|
I prefer this option, too. It seems more easy to track and doesn't put so much weight on the first levels. "X weapon groups, +X to attack/damage" seems right to me.
And it would be coherent with the skill system (although if it's being revised and the revision changes it too much, maybe this'll be false in a near future).
|
Personally, I don't think the fighter has a problem hitting things numerically. I don't understand why Paizo would want to screw up the math by throwing in extra attack bonuses unless they were planning on cutting out bonuses from someplace else. Fighters do deserve some extra features to keep them on par with other classes, both in terms of flavor and damage. However, providing an attack bonus just widens the attack bonus power gap to a degree that hampers DMs when designing encounters. Bad idea, Paizo.
I think the bonus is fine, because, as you say, fighters don't have much trouble hitting things anyway, so the to-hit bonus is, to a certain extent, getting wasted. This is as it should be, because the one place it might not go to waste is on the lowest-bonus end of iterative attacks, attacks that are generally accepted to be worthless but still important to roll, just in case they come up with a 20. The GM need not modify encounters, he just needs to accept that the fighter will be hitting more often (and thus contributing more to the fight).
|
|
I think the bonus is fine, because, as you say, fighters don't have much trouble hitting things anyway, so the to-hit bonus is, to a certain extent, getting wasted. This is as it should be, because the one place it might not go to waste is on the lowest-bonus end of iterative attacks, attacks that are generally accepted to be worthless but still important to roll, just in case they come up with a 20. The GM need not modify encounters, he just needs to accept that the fighter will be hitting more often (and thus contributing more to the fight).
I agree. I think the point is that a Fighter should have an easy time hitting most things reliably in combat. It's the only thing they're good for, after all. I especially agree that this change shores up the low end of the iterative attack spectrum.
I have a (somewhat radical) idea...
What about if there are staged successes for attack rolls, like there are for Combat Maneuvers. If you hit by 10 or more over the DC, you cause an extra amount equal to (base weapon damage). By 20 or more, +2x(base weapon damage). It means fighter's aren't stuck there slugging things out with massive-AC foes forever, trying to chip down their hit points 2d6+10 at a time while the wizard laughs and goes "touch attack, 8d6. ranged touch attack, 11d6. Reflex save, 15d6".
The fighter is good at combat. The rogue has an 'always-on' class ability that lets them use buckets of dice nearly every round (if they play their tactics right)... why not let the fighter do more than just pure math... give them a chance to really shine and get out there.
Yeah, the rogue might hit for 1d3+35d6 sneak attack, but the fighter's carving through armour plates for critical blows once or twice a round. It would make the melee classes more valuable than just speedbumps.
Just a thought.
|
|
Okay, so assuming the weapon training bonus stays, can we at least agree that it should be the same bonus to all of the fighter's selected weapon groups? That way, you just have one extra bonus to track instead of having as many as four weapon-group specific bonuses to track.
I'm pretty much okay with that.
My only concern now, given the widespread nature of the foci, is that several concepts I have might not actually have any reason to choose more than one or two weapon groups! Say, for instance, I want to make a swashbuckler. Light blades is the obvious first choice, but where do I go after that? Bows, I suppose, but that's iffy, and then what?
On a completely unrelated note, I saw an idea mentioned over at RPG.net that I thought was worth repeating: fighter-only feats can now use certain levels of weapon and armor training as prereqs, as well as the (less reliable) Weapon Specialization bit.
I am concerned about the effect of the fighter's weapon training bonus on the existing attack bonus power gap. As it is, a enemy with an AC that is challenging for a fighter to hit is almost impossible for others in the party.
Thats attack and Damage Rolls. What it does free up is the fighter say with power attack to cause more damage as he can convert more to damage with out decreasing his chance to hit. Which at higher levels is the main issue as a 9th level fighter swinging his sword with a +2 bonus is not really in the league of a Mage thrwowing their fireball.
I am concerned about the effect of the fighter's weapon training bonus on the existing attack bonus power gap. As it is, a enemy with an AC that is challenging for a fighter to hit is almost impossible for others in the party. If the fighter's to-hit bonus increases more, than the DM will have three choices: 1) raise the supposedly-tough-to-hit monster's AC as well, making the monster impossible to hit for anyone but the fighter; or 2) accept the fact that the supposedly-tough-to-hit monster will not be tough to hit for the fighter, providing almost no challenge to the PC; or 3) give the supposedly-tough-to-hit monster some kind of special feature, such as concealment, to introduce a random chance of failure despite the fighter's awesome attack bonus. That last option pretty much sucks, as it essentially makes the fighter's class features worthless the way crit immunity shuts down sneak attack.
Personally, I don't think the fighter has a problem hitting things numerically. I don't understand why Paizo would want to screw up the math by throwing in extra attack bonuses unless they were planning on cutting out bonuses from someplace else. Fighters do deserve some extra features to keep them on par with other classes, both in terms of flavor and damage. However, providing an attack bonus just widens the attack bonus power gap to a degree that hampers DMs when designing encounters. Bad idea, Paizo.
This is my thinking exactly. Fighters *hit* stuff, just fine. It's their purpose in life, and they already do it quite well. This is essentially 1.5 free feats (weapon focus & 1/2 W.spec) every 4 levels on an Entire *class* of weapons, that completely stacks with just taking those feats.
If the weapon training goes in, Weapon spec, and the greater weapon focus, etc. need to go *out*.
I'm all for having the Weapon Training work like the 3.5 ranger's favored enemy as well.
|
|
I'm all for having the Weapon Training work like the 3.5 ranger's favored enemy as well.
As I pointed out earlier in another thread, there are absolutely no circumstances where any player will want to have a particular weapon bonus that isn't maxed out.
Why have a +2, +2, and +1, when your favorite weapon group gives you a +3 and the others stay at +1?
This is a bit different than the 3.5 ranger, in that the fighter is always going to have their favored weapon handy.
The ranger favored enemy is situationally different from weapon training. Sometimes a ranger will fight monstrous humanoids, sometimes undead, and they need a variation and should have the option to pick a focus or differentiate a bit.
For a fighter, they are almost always going to be using their best-trained weapon. Perhaps they get captured and excape and have limited choices, so they'll pick their next best option. Or perhaps they want to use a weapon that's good for tripping or disarming in certain situations.
Just because the ranger mechanic has changed a bit from 3.0-3.5 does not mean that this new fighter mechanic needs to follow the exact same change.
|
I'm all for having the Weapon Training work like the 3.5 ranger's favored enemy as well.
Ditto.
Regarding the increase in fighter's chance to hit with the new weapon training, this may also be one effort toward managing the Christmas Tree effect by reducing the need for magic to increase the chance to hit. I vote this ;)
|
|
I just read through the change to fighter weapon training in the Alpha 1.1 development notes, and I'm a bit surprised. I like the idea that fighter weapon training works like a ranger's favored enemy, in that old weapon groups get better as new ones are added.
But why does fighter weapon training work like the favored enemy ability of the 3.0 ranger instead of the more versatile 3.5 ranger? (The 3.0 ranger was stuck with his first favored enemy always being maxed out; the 3.5 ranger gets new favored enemies and chooses which old ones get improved.)
Or even better:
"Starting at 5th level, a fighter can select one group of weapons. Every four levels thereafter, the fighter chooses one additional group of weapons.
"Whenever the fighter attacks with a weapon from any of these chosen weapon groups, he gains a bonus on attack and damage rolls equal to the number of weapon groups chosen with weapon training."
In other words:
5th-level fighter - weapon training (one group, +1)
9th-level fighter - weapon training (two groups, +2)
13th-level fighter - weapon training (three groups, +3)
17th-level fighter - weapon training (four groups, +4)That way, a fighter who finds a cool new magic weapon on 16th level can get the most out of that weapon upon leveling up, even if that weapon wasn't in the weapon group he chose way back on 5th level.
Perhaps a "retraining" option, similar to the way sorcerers can swap out spells at certain levels, would be more appropriate?
I quite liked the simple Alpha Release 1.0 weapon training personally, and don't mind the current system either, it enhances the idea of a fighter as a specialist. It's the DM's fault if the all the good gear is detrimental to the fighter's choice of weapon, and opens up the dilemna of choosing your trained weapon, over a magic weapon etc.
I can see how giving the fighter weapon training bonuses like the 3.0 ranger would still lead to that character still going to his weapon that he best attacks with almost exclusively. It's only natural. I like the ideas presented here that make the fighter good equally with a wide range of weapons at high levels. I also like the concept of having weapon training bonuses only applying to iterative attacks. I think this concept should be explored further.
Perhaps a "retraining" option, similar to the way sorcerers can swap out spells at certain levels, would be more appropriate?
I prefer to use the 3.5 ranger Favored Enemy as the basis, rather than the 3.0 ranger Favored Enemy.
Intead of:
+1 1st group at 5th
+2 1st group, +1 2nd group at 9th
+3 1st group, +2 2nd group, +1 3rd group at 13th
+4 1st group, +3 2nd group, +2 3rd group, +1 4th group at 17th
I think it should be:
+1 1st group at 5th
+1 2nd group at 9th, add +1 to 1st or 2nd group (choice)
+1 3rd group at 13th, add +1 to 1st, 2nd, or 3rd group (choice)
+1 4th group at 17th, add +1 to 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th group (choice)
I'd also prefer the weapon groups to match the Weapon Group Feats (except for the Druid Weapons, Exotic Double Weapons, and Exotic Weapons groups). You would not gain the bonus with Exotic or Exotic Double Weapons associated with a group unless you also take the Exotic Double Weapons or Exotic Weapons feat.
The problem with the fighter class is not their ability to hit an enemy, or to do damage. The class does these things very very well. In fact, the fighters I've seen often do more damage then any class but the wizard. The rogue and ranger are capable of doing as much, but it's never as consistant.
All a fighter needs is a high strength score, a two handed weapon, and power atttack. Add cleave, and the normal monsters become butter.
The problem with the fighter is the lack of options available. Yes, you can build a handful of fighter types, mostly defined by the kind of weapon they weild or a few tricks they do.
The 2 handed weapon weilder using full power attack and cleave,
the two weapon fighter with eighteen attacks,
the crit monster capable of critting on 15 thru 20,
the untouchable shield/combat expertese guy, but once you play all these characters, what are you supposed to do?
Sure, weapon training is cool. It ratchets up the fighters power just a bit, and will allow power attack and combat expertese to always used all the time. Or you can guarrentee that you will always hit, but that doesn't matter. A fighter can already hit all the time at least once per round.
What else is the fighter supposed to be doing?
What else is the fighter supposed to be doing?
The archer with the Point Blank Shot feat chain,
the cavalier with the Mounted Combat feat chain,the Combat Expertise/Dodge/Improved Disarm/Improved Trip/Mobility/Spring Attack/Whirlwind Attack spiked chain wielder,
the grappler with Improved Unarmed Attack, Improved Grapple, and armor spikes,
the Improved Critical/Point Blank Shot/Precise Shot/Rapid Reload/Rapid Shot heavy crossbow specialist,
the swashbuckler (see below)
Fighter Variant: Swashbuckler
The swashbuckler is a duellist and rake, one who is adept with both a sharp sword and sharp wits. He has most of the fighter's strengths, along with an aptitude for social interaction. He concentrates on mobility and canny use of tactics and terrain to defeat his opponents, rather than heavy weapons and armor.
Swashbucklers tend to neutral or chaotic alignments.
Class Skills
Add the following skills to the fighter's class list- Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and Tumble (Acrobatics, Deception, and Diplomacy in PFRPG). The swashbuckler gains skill points per level equal to 4 + Int modifier (x4 at 1st level).
Class Features
The swashbucker has all of the standard fighter's class features, except as noted below.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Swashbucklers are proficient with simple and martial weapons, light armor, and bucklers.
Bonus Feats
At 1st level, swashbucklers must choose either Combat Expertise or Weapon Finesse as a their bonus feat. Remove Power Attack (and feats in the Power Attack feat chain) from the list of bonus feats available to swashbucklers
|
|
The difference between the 3.0 and 3.5 "ranger favored enemy" mechanic is completely academic as far as the fighter goes.
Either way, you're still going to stack your bonuses into your favorite weapon type; the one you have weapon focus and specialization in.
The only difference here is whether alternate weapons have a lower or higher bonus. That's it.
...
I do question whether this bonus should also apply to Combat Maneuvers; trip and disarm and such, and the DC to avoid being affected by such attacks.
I feel that it should, but that might be too much...
What else is the fighter supposed to be doing?
Well, You've listed several builds here for fighters, but
The archer with the Point Blank Shot feat chain,
Is called a ranger.
the cavalier with the Mounted Combat feat chain,
is just a neutral paladain who has to buy his own horse.
the Combat Expertise/Dodge/Improved Disarm/Improved Trip/Mobility/Spring Attack/Whirlwind Attack spiked chain wielder,
Dang it, how did I forget the spiked chain build? This has to be one of the most broken builds out there. This is a very different style of play then the others.
the grappler with Improved Unarmed Attack, Improved Grapple, and armor spikes,
is usually called a monk.
the Improved Critical/Point Blank Shot/Precise Shot/Rapid Reload/Rapid Shot heavy crossbow specialist,
Again, ranger.
the swashbuckler (see below)
Got broken off to be it's own class in 3.5, and unfortunatly seems to be basicly staying that way. (They've had to call it a variaent for OGL reasons, but it's basicly the same thing.)
Now, you are quite right that these are all viable builds for a fighter. But with the exception of the spiked chain weilder, they are copies of how other classes play.
You can have a lot of fun playing these fighters, and I have in fact, but they don't give you new options. They don't provide new kinds of play style, and thats what I'm hoping will be given to the fighter in Pathfinder.
I just read through the change to fighter weapon training in the Alpha 1.1 development notes, and I'm a bit surprised. I like the idea that fighter weapon training works like a ranger's favored enemy, in that old weapon groups get better as new ones are added.
But why does fighter weapon training work like the favored enemy ability of the 3.0 ranger instead of the more versatile 3.5 ranger? (The 3.0 ranger was stuck with his first favored enemy always being maxed out; the 3.5 ranger gets new favored enemies and chooses which old ones get improved.)
Or even better:
"Starting at 5th level, a fighter can select one group of weapons. Every four levels thereafter, the fighter chooses one additional group of weapons.
"Whenever the fighter attacks with a weapon from any of these chosen weapon groups, he gains a bonus on attack and damage rolls equal to the number of weapon groups chosen with weapon training."
In other words:
5th-level fighter - weapon training (one group, +1)
9th-level fighter - weapon training (two groups, +2)
13th-level fighter - weapon training (three groups, +3)
17th-level fighter - weapon training (four groups, +4)That way, a fighter who finds a cool new magic weapon on 16th level can get the most out of that weapon upon leveling up, even if that weapon wasn't in the weapon group he chose way back on 5th level.
Don't you still run into this problem because of Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization? Why not just rename this ability Battle Training and give the Fighter a flat +1 attack and damage bonus to any weapon he is proficient in? Would that be overpowered?
Instead make some feats for customization of weapon groups. For example make a feat called Bash that allows you to daze an opponent for 1 round when you roll a critical. This feat may only be used with bludgeoning weapons.
1) Rangers are not the only missle-weapon specialists. Will Scarlet and William Tell were fighters, not rangers. You might as well say that all two-weapon fighters should be rangers, also.
2) Paladins are not the only ones who specialize in mounted combat. In fact, not all paladins specialize in mounted combat.
3) Monks are not the only characters who fight unarmed. In fact, you can build a monk that concentrates on fighting with weapons, using Fighting Styles and customizing the monk's weapons list to each style (i.e., a Sleeping Tiger monk unleashing a Flurry of Blows with a spiked chain).
4) The swashbuckler should never have been a separate class in the first place.
The benefit to the fighter is that you have the feats to fight in more than one style. You can have the two-handed weapon wielder with Power Attack and Cleave also be a grappler with Improved Unarmed Attack, Improved Grapple, and armor spikes. The archer can also be a mounted combat specialist with Mounted Archery and Quick Draw. The heavy crossbow specialist can also be a swashbuckler. The spiked chain wielder can also be the two-weapon fighter with an obscene number of attacks.
Could the problem lie less with the class than your perception of the class?
Could the problem lie less with the class than your perception of the class?
I would say the problem lies with the fact that what ever the fighter can do, another class can do just as well, while at the same time having other intresting abilities the fighter can never obtain.
You are right, not all people good with a bow are rangers. Nor are all unarmed combatants monks, or mounted knights paladains. But when you compare a dedicated two weapon fighter to a two weapon ranger, the fighter is generally going to come up short because the ranger can do anything the fighter can, but the ranger also has access to better skills and spells as well.
What I am saying is that there is nothing unique about being a fighter. Everything you can do as a fighter, another class can do as well. You are simply a guy who is good at hitting people with a weapon, and increasing the already high attack bonuses they get is not going to change that.
It would be very intresting to see the fighter have options which other classes did not have, in much the same way that the rogue was given special abilities. Powers based on movement, tactics, and weapon selection, which would not be available to other classes.
The fighter options you added are ok, but very dry. I think you should be thinking in terms of what rogues gain for variety. I’ve 2 lines of thought for this. Either offer chains (ala ranger), or buffet style abilities as done with the rogue.
For chains: the chain increases at every odd level other then 1st.
1) Some spell-like ability, a duskblade-esqe feel. A lot of folks like the mix of warrior/wizard, so make it core!
2) Curse like, a hexblade feel, but better written.
3) Gain AC to compensate for no/low armor. Think swashbuckler!
4) Gain the benefits as listed
5) Hey, what if paladin is one of the options! Water it down a little (it is being added to the fighter, after all), but give feat options to boost it up.
6) Do we really need the ranger... what if it was an option. Think about it, the feat chain they gain sounds a lot like this stuff above...
***note, doing the archer route for chains is boring and simply a repetition of the rangers ability, a collection of feats, which the fighter already has in spades.
For buffet: gained at 5th/9th/13th/17th/20th – you can take them more then once.
1) Desperate dodge - 1/battle, make a foe re-roll to hit you (the last attack roll is gone!), but you had to drop/dive to a prone position to save your ass.
2) A warrior is focused - 1/battle, make a fortitude save instead of a will or reflex save, 2nd roll counts no matter what. Good luck!
3) My shining moment - 1/battle, gain +4 to an attack roll, and it counts towards making a critical (a roll of 16 counts as a roll of 20) you choose this after your attack roll.
4) For I am death - 1/battle, an attack deals max damage (only weapon damage, not flaming, sneak attack, etc)
5) I’m a veteran, kid - gain a +4 to resist a grapple, bull rush, etc.
6) Pentacle of swords - use a different stat for some feats (combat expertise uses your wisdom or charisma instead of intelligence). Conan wasn't brilliant, but boy could he fight!
As a much simpler alternative - what if, instead of a generic bonus to hit, further steps increased the iterative attacks.
1st The lowest attack gains a +1 to hit (+6/+1 becomes +6/+2)
.... The lowest attack gains a higher bonus
.... Your lowest attack is equal to your 2nd lowest (+11/+6/+6)
....
As to the armor class simply building up, I suppose the end result of +4 AC is nice and reduces bookkeeping.
Just a thought, Bob
|
|
I find interesting the idea of 'if you hit by 10 or more' then a bonus to the attack of some sort kicks in.... what about 'free' sunder, disarm or trip attempts (with no danger of comebacks for the attacker) if they hit by that much, as alternatives to extra damage? You don't just *hurt* your target; you threaten to maybe carve into their shield, flick their weapon from their grasp, or send them sprawling on the ground?I have a (somewhat radical) idea...
What about if there are staged successes for attack rolls, like there are for Combat Maneuvers. If you hit by 10 or more over the DC, you cause an extra amount equal to (base weapon damage). By 20 or more, +2x(base weapon damage). It means fighter's aren't stuck there slugging things out with massive-AC foes forever, trying to chip down their hit points 2d6+10 at a time while the wizard laughs and goes "touch attack, 8d6. ranged touch attack, 11d6. Reflex save, 15d6".
The fighter is good at combat. The rogue has an 'always-on' class ability that lets them use buckets of dice nearly every round (if they play their tactics right)... why not let the fighter do more than just pure math... give them a chance to really shine and get out there.
Yeah, the rogue might hit for 1d3+35d6 sneak attack, but the fighter's carving through armour plates for critical blows once or twice a round. It would make the melee classes more valuable than just speedbumps.
Just a thought.
I really like this idea. I requires little to no tinkering of the 3.5 rules (only a new rule for fighters) and is 100% backwards compatible. In other words, any 3.X Fighter can be played as is, but now gets cool bonuses if he beats the opponents AC by a certain amount.
This could go one step further, and introduce a sort of 3 stage system for each Weapon Group.
Example:
Weapon Focus (Heavy Blades)
If you beat an opponents AC with a melee attack while wielding a Heavy Blade (or a specific Heavy Blade if using 3.X rules) then you gain the benefit of one of the following:
5+ your opponent must make a fort save against a DC of the damage dealt or be dazed for 1 round.
10+ you may make an extra attack at your current attack bonus, but you also take a -2 penalty to AC for one round.
15+ you may make a free bull rush attempt on your opponent.
Etc for each Group.
OK, digging out my (1986 copy) of Middle Earth Role Playing (which I have no idea how it works, but has great 'feel') and my Critical Hit Deck for some inspiration... how about:
Axes AC+5: 1.5x damage; AC+10: 1.5x damage, 1d6 bleed; AC+15: 1.5x damage, 2d6 bleed
Blades, Heavy AC+5: 1d6 bleed; AC+10: cause limb damage, 1d6 bleed; AC+15: 2d6 bleed
Blades, Light AC+5: maximum damage; AC+10: bleed equal to weapon's base damage; AC+15: double damage, bleed equal to 2x weapon's base damage
Bows AC+5: maximum damage; AC+10: bleed equal to weapon's base damage; AC+15: bleed equal to double weapon's base damage
Close AC+5: target attracts Attacks of Opportunity; AC+10: target shifted 5ft. away, attracts AoOs; AC+15: target must save or become prone, 1d3 bleed
Crossbows as bows?
Double AC+5: get an extra attack with the other end; AC+10: maximum damage; AC+15: one hit with each end
Flails AC+5: target becomes dazed; AC+10: target becomes stunned; AC+15: target becomes nauseated
Hammers AC+5: 1d3 bleed; AC+10: target shifted 5ft away, attracts AoOs; AC+15: maximum damage, 1d6 bleed
Monk (difficult, encompasses too many types of weapons)
Pole Arms AC+5: target pushed 5ft away, attracts AoOs; AC+10: maximum damage; AC+15: maximum damage, 1d6 bleed
Spears AC+5: maximum damage; AC+10: bleed equal to weapon's base damage; AC+15: bleed equal to double weapon's base damage
Thrown AC+5: target becomes dazed; AC+10: maximum damage; AC+15: bleed equal to weapon's base damage
OK, how was that? Quickly looking over them, some aren't balanced with each other, I'm too tired for dealing with it right now. I'm sure some other people can have a look while I'm asleep.
The problem with the fighter is the lack of options available. Yes, you can build a handful of fighter types, mostly defined by the kind of weapon they weild or a few tricks they do.
...
What else is the fighter supposed to be doing?
I think you've got a very good point here.. what else should a Fighter be doing?
How about Combat?
As in, how about a 3.0 or 3.5 chain of bonuses to the Combat Manuevers. I'd favor 3.5 (always liked how a ranger could switch his "most favored" enemy at 5th, and almost catch it at 10th).
Two suggestions:
Half Combat Training, 1/4 armor, 1/4 weapon.
1st - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
2nd - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
3rd - Armor training ----> Armor training
4th - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
5th - Weapon training --> Combat Training
6th - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
7th - Armor training ----> Weapon training
8th - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
9th - Weapon training --> Combat Training
10th - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
11th - Armor training ----> Armor training
12th - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
13th - Weapon training --> Combat Training
14th - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
15th - Armor training ----> Weapon training
16th - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
17th - Weapon training --> Combat Training
18th - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
19th - Armor mastery ----> Armor mastery
20th - Bonus feat, Weapon mastery --> Bonus feat, Weapon mastery
OR
Even training between the three, with a choice for final mastery:
1st - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
2nd - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
3rd - Armor training ----> Armor training
4th - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
5th - Weapon training --> Combat Training
6th - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
7th - Armor training ----> Weapon training
8th - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
9th - Weapon training --> Armor training
10th - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
11th - Armor training ----> Combat Training
12th - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
13th - Weapon training --> Weapon training
14th - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
15th - Armor training ----> Armor training
16th - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
17th - Weapon training --> Combat Training
18th - Bonus feat --------> Bonus feat
19th - Armor mastery ----> Weapon training
20th - Bonus feat, Weapon mastery --> Bonus feat, Mastery (Weapon, Armor, or Combat)
I'll leave it to someone else to come up with a nice broken 20th level cap ability for Combat Manuevers.
Additional details:
Combat Training (Ex): Starting at 5th level, a fighter extends his martial expertise. He can select two types of combat maneuvers (Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun, Sunder, or Trip) and receives a +1 bonus to his combat maneuver bonus for those types. This applies to both making and resisting these attacks. A fighter cannot choose the same type twice at 5th level.
Every 6 levels thereafter (11th and 17th), a fighter gains even more expertise, again choosing two types of combat maneuvers. These may be of the same types previously chosen, and increase his attacks in those maneuvers by +1. For example, when a fighter reaches 11th level, he may increase both bonuses gained previously to +2; or he may increase one to +2, and choose a new maneuver to gain +1; or he may choose to gain +1 to two entirely new maneuvers. At 17th a fighter may have a maximum bonus of +3 to any one maneuver.
Mastery (Ex): At 20th level, a fighter can choose mastery over Armor, Combat, or Weapons.
Armor Mastery (Ex): If chosen, a fighter gains DR 5/— whenever he is wearing armor or using a shield.
Combat Mastery (Ex): If chosen, a fighter no longer provokes any attacks of opportunity for performing combat maneuvers he has gained Combat Training in. In addition, any bonuses from the feats Improved Bull Rush, Improved Disarm, Improved Grapple, Improved Overrun, Improved Sunder, or Improved Trip double. He may also choose one type of combat maneuver; opponents may never succeed at this type against him. For example, he could never be disarmed if Disarm was chosen.
Weapon Mastery (Ex): If chosen, a fighter chooses one weapon, such as the longsword, greataxe, or longbow. Any attacks made with that weapon automatically confirm all critical threats and have their damage multiplier increased by 1 (a ×2 becomes a ×3, for example).
Armor and Weapon training adjusted for the change in timing:
Armor Training (Ex): Starting at 3rd level, a fighter gains added protection from the armor he is wearing. Whenever he is wearing armor, he gains an additional +1 armor bonus to his armor class and he reduces the armor check penalty by 1 (to a minimum of 0).
Every 6 levels thereafter (9th and 15th), a fighter gains even more protection, increasing these bonuses by +1 each time, for a total of +3 to armor class at 15th level, with a –3 reduction to the armor check penalty.
Weapon Training (Ex): Starting at 7th level, a fighter can select one group of weapons, as noted below. Whenever he attacks with a weapon from this group, he gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls.
Every 6 levels thereafter (13th and 19th), a fighter becomes further trained in another group of weapons. He gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls when using a weapon from this group. In addition, the bonuses granted by previous weapon groups increase by +1 each. For example, when a fighter reaches 13th level, he receives a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls with one weapon group and a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls with the weapon group selected at 7th level. Bonuses granted from overlapping groups do not stack. Take the highest bonus granted for a weapon if it resides in two or more groups.
Weapon groups are defined as in the Alpha 1.1 release.
Its still not enough to make fighters not suck.
Combat Training (Ex): Starting at 5th level, a fighter extends his martial expertise. He can select two types of combat maneuvers (Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun, Sunder, or Trip) and receives a +1 bonus to his combat maneuver bonus for those types.
I posted this here, but it seemed appropriate to repost.
Why not treat Combat Maneuvers like weapons. Then we could have CM proficiency, CM groups, CM focus/proficiency, etc, and characters not proficienct with them get a penalty and provoke AoO.
That would simplify a lot of the above exceptions for Combat Maneuvers.
Its still not enough to make fighters not suck.
Since I was trying to *lessen* the power of fighters - Good!
|
|
I actually preferred the way Weapon Training and Armor Training was wroded in the Alpha 1.0 version.
As it stands, a character can choose "platemail" at 1st level, even if they cannot afford it. The benefit for wearing it becomes better as they advance; by the time they can afford it, the character sufffers a very minimal penalty.
The original version of Weapon Training made the player make a choice - multiple weapon groups with a +1 or one weapon group with a one whopping big bonus. I felt this was very balanced. I wish the Ranger had been done in this fashion.
For example, at first level a ranger chooses a species enemy. At 5th level, a ranger gains Species Enemy again. This can be a new enemy (giving the +2 to skills and damage) or an additional +2 to the already selected enemy (in essence, the species enemy bonus stacks if chosen again).
Its still not enough to make fighters not suck.Since I was trying to *lessen* the power of fighters - Good!
Wait.... you wanna make what was all ready a class that was only good for a four level dip (And thats pushing it) even more useless?
Going to report this, because my first post was eaten by the forum monster.
Could the problem lie less with the class than your perception of the class?
I would say the problem lies with the fact that whatever the fighter can do, another classes can do just as well while at the same time having other intresting abilities the fighter can never obtain.
You are right Dragonchess Player, not all people good with a bow are rangers. Nor are all unarmed combatants monks, or mounted knights paladains. I'm bein rather cynical about this topic because when you compare a dedicated two weapon fighter to a two weapon ranger, the fighter is generally going to come up short because the ranger can do all the things the fighter can, but the ranger also has access to better skills and cleric spells as well.
What I am saying is that there is nothing unique about being a fighter. Everything you can do as a fighter, another class can do as well. You are simply a guy who is good at hitting people with a weapon, and increasing the already high attack bonuses they get is not going to change that.
Since Friday, when I first wrote this, several people have given good examples of what i would like to see the fighter gain in Pathfinder.
It would be very good to see the fighter have options which other classes do not have, in much the same way that the rogue was given special abilities. Feats based on movement, tactics, and weapon selection, none of which would not be available to other classes.
Things like being able to take an attack penalty to give your friends a bonus to attack. Or special effects based on what kind of weapon you're using. Things like dazing and stunning for bludgenoning, bleed effects based for piercing, and movement hampering when you hit with a slashing weapon. All of those could be very fun, without giving the fighter something so powerful it would overbalance the game.
Wait.... you wanna make what was all ready a class that was only good for a four level dip (And thats pushing it) even more useless?Its still not enough to make fighters not suck.Since I was trying to *lessen* the power of fighters - Good!
No and no. 2nd no first: Fighters were plenty strong before, there just was no overriding reason to continue down the fighter path if multiclassing was more interesting than simply the power of so many more feats.
1st no: I'm not trying to weaken fighter from 3.5, just from Alpha back down a bit.