have reach) and another attack after ending his move right next to the fighter. Your game, your rules, but it doesn't sound like I'd enjoy being a fighter in your game even with that 'change' to the rules to allow me to get in the way.
Its an option, and it is often -- OFTEN -- tactically preferable to allow an opponent to take two or more hits at a fighter who loses no attack potential in the process if it prevents an attack against a wizard with less than half his hit points, 2/3 of his AC, and who may lose one of only three or four of his most powerful attacks that day if the blow connects.
The big design problem here is that most D&D players undervalue defense. And with reason! With a limited number of feats and similar options to choose from, almost every decision that increases survivability decreases the potential for attack power.
If you don't take any defensive options, you die or worse before you can make any of those offensive options pay off. But go too far into defense, and your contribution to the party becomes negligible. You suck up a share of XP and treasure without contributing anything meaningful to the party's overall success.
The trick is to set mechanics up so that defensive options are comparably valauble to other options. For instance, a cleric is justified in taking defensive options over offensive ones because you need the person that can get the rest of the party back up on its feet to be the last one to fall. But unless a fighter can find some other way to make his armor and hit points pay off for his teammates, they are worthless to the party as a whole.
The Knight's Challenge class ability and feats such as Goad, Stalwart Defense, Overwhelming Assault, and a number of Bo9S options like the Iron Guard's Glare stance are sophisticated attempts to make defensive options meaningful for martial characters. But the readied intercept I described, while less preferable to a number of these options, allows a low-level fighter to put his defense to some use without using up other options.
[
PLEASE dont make the Fighter any more of the Tank (friggin hiding from 4th ed because of that) A fighter should be good at...fighting. Screw skills, give me some damage dealing mojo to keep ahead of the Cleric buffed (he can have the fighters misplaced skills for all i care)
Im sorry if you would like for beginners to be playing your meat shields
( low man on the totem pole gets the speed bump job) but I dont think meat shield should exist, sure they can take damage, but they can dish it too, (this is balanced because they CAN DO NOTHING ELSE, no spells, no skills, no crazy special abilities, just raw killing power... at least it should be that way) oh that the barbarians roll? f&^k that, it both there roll, two different styles of killing the foes (barbarians have friggin wilderness skills and melee combat, fighters should have RANGED and melee combat, theres your versatile
(ps i was just joking about the beginner meatshields, I know you are just saying there easy to play)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, it's not a joke. A number of people seriously want Fighters to "back up" a Wizard at high level. To play the relatively unglamorous and unimportant role of "meat shield" (also called "tank") while Wizards, Clerics, and Rogues accomplish things.
In short, there are people who seriously have no problem with the entire Fighter character being made grotesquely obsolete by summon monster IV. There are people on this very thread who have made the bold assertion that a high level Fighter should impact the game as much as a lower level character in virtually any other class (except presumably Barbarian/Monk/Samurai/Swashbuckler).
I believe it misguided, but it's a real opinion that people really have. I believe that upon people inspecting their beliefs that they will eventually come to the conclusion that their Fighter concept is defined as a lower level character and thus has no bearing whatsoever on what a higher level Fighter should be able to accomplish - but until people examine their prejudices the Fighter is pretty much doomed to wallow in obscurity.
-Frank
|
Cant use Mindflayer as an example ... its not in the SRD :) LOL
I been thinking about how to balance and improve fighters and I think their is a solution built within the game.
Wizards have a limited resource called spells while fighters can go on for hours, to balance this fighters damage is kept low and stagnant in comparison for wizards spells meaning that by the teens wizards power is far greater than a fighters.
A Few solutions, replace the extra attacks with a damage boost, BAB of +6 gives x2 damage +11 x3 etc, which is utilized as a full round action.
Next give fighters (and only fighters) an ability to utilize this extra damage as part of a standard action x times per day consider it a smite ability if you will).
Finally and this is the big issue, provide fighters with an ability to gain the equivalent of metamagic (probably fighter only) feats at the expense of hit points. Fighters should be able to inflict sub-dual damage on themselves to gain a boost in damage, extra attacks, sudden movement bursts or similar. This could be in the form of feats (maybe even evolve the combat feats in Alpha 1 to use this) and the cost should be pretty high to discourage low hit point classes from taking them. Higher level feats may even be enhanced to grant higher power results at the expense of actual hit points.
IMHO this is the easiest backwards compatible result for the biggest boost to a fighter, it would require a great deal of play testing and balancing but the result would be a fighter at high levels gaining a much needed boost to keep them up with spellcasters. not only that but using a valuable resource like hit points means that they also have to choose when to use it much like a wizard does with his spells.
thoughts?
well id rather people who want tanks to move over to the 4th ed site, i cant save that game ( some sanity existed with this game) I like the idea for subdual damage for special effects, it brings a feel of exhaustion to the game. it would need some playtesting but ultimately its as backwards compatible as any new feat progression.
nothing against tank lovers (or more likely lovers of other people playing tanks) its just that I run a roleplaying game that emulate fantasy novels and stories. and tanks have no place there, Conan is not a tank, he can kill better than any wizard. Drizzt, Wulfgar and Bruenor are not the meat shield for Eliminster. I understand the mechanical benefits of having a character focused on defense, it just isnt dramatically interesting.
Clerics should be the only tanks, they should have excellent defense and self healing powers yet mediocre offense, thats what a tank really is.
well id rather people who want tanks to move over to the 4th ed site, i cant save that game ( some sanity existed with this game) I like the idea for subdual damage for special effects, it brings a feel of exhaustion to the game. it would need some playtesting but ultimately its as backwards compatible as any new feat progression.
nothing against tank lovers (or more likely lovers of other people playing tanks) its just that I run a roleplaying game that emulate fantasy novels and stories. and tanks have no place there, Conan is not a tank, he can kill better than any wizard. Drizzt, Wulfgar and Bruenor are not the meat shield for Eliminster. I understand the mechanical benefits of having a character focused on defense, it just isnt dramatically interesting.
Clerics should be the only tanks, they should have excellent defense and self healing powers yet mediocre offense, thats what a tank really is.
Last time I checked, Conan's class was in his title. Thus, you're not talking about a fighter.
EDIT:
Also, I find it extremely aggravating that you people are taking a word that I used--"tank"--and associating it not with the military weapon--which is what I intended--but with the class role of "tank."
|
|
@Vexer -
The boards ate my long post, but here is a quick summation.
I'm familiar with other examples of readying being an interrupt. The normal rule is that the readied action occurs before the action that triggers it. If the action that triggers it is in the middle of another character's turn, the action interrupts.
On page 160 of the PHB it explains exactly how it works, incuding readying a charge and interrupting spells. If you're adding text to the ready action, that's fine, but it doesn't change the rule as it appears in the Player's Handbook.
Regarding declaring actions. That would be a pretty significant rule. Since the rules don't say you have to, you don't. When the rules are silent, that to which they are silent does not exist. Thus, undead (usually) don't have life-sense becauce the rules don't say they do. The fact that they don't say that they DON'T have the ability doesn't matter. So, there are several places in Combat Chapter where it talks about what you can and can't do, and it never says you have to declare everything in advance. It does say you can end a move action early to take a standard action (or rather, it says you can take a standard action at any point during a move, ending your move). It talks about movement penalties, but never mentions change of direction, but it does mention obstacles.
But whatever. You play by your rules and I'll play by my understanding of the 'real' rules. Even if your rules were 'correct', and I used them, it wouldn't change the fact that the fighter still sucks under them. Being a speed-bump is not fun for me. Sure, I want to stand toe to toe, but I don't want to take a feat just so that I get an attack when I'm constantly readying a move action.
And the fighter doesn't need aggro or knight's challenge. The fighter needs level appropriate abilities at high levels. The problem is that there are no high level feats to choose from. A fighter's feats don't have to be equivalent of 9th level wizard spells. A fighter does have some advantages over the wizard (BAB, HP). If he had 9th level spells, too, then the wizard would need more. The fighter needs abilities that fit with his other abilities that give him more options and some level appropriate action choices beyond 'full attack every round'.
And of course, you're free to disagree, and disagree about whether your houserules are RAW or not. If we can build a better fighter, we should - then we can discuss whether or not it really is better or even necessary - or if it means all the other classes are now too weak in comparison. At least, that's my take.
3 out of 7 players in my group prefer fighters. Weak at high levels and all. Its' a matter of play style and preference. So please don't assume that fighters are for beginners only.
I do like the direction alpha is taking the fighter. Could use some more tweaking though. And since a fighter's main bonus is feats, they need some new feats to give various combat abilities not new class abilities.
But whatever. You play by your rules and I'll play by my understanding of the 'real' rules.
Alrighty. I will play by my understanding of the 'real' rules and you'll play by your rules.
Being a speed-bump is not fun for me.
Then don't be one. If you were to play in a game I ran, you wouldn't have to be. My interpretation of 3.5 rules doesn't give a fighter in my campaign any fewer options than one in yours; it just adds another one. You can be a cookie-cutter Power Attack/Greatsword/Shock Trooper cleavemonkey like 90% of the other PC fighters out there. But in my campaign, other options exist, and defense isn't as laughable.
I agree that even with my interpretation that fighters need a boost, though I disagree with the way its been done in the Pathfinder Alpha test. I think in general the Alpha rules go too far inacross-the-board power upgrading for the whole game. Scaling feats and synergy feats are preferable to my thinking.
|
A Few solutions, replace the extra attacks with a damage boost, BAB of +6 gives x2 damage +11 x3 etc, which is utilized as a full round action.
This would make it level based, much like the current iterative attacks progression. Another method would be to have it purely numbers based. If the Fighter hits by 5, he gets an extra die. If he hits by 10, he gets two extra dice, etc.
Next give fighters (and only fighters) an ability to utilize this extra damage as part of a standard action x times per day consider it a smite ability if you will).
Neat idea.
Finally and this is the big issue, provide fighters with an ability to gain the equivalent of metamagic (probably fighter only) feats at the expense of hit points. Fighters should be able to inflict sub-dual damage on themselves to gain a boost in damage, extra attacks, sudden movement bursts or similar. This could be in the form of feats (maybe even evolve the combat feats in Alpha 1 to use this) and the cost should be pretty high to discourage low hit point classes from taking them. Higher level feats may even be enhanced to grant higher power results at the expense of actual hit points.
I proposed this earlier, but used Fatigued / Exhausted conditions, rather than hit point damage, as the 'cost' to 'maximize' or 'empower' or 'quicken' an attack.
In the case of 'quicken,' a Fighter would be able to make a single attack as an Immediate Action, but would become Fatigued immediately after (perhaps even a Fort save to avoid being Exhausted?). The attack would resolve instantly, and the Fighter would have to choose tactically whether or not he's willing to risk the penalties of being Fatigued (and possibly Exhausted) to get this one vital attack in.
I prefer Fatigued to straight damage, since it feels more thematic to me, and I'm wary of the idea of a Fighter burning through hit points like some sort of 'power pool.'
thoughts?
Some neat ideas. I do prefer the simpler ideas that make the Fighter better at what a Fighter does, although I'd also like to see some Fighter abilities that allow them to apply Conditions (stunned, staggered, lamed, blind, dazed, dazzled, etc.) to the targets of their attacks, giving the Fighter some options beyond just hit point damage.
give more "Book of Nine Swords" goodies to Fighters!
give more "Book of Nine Swords" goodies to Fighters!
BY THE GODS PLEASE NO
Depends on what you mean. If you mean the power level of the ToB classes, yes. If you mean the mechanics then no.
Depends on what you mean. If you mean the power level of the ToB classes, yes. If you mean the mechanics then no.
How can you get one without the other?
Depends on what you mean. If you mean the power level of the ToB classes, yes. If you mean the mechanics then no.
i think i like the mechanics in Bo9N... i never really thought about this before, but giving a Fighter some kind of powers that get better with level, look to me like bringing him "at-level" with casters...
not sure i like the fact that they have their maneuvers rdy every round... maybe Vancian system can help?
the more things change, the more they stay the smae... :P
Depends on what you mean. If you mean the power level of the ToB classes, yes. If you mean the mechanics then no.i think i like the mechanics in Bo9N... i never really thought about this before, but giving a Fighter some kind of powers that get better with level, look to me like bringing him "at-level" with casters...
not sure i like the fact that they have their maneuvers rdy every round... maybe Vancian system can help?
the more things change, the more they stay the smae... :P
They don't have their maneuvers every round, once you use a maneuver you can't use it until you do your classes recharge.
yes, i meant "every encounter" :)
In short, there are people who seriously have no problem with the entire Fighter character being made grotesquely obsolete by summon monster IV.
-FrankEvery single serious fight I have seen agaist any important villian in a game in the last year they have had greater dispeal ready to use. Generally several times. A simple protection spell prevents attacks by summoned creatures. Or they could simply disengage for the minute and a half for the thing to disappear.
I'm actually happy if a major villain sits around casting greater dispel magic on a summons, because that's several rounds where real party members are getting attacks on him and he's only canceling a spell.
And fighter's only role is to soak damage and distract attacks....so it doesn't matter is a summoned monster in the fighter's role is unable to touch a villain. He's ruining line of effect and can use any ranged attacks.
On a final note: if the major villain does disengage for a few minutes, thats just time where the party is running him down like a dog.
Fighters only job is to soak damage and distract? thats like saying wizards job is to nuke and then die from the aggro, boring concepts form online gaming. leave the MMORPG to 4th ed and the actual MMORPGs. The Fighter is the archtypical master of the martial. swordsmen that battle the magical and mundane with just skill and will. its to bad that 3rd edition gave them nerf weapons and took all the caster flaws away. if there is a caster flaw, sure enough a feat or spell fills it up. good job wizards of the coast, you gave power gamer mutchkins a playground in the wizards and clerics, and fake awesomeness with the martial classes " yippee i can trip a dude!"
fix that and I'll give you a gold medal for genius (anyone? anybody?)
I was wondering when I'd see the ol anime comparison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters only job is to soak damage and distract? thats like saying wizards job is to nuke and then die from the aggro, boring concepts form online gaming. leave the MMORPG to 4th ed and the actual MMORPGs. The Fighter is the archtypical master of the martial. swordsmen that battle the magical and mundane with just skill and will. its to bad that 3rd edition gave them nerf weapons and took all the caster flaws away. if there is a caster flaw, sure enough a feat or spell fills it up. good job wizards of the coast, you gave power gamer mutchkins a playground in the wizards and clerics, and fake awesomeness with the martial classes " yippee i can trip a dude!"
fix that and I'll give you a gold medal for genius (anyone? anybody?)
Oh, I agree.
The caster flaws were never really flaws, but Fighters have never had a role that can't be better done by summoned monsters, and thats sad.
Here's my challenge: give a Fighter an effect at least as powerful as a Wizard of the same level can cast each spell level, and make it completely mundane and happens when he hits things. No flashy effects or big AoEs, just the same base effects. For example, let him blind people at 3rd level with a Save (which is the level when a Wizard can blind and reveal invisible on whole areas).
Then run a Fighter against encounters at or below his EL. See how much more effective he is.
Here's my challenge: give a Fighter an effect at least as powerful as a Wizard of the same level can cast each spell level, and make it completely mundane and happens when he hits things.
as i said... more Bo9S pls!!! :D
Here's my challenge: give a Fighter an effect at least as powerful as a Wizard of the same level can cast each spell level, and make it completely mundane and happens when he hits things. No flashy effects or big AoEs, just the same base effects. For example, let him blind people at 3rd level with a Save (which is the level when a Wizard can blind and reveal invisible on whole areas).
Maybe after that, he can start "healing" as well as clerics.
Here's my challenge: give a Fighter an effect at least as powerful as a Wizard of the same level can cast each spell level, and make it completely mundane and happens when he hits things. No flashy effects or big AoEs, just the same base effects. For example, let him blind people at 3rd level with a Save (which is the level when a Wizard can blind and reveal invisible on whole areas).Maybe after that, he can start "healing" as well as clerics.
No that's not what the fighter does. But killing stuff is his job. So other classes shouldn't be better than him at that.
|
No that's not what the fighter does. But killing stuff is his job. So other classes shouldn't be better than him at that.Here's my challenge: give a Fighter an effect at least as powerful as a Wizard of the same level can cast each spell level, and make it completely mundane and happens when he hits things. No flashy effects or big AoEs, just the same base effects. For example, let him blind people at 3rd level with a Save (which is the level when a Wizard can blind and reveal invisible on whole areas).Maybe after that, he can start "healing" as well as clerics.
A fighter isn't just a killer. He is a battlefield tactician. He helps hold back hordes of creatures from overwhelming a line. He soaks up massive amounts of damage. He organizes defenses and offenses. He spots possible combat advantages. Killing stuff is a side-effect of all that. A wizard IS and SHOULD be better at killing stuff because that the nature of certain magics.
I really don't think more damage output is what is needed. There needs to be more tactical possibilities. Fighters should be able to better take advantage of combat mistakes. Perhaps they gain a higher bonus to flank or the opponent takes a penalty of some sort. Higher ground, same thing. Maybe they gain regular flanking bonuses if an ally is adjacent to them. They should gain feats or abilties that help them hold the line, soak up more damage or empower their allies to be better in combat.Now on the damage thing. I would not be opposed to some sort of tactical advantage damage ability similar to sneak attack but maybe at half the progression rate. Kind of a 'Taking advantage of a superior position' type of thing.
Well it would help if the Fighter could do that either.
A fighter isn't just a killer. He is a battlefield tactician. He helps hold back hordes of creatures from overwhelming a line. He soaks up massive amounts of damage. He organizes defenses and offenses. He spots possible combat advantages. Killing stuff is a side-effect of all that. A wizard IS and SHOULD be better at killing stuff because that the nature of certain magics.
But a Wizard is a better tactician. He holds back bigger hordes of enemies from overwhelming the line, and he does it better. He soaks up more massive piles of damage. He's better at spotting and exploiting potential combat advantages.
The wizard IS and SHOULD be better at these things because that is the nature of certain spells. Nothing a Fighter ca ever do is going to much compare in area denial to black tentacles, acid fog, wall of force or dimensional lock. It's just not even possible to imagine an ability or effect which could more effectively hold an enemy ogre at bay than force cage.
What you want from a Fighter is not something that Fighters have ever done in any edition of the game. Wizards have always been better at tying up groups of enemies. What's left for Fighters to even pretend to be good at?
-Frank
Well, but the fighter SHOULD do this.